Humanoid robots are everywhere right now. Scroll through LinkedIn and you’ll see a humanoid completing a half marathon, dancing and performing carefully choreographed routines that suggest a leap forward in robotics capability. For manufacturing leaders already under pressure to improve productivity, the question is unavoidable: is this something we should be planning for — or just watching from a distance?
That assessment was at the center of our recent webinar, Humanoids vs Purpose‑Built Robotics: What Manufacturers Actually Need Next. Three experts from different perspectives (research, engineering, and large‑scale manufacturing operations) converged on the same conclusion: industrial readiness has very little to do with spectacle.
The level of engagement during the session reflected how live this issue is. Polls of our audience and the questions that followed revealed real curiosity about what humanoids might contribute to manufacturing but also a sharp focus on what can be deployed, supported, and justified right now.
Reliability as the real dividing line
That research perspective aligned closely with the engineering view. David Brandt, VP R&D and CTO at Universal Robots, framed the challenge in straightforward terms: complexity multiplies failure modes, and humanoids are among the most complex machines ever built.
In manufacturing, reliability expectations are uncompromising. A system that fails once in a hundred cycles isn’t ‘nearly ready’, it’s non‑deployable. Factory environments demand performance closer to perfect reliability before trust is earned. Anything less becomes downtime, rework, and manual recovery.
Safety compounds the issues with humanoids. Risk assessment in industrial robotics focuses less on how systems work and more on how they fail. For humanoids, size, mass, and dynamic movement introduce failure scenarios — such as loss of balance — that are extremely difficult to mitigate to current safety standards. While work on standards continues, this remains a major barrier to near‑term deployment.
How manufacturing leaders access solutions
Rodrigo DallOglio, President, Operational Excellence and Transformation at Flex, described how his company evaluates automation across its global footprint, where thousands of robots including Universal Robots collaborative industrial robots and MiR AMRs, are already in daily use.
Key evaluation criteria at Flex include safety, return on investment, reliability and quality impact, and traceability. Technologies that perform well across those dimensions get deployed and scaled. Those that don’t, don’t.
Scaling, he emphasized, depends on governance, standardization, and partners capable of supporting repeatable deployment across regions and sites.
Asked how organizations can accelerate automation, his advice was to avoided novelty altogether: fix processes first, standardize what works, invest in change management, and reward deployment. Execution, not experimentation, is what moves the needle.
Where the discussion landed
Despite coming from different disciplines, all three perspectives converged on the same principle: industrial value comes from systems designed around tasks and environments, not around an idealized human form.
Humanoids may play a role in the future as hardware, learning, and interaction mature. But for manufacturers making decisions today, success still hinges on technologies that are safe, reliable, maintainable, and scalable.
The audience engagement — both in polling and discussion — suggests the industry is ready for a more grounded conversation. Less about what looks impressive on video. More about what stands up on the factory floor.
When a demo isn’t the same as deployment
From a research standpoint, Professor Norbert Krüger, Professor & Chair of Engineering at the University of Southern Denmark emphasized the gap between a compelling demonstration and an industrially viable system.
Producing an impressive video is relatively easy. In a lab environment, robots can be tuned, reset, and retried until a task works once — enough to capture attention. Manufacturing demands something else entirely: performance that holds across thousands of cycles, under variation, without constant human intervention.
Manipulation remains is a clear example of where humanoid technology still has some way to go. Human‑like, five‑fingered hands look intuitively useful, but dexterous grasping at industrial reliability levels is still unsolved. Norbert shared a personal example from a major European research project where, after years of work, a complex robotic hand achieved roughly 50% task reliability. Technically impressive. Operationally unusable.
His skepticism was not dismissive. Progress in locomotion, learning, and perception is real, and investment continues to accelerate. But without robust, repeatable manipulation, broad industrial use of humanoids remains difficult to justify.
See examples of robots adding value today
Stellantis-Caen
