When DeepSeek dropped Janus Pro in January 2025, the AI community erupted with predictable excitement. Another model outperforming DALL-E 3 on GenEval benchmarks. Another open-source alternative promising enterprise-grade multimodal capabilities at a fraction of the cost. Another proclamation that sophisticated AI models are making retrieval systems obsolete.
But here’s what the benchmark celebrations are missing: Janus Pro’s multimodal capabilities don’t eliminate the need for visual RAG systems—they expose a far more challenging problem that most enterprise AI teams aren’t prepared to solve. While everyone focuses on impressive image generation scores, a critical question sits unanswered in production environments: how do you retrieve the right visual context when your model can process images, text, video, and audio simultaneously?
The assumption driving current multimodal hype follows a seductive logic: better models with larger context windows and multimodal understanding will simply “know” what they need, reducing dependency on external retrieval. This thinking fundamentally misunderstands what happens when you move from text-only RAG to multimodal RAG in enterprise settings. The problem isn’t getting simpler—it’s getting exponentially more complex, and Janus Pro’s release makes that complexity impossible to ignore.
The Multimodal Retrieval Complexity Explosion
Text-only RAG systems operate in a relatively constrained problem space. You’re matching semantic meaning across a single modality, using well-established embedding models like BERT or sentence transformers. Your vector database stores text embeddings, your retrieval mechanism ranks by semantic similarity, and your LLM generates responses from retrieved text chunks.
Janus Pro and similar multimodal models shatter this elegant simplicity. Now you’re not just retrieving text—you’re retrieving from images, videos, audio files, PDFs with mixed content, technical diagrams, presentation slides, and countless other formats. Each modality requires different encoding strategies, different similarity metrics, and different relevance assessments.
Consider a practical enterprise scenario: A manufacturing company wants to build a technical support RAG system using Janus Pro. Their knowledge base contains:
– Text documentation describing repair procedures
– Annotated photographs showing component locations
– Video tutorials demonstrating assembly sequences
– CAD diagrams with technical specifications
– Audio recordings of troubleshooting sessions
– Mixed-media PDFs combining all of the above
When a technician asks, “How do I replace the hydraulic pump on Model X-450?” what should your retrieval system return? The text procedure? The video tutorial? The CAD diagram? All three? In what order? How do you rank cross-modal relevance when the question is text but the most useful answer might be visual?
This isn’t a theoretical edge case—it’s the default state of enterprise knowledge bases. According to the 2025 MarketsandMarkets report, the multimodal AI market is projected to reach $4.5 billion by 2028 precisely because organizations are drowning in unstructured multimodal data that traditional systems can’t effectively process.
The Architecture Pattern Nobody’s Discussing
The technical architecture challenge here goes deeper than most implementations acknowledge. Current multimodal RAG systems employ what researchers call a “unified vector representation” approach—converting all modalities into a common embedding space using models like CLIP for images and BERT for text.
But this approach introduces subtle failure modes that don’t appear in benchmarks. CLIP embeddings optimize for image-text similarity, not for the kind of domain-specific visual understanding required in enterprise contexts. When you embed a technical diagram using CLIP, you’re getting a representation optimized for matching general visual concepts to text descriptions—not for capturing the specific technical relationships that make that diagram useful for retrieval.
Recent research from arXiv on Multi-RAG systems demonstrates this problem empirically. Their video understanding experiments showed that single-modality vector representations consistently miss critical cross-modal relationships. A frame from a video might be semantically similar to a static image, but the temporal context—what happens before and after that frame—carries essential meaning that static embeddings lose.
Janus Pro’s architecture attempts to address this with its separated visual encoding pathways, supporting 384×384 input resolutions and employing a SigLIP-L encoder. This allows for more flexible task-specific processing compared to traditional autoregressive models. But here’s the critical insight: better encoding doesn’t solve the retrieval problem—it makes the retrieval decision space larger and more nuanced.
When your model can understand images at higher resolution with separated encoding pathways, you need retrieval systems sophisticated enough to leverage that capability. You can’t simply throw documents at Janus Pro and expect optimal results. You need retrieval mechanisms that understand:
– Which visual encoding pathway is relevant for the current query
– How to balance text and visual similarity signals
– When spatial relationships in images matter versus semantic content
– How to handle temporal sequences in video versus static visual content
The Cost Reality Behind “Efficient” Multimodal Models
DeepSeek markets Janus Pro as a cost-efficient alternative to proprietary models like DALL-E 3, emphasizing its open-source availability and browser-capable 1B variant. The narrative suggests enterprises can simply swap out expensive APIs for open-source models and achieve better results at lower costs.
This narrative collapses under scrutiny when you account for the full infrastructure costs of multimodal RAG. Yes, Janus Pro’s inference costs are lower than DALL-E 3’s API pricing. But multimodal RAG introduces costs that text-only systems never encounter:
Storage Multiplication: Text embeddings are compact—typically 768 or 1,536 dimensions. Visual embeddings from models like CLIP are similar in size, but now you’re storing embeddings for every image, every video frame, every page of visual documents. A 10,000-document text corpus might generate 50,000 text chunk embeddings. The same corpus with multimodal content could generate 500,000+ embeddings across modalities.
Processing Overhead: Encoding text is computationally cheap. Encoding images through SigLIP or CLIP requires significantly more compute. Video processing requires frame extraction, encoding each frame, and potentially temporal modeling. Audio requires transcription or direct audio encoding. Every query now triggers retrieval across multiple embedding spaces, each requiring separate similarity calculations.
Fusion Complexity: Once you retrieve candidates from multiple modalities, you need a fusion layer to integrate them coherently. Cross-modal attention mechanisms—the current state-of-the-art approach—add computational overhead and introduce new failure modes when modalities conflict or provide contradictory information.
InfoQ’s analysis of Janus Pro’s release highlighted superior benchmark performance but conspicuously omitted production cost analysis. The model itself might be efficient, but the RAG infrastructure required to use it effectively multiplies costs in ways that don’t appear in benchmark papers.
An enterprise implementing multimodal RAG with Janus Pro needs to account for:
– Vector database costs scaling with embedding volume (3-10x increase typical)
– Compute for multimodal encoding (2-5x increase depending on visual content ratio)
– Engineering complexity for fusion layers and cross-modal retrieval logic
– Observability infrastructure to monitor retrieval quality across modalities
These costs don’t eliminate Janus Pro’s efficiency advantage, but they significantly narrow it compared to simplistic API cost comparisons.
The Observability Blindspot in Multimodal RAG
Text-only RAG systems have well-established observability patterns. You can track retrieval precision and recall, measure semantic similarity scores, log retrieved chunks, and manually evaluate whether retrieved context is relevant. These metrics aren’t perfect, but they provide actionable signals for system improvement.
Multimodal RAG breaks these observability patterns. How do you measure whether your system retrieved the “right” image for a query? Semantic similarity scores between text and images are notoriously unreliable for determining actual utility in context. An image might score high similarity to a query but fail to provide the specific visual information needed for the user’s task.
Consider the manufacturing support example again. A query about hydraulic pump replacement might retrieve:
1. A high-similarity image of a hydraulic pump (close-up product photo)
2. A medium-similarity diagram showing pump location in the system
3. A lower-similarity video showing the replacement procedure
Purely similarity-based ranking would prioritize the product photo. But for the user’s actual need—performing the replacement—the video and diagram are far more valuable despite lower embedding similarity scores. Traditional RAG observability metrics would rate the product photo as a successful retrieval. The actual user experience says otherwise.
This observability gap means multimodal RAG systems degrade silently. You can’t easily detect when visual retrieval is failing because your metrics don’t capture cross-modal utility. Teams deploying Janus Pro in production RAG systems need entirely new observability frameworks:
– Task-based relevance metrics beyond semantic similarity
– Cross-modal coherence scoring (do retrieved images and text support each other?)
– User interaction signals (which modalities do users actually engage with?)
– Failure mode detection for modality conflicts
None of these capabilities exist in standard RAG observability tools. Building them requires significant engineering investment that organizations rarely budget for when evaluating multimodal models.
Why Better Models Make RAG Architecture Decisions Harder
The counterintuitive truth about Janus Pro and models like it: their improved capabilities don’t simplify RAG decisions—they force harder architectural choices earlier in the development process.
With text-only RAG, you could start simple: chunk documents, embed them, retrieve by similarity, pass context to the LLM. This naive approach worked well enough for many use cases, and you could optimize incrementally based on observed failures.
Multimodal RAG with Janus Pro demands upfront architectural decisions with significant downstream consequences:
Modality Prioritization: Which modalities do you encode and store? Processing everything is prohibitively expensive, but selective encoding means some content won’t be retrievable. This decision requires deep understanding of your use cases before you have production data to validate assumptions.
Encoding Strategy: Do you use unified embeddings (CLIP-style) or modality-specific encoders? Unified is simpler but loses modality-specific nuances. Separate encoders preserve nuance but complicate retrieval and fusion.
Retrieval Fusion: Do you retrieve from modalities separately and fuse results, or do you embed multimodal documents as unified entities? Separate retrieval offers more control but requires complex fusion logic. Unified retrieval is simpler but limits your ability to weight modalities based on query type.
Context Window Allocation: When you retrieve text, images, and video for a single query, how do you allocate Janus Pro’s context window? Images consume more tokens than equivalent text. Packing too many modalities reduces the depth of any single modality. This becomes a real-time optimization problem with every query.
These aren’t incremental optimizations you can defer—they’re foundational choices that determine whether your system can work at all. And unlike text-only RAG where you have years of established patterns to follow, multimodal RAG is still in its experimental phase. Teams deploying Janus Pro are essentially conducting architecture research in production.
The Enterprise Reality Check
DeepSeek’s technical papers and benchmark results tell one story. Enterprise implementation reality tells another.
Multimodal RAG systems in production face challenges that benchmarks don’t measure:
Data Quality at Scale: Text documents are relatively uniform in structure. Visual content is wildly heterogeneous—different resolutions, aspect ratios, file formats, compression artifacts, embedded metadata. Preprocessing pipelines that work for text break down with multimodal content at enterprise scale.
Version Control and Updates: When a technical document updates, you re-embed the new version. When a video updates, do you re-process all frames? Update only changed segments? Maintain versioned embeddings? These questions have no standard answers yet.
Access Control and Privacy: Text-based RAG can implement row-level security by filtering retrieved chunks. Multimodal content introduces complications—what if sensitive information appears visually in a frame of a video that’s otherwise public? Current retrieval systems don’t handle visual content security well.
Domain Adaptation: Janus Pro’s training on synthetic aesthetic data improves general image generation quality, but enterprise use cases often involve domain-specific visual understanding—medical imaging, industrial diagrams, legal document analysis. Fine-tuning multimodal models for domain specificity is significantly more complex than text model fine-tuning.
These aren’t theoretical concerns—they’re the reasons why, according to industry analysis, enterprise multimodal RAG implementations consistently take 3-6 months longer than planned and require 40-60% more engineering resources than initially estimated.
The Path Forward: Hybrid Architecture Patterns
The solution isn’t abandoning multimodal RAG or avoiding models like Janus Pro. The solution is recognizing that better multimodal models require more sophisticated, not simpler, retrieval architectures.
Emerging hybrid patterns show promise:
Query-Adaptive Retrieval: Rather than retrieving from all modalities for every query, use query classification to determine which modalities are likely relevant. A question asking “what does X look like?” prioritizes visual retrieval. A question asking “how do I configure X?” might prioritize text procedures with supporting diagrams.
Staged Retrieval: Implement a two-stage process where initial retrieval uses fast, approximate methods to narrow candidates across modalities, then applies more expensive cross-modal ranking only to top candidates. This balances quality and compute costs.
Modality-Specific Indexes: Instead of forcing all content into unified embeddings, maintain separate optimized indexes per modality and implement smart fusion at query time. This preserves the strengths of specialized encoders while allowing cross-modal retrieval when needed.
Feedback-Driven Weighting: Instrument systems to capture user interaction signals (which retrieved modalities users engage with) and use this feedback to dynamically adjust retrieval weights. This addresses the observability problem by using behavioral signals as a proxy for relevance.
These patterns are more complex than text-only RAG, requiring more engineering sophistication. But they’re necessary to actually leverage multimodal models effectively in production.
What This Means for Enterprise AI Strategy
If you’re evaluating Janus Pro or similar multimodal models for enterprise RAG, the critical questions aren’t about benchmark scores or API costs. They’re about retrieval architecture readiness:
Do you have multimodal content worth retrieving? If your knowledge base is predominantly text with occasional images, multimodal RAG overhead may not be justified. But if visual content is central to your use cases, you can’t avoid this complexity.
Can your team build and maintain cross-modal retrieval logic? This requires expertise spanning computer vision, NLP, vector databases, and production ML systems. It’s significantly more complex than text-only RAG.
Do you have observability infrastructure for multimodal quality? Without the ability to measure cross-modal retrieval quality, you’re flying blind. Standard RAG monitoring tools won’t suffice.
What’s your strategy for evolving multimodal retrieval as models improve? Janus Pro won’t be the last major multimodal model release. Your architecture needs flexibility to incorporate new encoders and modalities without complete rebuilds.
The most successful enterprise multimodal RAG implementations aren’t the ones rushing to deploy the latest models. They’re the ones methodically building retrieval infrastructure that can evolve with model capabilities—treating retrieval architecture as a first-class problem, not an afterthought to model selection.
DeepSeek’s Janus Pro represents genuine technical progress in multimodal AI. But progress in model capabilities doesn’t automatically translate to simpler systems. Often, as in this case, it means the hard problems just shifted—from model limitations to retrieval architecture challenges. The enterprises that recognize this reality early will build systems that actually leverage multimodal capabilities effectively. Those that assume better models equal simpler systems will spend months debugging retrieval failures that benchmarks never predicted.
The multimodal future is here, and it’s significantly more complex than the benchmarks suggest. The question isn’t whether to adopt models like Janus Pro—it’s whether your retrieval architecture is ready to handle the complexity they introduce. For most enterprise teams, the honest answer is: not yet. And that’s the conversation we should be having instead of celebrating benchmark scores.
Ready to build multimodal RAG systems that actually work in production? Rag About It provides in-depth technical analysis, architecture patterns, and implementation guidance for enterprise RAG teams navigating the multimodal complexity explosion. Subscribe to get weekly insights on building retrieval systems that evolve with AI capabilities—without the hype, just the engineering reality.
