A humanoid robot may be worth evaluating in a limited pilot, particularly when changing workflows involve several existing workstations designed for people. However, a documented individual case does not prove that it is approved for use in your facility. For stable workflows at one or a small number of workstations, compare a cobot with a feeding system and a fixed solution using the same mix of parts and cycle time. Before purchasing, check the relevant EU conformity documentation and how the robot will be safely integrated with the specific machine.
You want to explore loading and unloading several existing workstations rather than redesigning each one from scratch. Fraunhofer IEM identifies machine tending as an application where different tasks take place in an environment designed for people.
When workpieces vary or are difficult to position, recognising their location and handling them reliably matter more than simply moving between workstations. Fraunhofer IPA identifies grasping complex objects as a relevant application.
If the same clearly defined workflow is repeated, compare a fixed cobot with a suitable feeding system and a dedicated cell. Universal Robots describes using robots to load and unload machine tools.
First, establish whether you really need to serve several different workstations. For a stable, single-workstation workflow, compare a cobot with dedicated automation. If the gripping task or safety arrangements are still unclear, start with a limited pilot.
| Requirement | What to check before buying | Who should pay particular attention |
|---|---|---|
| Flexibility between machines | Test reach, accessible workstations, routes and handovers using your planned layout. | If several existing machines need to handle different workpieces, I want to know whether a system can actually cover the routes and handovers required. Around 31 % of consumers say flexibility is their most important buying requirement. |
| Gripping and placing | Check the gripper or hand option, workpiece surface, position recognition and placement tolerance using your actual mix of parts. | When parts vary or are difficult to position, I want to know whether they can be picked up securely and placed correctly in the machine. Around 25 % of consumers put this gripping task first. |
| Safety and integration | Clarify machine status and release interfaces, safety arrangements, product documentation and the risk assessment for your specific operation. | If robots, machines and employees share the same workspace, I need to know how the robot will be integrated safely with the existing equipment. For around 25 % of consumers, safety and integration are the most important selection criteria. |
| Cost-effectiveness in the workflow | Compare a humanoid robot, a cobot with a feeding system and a fixed solution using the same mix of parts, time period, cycle time, interventions and engineering effort. | For my business, what matters is how much useful machine tending remains after set-up and interventions. Around 19 % of consumers focus on this comparison of productivity and effort. |
A publicly described application may be limited to a particular type of workpiece and fixture. It does not prove that other machines or parts can be handled in the same way.
Test the task repeatedly using your own workpieces and machine states before treating it as a proven process.
Gripping, calibration and exception handling may require additional development and integration work.
The robot alone does not show how much productive machine tending you will achieve after allowing for engineering, supervision and downtime. Fraunhofer IPA identifies purchase costs, productivity and engineering effort as important factors affecting cost-effectiveness.
Compare a humanoid robot, a cobot and a fixed solution using the same mix of parts, cycle time and assessment period.
Feeding systems, grippers, integration, supervision and unproductive time can all affect the effort required for the overall process.
A product's conformity and the safe use of the specific combination of robot, gripper and existing machine are separate questions. The Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health addresses the safe use of work equipment under its intended operating conditions.
Before approving a purchase, check the relevant product documentation and separately review the system's safety and integration arrangements.
Retrofitted safety measures and integration work may add to planning and operating costs.
AEON is positioned as a platform for industrial tasks.
Apptronik explicitly describes Apollo as a platform for loading and unloading machines and machine tools.
NEURA positions 4NE1 as a humanoid platform for industrial workflows.
Unitree offers G1 and G1 EDU as different configurations for technical testing.
Fixed cobot arms are an option to compare for repeatable loading and unloading tasks.
The following products are humanoid robots that may be relevant for initial testing. Their product names do not prove industrial suitability or approval for machine tending. Check the product documentation and system integration for your intended use.
No image available
The product name positions this model as an embodied AI development platform, with 48 TOPS and 22 DoF specified.
No image available
The product description lists autonomous navigation, obstacle avoidance, secondary development, 31 DoF and an RGB-D camera. It requires supervised operation and a clearance of at least 2 m; always follow the product-specific operating instructions and assess whether it is suitable for your intended use.
No image available
For an initial technical assessment, the product description specifies 27 DoF and an arm reach of 437 mm. These figures do not prove its performance in machine tending.
No image available
The product name specifies two cameras and 26 DoF. The product description recommends keeping the robot away from people and fragile objects, and operating it under adult supervision.
No image available
The product name specifies a monocular camera and 20 DoF. The product description warns of pinch hazards at moving joints and advises against operating the robot near stairs, edges or uneven ground.
No. Figure described its BMW application at a US plant as removing and positioning sheet-metal parts at a welding fixture. Figure later retired its Figure 02 fleet. Other machines, workpieces and models need to be assessed separately.
Start with one machine and clearly defined parts. Check correct placement, cycle time, human intervention and safe transitions between machine states. The figures Figure reported for its earlier BMW application were specific to that task; you cannot simply apply their target values to your process.
As well as the platform, ask for details of the gripper, feeding system, engineering, integration, supervision and productive operating time over the same period. Compare these figures with those for a cobot and a fixed solution using the same workflow.
No. For products covered by the relevant EU legislation, check the applicable conformity requirements and documentation; you must also assess the safe use of the specific combination. Whether integration creates an assembly of machinery depends on how the equipment is actually connected.
Not yet, as at 19 October 2026. The European Union's legal overview gives 20 January 2027 as the date when the Machinery Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 replaces Directive 2006/42/EC. Check the applicable legal position again at the actual time of placing the product on the market or putting it into service.