UR16e vs WAM
Side-by-side comparison of UR16e (Universal Robots A/S (subsidiary of Teradyne)) and WAM (Barrett Technology) — specs, pricing, Robolist Trust Score, and verified deployments. Updated daily.
Optimize comparison for buyer
Layer 1: Identity & Trust
Manufacturer Country
UR16eDK
WAMUS
Year First Available
- UR16e2019
- WAM2004
Verified Deployments
- UR16e0 Deployments
- WAM0 Deployments
Layer 2: Operational
Price Range (USD)
- UR16eContact for quote
- WAM$99,000
Availability Status
- UR16eACTIVE
- WAMACTIVE
Arm Mechanics
Payload
- UR16e—
- WAM4 kg (4-DOF), 3 kg (7-DOF)[1]
Reach
- UR16e—
- WAM1,000 mm
Degrees of Freedom
- UR16e6
- WAM—
Repeatability
- UR16e—
- WAM±0.1 mm (4-DOF), 0.2 mm (7-DOF)[2] mm
Mounting Options
- UR16e—
- WAMMultiple mounting options available[9]
Safety
Safety Rating
- UR16eCE, ISO/TS 15066
- WAMISO 13485
Force/Torque Sensing
- UR16ejoint level all
- WAM—
Ease of Use
Setup Time
- UR16e1 hrs
- WAM—
No-Code Capable
- UR16eYes
- WAM—
Programming Interface
- UR16eteach_pendant, drag_and_drop
- WAMHigh-speed network cable (Ethernet and CANbus), open-source C/C++ control software[1][2][3]
Software & Connectivity
ROS Compatible
- UR16e—
- WAMYes
Fieldbus Protocols
- UR16e—
- WAMEthernet, CANbus[1]
Commercial
Price (USD)
- UR16eContact for quote
- WAM$99,000
| UR16ecobotUniversal Robots A/S (subsidiary of Teradyne) 59.1Trust Score | WAMcobotBarrett Technology 59.1Trust Score | |
|---|---|---|
| Layer 1: Identity & Trust | ||
| Manufacturer Country (values differ) | DK | US |
| Year First Available (values differ) | 2019 | 2004 |
| Verified Deployments | 0 Deployments | 0 Deployments |
| Layer 2: Operational | ||
| Price Range (USD) (values differ) | Contact for quote | $99,000 |
| Availability Status | ACTIVE | ACTIVE |
| Layer 3: Category Specific | ||
| Arm Mechanics | ||
| Payload (values differ) | — | 4 kg (4-DOF), 3 kg (7-DOF)[1] |
| Reach (values differ) | — | 1,000 mm |
| Degrees of Freedom (values differ) | 6 | — |
| Repeatability (values differ) | — | ±0.1 mm (4-DOF), 0.2 mm (7-DOF)[2] mm |
| Mounting Options (values differ) | — | Multiple mounting options available[9] |
| Safety | ||
| Safety Rating (values differ) | CE, ISO/TS 15066 | ISO 13485 |
| Force/Torque Sensing (values differ) | joint level all | — |
| Ease of Use | ||
| Setup Time (values differ) | 1 hrs | — |
| No-Code Capable (values differ) | Yes | — |
| Programming Interface (values differ) | teach_pendant, drag_and_drop | High-speed network cable (Ethernet and CANbus), open-source C/C++ control software[1][2][3] |
| Software & Connectivity | ||
| ROS Compatible (values differ) | — | Yes |
| Fieldbus Protocols (values differ) | — | Ethernet, CANbus[1] |
| Commercial | ||
| Price (USD) (values differ) | Contact for quote | $99,000 |
Insufficient data for full comparison
The following fields had no data for any of the selected robots: Battery / Shift Runtime, Max TCP Speed, Robot Weight, IP Rating, TCP Speed (Collaborative), Power/Force Limiting, Safety I/O Pairs, Duty Cycle, Time to Redeploy, Offline Programming, Tool Flange Standard, Tool Changer Support, Integrated F/T Sensor, Wrist Power Supply, SDK Languages, Digital Twin Support, MTBF, Path Accuracy, CaaS / Month, Warranty, Lead Time
best in categoryweakest in categoryvalues differ
About this comparison
UR16e vs WAM 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.