Abstract: Agentic retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) enables language models to adapt retrieval based on previously retrieved evidence, but it remains unclear whether such adaptive orchestration consistently outperforms well-designed static pipelines. We conduct a controlled comparison of agentic and static RAG for Taiwanese historical question answering, sharing the same generator and hybrid retrieval backend. Despite similar aggregate performance, the two pipelines differ on 70.83% of questions, with their advantages largely canceling out when averaged. An oracle that selects the better response per question improves the composite score by 0.2417 over the better individual pipeline, revealing substantial headroom for question-level selection. We therefore introduce a post-hoc selector that compares the two responses and their cited evidence, significantly outperforming either individual pipeline and recovering 60.34% of the oracle headroom. These results show that aggregate comparisons can obscure meaningful question-level differences between retrieval strategies, suggesting that exploiting their complementarity may be more fruitful than seeking a universally superior pipeline.