GoFa vs piCLASSIC™ Neo
Side-by-side comparison of GoFa (ABB) and piCLASSIC™ Neo (Piab) — specs, pricing, Robolist Trust Score, and verified deployments. Updated daily.
 GoFacobotABB—Trust Score |  piCLASSIC™ NeocobotPiab—Trust Score | |
|---|---|---|
| Layer 1: Identity & Trust | ||
| Manufacturer Country (values differ) | Switzerland | — |
| Year First Available (values differ) | — | 2025 |
| Verified Deployments | 0 Deployments | 0 Deployments |
| Layer 2: Operational | ||
| Availability Status | ACTIVE | ACTIVE |
| Layer 3: Category Specific | ||
| Arm Mechanics | ||
| Payload (values differ) | 12 kg | — |
| Reach (values differ) | 950 mm | — |
| Degrees of Freedom (values differ) | 6 | — |
| Repeatability (values differ) | ±0.02 mm | — |
| Max TCP Speed (values differ) | 2.2 m/s | — |
| Robot Weight (values differ) | 28 kg | — |
| Mounting Options (values differ) | wall, floor | inline, floor-mounted |
| IP Rating (values differ) | IP54 | — |
| Safety | ||
| Safety Rating (values differ) | PL d, Cat 3 | — |
| Force/Torque Sensing (values differ) | Yes | — |
| Ease of Use | ||
| Programming Interface (values differ) | teach_pendant, drag_and_drop | — |
Insufficient data for full comparison
The following fields had no data for any of the selected robots: Price Range (USD), Battery / Shift Runtime, 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, Fieldbus Protocols, Digital Twin Support, MTBF, Path Accuracy, Price (USD), CaaS / Month, Warranty, Lead Time
About this comparison
GoFa vs piCLASSIC™ Neo 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.