Single-agent versus Multi Agent architecture
Key Takeaway
Start with a single agent and add subagents to it as the work grows. Move to a multi-agent architecture, with an orchestrator agent and connected subagents, when one agent is carrying too much, such as too many subagents, many domains, or a new use case.
A single Agentforce agent keeps all of its subagents, instructions, and actions in one agent definition. That is the right starting point for most use cases. A multi-agent architecture splits the work across separate, specialized agents. An orchestrator agent acts as one front door that routes or delegates work to those agents. Going multi-agent adds some latency, but it gives more scale, control, and easier maintenance when one agent is carrying too much.
Single agent and multi-agent architecture
A single agent keeps all of its subagents, instructions, and actions in one agent definition. A single, monolithic agent is the starting point for most agentic solutions.
A multi-agent architecture splits the work across separate, specialized agents. An orchestrator agent acts as one front door that routes or delegates work to them. As the organization grows, multi-agent architectures become the preferred approach because they give greater scale, control, and flexibility.
Compared with one large agent, a multi-agent system offers four benefits:
- Specialized agents perform better and follow their instructions more easily.
- Individual agents can be added, replaced, changed, and tested more easily.
- One failing component does not compromise the whole system.
- Troubleshooting and management can be isolated to specific agents.