AMR Specs Compared: A Checklist for Facility Teams

Does AMR have one fixed definition?

No. The term has no single meaning across spec sheets. A 2025 patent text states there is no clearly fixed definition of what constitutes an AMR, and it splits the robot into a payload subsystem and a mobile platform.

Vendors and writers draw the line in different places. Safelog says AMRs adjust their travel routes based on current spatial conditions, while AGVs only follow predefined routes. Yet it also says that distinction is irrelevant for many modern systems. Innok Robotics places AMRs and AGVs in the same family of floor-bound vehicles. A label on a brochure tells you little about the behavior in your aisle.

How do you compare payload on a spec sheet?

Read payload as two linked numbers, not one. The patent text describes the payload subsystem as the part that does the work, and the mobile platform as the part that must meet a required payload weight and dimensions. A platform with an impressive rating can still be a poor match if the load is tall, wide or off center.

Ask for the rated payload, the load envelope and whether the load handling attachment is included in the quoted configuration. ISO 3691-4 covers load handling attachments, so a vendor should be able to name the attachment its unit carries and the load transfer method it uses.

Which navigation method is the robot actually using?

Navigation is where definitions diverge most. Robotnik says AMRs use free navigation by means of lasers, while other systems rely on fixed elements such as magnetic tapes, magnets or beacons. Source lists also name digital maps, lidar, cameras and laser scanners, and natural features compared with reflectors and markers.

The method changes predictability. Safelog says autonomous navigation often makes driving behavior less precisely predictable, which can matter for just-in-time flows. Innok says autonomy makes predictability more difficult. A fixed-path unit may run more consistently through a crowded aisle, while a free navigator can route around an obstacle that a fixed path cannot. Neither is automatically the better choice. Ask which approach the vendor used for your layout and what happens when that layout changes.

How should traffic handling be checked?

Traffic handling is the least standardized line on most brochures. Fictionlab says ISO 3691-4 covers traffic management functions and communication with fleet-management or traffic-control systems. Fabrico says navigation technology does not decide scope: a tape-guided tugger and a free-navigating AMR both fall in scope when performing truck functions.

The central safety demand is that the vehicle must stop within its detection field at every permitted speed, according to Robotic Industries, which says the field must be sized for speed, load and floor. Ask for stopping test results on a floor like yours, not only the field dimensions. Fictionlab also cautions that ISO 3691-4 is not a general certification for every unmanned ground vehicle, so any compliance claim should name the standard and the scope it covers.

Which standard applies on a US floor?

The sources do not agree on the US counterpart. DNC Automation says ANSI/ITSDF B56.5 is voluntary in the US and widely referenced by OSHA and insurers. Roboticks names ANSI/RIA R15.08 as the US analogue to ISO 3691-4 and calls ISO 3691-4 harmonised under the EU regulation. Both names belong in the conversation.

Ask the vendor to name the edition and standard in writing, and have your safety lead confirm which applies to your site. According to Fabrico, the EU Machinery Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 replaces the directive from January 2027, and Robotic Industries gives 20 January 2027 as its application date. Those dates matter most for multinational operators.

Where do docks and charging belong in the comparison?

Robotnik says its AMRs are equipped with automatic charging stations and can recharge autonomously. Treat that as a feature claim to verify against your own dock layout, not as a given. Fictionlab notes that ISO 3691-4 scope includes docking stations and charging areas, which puts the standard right where robots and people share dock doors and aprons.

Ask where charging sits relative to travel lanes, who is responsible for the charger, and how a unit leaves the dock when a person stands in the apron. We have not verified dock timing figures from named manufacturers, so test those claims on your floor before they go into a contract.

What should you ask vendors in writing?

Send the same five questions to every manufacturer so the answers line up side by side:

• Which standard edition and scope the compliance claim cites, and whether it covers chargers and transfer stations as well as the vehicle.
• Rated payload, load envelope and attachment, quoted together as one configuration.
• The navigation method, and which layout changes it tolerates without a full remap.
• Stopping test results on a floor matching yours, at each permitted speed.
• What traffic and status data the unit sends to and receives from the fleet controller.

How Service Robot Co. runs the comparison

We are OEM-neutral, so our comparison runs across manufacturers rather than inside one catalog. Our integrators start with a site assessment, map the traffic and dock layout, and then recommend robots that meet the spec your floor requires.

Service Robot Co. leases robots only, on a 3-year lease with one fixed payment quoted after that site assessment. Our nationwide US engineer network handles deployment, integration, training and service, so one partner stays accountable for the whole lifecycle.