Care-O-bot 3 vs Pibo
Side-by-side comparison of Care-O-bot 3 (Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation) and Pibo (Circulus Co., Ltd.) — specs, pricing, Robolist Trust Score, and verified deployments. Updated daily.
Optimize comparison for buyer
Optimized for Cleaning & Facilities buyers. Priority specs lifted to the top and marked with a target.
| Care-O-bot 3humanoidFraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation —Trust Score |  PibohumanoidCirculus Co., Ltd.—Trust Score | |
|---|---|---|
| Layer 1: Identity & Trust | ||
| Manufacturer Country (values differ) | Germany | South Korea |
| Year First Available (values differ) | — | 2020 |
| Verified Deployments | 0 Deployments | 0 Deployments |
| Layer 2: Operational | ||
| Battery / Shift Runtime (priority for Cleaning & Facilities buyers) (values differ) | — | 2 hrs |
| Availability Status | ACTIVE | ACTIVE |
| Layer 3: Category Specific | ||
| Physical Form Factor | ||
| Weight (priority for Cleaning & Facilities buyers) (values differ) | 180 kg | — |
| Height (values differ) | 1450 mm | 250 mm |
| Mobility Type (values differ) | wheeled | — |
| Humanoid Subtype (values differ) | service humanoid | bipedal |
| Walking Speed (values differ) | 1.5 m/s | — |
| Stair Climbing (values differ) | none | — |
| Terrain (values differ) | flat_indoor | indoor |
| Payload & Dexterity | ||
| Payload (values differ) | 5 kg | — |
| Payload (Peak) (values differ) | 7 kg | — |
| Total DOF (values differ) | — | 10 |
| Arm DOF (values differ) | 7 | — |
| Hand DOF (values differ) | 7 | — |
| Compute & AI | ||
| Onboard Compute (values differ) | 3 PCs (2 GHz Pentium M, 1 GB RAM, 40 GB HDD) | 1.4Ghz quad-core chip |
| Programming (values differ) | code_ros, teleoperation | voice, QR code, dashboard app |
| Battery & Power | ||
| Runtime (values differ) | — | 2 hrs |
| Safety | ||
| Human Detection Method (values differ) | vision human | — |
| Safe Speed Near Humans (values differ) | software_defined | — |
| Software | ||
| SDK Languages (values differ) | code_ros, teleoperation | voice, QR code, dashboard app |
| ROS Support (values differ) | ros2 community | — |
| Open API (values differ) | Yes | — |
| Reliability | ||
| Deployment Maturity (values differ) | prototype | — |
| Commercial | ||
| Pricing Model (values differ) | lease | — |
| Applications (values differ) | research, eldercare_assistance | museum interaction |
Insufficient data for full comparison
The following fields had no data for any of the selected robots: Price Range (USD), Running Capable, Arm Reach, Grip Strength, Manipulation Repeatability, Bimanual Coordination, Tool Use, Compute Platform, VLM Capable, Foundation Models, Imitation Learning, Teleoperation, Battery Capacity, Charging Time, Charging Method, Battery Swap, Avg Power Consumption, Force-Limited Arms, Fall Recovery, Fall Detection Response, Emergency Stops, Simulation Platforms, Air-Gap Capable, MTBF, Task Success Rate, IP Rating, Noise Level, Price (USD), Price Tier, RaaS / Month, Developer Unit Price, Delivery Lead Time, Warranty, Production Pilots
About this comparison
Care-O-bot 3 vs Pibo compares two robots in the humanoid 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.