Guanhong Automation vs TQ-Group
A maker's RoboScore compares brands across six factors. Buyers pick a brand before they pick a model — this grades the maker, not a single robot.
A maker's RoboScore is rated on Products 65% · Depth 5% · Evidence 30% — present for every company. Attention feeds Evidence; the rest are shown but move nothing. A hollow grey vertex means no data, not a low score. Claiming or paying moves nothing.
What the shapes say
Guanhong Automation and TQ-Group each lead 2 factors. The widest gap is Activity — TQ-Group by 70 points. 1 factor can't be compared: one side has no data.
How good the robots this brand ships actually are, on the same RoboScore used for every robot.
How many distinct robots this brand ships. Worth at most five points — a deep catalogue is a fact about a brand, not a verdict on it.
Whether the brand has shipped or announced something real recently, or has gone quiet. Built from product milestones and launch dates — not from news coverage, which is the separate Momentum score on the rankings.
Shown on the hexagon, but does not move the rating.
How much independent editorial press is covering this brand right now. Attention, not quality — it is one half of Evidence rather than a slice of its own, and a brand we hold no coverage for loses nothing.
No weight of its own — it feeds Evidence, and can only add to it.
Whether the practical integration facts — certifications, software, warranty, lead time — are published.
Shown on the hexagon, but does not move the rating.
Independent proof this brand is real: customer deployments we have verified, and recent editorial coverage. Every company starts from the same baseline and earns the points above it — nothing a maker claims, declares or pays for counts here.
Side by side
Public catalog data. Nothing here is self-reported by the maker.
Where they overlap
- Both build
- Collaborative Robot1
- Only Guanhong Automation
- None
- Only TQ-Group
- None