A limited pilot with a humanoid robot is worth considering if the machine genuinely requires different handling steps or working positions. If the loading process is clearly defined and repeatable, a cobot or a specialised cell is also an obvious option to compare. Compare the options using the same workpieces and complete processes, including the safety concept, cycle time, successful grasps and any interventions required.
If the operating and gripping steps vary from one machine task to another, it is worth checking whether a humanoid platform offers a practical advantage over a solution designed for the specific task. Agile Robots lists machine tending as an intended application for Agile ONE; Fraunhofer IPA also highlights the need to test safety technologies for humanoid systems.
Anyone connecting a robot to a machine needs to consider the process, interfaces, employee protection and documentation for the specific installation together. The German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA) includes the selection and use of work equipment in risk assessments.
For repeatable loading and unloading, you can assess a cobot or specialised cell using your own workpieces and machine processes. KUKA and FANUC each document specific applications; these examples do not automatically prove suitability for other machines or parts.
Consider it if: a machine requires several different handling tasks or working positions, and you can run a limited pilot safely.
Weigh up: Manufacturers’ descriptions of intended tasks do not prove that a robot can meet your machine’s cycle time or be integrated safely into a specific setup.
Consider it if: the machine, handover position and sequence of movements are sufficiently well defined to tailor the gripper, door sequence and workpiece changeover.
Weigh up: Documented applications relate to their specific machines, workpieces and integrations; they are not general proof of performance or cost.
Consider it if: grasping, variant changeovers, the need for interventions or the safety concept for your process have yet to be confirmed.
Weigh up: A pilot takes time and integration work; general product information is no substitute for comparing options under the same process conditions.
Before you compare solutions, define the workpieces and complete machine processes they need to handle.
| Consideration | What to check before buying | Who should pay particular attention? |
|---|---|---|
| Safety in a shared workspace | Have the risks assessed for the specific combination of robot, gripper and machine, including access and fault conditions. | If staff work around or need to intervene at the machine, a robust safety concept is my top priority. Around 25 % of consumers would prioritise employee protection above all else. |
| Interfaces and documentation | Clarify door, clamping and cycle status, as well as responsibilities between the machine manufacturer and integrator. | If the existing machine is to be integrated, I need a clear process and agreed responsibility for integration. Around 25 % of consumers would put machine integration first. |
| Gripping different parts | Test representative challenging workpieces and variant changeovers; record failed grasps and reconfiguration. | If parts or positions change, I want to know that gripping and changeovers will work with my workpieces. Around 20 % of consumers would choose handling variants as their main priority. |
| Cycle time and manual interventions | Measure the complete loading and unloading cycle, including machine wait time, failed attempts and interventions. | If the machine needs a reliable process, I focus on the whole cycle rather than one successful grasp. Around 20 % of consumers would prioritise cycle-time consistency and the need for interventions. |
| Costs beyond the pilot | Compare like-for-like quotes covering the gripper, integration, safety concept, commissioning, modifications and servicing. | If I need to assess both the pilot and potential future operation, I want to compare the scope of work clearly. Around 10 % of consumers would prioritise the overall cost above all else. |
A risk assessment must cover the actual workplace and integrated installation. Fraunhofer IPA highlights the need to test safety technologies for humanoid systems.
Assess the robot, gripper, machine and staff access together before planning its use.
Adding safety measures later may mean repeating integration work.
The process also includes loading, door movement, machining and unloading. One movement does not show whether the complete cycle suits your process.
Measure every option using the same workpieces and conditions, including challenging variants and any interventions required.
Machine wait time, corrective interventions and additional setup can all extend the process.
FANUC documents an integrated CNC cell for workpiece handling, including small-batch production. This example does not prove it will suit your parts, but it shows that a cell is worth considering as an alternative.
Have a humanoid robot, cobot and cell perform the same defined machine task instead of making the form of the robot the deciding factor.
Agile Robots lists machine tending as an intended application for its Agile ONE humanoid robot.
NEURA Robotics describes 4NE1 as a humanoid platform for industrial processes and lists different configurations.
KUKA documents conventional machine tending as well as a cell developed with a partner and based on the LBR iisy cobot.
Universal Robots offers cobots for machine tending; the UR20-1750 model is described for this application.
FANUC documents a specialised ROBODRILL Plus-K cell with integrated workpiece handling.
The following Joybuy products are humanoid platforms that you could consider as part of a comparative pilot. Product information alone does not prove that a model is suitable for a specific machine-tending task or its safety requirements.
No image available
This model can be included in a pilot comparison as a humanoid development platform; its product name does not prove that it is suitable for a particular machine.
The product name lists 22 degrees of freedom and 48 TOPS.
No image available
This humanoid platform could be considered for a limited pilot comparison; check the specific gripping tasks and safety measures required for the target machine.
The product description lists 31 degrees of freedom. Without an end effector, the payload is up to 3 kg in certain postures and up to 1 kg across the full range of motion.
The safety information lists crushing and impact risks from moving joints and the robot’s weight.
No image available
This humanoid model could be considered as a pilot candidate; the product information does not prove that its reach or payload will be sufficient for your machine process.
The description lists 27 degrees of freedom and an arm reach of 437 mm. Without an end effector, the payload is up to 3 kg in certain postures and up to 1 kg across the full range of motion.
No image available
This model can be included in a pilot assessment as a humanoid platform; check the requirements of the machine environment before putting it to use.
The product name lists 20 degrees of freedom and a monocular camera. The product warning advises against operating it near stairs, edges or uneven surfaces.
No image available
This model could be assessed as a humanoid pilot candidate; evaluate the specific manipulation task rather than assuming the product name means it is suitable for machine tending.
The product name lists force-controlled, dexterous hands. According to the product name, SDK/API is not yet available for this version.
Agree with the machine manufacturer and integrator on the states for the door, workpiece fixture, machining start and fault conditions, as well as handovers between the machine and robot controls. A process documented by KUKA using the LBR iisy shows loading followed by the door closing before machining; it does not prove which interfaces your machine supports.
No. The product description alone does not establish that it is suitable for a specific workplace. A risk assessment is required for tasks involving staff; Fraunhofer IPA also highlights the need to test safety technologies for humanoid systems.
Define representative workpieces and the complete machine process before the trial begins. After changing a workpiece or gripper, test gripping, interventions and any affected safety measures again; general manufacturer information does not prove suitability for the revised task.
Request the same scope of work for every option: robot or cell, gripper, machine integration, safety concept, commissioning, modifications and ongoing support. Only like-for-like quotes allow you to assess the costs for your process.
According to the BAuA, machinery placed on the market up to 19 January 2027 must continue to comply with Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC; from 20 January 2027, Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 applies. Whether your specific integration constitutes an assembly of machinery that needs to be assessed, and which documents those involved need to provide, depends on the setup.