eDavid vs Explorer
Side-by-side comparison of eDavid (University of Konstanz) and Explorer (OC Robotics) — specs, pricing, Robo Index, and verified deployments. Updated daily.
Optimize comparison for buyer
Optimized for Healthcare & Hospitals buyers. Priority specs lifted to the top and marked with a target.
Layer 1: Identity & Trust
Manufacturer Country
- eDavid—
- ExplorerUnited Kingdom
Year First Available
- eDavid2009
- Explorer2009
Verified Deployments
- eDavid0 Deployments
- Explorer0 Deployments
Layer 2: Operational
Availability Status
- eDavidACTIVE
- ExplorerACTIVE
Arm Mechanics
IP Rating (Arm)
- eDavidIP54
- Explorer—
Reach
- eDavid1,100 mm
- Explorer2,500 mm
Payload
- eDavid10 kg
- Explorer20 kg
Degrees of Freedom
- eDavid6
- Explorer—
Robot Weight
- eDavid55 kg
- Explorer18.6 kg
Performance
MTBF
- eDavid50,000 hrs
- Explorer—
Duty Cycle
- eDavidcontinuous 24 7
- Explorer—
Vibration Damping
- eDavidactive model based
- Explorer—
Safety
Safety Category
- eDavidCat.3 PLd
- Explorer—
Dual Check Safety
- eDavidYes
- Explorer—
Safety I/O Pairs
- eDavid4
- Explorer—
E-Stop Response
- eDavid100 ms
- Explorer—
Safe Zone Count
- eDavid6
- Explorer—
Controller & Programming
Controller Model
- eDavidKR C4
- ExplorerControl and simulation unit
Programming Languages
- eDavidKRL, Java
- Explorer—
Teach Pendant Type
- eDavidsmart pad
- Explorer—
Offline Programming
- eDavidKUKA.Sim
- Explorer—
Digital Twin Support
- eDavidYes
- Explorer—
Connectivity
ROS-Industrial Support
- eDavidvendor supported
- Explorer—
IoT / Cloud Platform
- eDavidKUKA Connect
- Explorer—
Cybersecurity Certs
- eDavidIEC 62443 SL2
- Explorer—
Predictive Maintenance
- eDavidml based
- Explorer—
End-Effector
Tool Flange Standard
- eDavidISO 9409-1
- Explorer—
Tool Changer (ISO)
- eDavidproprietary
- Explorer—
Internal Cable Routing
- eDavidthrough arm and wrist
- Explorer—
Pneumatic Lines
- eDavid2
- Explorer—
Electrical Lines
- eDavid4
- Explorer—
Commercial
Service Network
- eDavidglobal
- Explorer—
Spare Parts Lead Time
- eDavid5 days
- Explorer—
Expected Service Life
- eDavid15 yrs
- Explorer—
| | |
|---|---|---|
| Layer 1: Identity & Trust | ||
| Manufacturer Country (values differ) | — | United Kingdom |
| Year First Available | 2009 | 2009 |
| Verified Deployments | 0 Deployments | 0 Deployments |
| Layer 2: Operational | ||
| Availability Status | ACTIVE | ACTIVE |
| Layer 3: Category Specific | ||
| Arm Mechanics | ||
| IP Rating (Arm) (priority for Healthcare & Hospitals buyers) (values differ) | IP54 | — |
| Reach (priority for Healthcare & Hospitals buyers) (values differ) | 1,100 mm | 2,500 mm |
| Payload (values differ) | 10 kg | 20 kg |
| Degrees of Freedom (values differ) | 6 | — |
| Robot Weight (values differ) | 55 kg | 18.6 kg |
| Performance | ||
| MTBF (values differ) | 50,000 hrs | — |
| Duty Cycle (values differ) | continuous 24 7 | — |
| Vibration Damping (values differ) | active model based | — |
| Safety | ||
| Safety Category (values differ) | Cat.3 PLd | — |
| Dual Check Safety (values differ) | Yes | — |
| Safety I/O Pairs (values differ) | 4 | — |
| E-Stop Response (values differ) | 100 ms | — |
| Safe Zone Count (values differ) | 6 | — |
| Controller & Programming | ||
| Controller Model (values differ) | KR C4 | Control and simulation unit |
| Programming Languages (values differ) | KRL, Java | — |
| Teach Pendant Type (values differ) | smart pad | — |
| Offline Programming (values differ) | KUKA.Sim | — |
| Digital Twin Support (values differ) | Yes | — |
| Connectivity | ||
| ROS-Industrial Support (values differ) | vendor supported | — |
| IoT / Cloud Platform (values differ) | KUKA Connect | — |
| Cybersecurity Certs (values differ) | IEC 62443 SL2 | — |
| Predictive Maintenance (values differ) | ml based | — |
| End-Effector | ||
| Tool Flange Standard (values differ) | ISO 9409-1 | — |
| Tool Changer (ISO) (values differ) | proprietary | — |
| Internal Cable Routing (values differ) | through arm and wrist | — |
| Pneumatic Lines (values differ) | 2 | — |
| Electrical Lines (values differ) | 4 | — |
| Commercial | ||
| Service Network (values differ) | global | — |
| Spare Parts Lead Time (values differ) | 5 days | — |
| Expected Service Life (values differ) | 15 yrs | — |
Insufficient data for full comparison
The following fields had no data for any of the selected robots: Price, Battery / Shift Runtime, Repeatability, Path Accuracy, Max TCP Speed, IP Rating (Wrist), Cycle Time (25/305/25), Communication Protocols, Price (USD), Warranty
ROI Comparison
Same operating assumptions across every robot — the only difference is price. Set your numbers once to see which pays back fastest.
Annual labor displaced (per robot): $50,000
| Metric | eDavid | Explorer |
|---|---|---|
| Investment | No price | No price |
| Payback period | — | — |
| Net savings (5 yr) | — | — |
| ROI (5 yr) | — | — |
eDavid, Explorer have no listed price, so payback can't be computed. Contact the manufacturer for a quote.
Estimates labor-cost displacement only — not a full total cost of ownership. Actual ROI depends on integration, maintenance, training, downtime, and task fit. Converted currencies are indicative; USD is the price of record.
Trade-offs at a glance
Frequently asked
Who makes eDavid and Explorer?
eDavid is made by University of Konstanz. Explorer is made by OC Robotics, based in GB.
When were eDavid and Explorer launched?
eDavid launched in 2009. Explorer launched in 2009.
How do eDavid and Explorer compare on the Robo Index?
eDavid grades BB on the Robo Index. Explorer grades AA. The Robo Index is a credibility grade (AAA … C) that blends commercial maturity, verified deployments, company standing, and independent coverage — see methodology for the full breakdown.
How does the reach of eDavid compare to Explorer?
eDavid has a reach of 1100 mm. Explorer has a reach of 2500 mm.
Are eDavid and Explorer in the same category?
Both robots are classified as Industrial Arm on Robolist. Filters and ranking treat them as direct alternatives.
What is the realistic total cost of ownership for Industrial Arm robots?
Hardware cost is one input. Industrial Arm TCO also includes integration, training, downtime, and end-of-life. Our breakdown: TCO of a 6-Axis Arm Cell: Hardware, EOAT, Integration, Programming.
What should a buyer ask vendors when choosing between eDavid and Explorer?
Spec sheets only show part of the story. Useful vendor questions cover support, lifecycle, integration cost, and references. We have a buyer-focused checklist: Industrial Arm Vendor Selection: Capability Matrices and Proof Points.
Going deeper — picking the right robot
TCO of a 6-Axis Arm Cell: Hardware, EOAT, Integration, Programming
7 min readIndustrial Arms
Industrial Arm Vendor Selection: Capability Matrices and Proof Points
9 min readIndustrial Arms
Programming Approaches: Teach Pendant, Offline, AI-Assisted — What Each Costs You
8 min readIndustrial Arms
Build vs buy vs lease: which model fits a first deployment
8 min readChoosing Your First Robot
The hidden specs vendors hope you'll miss
10 min readReading the Spec Sheet
Want to be notified when specs or pricing change for these robots? Drop your email.
Other comparisons
About this comparison
eDavid vs Explorer compares two robots in the industrial-arm category. All data is sourced from manufacturer spec sheets, verified deployments, and third-party filings; see our methodology for how the Robo Index is calculated.