Mercury vs Unitree H1
Side-by-side comparison of Mercury (UT Austin, Meka Robotics, and Apptronik) and Unitree H1 (Unitree Robotics) — specs, pricing, Robolist Trust Score, and verified deployments. Updated daily.
 MercuryhumanoidUT Austin, Meka Robotics, and Apptronik13.3Trust Score |  Unitree H1humanoidUnitree Robotics13.3Trust Score | |
|---|---|---|
| Layer 1: Identity & Trust | ||
| Manufacturer Country (values differ) | — | CN |
| Year First Available (values differ) | 2018 | 2023 |
| Verified Deployments | 0 Deployments | 0 Deployments |
| Layer 2: Operational | ||
| Price Range (USD) (values differ) | US$150,000 | US$100,000 |
| Battery / Shift Runtime (values differ) | 8 hrs | 1 hrs |
| Availability Status | ACTIVE | ACTIVE |
| Layer 3: Category Specific | ||
| Physical Form Factor | ||
| Height (values differ) | 1180 mm | 180 mm |
| Weight (values differ) | 55 kg | 47 kg |
| Mobility Type (values differ) | — | bipedal |
| Humanoid Subtype (values differ) | — | full bipedal |
| Walking Speed (values differ) | 1.2 m/s | 3.3 m/s |
| Running Capable (values differ) | — | demo only |
| Stair Climbing (values differ) | — | production ready |
| Terrain (values differ) | indoor | flat_indoor, mild_incline, rough_indoor, outdoor_unstructured |
| Payload & Dexterity | ||
| Payload (values differ) | 1 kg | 10 kg |
| Payload (Peak) (values differ) | — | 15 kg |
| Total DOF (values differ) | 19 | 26 |
| Arm DOF (values differ) | 17 | 4 |
| Compute & AI | ||
| Onboard Compute (values differ) | Jetson Orin Nano SUPER 8GB | Motion Control Computing Unit (i5-1235U), Development Computing Unit (i7-1255U / i7-1265U) |
| Compute Platform (values differ) | — | Intel i7 processors |
| Programming (values differ) | code_python, code_cpp, no_code_gui | api, sdk |
| Battery & Power | ||
| Runtime (values differ) | 8 hrs | 2 hrs |
| Battery Capacity (values differ) | — | 0.9 kWh |
| Charging Method (values differ) | — | manual swap |
| Battery Swap (values differ) | — | Yes |
| Safety | ||
| Fall Recovery (values differ) | — | Yes |
| Human Detection Method (values differ) | — | multi modal |
| Software | ||
| SDK Languages (values differ) | code_python, code_cpp, no_code_gui | Python, C++, ROS2 |
| ROS Support (values differ) | Yes | ros2 vendor |
| Simulation Platforms (values differ) | — | Gazebo |
| Open API (values differ) | Yes | limited rest |
| Reliability | ||
| Deployment Maturity (values differ) | — | production pilot |
| Commercial | ||
| Price (USD) (values differ) | $150,000 | $100,000 |
| Price Tier (values differ) | — | 20-40K |
| Pricing Model (values differ) | — | capex |
| Developer Unit Price (values differ) | — | $27,730 |
| Applications (values differ) | research, education, service, teleoperation | research |
Insufficient data for full comparison
The following fields had no data for any of the selected robots: Hand DOF, Arm Reach, Grip Strength, Manipulation Repeatability, Bimanual Coordination, Tool Use, VLM Capable, Foundation Models, Imitation Learning, Teleoperation, Charging Time, Avg Power Consumption, Force-Limited Arms, Fall Detection Response, Emergency Stops, Safe Speed Near Humans, Air-Gap Capable, MTBF, Task Success Rate, IP Rating, Noise Level, RaaS / Month, Delivery Lead Time, Warranty, Production Pilots
About this comparison
Mercury vs Unitree H1 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.