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
Optimized for Hospitality & F&B buyers. Priority specs lifted to the top and marked with a target.
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 (priority for Hospitality & F&B buyers) (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
Trade-offs at a glance
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.