Architects design the blueprint. Engineers build the system. Hire the wrong one first and you’ll hire both twice.
Forget the job titles. What do you actually need built?
Data architects design how data flows across your organization, set standards, plan for scale. Their output is decisions and direction. They answer: “What should we build and why?”
Data engineers build pipelines, maintain databases, optimize performance. Their output is working systems. They answer: “How do we build this reliably?”
CTOs confuse them because the titles sound interchangeable - and because most job descriptions are copy-pasted from companies with completely different problems.
Here’s my rule of thumb:
If your data is a mess and nobody knows what lives where, you need architecture first. An engineer will build fast but without direction. That’s like hiring a contractor before you have blueprints - you’ll get a building, just not the one you needed.
If you have a clear picture of what you need but nothing works reliably, you need engineering first. An architect will plan forever without delivering.
If you’re under 50 people and have one data role to fill… look for someone who can do both. They exist. They’re rare. They’re worth the search.
I’m probably oversimplifying - the lines blur more than this post suggests. But if you’re about to write a job description, this distinction matters.
I’ve seen this go wrong three times this quarter alone. Companies hire senior engineers expecting strategic vision, or hire architects expecting hands-on delivery.
Know what you’re buying before you write the job description.
Which does your company actually need right now - someone to design or someone to build?