AP001 Quick Changer System Modules vs M3 XBots
Side-by-side comparison of AP001 Quick Changer System Modules (ACY Automation Inc.) and M3 XBots (Planar Motor) — specs, pricing, Robolist Trust Score, and verified deployments. Updated daily.
 AP001 Quick Changer System ModulescobotACY Automation Inc.—Trust Score |  M3 XBotscobotPlanar Motor—Trust Score | |
|---|---|---|
| Layer 1: Identity & Trust | ||
| Manufacturer Country (values differ) | TW | — |
| Year First Available (values differ) | 2026 | — |
| Verified Deployments | 0 Deployments | 0 Deployments |
| Layer 2: Operational | ||
| Availability Status | ACTIVE | ACTIVE |
| Layer 3: Category Specific | ||
| Arm Mechanics | ||
| Payload (values differ) | — | 20 kg |
| Degrees of Freedom (values differ) | — | 3 |
| Repeatability (values differ) | — | ±0.001 mm |
| Max TCP Speed (values differ) | — | 3 m/s |
| Mounting Options (values differ) | — | floor, wall, custom |
| IP Rating (values differ) | — | IP69K |
| Ease of Use | ||
| Programming Interface (values differ) | — | PLC Interface via PROFINET, EtherCAT, POWERLINK, EtherNet/IP[4] |
| Software & Connectivity | ||
| Fieldbus Protocols (values differ) | — | All common fieldbus systems |
Insufficient data for full comparison
The following fields had no data for any of the selected robots: Price Range (USD), Battery / Shift Runtime, Reach, Robot Weight, Safety Rating, Force/Torque Sensing, TCP Speed (Collaborative), Power/Force Limiting, Safety I/O Pairs, Duty Cycle, Setup Time, Time to Redeploy, No-Code Capable, Offline Programming, Tool Flange Standard, Tool Changer Support, Integrated F/T Sensor, Wrist Power Supply, SDK Languages, ROS Compatible, Digital Twin Support, MTBF, Path Accuracy, Price (USD), CaaS / Month, Warranty, Lead Time
About this comparison
AP001 Quick Changer System Modules vs M3 XBots compares two robots in the cobot category. All data is sourced from manufacturer spec sheets, verified deployments, and third-party filings; see our methodology for how the Robolist Trust Score is calculated.