Large language models (LLMs) are extraordinary at generating fluent, human-like text, yet they remain constrained by the tendency to hallucinate information. OnceLarge language models (LLMs) are extraordinary at generating fluent, human-like text, yet they remain constrained by the tendency to hallucinate information. Once

Traditional RAG, Agentic RAG and Multi-Agent workflows

Large language models (LLMs) are extraordinary at generating fluent, human-like text, yet they remain constrained by the tendency to hallucinate information. Once trained, they’re frozen in time, unable to access new facts, recall proprietary data or reason about evolving information. 

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is a powerful architecture that can improve the factual grounding of LLMs and reduce the problem of hallucination. RAG connects the generative AI model with an external knowledge base that provides more domain specific context and keeps the responses grounded and factual. This is often cheaper than expensive finetuning approaches which involve retraining on domain specific data. RAGs show the promise that they can improve model performance without involving expensive fine-tuning step.

However, traditional RAG based approaches have a limitation that it is still a static pipeline: one query in, one retrieval step, one answer out. It doesn’t reason about what’s missing, it can’t refine its searches, and it doesn’t decide which tools or sources to use. RAGs don’t have access to dynamic real world data where information may be changing constantly and the tasks may require planning. 

Agentic RAG improves on this limitation of traditional RAG based approaches. It reimagines the retrieval process entirely: instead of a passive lookup system, we get an active reasoning agent which is capable of planning, tool use, multi-step retrieval and getting dynamic data from APIs.

In this article, we will deep dive into Traditional RAGs and Agentic RAG. Using industry case studies, we will delineate the key distinctions between these two approaches, establishing guidelines on which one to use for which scenario.

Traditional RAG

Traditional RAG follows a clear static pattern:

  1. A user or system issues a query.
  2. [Retrieval] The system retrieves relevant information from a knowledge base (often via vector search).
  3. [Augmentated] The retrieved information is appended to the prompt for the LLM.
  4. [Generation] The LLM generates an answer with the additional information retrieved

This “retrieve → augment → generate” loop enhances factual accuracy by letting the model use real-world context rather than relying solely on its pretrained weights.

Strengths

  • Fact grounding: Minimizes hallucination by referencing retrieved evidence.
  • Simplicity: Linear, transparent flow which is easy to deploy and maintain.
  • Performance efficiency: Fast and inexpensive for well-defined domains.
  • Reliability: Works well for static or slowly changing corpus.

Limitations

  • Single-pass retrieval: If initial results are incomplete, there’s no self-correction.
  • No reasoning or planning: The system doesn’t decide what else to look for or which sources to query next.
  • Limited flexibility: Tied to one knowledge base and unsuitable for dynamic or multi-source data.

Industry Use cases

  • Internal knowledge assistants: HR or IT chatbots referencing static internal documents.
  • Policy and compliance lookups: Legal or regulatory queries from controlled datasets.
  • Research summarization: Pulling key information from academic or technical papers.

Traditional RAG is highly effective for use cases where questions are specific and context is contained, but it’s less effective when data is fluid or the task requires multi-step reasoning.

Agentic RAG

Agentic RAG builds upon the same retrieval-generation principle but adds autonomy and decision-making through intelligent agents. Instead of a one step retrieval process, it becomes an iterative and goal driven process.

An agent can reason about what information it needs, reformulate queries, call different tools or APIs, and even maintain memory across interactions. In short, it uses RAG as one of several capabilities in a broader planning loop. Here are the core characteristics of an Agentic RAG system : 

  • Iterative retrieval: The agent refines queries until sufficient information is found.
  • Dynamic source selection: It can pull from multiple knowledge stores, APIs and live data feeds.
  • Tool-use and orchestration: The agent can invoke specialized tools (for example, databases, summarizers, or search engines) as needed.
  • Context management: Maintains working memory and long-term state to handle multi-turn or multi-step tasks. Memory allows agents to refer to previous tasks and use that data for future workflows.
  • Planning : They are capable of query routing, step-by-step planning and decision-making.

Advantages

  • Higher flexibility: Capable of handling real-time, evolving data environments.
  • Multi-step reasoning: Solves complex tasks that require planning and synthesis.
  • Reduced hallucinations: Validation loops help ensure factual consistency.

Challenges

  • Increased complexity: Requires orchestration between agents, tools, and memory.
  • Higher cost and latency: Multi-stage reasoning introduces additional computational load per query.
  • Validation: Greater autonomy demands careful monitoring and validation.

Industry Use Cases

  • Customer service orchestration: Intelligent agents retrieve policy data, check CRMs, verify orders, and escalate tickets automatically.
  • Real-time analytics assistants: Systems that integrate with databases, dashboards, and APIs to surface insights and act on triggers.
  • Healthcare and diagnostics: AI systems combining clinical databases, patient data, and recent literature to assist in decision support.
  • Supply chain optimization: Agents pulling from logistics, inventory, and weather APIs to adapt shipping plans dynamically.

These domains demand multi-step reasoning, real-time updates, and flexible handling of data which fits into the Agentic RAG’s use case.

Multi-agent Workflows

Agentic RAG systems naturally evolve into multi-agent workflows as they can contain one or more types of AI Agents. Example AI Agents that can be invoked : 

    • Routing Agent : Routing agents chose which external data sources to invoke to address an incoming user query. Not all queries may need the same set of external calls and routing agents can make the responses smarter by routing to the correct external sources at query time.
  • Query Planning Agent : Query planning agents break down a complex query to subqueries and submit the queries to the right agents for resolution
  • ReAct Agent : Reason and Acting agents can break down a complex task into step by step tasks, delegate it to subagents and then manage the workflow based on the responses of the agents

Traditional vs Agentic RAG Comparison

DimensionNo RAGTraditional RAGAgentic RAG
Retrieval FlowSingle query → generateSingle query → retrieve → generateIterative, multi-step retrieval with refinement
ReasoningNoMinimal; retrieval is reactiveAgent plans, evaluates, and adapts
Knowledge SourcesOnly LLMLLM and One or few static KBsLLM and Multiple dynamic, multimodal sources
HallucinationsUngroundedGrounded on static data from other sourcesGrounded on more real time sources
FlexibilityNoLow; fixed pipelineHigh; real-time and context-aware
Tool UseNoneNoneIntegrated; agents can call tools/APIs
Computational ComplexityLowerLowHigher
LatencyLowerLowHigher
Resource IntensivityLowerLowHigher
Industry Applications Niche areas with specific expert LLMDirect Q&A, knowledge lookupDynamic workflows, decision support, analytics
Market Opportunity
Recall Logo
Recall Price(RECALL)
$0,08724
$0,08724$0,08724
+0,26%
USD
Recall (RECALL) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Ethereum’un Kurucusu Vitalik Buterin, DAO’larla İlgili Dikkat Çekici Eleştirilerde Bulundu! İşte Detaylar

Ethereum’un Kurucusu Vitalik Buterin, DAO’larla İlgili Dikkat Çekici Eleştirilerde Bulundu! İşte Detaylar

Ethereum’un kurucusu Vitalik Buterin, kripto ekosisteminde merkeziyetsiz otonom organizasyonların (DAO) mevcut işleyişine yönelik dikkat çekici eleştirilerde bulundu
Share
Coinstats2026/01/20 05:27
CME Group to Launch Solana and XRP Futures Options

CME Group to Launch Solana and XRP Futures Options

The post CME Group to Launch Solana and XRP Futures Options appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. An announcement was made by CME Group, the largest derivatives exchanger worldwide, revealed that it would introduce options for Solana and XRP futures. It is the latest addition to CME crypto derivatives as institutions and retail investors increase their demand for Solana and XRP. CME Expands Crypto Offerings With Solana and XRP Options Launch According to a press release, the launch is scheduled for October 13, 2025, pending regulatory approval. The new products will allow traders to access options on Solana, Micro Solana, XRP, and Micro XRP futures. Expiries will be offered on business days on a monthly, and quarterly basis to provide more flexibility to market players. CME Group said the contracts are designed to meet demand from institutions, hedge funds, and active retail traders. According to Giovanni Vicioso, the launch reflects high liquidity in Solana and XRP futures. Vicioso is the Global Head of Cryptocurrency Products for the CME Group. He noted that the new contracts will provide additional tools for risk management and exposure strategies. Recently, CME XRP futures registered record open interest amid ETF approval optimism, reinforcing confidence in contract demand. Cumberland, one of the leading liquidity providers, welcomed the development and said it highlights the shift beyond Bitcoin and Ethereum. FalconX, another trading firm, added that rising digital asset treasuries are increasing the need for hedging tools on alternative tokens like Solana and XRP. High Record Trading Volumes Demand Solana and XRP Futures Solana futures and XRP continue to gain popularity since their launch earlier this year. According to CME official records, many have bought and sold more than 540,000 Solana futures contracts since March. A value that amounts to over $22 billion dollars. Solana contracts hit a record 9,000 contracts in August, worth $437 million. Open interest also set a record at 12,500 contracts.…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 01:39
Ethereum Founder Vitalik Buterin Made Striking Criticisms Regarding DAOs! Here Are the Details

Ethereum Founder Vitalik Buterin Made Striking Criticisms Regarding DAOs! Here Are the Details

Vitalik Buterin has criticized the current functioning of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) in the crypto ecosystem. Continue Reading: Ethereum Founder
Share
Coinstats2026/01/20 05:28