AutoGen vs CrewAI: Which Multi-Agent Framework? (2026)

Microsoft AutoGen and CrewAI are the two most widely adopted open-source frameworks for building multi-agent AI systems in 2026. Both let you orchestrate multiple AI agents that collaborate to complete complex tasks — but they embody fundamentally different philosophies about how that collaboration should work.

CrewAI models agent collaboration on organizational roles: you define agents with job titles, assign them tasks, and orchestrate them through a crew with a clear process. AutoGen models collaboration on conversation: agents communicate by exchanging messages, debating approaches, and iteratively refining outputs through dialogue.

This isn't a minor implementation difference. It shapes which kinds of problems each framework handles naturally, and which require fighting the framework's design.

For a broader view of the framework landscape, see our multi-agent framework comparisons and the guide to open-source vs commercial AI agent frameworks.

Quick Verdict#

• Pick CrewAI for structured, role-based pipelines where each agent has a defined job and tasks flow sequentially or in parallel through a predictable process.
• Pick AutoGen for dynamic, conversational agent collaboration where the path to the answer involves agents reasoning together, generating and executing code, and refining outputs through structured dialogue.

AutoGen Overview#

Microsoft AutoGen (now in its 0.4.x generation, often called AutoGen 0.4 or AgentChat) is an open-source framework for building conversational multi-agent systems. Its core abstraction is the conversable agent: any participant in a multi-agent conversation — whether an LLM, a human, a code executor, or a tool — is represented as an agent that sends and receives messages.

AutoGen's signature pattern is the GroupChat: multiple agents join a conversation, and a GroupChatManager selects which agent speaks next based on configurable selection strategies. The result is an emergent, dialogue-driven problem-solving process rather than a pre-defined workflow.

Key strengths:

• Native code generation and execution through the CodeExecutorAgent
• Flexible conversation topologies (two-agent, round-robin, selector-based group chat)
• Strong research and experimentation use cases
• Human-in-the-loop via the UserProxyAgent with configurable intervention points
• AutoGen Studio for no-code prototyping and experimentation

AutoGen is developed by Microsoft Research, giving it strong community support and particularly deep Azure OpenAI integration. See the AutoGen setup guide for getting started with AutoGen Studio.

CrewAI Overview#

CrewAI is an open-source Python framework that organizes multi-agent collaboration through an organizational metaphor: agents have roles and goals, tasks define units of work, and a crew orchestrates how tasks are assigned and executed across agents. Processes can be sequential (tasks flow one after another) or hierarchical (a manager agent delegates to workers).

CrewAI's design prioritizes clarity of structure. You define what each agent is responsible for, what task it needs to complete, and what output it should produce. The framework handles routing and context passing.

Key strengths:

• Clear role-task-crew abstraction that maps naturally to real workflows
• Built-in support for sequential and hierarchical process types
• Native tool integration with LangChain tools and custom tool decorators
• CrewAI Enterprise for managed hosting, observability, and compliance
• Active community with pre-built crew templates for common use cases

For a direct comparison with another leading framework, see CrewAI vs Relevance AI. For profile details on each tool, visit the CrewAI profile and AutoGen profile.

Feature-by-Feature Comparison#

| Feature | AutoGen | CrewAI | |---|---|---| | Core abstraction | Conversational agents | Role-based agents + tasks | | Orchestration model | GroupChat / message passing | Sequential or hierarchical process | | Code execution | Native (CodeExecutorAgent) | Via tools (custom implementation) | | Human-in-the-loop | Native (UserProxyAgent) | Task-level human input | | No-code interface | AutoGen Studio | CrewAI Enterprise dashboard | | LLM compatibility | OpenAI, Azure, Ollama, custom | OpenAI, Anthropic, Ollama, LiteLLM | | Tool system | Function calling + custom | LangChain tools + decorators | | Memory | ConversationBuffer, custom | Short-term, long-term, entity, contextual | | Production hosting | Self-managed + Azure | Self-managed + CrewAI Enterprise | | Primary use case | Research, code gen, dynamic reasoning | Structured pipelines, business workflows |

Pricing Comparison#

Both AutoGen and CrewAI are open-source frameworks with no licensing fees. Your costs are:

AutoGen:

• Framework: Free (MIT license)
• LLM API costs: Pay per token to your provider (OpenAI, Anthropic, etc.)
• Infrastructure: Self-managed compute (cloud VM, container, local)
• AutoGen Studio: Free (local or self-hosted)

CrewAI:

• Framework: Free (MIT license)
• LLM API costs: Pay per token to your provider
• Infrastructure: Self-managed compute
• CrewAI Enterprise: Custom pricing (includes managed hosting, observability, support)

For most teams, the primary cost is LLM API usage, which is equivalent across both frameworks for similar workloads. CrewAI Enterprise introduces a subscription cost in exchange for managed infrastructure and support — a trade-off worth making for teams that don't want to own agent infrastructure.

Developer Experience#

AutoGen has a steeper initial learning curve due to its message-passing mental model. Once you understand how agents communicate and how GroupChat manages conversation flow, the framework becomes highly expressive. AutoGen 0.4's redesigned API (AgentChat) significantly improved the developer experience over earlier versions. AutoGen Studio provides a drag-and-drop interface for experimenting with agent configurations before committing to code.

CrewAI has a more immediately accessible API. Defining agents, tasks, and crews follows an intuitive pattern that most Python developers can read and write without extensive documentation. The role-based abstraction maps naturally to how teams think about workflows. CrewAI's tooling for integrating external APIs and custom functions is well-documented with practical examples.

Both frameworks have active communities, good GitHub issue responsiveness, and Discord servers. AutoGen benefits from Microsoft Research's backing; CrewAI benefits from a larger enterprise customer base driving production-focused improvements.

When to Choose AutoGen#

AutoGen fits best when:

• Your use case involves code generation and execution — AutoGen's CodeExecutorAgent is purpose-built for agent-driven coding workflows
• You need flexible conversation topologies that aren't pre-determined — where the right path emerges from agent dialogue
• You're building research or reasoning pipelines where agents need to debate, reflect, and iterate
• You want fine-grained human-in-the-loop control — AutoGen's UserProxyAgent gives precise control over when humans intervene
• You're already on Azure or Microsoft infrastructure — AutoGen's Azure OpenAI integration is the most polished in any framework
• You're doing academic or experimental work — AutoGen's research roots show in its flexibility and configurability

Read more about agent frameworks and tool use to understand how each framework approaches these capabilities.

When to Choose CrewAI#

CrewAI fits best when:

• You need structured, predictable pipelines where each step is defined and auditable
• Your workflow maps naturally to roles and job functions — researcher, writer, reviewer, etc.
• You're building business automation — content generation, data processing, sales outreach — where the process is well-understood upfront
• You want a faster path to production and are willing to pay for managed infrastructure via CrewAI Enterprise
• Your team is less experienced with AI frameworks and benefits from clearer structural scaffolding
• You're integrating heavily with LangChain's tool ecosystem — CrewAI's LangChain tool support is mature

See the LangGraph multi-agent tutorial for a related perspective on structured vs graph-based orchestration approaches.

Verdict#

AutoGen and CrewAI represent two valid but distinct approaches to multi-agent orchestration. The choice should be driven by your team's workflow, not framework popularity.

If your workflows are structured — a defined sequence of agent contributions toward a known output — CrewAI's role-task-crew model will feel natural and produce maintainable code. If your workflows are dynamic — where the right sequence of agent contributions depends on what agents discover along the way — AutoGen's conversational model is the better fit.

For teams building production business automation, CrewAI's clearer structure and Enterprise hosting option are practical advantages. For teams building research systems, coding assistants, or complex reasoning pipelines, AutoGen's flexibility and native code execution make it the stronger choice.

Both frameworks are actively developed, well-documented, and used in production at scale. You won't be making a wrong choice — just a different one.

---

Frequently Asked Questions#

Can I use both AutoGen and CrewAI in the same project?

Technically yes, but it's rarely advisable. Each framework has its own agent lifecycle, state management, and tool integration patterns. Mixing them in a single project adds complexity without clear benefit. If you find yourself needing both frameworks' capabilities, that's a signal to reconsider your architecture rather than combine frameworks.

Does AutoGen support the same memory types as CrewAI?

AutoGen's memory system is conversation-buffer-based by default — agents remember what was said in the current conversation. CrewAI has a more explicit memory taxonomy (short-term, long-term, entity, contextual) that maps to different storage backends. For applications requiring persistent memory across sessions, CrewAI's structured memory system is more developed out of the box.

Which framework has better observability and debugging tools?

AutoGen Studio provides visualization of agent conversations and message flows. CrewAI Enterprise includes more sophisticated observability tooling with trace logging and performance metrics. For open-source deployments of either framework, you'll typically integrate third-party observability tools like LangSmith, Phoenix Arize, or similar. Neither framework has a clear out-of-the-box advantage for open-source observability.