Is Agentic RAG worth it? An experimental comparison of RAG approaches
This work provides practical guidance for developers and researchers on selecting RAG designs, but it is incremental as it compares existing paradigms without introducing new methods.
The paper experimentally compares Enhanced and Agentic RAG approaches to address limitations like noisy retrieval and misuse in RAG systems, finding trade-offs in performance and costs to guide real-world design choices.
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are usually defined by the combination of a generator and a retrieval component that extracts textual context from a knowledge base to answer user queries. However, such basic implementations exhibit several limitations, including noisy or suboptimal retrieval, misuse of retrieval for out-of-scope queries, weak query-document matching, and variability or cost associated with the generator. These shortcomings have motivated the development of "Enhanced" RAG, where dedicated modules are introduced to address specific weaknesses in the workflow. More recently, the growing self-reflective capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled a new paradigm, which we refer to as "Agentic" RAG. In this approach, the LLM orchestrates the entire process-deciding which actions to perform, when to perform them, and whether to iterate-thereby reducing reliance on fixed, manually engineered modules. Despite the rapid adoption of both paradigms, it remains unclear which approach is preferable under which conditions. In this work, we conduct an extensive, empirically driven evaluation of Enhanced and Agentic RAG across multiple scenarios and dimensions. Our results provide practical insights into the trade-offs between the two paradigms, offering guidance on selecting the most effective RAG design for real-world applications, considering both costs and performance.