INDUSTRIAL 

LOGISTICS
WITH AGV VS AMR 
  Introduction
 AGV

CONTENTS  AMR
 Comparison
 Conclusion
INTRODUCTION

Logistics automation is the application of computer software or automated machinery

to improve the efficiency of logistics operations within production companies, warehouse

and distribution centers.

Automation of internal logistics is a recurrent issue for both large and small companies.

Until recently, traditional automated guided vehicles (AGVs) were the only option for

automating internal transportation tasks. But recently AMR is replacing AGV.

AGV

 Use simple programming instructions

 Major presence in logistics
 Generally, two type of technology
 Wire guidance
 Opti-guidance
 Wire guidance
 Buried wave-emitting wires
 metal rails on the ground,
 underground electric wires

 Opti-guidance
 onboard cameras to follow
a painted line on the ground.
AMR

 Sophisticated on-board sensors, computers

and maps.
 Flexible, and cost-effective technology
 Relies on two sophisticated technology
 Laser guidance
 Geo guidance
 Laser guidance
 Network of reflectors integrated into its environment.
 The robot is equipped with a rotating laser.
 Moves using the principle of odometry.

 Geo-guidance
 Requires a map of facilities.
 Find its way around autonomously
 • AGV has minimal on-board intelligence.
COMPARISON • Needs to be guided by wires, magnetic strips, or
sensors
• Additional cost and disruption if changes are
needed
• Not able to navigate around obstacles.
 Fixed routes vs.
intelligent navigation
• AMR navigates via maps that its software
constructs on-site or via pre-loaded facility
drawings
• Uses data from cameras and built-in sensors and
laser scanners as well as sophisticated software
 • AGV are limited to following strict route.
COMPARISON • Perform the same delivery task.
• Changes are simply too expensive and disruptive to
be cost-effective.

 Few applications vs.

high flexibility
• AMR only needs simple software adjustments to
change its missions.
• Perform a variety of different tasks at different
locations.
• Tasks can be controlled via the robot’s interface
or configurated by fleet control software.
COMPARISON

• AGV constrained by inflexible infrastructure

 Suited for traditional
business models vs.
made for agile
• AMR highly adaptable for agile production in
businesses
any size facility.
• A new map of the building can be quickly and
easily uploaded, or the AMR can re-map onsite.
 • AGV wire guidance is a significant financial
COMPARISON investment due to the required installation work
• Longer return on investment.

 Expensive vs. cost-

effective
• AMR faster and less expensive to get AMRs up
and running.
• No costly disruption to production in the process.
• Low initial costs and fast optimization of
processes, they offer remarkably fast return on
investment.
 CONCLUSION

Modern manufacturing environments can no longer be dependent on AMR

costly, inflexible legacy technologies. Nor can they afford to continue
the unproductive manual transportation of materials, especially in
today’s tight labor market. Autonomous mobile robots are superior to
AGVs in terms of flexibility, cost-effectiveness, return on investment,
and productivity optimization.
THANK YOU
REFERENCE

 (AGV vs AMR)

https://www.mobile-industrial-robots.com/en/insights/get-started-with-amrs/agv-vs-amr-whats-the-difference/
 Intralogistics: AGV vs AMR.

https://www.roboticstomorrow.com/article/2020/05/intralogistics-agv-vs-amr/15279/