Architecting Intelligence: Comparative Insights on Single and Multi-Agent AI Systems (2/2)
From Solo AI Performers to Symphonic Multi-Agent Systems - Unpacking the Why, When, and How of Designing AI Agent Systems with Trade-offs, and Case Studies
Why Multi-Agent Architectures Matter
Agentic AI systems based on multi-agent architectures don’t just automate tasks—they orchestrate intelligence as discussed in our previous article. In this article, we shall dive deeper into the different types of Multi-Agent architectures and the possibilities that it unlocks. Let’s start by doubling down on what the Multi-Agent architectural shift enables:
1. Distributed Task Execution & Specialization
Instead of forcing a single model to do everything, multi-agent systems assign specific roles to specialized agents.
Case in point: In Magentic-One’s architecture, an Orchestrator agent delegates tasks to a cast of specialists—like WebSurfer for web tasks, FileSurfer for file operations, or Coder for code generation.
Each agent operates with a narrow context window, which improves performance, reduces hallucinations, and enhances output precision.
This modular approach is akin to object-oriented programming—agents can be independently developed, maintained, and reused across applications.
The result? Efficient division of labor and higher-quality execution for complex workflows.
2. Parallelism for Speed & Efficiency
Multi-agent systems operate in parallel, dramatically improving speed and throughput:
Anthropic’s Research System leveraged parallel subagents using multiple tools simultaneously, slashing research time by up to 90% on intricate queries.
Operational gains: In some industries, such agent-based automation has led to productivity increases of up to 40%.
Instead of waiting on a single agent to sequentially process subtasks, parallel subagents can handle multiple queries, branches, or scenarios at once.
3. Superior Problem-Solving & Adaptability
One of the greatest strengths of a multi-agent system is emergent intelligence through collaboration.
Agents combine diverse skills and perspectives, creating a system that can think more broadly and act more intelligently than any single agent.
They can adapt roles on the fly, responding to dynamic scenarios in real-time—ideal for unstructured tasks like research, planning, or negotiation.
For example, in agentic research systems, agents may challenge, refine, or validate each other’s outputs—mimicking collaborative human problem-solving.
This architecture unlocks the ability to tackle open-ended, ill-structured problems that are typically out of reach for conventional AI.
4. Coordinated Decision-Making & Orchestration
A single intelligent orchestrator is the linchpin of any effective multi-agent system:
Tools like LangGraph and Magentic-One’s Orchestrator go beyond static planning. They support:
Dynamic team formation
Context-aware task delegation
Real-time course correction
Orchestrators maintain persistent context, use nested loops to revise plans, and apply corrective logic to recover from failures or ambiguity.
Advanced features like payload referencing allow agents to exchange large content blocks (e.g., code snippets) efficiently, improving coordination in technical tasks.
5. Scalability & Resilience by Design
Unlike single-agent systems, multi-agent frameworks scale horizontally.
Need more capacity? Add more agents.
One agent crashes? Others keep the system running.
CrewAI is built with enterprise-grade reliability, offering fault tolerance crucial for real-time environments like healthcare, logistics, and operations.
This resilience ensures business continuity even when components fail—mirroring how human teams absorb shocks through redundancy.
6. Smarter Context Management
One of the core limitations of LLMs is their context window. Multi-agent systems elegantly work around this:
Different agents handle different slices of context in parallel.
They compress and summarize results for a lead agent to synthesize.
This avoids overloading any single agent and enables longer, more coherent interactions over extended workflows.
Multi-agent setups don’t just scale compute—they scale memory, attention, and nuance.
Types of Multi-Agent Architectures
Multi-agent architectures can have a wide variety of organizations at any level of complexity. The sources identify several primary categories:
Hierarchical Architectures (Vertical):
Core Idea: One agent acts as a leader (Master/Orchestrator) and has other agents report directly to them.
Control Flow: Centralized, with the manager agent retaining control and invoking other agents as callable tools.
Responsibility: The main agent controls and coordinates, while sub-agents perform specific tasks at each level. This allows LLMs behind each agent to maintain a limited context relevant to their specific role.
Delegation: The root agent delegates responsibilities to sub-agents, who then take control to handle the task.
Advantages (Agents-as-Tools / Manager Pattern): Unified user experience, good for multi-step workflows, maintains full context, flexible orchestration, enables parallel queries (with external orchestration), and low-latency routing.
Disadvantages (Agents-as-Tools / Manager Pattern): Complex manager prompt, difficult tool selection logic, costly with many tool calls, more failure points, requires consistent tool output, and is a single point of failure in the manager.
Preferable For: Customer support with distinct issue types, task stages handled separately, domain-isolated problems, and low-latency routing/escalation flows.
Examples:
Magentic-One: Features an Orchestrator agent that oversees and manages the entire system, planning, tracking progress, and re-planning to recover from errors. It directs specialized agents like WebSurfer, FileSurfer, Coder, and ComputerTerminal to execute subtasks. The Orchestrator uses nested loops and ledgers to maintain context, devise plans, and take corrective actions, allowing it to recover from errors and persist through uncertainty.
Customer Support Agents: A Master agent ("Customer Support Agent") acts as a supervisor, with an Orchestrator agent below it that divides tasks among various micro-agents (e.g., User Experience Agent, FAQ Agent, Issue Resolution Agent). In ADK, the root agent is responsible for delegating work to other agents, and once delegated, the sub-agent takes full control of the response.
Anthropic's Research System: Uses an orchestrator-worker pattern, where a lead agent coordinates the process while delegating to specialized subagents that operate in parallel. The LeadResearcher plans, creates subagents for specific research tasks, and synthesizes findings.
LangGraph: Allows for defining a multi-agent system with a supervisor of supervisors, generalizing the supervisor architecture for more complex control flows.
Supervisor (Tool-Calling) Architecture:
A special variant of the supervisor architecture where individual agents are represented as tools.
A supervisor agent uses a tool-calling LLM to decide which of these agent tools to call and the arguments to pass to them.
The supervisor agent operates in a loop, calling tools until it decides to stop.
Network Architectures (Horizontal):
Core Idea: All agents are treated as equals and are part of one group discussion about the task.
Communication: Occurs in a shared thread where each agent can see all messages from others.
Task Assignment: Agents can volunteer to complete tasks or call tools, not needing assignment by a leader.
Advantages: Generally used for tasks where collaboration, feedback, and group discussion are key to success.
Disadvantages: Can lead to unproductive chatter and difficulty in intelligent message sharing, especially in shared group chats.
Examples:
DyLAN (Dynamic LLM-Agent Network): Creates a dynamic agent structure for complex tasks like reasoning and code generation. It's horizontal as agents share information without a defined leader, with a step to re-evaluate and rank agent contributions dynamically.
AgentVerse: Multi-agent architectures like AgentVerse define distinct phases for group planning, improving reasoning and problem-solving. It includes stages for recruitment, collaborative decision-making, independent action execution, and evaluation.
Custom Multi-Agent Workflow:
Agents communicate with only a subset of other agents.
Parts of the flow are deterministic, with only some agents able to decide which other agents to call next.
Can involve explicit control flow (pre-defined sequence via graph edges) or dynamic control flow (LLMs deciding parts of the flow using
Commandor tool-calling).Example: ADK (Agent Development Kit) allows for different workflows, including sequential, parallel, and loop agents.
Specific Multi-Agent Frameworks/Approaches:
CrewAI: A lean, fast Python framework independent of LangChain, designed for multi-agent automation.
Crews: Teams of AI agents with autonomy and agency, working through role-based collaboration to accomplish complex tasks. They enable natural, autonomous decision-making, dynamic task delegation, specialized roles, and flexible problem-solving. CrewAI encourages agents to assume roles, share goals, and have backstories.
Flows: Production-ready, event-driven workflows that provide precise control over complex automations. They offer fine-grained control over execution paths, secure and consistent state management, clean integration with Python code, and conditional branching.
Synergy: The true power emerges when combining Crews and Flows to balance autonomy with precise control for complex, production-grade applications.
Processes: CrewAI supports sequential and hierarchical processes, automatically assigning a manager in the latter to coordinate tasks through delegation and validation.
Examples: News retriever, website scraper, AI news writer, and file writer agents working together. A lead qualification pipeline with validator, scorer, and recommender agents working sequentially. Parallel agents for computer analytics (CPU, memory, disk).
AutoGen: A multi-agent conversation framework that allows agents to communicate and collaborate by sharing information and refining outputs through iterative interactions. Magentic-One is built on AutoGen.
LangGraph: Uses a graph-based orchestrator that combines structured task execution with LLM-driven dynamic decision-making. Agents are represented as graph nodes, executing steps and deciding whether to finish or route to another agent (including looping). It allows for explicit control flow or dynamic control flow via
Commandobjects, which carry implicit decisions for routing and state updates.Handoffs: A common pattern where one agent transfers control and information (payload) to another. This can be implemented by returning
Commandobjects from agent nodes.State Management: Agents can communicate via a shared message list, and intermediate messages can be stored separately for subagents.
ADK (Agent Development Kit): A framework by Google for building agents, which emphasizes a root agent (delegator/manager) that delegates work to sub-agents. ADK allows for sequential, parallel, and loop-based workflows.
Delegation Focus: In basic multi-agent ADK systems, the root agent delegates work to the best-suited sub-agent, and that sub-agent is responsible for the final response, unlike CrewAI which emphasizes multiple agents collaborating on one task.
Shared State: Allows multi-agent systems to be more intelligent by sharing state among different agents, enabling them to behave differently based on that state.
Core Considerations for Designing Agentic Architectures
Regardless of the chosen architecture, several key elements are crucial for effective agent systems:
Clear Leadership and Task Division: Establishes clear roles and streamlines task assignment within multi-agent teams.
Dedicated Reasoning/Planning-Execution-Evaluation Phases: Agents need to plan, act, observe, and reflect, potentially multiple times, especially for complex tasks.
Intelligent Message Filtering: Reduces conversational noise and ensures agents only receive information relevant to their tasks, improving efficiency, especially in horizontal architectures.
Dynamic Teams: Agents can be brought in and out of the system based on need, ensuring all participating agents are fit for the current task.
Human or Agentic Feedback: Essential for self-correction and iterative refinement, helping agents to stay on course and align with human expectations. CrewAI fully supports human-in-the-loop workflows.
Context Engineering: Crucial for reliability in long-running agents, involves automatically and dynamically providing relevant context to agents. This includes sharing full agent traces, not just individual messages.
Payload Referencing: A mechanism to efficiently exchange large content blocks, particularly code snippets, by allowing direct injection of extracted text from past multi-party communication, reducing communication overhead and latency.
Dynamic Agent Routing: Selectively bypasses full orchestration when a request is simple and relevant to a single specialized agent, improving efficiency for latency-sensitive use cases.
Overall, while single agents are suitable for well-defined, straightforward tasks, multi-agent systems are increasingly preferred for complex, multi-faceted problems that benefit from specialization, collaboration, and adaptability, offering enhanced efficiency and problem-solving capabilities.
What About the Tradeoffs?
Of course, this shift comes with new challenges:
Designing and orchestrating multiple agents requires more complex engineering.
Higher communication overhead and latency can emerge if not managed well.
Decision-making may become unpredictable in emergent behavior scenarios.
But these challenges are actively being addressed. New frameworks like CrewAI, LangGraph, and AutoGen are making it easier to manage agent teams, control workflows, and limit drift or redundancy.
Recommended Reading & Frameworks
CrewAI: https://crewai.io
LangGraph: https://www.langgraph.dev
AutoGen by Microsoft: https://microsoft.github.io/autogen
Magentic-One Agents: Architecture breakdown
References
Fourney, A., Bansal, G., Mozannar, H., Dibia, V., & Amershi, S. (2024, November 4). Magentic-One: A generalist multi-agent system for solving complex tasks. Microsoft Research.
Google Developers Blog. (2025, June 23). Announcing the Agent2Agent Protocol (A2A). Google Developers Blog.
Hadfield, J., Zhang, B., Lien, K., Scholz, F., Fox, J., & Ford, D. (2025, June 13). How we built our multi-agent research system. Anthropic.
Hosseini, S., & Seilani, H. (2025). Agentic AI: A detailed analysis of its implications for a Smart Future and challenges. Array, 26, 100399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.array.2025.100399.
Irfan, T. (2025, June). AI agent orchestration with OpenAI Agents SDK. Apify.
Lo, F. P.-W., Qiu, J., Wang, Z., Yu, H., Chen, Y., Zhang, G., & Lo, B. (2025). AI hiring with LLMs: A context-aware and explainable multi-agent framework for resume screening [Preprint]. arXiv.
Lyzr Team. (2025, July 2). Multi agent vs single agent AI: A detailed guide. Lyzr.
Masterman, T., Besen, S., Sawtell, M., & Chao, A. (2024). THE LANDSCAPE OF EMERGING AI AGENT ARCHITECTURES FOR REASONING, PLANNING, AND TOOL CALLING: A SURVEY [Preprint]. arXiv.
On Products, AI & Strategy. (n.d.). Difference between agents and tools in multi-agent architecture.
Shu, R., Das, N., Yuan, M., Sunkara, M., & Zhang, Y. (2024). Towards effective GenAI multi-agent collaboration: Design and evaluation for enterprise applications [Preprint]. arXiv.
Xiao, J., LJW, & Zhao, J. (2025, June 24). MCPs: Value creation, capture, and destruction—Lessons from the API era. The Thesis by Leonis.
Yan, W. (2025, June 12). Don’t build multi-agents. Cognition.