Agent vs LLM vs RAG: Understanding the Key Differences

If you've been following AI developments, you've probably encountered three terms that often get confused: LLMs, RAG, and Agents. While they're related, they serve fundamentally different purposes—and choosing the right approach can make or break your AI application.

This guide provides a clear, practical comparison to help you understand when to use each approach.

The Simple Analogy

Before diving into technical details, here's an intuitive way to think about these three approaches:

• LLM = A brilliant brain in a jar. It has vast knowledge but can't see, touch, or interact with the world.

• RAG = The same brain, but now with a librarian who fetches relevant books before it answers questions. Still can't take actions, but has access to current, specific information.

• Agent = The brain with a full body. It can see, move, use tools, remember past experiences, and take actions in the world.

This analogy captures the essential difference: LLMs think, RAG systems think with external knowledge, and agents think AND act.

Large Language Models (LLMs): The Foundation

What LLMs Are

Large Language Models are neural networks trained on massive text datasets to predict the next token in a sequence. Despite this simple objective, they develop remarkable capabilities:

• Natural language understanding
• Logical reasoning
• Code generation
• Creative writing
• Knowledge synthesis

Popular LLMs include Claude (Anthropic), GPT-4 (OpenAI), Gemini (Google), and open-source models like Llama and Mistral.

What LLMs Can Do

# Basic LLM interaction
response = llm.generate(
    prompt="Explain quantum entanglement in simple terms"
)
# Returns: A clear explanation based on training data

LLMs excel at:

• Answering questions from their training data
• Generating coherent, contextual text
• Summarizing and analyzing text
• Translating between languages
• Writing and explaining code

What LLMs Cannot Do

This is where limitations become important:

1. No real-time information: LLMs only know what was in their training data. Ask about yesterday's news, and they'll either confess ignorance or hallucinate.

2. No external actions: An LLM cannot send an email, book a flight, or execute code. It can only generate text describing these actions.

3. Limited context: LLMs have finite context windows. They can't remember previous conversations unless you explicitly include them in the prompt.

4. No self-correction through action: If an LLM makes a mistake, it can't verify the answer against external sources or try a different approach.

When to Use Pure LLMs

Pure LLMs are ideal when:

• The task only requires text generation
• Information from training data is sufficient
• No external data or actions are needed
• You need fast, stateless responses

Example use cases:

• Writing marketing copy
• Explaining concepts
• Code generation (without execution)
• Creative writing

RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation): Adding External Knowledge

What RAG Is

RAG is a pattern that enhances LLMs by retrieving relevant information from external sources before generating a response. The process works like this:

User Question → Retrieve Relevant Documents → Inject into Prompt → LLM Generates Answer

This solves the "knowledge cutoff" problem and allows LLMs to answer questions about proprietary data they weren't trained on.

How RAG Works

# Simplified RAG pipeline
def rag_query(question, document_store, llm):
    # Step 1: Convert question to embedding
    question_embedding = embed(question)

    # Step 2: Find relevant documents
    relevant_docs = document_store.similarity_search(
        question_embedding,
        top_k=5
    )

    # Step 3: Build augmented prompt
    context = "\n".join([doc.content for doc in relevant_docs])
    prompt = f"""
    Context: {context}

    Question: {question}

    Answer based on the context provided:
    """

    # Step 4: Generate response
    return llm.generate(prompt)

What RAG Adds Over Pure LLMs

1. Current information: Documents can be updated in real-time, giving the LLM access to the latest data.

2. Domain-specific knowledge: Feed your internal documentation, and the LLM can answer questions about your specific products, processes, or data.

3. Source attribution: RAG can cite the specific documents used to generate an answer, improving trust and verifiability.

4. Reduced hallucination: By grounding responses in retrieved documents, RAG systems are less likely to make things up.

What RAG Cannot Do

Despite its power, RAG has limitations:

1. Still no actions: RAG retrieves and generates—it cannot execute code, call APIs, or modify external systems.

2. Quality depends on retrieval: If the retrieval step fails to find relevant documents, the LLM might hallucinate anyway.

3. No iterative reasoning: RAG performs a single retrieve-generate cycle. It can't look at results, realize it needs different information, and search again.

4. Passive, not active: RAG responds to queries but doesn't proactively seek information or take initiative.

When to Use RAG

RAG is ideal when:

• You need answers based on specific document sets
• Information changes frequently (news, docs, inventory)
• Source attribution is important
• You want to reduce hallucination for factual queries

Example use cases:

• Customer support over product documentation
• Legal document analysis
• Internal knowledge bases
• Research assistants

AI Agents: Adding Action and Autonomy

What Agents Are

An AI agent is an autonomous system that combines an LLM's reasoning capabilities with the ability to take actions, use tools, and maintain memory across interactions.

The key insight: agents operate in loops, not single passes.

Observe → Think → Act → Observe → Think → Act → ... → Done

How Agents Work

class Agent:
    def __init__(self, llm, tools, memory):
        self.llm = llm
        self.tools = tools
        self.memory = memory

    def run(self, goal):
        self.memory.add(f"Goal: {goal}")

        while not self.is_goal_achieved():
            # Think: What should I do next?
            observation = self.memory.get_recent()
            thought = self.llm.generate(
                f"Given: {observation}\nWhat's the best next action?"
            )

            # Act: Execute the chosen action
            action = self.parse_action(thought)
            result = self.tools[action.name].execute(action.params)

            # Observe: Record the result
            self.memory.add(f"Action: {action}, Result: {result}")

        return self.synthesize_response()

What Agents Add Over RAG

1. Tool use: Agents can execute code, call APIs, browse the web, manipulate files, and interact with external systems.

2. Iterative reasoning: Agents can observe results, realize something didn't work, and try a different approach.

3. Autonomous goal pursuit: Given a high-level goal, agents can break it down into sub-tasks and execute them without constant human guidance.

4. Memory across sessions: Agents can remember past interactions and learn from experience.

5. Multi-step problem solving: Complex tasks that require many sequential actions are natural for agents.

A Concrete Example

Consider the task: "Find the top 3 Python web frameworks, compare their performance benchmarks, and create a summary table."

LLM approach: Generates an answer from training data. Might be outdated or incomplete.

RAG approach: Retrieves documents about frameworks, generates comparison. Better, but limited to what's in the document store.

Agent approach:

1. Searches the web for current Python frameworks
2. Identifies top candidates (Django, FastAPI, Flask, etc.)
3. Searches for performance benchmarks for each
4. Reads and extracts relevant data
5. Realizes it needs more specific benchmarks
6. Searches again with refined queries
7. Synthesizes findings into a comparison table
8. Optionally exports to a file or spreadsheet

The agent can adapt, retry, and pursue the goal through multiple steps—something neither pure LLMs nor RAG can do.

Detailed Comparison Table

Cost and Complexity Tradeoffs

LLMs: Simple but Limited

Pros:

• Fastest response times
• Lowest cost per query
• Simplest to implement
• Most predictable behavior

Cons:

• No real-time data
• Can't verify or act
• Limited to training knowledge

Cost model: Pay per token (input + output)

RAG: Balanced Approach

Pros:

• Access to current/proprietary data
• Source attribution
• Reduced hallucination
• Still relatively fast

Cons:

• Requires vector database infrastructure
• Retrieval quality affects output quality
• Document preprocessing overhead
• Still can't take actions

Cost model: LLM tokens + embedding generation + vector DB hosting

Agents: Powerful but Complex

Pros:

• Can accomplish complex, multi-step tasks
• Self-correcting and adaptive
• True autonomy
• Access to any tool you provide

Cons:

• Higher latency (multiple LLM calls)
• Higher cost (many tokens per task)
• More complex to build and debug
• Less predictable behavior
• Requires safety guardrails

Cost model: Multiple LLM calls + tool execution costs + infrastructure

Decision Framework: When to Use What

Use Pure LLMs When:

• You're building a chat interface for general Q&A
• Tasks are single-turn and self-contained
• Training data is sufficient for the use case
• Speed and cost are primary concerns
• Predictability is more important than capability

Use RAG When:

• You have proprietary documents the LLM hasn't seen
• Information changes frequently
• Source attribution matters (legal, compliance)
• You need factual accuracy over creativity
• Tasks are still primarily text-in, text-out

Use Agents When:

• Tasks require multiple steps or actions
• You need interaction with external systems
• Self-correction and iteration are valuable
• The goal is complex and open-ended
• Autonomy is more valuable than predictability

Hybrid Architectures

In practice, these approaches often combine:

RAG + Agent

Many production agents use RAG as one of their tools. The agent might:

1. Receive a complex question
2. Use RAG to retrieve relevant documents
3. Analyze the documents
4. Realize it needs more information
5. Search the web for additional data
6. Synthesize everything into a final answer

Multi-Model Systems

Some architectures use:

• Fast, cheap models for routing decisions
• Powerful models for complex reasoning
• Specialized models for specific tasks

Agent Teams

Multiple agents, each with different tools and specialties, can collaborate:

• Research agent (RAG-heavy)
• Coding agent (execution-focused)
• Review agent (validation-focused)
• Orchestrator agent (coordination)

Practical Implementation Considerations

For LLMs

# Simple, direct usage
from anthropic import Anthropic

client = Anthropic()
response = client.messages.create(
    model="claude-sonnet-4-20250514",
    max_tokens=1024,
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": prompt}]
)

Key considerations:

• Choose model based on capability/cost tradeoff
• Optimize prompts for your use case
• Handle rate limits and errors

For RAG

# Typical RAG setup
from langchain.vectorstores import Chroma
from langchain.embeddings import OpenAIEmbeddings

# Index documents
vectorstore = Chroma.from_documents(
    documents=docs,
    embedding=OpenAIEmbeddings()
)

# Query
retriever = vectorstore.as_retriever()
relevant_docs = retriever.get_relevant_documents(query)

Key considerations:

• Choose appropriate embedding model
• Tune chunk size and overlap
• Consider reranking for better results
• Monitor retrieval quality

For Agents

# Agent with tools
from claude_agent_sdk import Agent, Tool

agent = Agent(
    model="claude-sonnet-4-20250514",
    tools=[
        web_search_tool,
        code_execution_tool,
        file_operation_tool
    ],
    memory=ConversationMemory()
)

result = agent.run("Research and summarize recent AI developments")

Key considerations:

• Define clear tool boundaries
• Implement safety guardrails
• Monitor and log agent actions
• Set appropriate iteration limits

The Evolution: From LLM to Agent

There's a natural progression as applications mature:

Stage 1: Pure LLM Start simple. Understand your use case with basic LLM calls.

Stage 2: Add RAG When you need domain-specific or current information, add retrieval.

Stage 3: Add Tools When you need to take actions, add tool capabilities.

Stage 4: Full Agent When tasks are complex and multi-step, implement full agent loops.

Not every application needs to reach Stage 4. Many valuable products are built at Stage 1 or 2.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Over-engineering

Don't build an agent when RAG would suffice. Don't build RAG when a pure LLM works fine. Start simple, add complexity only when needed.

Under-estimating Latency

Agents make multiple LLM calls per task. If your use case requires sub-second responses, agents might not be appropriate.

Ignoring Failure Modes

RAG can fail silently (bad retrieval). Agents can get stuck in loops. Design for failure cases.

Neglecting Evaluation

Each approach needs different evaluation strategies:

• LLMs: Output quality metrics
• RAG: Retrieval accuracy + output quality
• Agents: Goal completion + efficiency + safety

Conclusion

Understanding the differences between LLMs, RAG, and Agents is fundamental to building effective AI applications:

• LLMs are your foundation—powerful but stateless and action-less
• RAG extends LLMs with external knowledge while staying in the generation paradigm
• Agents transform LLMs into autonomous systems that can reason, act, and adapt

The right choice depends on your specific requirements: task complexity, latency tolerance, cost constraints, and the need for external actions.

Start simple, measure carefully, and add complexity only when it delivers clear value.

---

Ready to get started? Install your first AI Skill with our AI Skills Guidebook for a hands-on tutorial.