piCLASSIC™ Neo vs X-ble Shoulder
Side-by-side comparison of piCLASSIC™ Neo (Piab) and X-ble Shoulder (Hyundai Motor Group) — specs, pricing, Robolist Trust Score, and verified deployments. Updated daily.
 piCLASSIC™ NeocobotPiab—Trust Score |  X-ble ShouldercobotHyundai Motor Group—Trust Score | |
|---|---|---|
| Layer 1: Identity & Trust | ||
| Manufacturer Country (values differ) | — | KR |
| Year First Available (values differ) | 2025 | 2024 |
| Verified Deployments | 0 Deployments | 0 Deployments |
| Layer 2: Operational | ||
| Availability Status | ACTIVE | ACTIVE |
| Layer 3: Category Specific | ||
| Arm Mechanics | ||
| Payload (values differ) | — | 3.7 kg |
| Robot Weight (values differ) | — | 1.9 kg |
| Mounting Options (values differ) | inline, floor-mounted | — |
| Safety | ||
| Safety Rating (values differ) | — | KS, ISO 13482, Machinery Directive |
| Force/Torque Sensing (values differ) | — | Yes |
| Ease of Use | ||
| Setup Time (values differ) | — | 0.3 hrs |
Insufficient data for full comparison
The following fields had no data for any of the selected robots: Price Range (USD), Battery / Shift Runtime, Reach, Degrees of Freedom, Repeatability, Max TCP Speed, IP Rating, TCP Speed (Collaborative), Power/Force Limiting, Safety I/O Pairs, Duty Cycle, Time to Redeploy, No-Code Capable, Offline Programming, Programming Interface, 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
piCLASSIC™ Neo vs X-ble Shoulder 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.