AUBO-i3 vs RealMan RM65-B: Robot Comparison
Updated: 3 hours ago
IN A NUTSHELL
🔎 THE KEY DIFFERENCE This is a load-versus-reach trade-off: RealMan RM65-B has the higher stated load capacity, while AUBO-i3 has the longer stated reach. Start with the constraint your task actually has. |
→ CONSIDER AUBO-i3 Consider it when reaching farther matters more than the higher payload of the alternative. This article compares 3 kg with a published reach of 625 mm; include the gripper and part in the load. |
→ CONSIDER RealMan RM65-B Consider it when additional load capacity matters more than extra reach. This article compares 5 kg with a published reach of 610 mm; include the gripper and part in the load. |
💡 THE TAKEAWAY Check the real tool, movement path and safety assessment before choosing. A collaborative label does not make every task safe without guarding; compare complete installation quotes. |
AUBO-i3 vs RealMan RM65-B is a choice about collaborative handling and cell integration. AUBO-i3 and RealMan RM65-B differ in their working envelope, loading assumptions and engineering ecosystem. A useful decision starts with the exact mechanism and process, then checks whether either robot can execute the required path with the real tool attached. This comparison separates documented specifications from application-level engineering judgments.
AUBO-i3 vs RealMan RM65-B: quick verdict
Shortlist AUBO-i3 for 3 kg collaborative-platform handling within the documented 625 mm working reference. Shortlist RealMan RM65-B for 5 kg collaborative-platform handling within the documented 610 mm working reference. Neither is a universal winner: a robot that can carry the load may still fail the fixture-access, controller or maintenance requirements.
The numerical comparison below uses AUBO-i3 against RealMan RM65-B. The stated model scope matters when comparing later revisions or differently equipped installations. Published repeatability describes return to a taught position under specified conditions; it does not establish complete-cell accuracy or prove a faster production cycle.
Specifications and exact configuration scope
Criterion | AUBO-i3 | RealMan RM65-B |
|---|---|---|
Comparison configuration | AUBO-i3 | RealMan RM65-B |
Payload used for comparison | 3 kg | 5 kg |
Reach / motion-area reference | 625 mm | 610 mm |
Axes | 6 | 6 |
Repeatability for this scope | ±0.02 mm | ±0.05 mm |
Controller reference | AUBO CB-M control box | Integrated in the robot base |
Purchase-price basis | Configuration-specific quotation | Configuration-specific quotation |
Purchase pricing | From $21,200 (arm list price) | From $17,910 (arm list price) |
Read the reach row together with the geometric notes below. Manufacturers may specify an arm-link sum, a wrist-centre motion area or reach to the flange; those dimensions are not interchangeable. The table does not establish access to every point at every tool angle. Controller references identify reviewed packages, and actual compatibility must be confirmed by model, software version and region.
AUBO-i3: design and configuration
The AUBO Robotics AUBO-i3 is a six-axis collaborative robot arm with a payload of 3 kg, a reach of 625 mm and repeatability of ±0.02 mm. It is designed for compact benchtop cells and handles small-part assembly, pick and place, screwdriving, inspection and dispensing. The arm weighs 16 kg. It runs on the AUBO CB-M control box and communicates over TCP/IP, Modbus RTU/TCP and PROFINET, with SDK and ROS support for integration. The AUBO-i hardware has six rotating joints and a model-specific load-deflection limit. The source review describes a CB-M control box; the current AUBO-i manual identifies CB-iS controllers, so match the arm and control generation explicitly. Power-and-force limits depend on the full application, tool contact geometry and safety settings, and do not prove unrestricted operation next to people.
RealMan RM65-B: design and configuration
Weighing only 7.2 kg, the RealMan RM65-B is the standard version of the RM65 6-axis ultra-lightweight collaborative arm. It lifts 5 kg, covers a 610 mm working radius and repeats to ±0.05 mm. Tool speed reaches 1.8 m/s. The controller is integrated in the 107 mm base and the arm operates on 24 V DC at a typical 150 W, so it can be mounted on mobile bases and humanoid platforms.
For this pair, RealMan RM65-B offers 5 kg over the stated 610 mm reference, compared with 3 kg and 625 mm for AUBO-i3 example. AUBO-i3 has the larger stated distance by 15 mm, but this difference is only a preliminary layout indicator because reference points and joint envelopes can differ. Locate the actual fixture in each manufacturer model before treating this as usable extra working space.
Payload, tooling and a worked load example
Consider an illustrative total wrist load of 2.4 kg: a 0.6 kg tool and adapter package carrying a 1.8 kg part or product group. This arithmetic leaves 0.6 kg below the AUBO-i3 example’s nominal limit and 2.6 kg below RealMan RM65-B’s nominal limit. These are mass differences, not safety factors or a validated load approval. A heavy camera, valve block or retained material must be included before recalculating the total.
The example exposes the practical question: is the application limited by mass, by tool offset or by wrist rotation? AUBO-i3 is the lower-or-equal nominal payload choice in this pair. RealMan RM65-B offers more or equal headline mass capacity, but that alone cannot approve an eccentric fixture. Moving the same mass farther from the flange increases the moment, and spreading it increases rotational inertia. Manufacturer load diagrams and the actual centre of gravity govern the final allowable motion.
Model the empty, partly loaded and fully loaded tool states separately. A vacuum layer gripper, a weld torch with hoses or an inspection head may change its effective loading during the cycle. Set the controller’s load data for each supported state and validate the transition logic. A payload table cannot predict acceleration derating, cable pull or transient reactions at a machine interface.
Reach, orientation and fixture access
Build the same cell model for both candidates: base height, machine opening, fixture datum, maximum part size, tool extension and access for maintenance. AUBO-i3 provides a stated 625 mm reference, while RealMan RM65-B provides 610 mm. Check the deepest production pose and the return path with the loaded tool. An arm that just touches the target at full extension may have little freedom left to turn, retract or avoid a door.
For assembly and machine tending, test the gripper jaws in their open and closed positions. Include feeder replenishment, rejected-part disposal and tool changes. Check wrist flips and singularity avoidance along the whole path. A compact robot can fit a small fixture well, while a longer arm can simplify station placement; neither geometric benefit can be assumed without the actual model.
Precision and throughput: compare the same task
The comparison uses ±0.02 mm for AUBO-i3 and ±0.05 mm for RealMan RM65-B. These figures should be read in their documented configuration scope. Repeatability is not absolute accuracy, camera calibration accuracy or finished-part capability. Fixture variation, TCP calibration, thermal conditions and tool compliance can dominate the error at the process point, especially when the tool extends far from the flange.
Ask each integrator to execute the same representative path with the same payload model, tool length, process dwell and stop conditions. Report transfer time, settling time, process time and waiting time separately. Published standard cycles often use different loads and distances; dividing one catalogue cycle by another would not establish the production advantage of AUBO-i3 over RealMan RM65-B. Use a measured or validated application cycle before assigning a throughput benefit.
Programming, controls and production integration
AUBO-i3 is paired here with AUBO CB-M control box, while RealMan RM65-B uses Integrated in the robot base. Controller names identify the review baseline rather than a guarantee that all interface options are included. Compare the actual software revision, teaching workflow, diagnostic tools, fieldbus licences and recovery procedures. An existing trained team and reusable production code may outweigh a small dimensional advantage. Obtain a demonstration of the same machine handshake and interrupted-cycle recovery on both platforms.
Specify the PLC handshakes before ordering: cycle request, ready, busy, complete, fault, part present and recovery authorization. Define how an interrupted operation resumes without repeating a dangerous or quality-critical action. Vision, force sensing, fieldbus communication and external-axis coordination must be checked as explicit included or optional functions. An Ethernet connector does not by itself prove that a particular industrial protocol or software interface is licensed and supported.
Protection, installation and maintenance
Match the precise protection package to the process. Standard, protected, cleanroom, foundry and washing configurations can have different seals, services and maintenance requirements. Do not transfer the best optional IP or cleanroom rating to an unprotected base model. Check the controller location, cable bend radius, available lifting access and base reactions with the installer.
Treat safe operation as a property of the complete task and installation. Include the tool, sharp workpiece edges, trapping points, dropped loads and machine access. A collaborative arm does not make an unrestricted-speed application safe. Validate the required speed, force and separation measures with the actual parts. Plan tool replacement and fault recovery without dismantling the whole installation, and include connector access, lubrication and spare-cable replacement in the maintenance layout.
Price and lifecycle value
Published arm list prices: AUBO-i3 is listed from $21,200 and RealMan RM65-B is listed from $17,910. Request configuration-specific quotations for AUBO-i3 and RealMan RM65-B. An arm-only number is not the price of a commissioned production cell. Ask for separate line items for controller, pendant, communication options, end effector, safety equipment, installation, acceptance, training and warranty. Price changes, regional support and included software can reverse an apparent hardware-cost advantage. Compare the same delivered scope before calculating payback.
Compare the installed production scope: tool, fixtures, sensing, guarding, machine interface, programming, acceptance and training. For small-parts automation, include feeders, vision calibration, nests and rejected-part handling. Keep purchase cost and recurring support costs separate. No payback figure is defensible until the actual cycle, yield, utilization and installation quotation are known.
Selection and acceptance plan
Decision gate | AUBO-i3 | RealMan RM65-B |
|---|---|---|
Strongest documented fit | 3 kg collaborative-platform handling within the documented 625 mm working reference | 5 kg collaborative-platform handling within the documented 610 mm working reference |
Main boundary | Tool mass, wrist moments and access constrain the headline specification. | Confirm exact configuration, controller, wrist loading and installation envelope. |
Required approval | Exact AUBO variant, tool load and validated process path | Exact competitor revision, tool load and validated process path |
Acceptance evidence | Agreed parts, path, quality and recovery results | The same agreed parts, path, quality and recovery results |
Advance AUBO-i3 when 3 kg collaborative-platform handling within the documented 625 mm working reference solves the real constraint and its selected configuration passes the load and access checks. Advance RealMan RM65-B when 5 kg collaborative-platform handling within the documented 610 mm working reference provides the more suitable process arrangement. Reject either candidate if a mandatory pose, protection requirement or controller function cannot be demonstrated. A purchasing shortlist should preserve these conditions instead of converting a single catalogue advantage into a blanket recommendation.
Before acceptance, agree the representative parts, tool states, operating sequence and quality criteria with both suppliers. Demonstrate cold start, normal production, rejected parts, interrupted cycles and controlled recovery. Record the final tool data and software backup. This turns the comparison into a repeatable purchasing decision and helps prevent a later fixture change from invalidating the original robot selection.
Frequently asked questions
Which robot is better for this application?
AUBO-i3 is the stronger starting point for 3 kg collaborative-platform handling within the documented 625 mm working reference, while RealMan RM65-B is worth shortlisting for 5 kg collaborative-platform handling within the documented 610 mm working reference. The final choice depends on the real loaded path, required protection, controls and acceptance results. Neither a higher payload nor a longer reach establishes a universal winner.
What payload should I use for the comparison?
Use 3 kg for the specified AUBO-i3 example and 5 kg for RealMan RM65-B, subject to all documented load and orientation conditions. Include the tool, adapters, sensors and carried part. Confirm exact configuration, controller, wrist loading and installation envelope.
Does the stated reach guarantee access to my fixture?
No. The comparison gives 625 mm for AUBO-i3 and 610 mm for RealMan RM65-B using the stated model references. Joint limits, reach reference points, wrist orientation, tool length and collisions determine whether the actual fixture is accessible. Simulate the full approach and exit path.
Can I use the best specifications from every family variant?
No. Keep each named model and revision intact. A different arm length, controller generation or protection option can change the relevant specification. Do not combine one version’s maximum payload with another version’s maximum reach.
Is repeatability the same as finished-part accuracy?
No. The stated values are ±0.02 mm for AUBO-i3 scope and ±0.05 mm for the competitor scope. Finished-part results also depend on fixtures, TCP calibration, sensing, thermal conditions and tool compliance. Validate the actual process instead of treating catalogue repeatability as a complete accuracy guarantee.
How should purchase prices be compared?
Use current written quotations for AUBO-i3 and RealMan RM65-B with the same arm, controller, software, tooling and commissioning scope. This comparison does not represent an ATC sales offer or stock confirmation. Historical review figures are not a substitute for a configuration-specific purchase quotation.
Can these robots operate safely next to people without guarding?
These specifications do not establish a safe unguarded installation. Assess the complete task, tool, load and machine interface, then implement and validate the required safeguarding and operating procedures. Do not infer collaborative operation from a compact arm, limited payload or education setting.
What should an acceptance test compare?
Use the same parts, actual tool load, fixture locations, path and quality criteria for AUBO-i3 and RealMan RM65-B. Check production timing, settling, interruptions and recovery. Include the most difficult loaded approach and retreat. Approve the exact delivered configuration and preserve its final settings.
Related ATC reviews
Specifications describe the model scope identified above. Prices are indicative historical review references and may change. Confirm current manufacturer documentation, local supply, controller compatibility and the exact configuration before purchase.
