Many have expressed confusion about the distinctions between AGV (Automated Guided Vehicle) and AMR (Autonomous Mobile Robot) and have requested a clarifying article to organise the various concepts of mobile robotics. Therefore, we will discuss the concepts of AGV and AMR , even though this is a complex topic due to the rich history and evolution of mobile robotics.
Let me clarify, the purpose of this article is not to establish the definitive differences between AGVs and AMRs. Instead, it aims to provide an understanding of the current context regarding these acronyms and how to navigate them.
When I entered this industry in 2013, the terms AGV and AGC (Automated Guided Cart, generally referring to mouse-type vehicles) were predominantly used. Occasionally, a client might use the term robot (though we seldom did within the sector). It’s crucial to note that even back then, mobile robots existed that didn’t rely on ground lines and had flexible paths (e.g., those by Seegrid). Nevertheless, at that time, we categorized every mobile robot as an AGV.
So, how did we reach our current state? What has transpired along the way? Primarily, two significant developments occurred:
1. The prices of technological components required for AGVs began to drop rapidly.
2. The advent of new technologies drastically enhanced the quality of solutions: lithium batteries, advanced safety lasers, safety PLCs, traction systems designed specifically for AGVs, and most notably, new localization solutions (distinct from navigation). In particular, 2D SLAM localization, also known as natural localization, mapping, or contour-based localization, made a significant impact.
The reduction in component prices had two major effects:
1. An increase in demand, initially within the automotive sector and subsequently spreading to other industries such as FMCG (Fast Moving Consumer Goods: Food, Beverage, Pharma, Cosmetics, etc.), Equipment, and later, significantly, eCommerce.
2. An increase in supply: new players began emerging worldwide, especially in China and Europe.
In this environment, established companies in the sector chose not to invest in studying new technologies. Instead, they leveraged the falling prices of technological components. This strategy enabled them to boost sales while also increasing profit margins, creating a comfortable position for them.
Conversely, newcomers needed to differentiate themselves to enter the market. They capitalized on the new technologies, particularly SLAM localization. Some have pointed out the differences from existing AGVs and introduced new acronyms: AMR (Autonomous Mobile Robot), IAV (Intelligent Autonomous Vehicle), SAV (Smart Autonomous Vehicle), among others. Ultimately, AMR became the most widely adopted new term.
What’s the issue here? Each newcomer attributed different features to the AMR acronym based on their own robot’s characteristics. This inconsistency is why there is still no clear consensus on the differences between AGVs and AMRs.
The only distinction that most people (about 90%) might agree on is that AMRs typically use SLAM localization, while AGVs use other localization technologies. Beyond that, the features vary depending on who you ask.
Personally, I still tend to use the term AGV frequently. However, I am increasingly trying to adopt the terms “mobile robot” or simply “robot” to avoid confusion among customers and suppliers alike.
In conclusion, understanding the current landscape of mobile robotics involves recognizing the historical and technological evolution that has led to the diverse terminology we see today. While the acronyms AGV and AMR represent different
aspects of mobile robotics, the core concepts often overlap. Therefore, it is essential to focus on the specific features and capabilities of each solution rather than getting too caught up in the terminology. By doing so, we can better navigate the complexities of this ever-evolving industry.
