piCLASSIC™ Neo vs PIPER 标准版
Side-by-side comparison of piCLASSIC™ Neo (Piab) and PIPER 标准版 (Agilex) — specs, pricing, Robolist Trust Score, and verified deployments. Updated daily.
 piCLASSIC™ NeocobotPiab—Trust Score |  PIPER 标准版cobotAgilex—Trust Score | |
|---|---|---|
| Layer 1: Identity & Trust | ||
| Manufacturer Country (values differ) | — | CN |
| 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) | — | 1.5 kg |
| Reach (values differ) | — | 626 mm |
| Degrees of Freedom (values differ) | — | 6 |
| Repeatability (values differ) | — | ±0.1 mm |
| Robot Weight (values differ) | — | 4.2 kg |
| Mounting Options (values differ) | inline, floor-mounted | tabletop |
| Ease of Use | ||
| Programming Interface (values differ) | — | code_python, code_ros |
| Software & Connectivity | ||
| ROS Compatible (values differ) | — | Yes |
Insufficient data for full comparison
The following fields had no data for any of the selected robots: Price Range (USD), Battery / Shift Runtime, Max TCP Speed, IP Rating, 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, Fieldbus Protocols, Digital Twin Support, MTBF, Path Accuracy, Price (USD), CaaS / Month, Warranty, Lead Time
About this comparison
piCLASSIC™ Neo vs PIPER 标准版 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.