DENSO HM-4085 vs KUKA KR SCARA KR 6 R700: Robot Comparison

IN A NUTSHELL

DENSO HM-4085 vs KUKA KR SCARA KR 6 R700 is a choice about SCARA assembly and planar handling. DENSO HM-4085 and KUKA KR SCARA KR 6 R700 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.

DENSO HM-4085 vs KUKA KR SCARA KR 6 R700: quick verdict

Shortlist DENSO HM-4085 for 10 kg planar handling within the selected 850 mm SCARA envelope. Shortlist KUKA KR SCARA KR 6 R700 for 6 kg planar handling within the selected 700 mm SCARA envelope. Both are four-axis SCARA candidates, so the decisive questions are planar access, vertical stroke, spindle inertia and the complete assembly cycle. Neither supplies independent tool pitch and roll.

The numerical comparison below uses DENSO HM-4085 against KUKA KR SCARA KR 6 R700. 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

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.

DENSO HM-4085: design and configuration

The DENSO HM-4085 is a 4-axis SCARA robot with a 10 kg payload, an 850 mm arm length and ±0.025 mm repeatability. It is built for high-speed assembly, pick-and-place and palletizing of heavier parts over a wide work area, with a standard cycle time of 0.31 s and a maximum composite speed of 11,450 mm/s. Z-axis strokes from 100 to 400 mm are offered. The robot weighs 53 to 56 kg and is floor mounted. The HM-40 model has a 10 kg maximum; the related HM-4A high-payload version is a different robot and must not lend its 20 kg rating to this model. Select the vertical-stroke suffix and standard or protected configuration explicitly. XY, vertical and rotational repeatability are separate specifications. The current manufacturer standard-model table gives ±0.02 mm for combined J1/J2 positioning; the older ATC review lists ±0.025 mm. This comparison identifies the current table scope explicitly and requires matching the offered generation.

KUKA KR SCARA KR 6 R700: design and configuration

The KUKA KR SCARA KR 6 R700 is assessed here at the reviewed 6 kg payload and 700 mm working reference, with 4 arm axes, ±0.02 mm repeatability and the KUKA KR C5 micro controller scope. The four-axis SCARA mechanism supports planar motion, vertical spindle travel and rotation about the vertical axis. Check the inner workspace, Z stroke, spindle inertia and complete loaded assembly sequence separately. Nominal horizontal reach does not establish arbitrary tool pitch and roll.

For this pair, KUKA KR SCARA KR 6 R700 offers 6 kg over the stated 700 mm reference, compared with 10 kg and 850 mm for DENSO HM-4085 example. DENSO HM-4085 has the larger stated distance by 150 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 4.8 kg: a 1.2 kg tool and adapter package carrying a 3.6 kg part or product group. This arithmetic leaves 5.2 kg below the DENSO HM-4085 example’s nominal limit and 1.2 kg below KUKA KR SCARA KR 6 R700’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? KUKA KR SCARA KR 6 R700 is the lower-or-equal nominal payload choice in this pair. DENSO HM-4085 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.

For the two SCARA configurations, model the tool inertia around the vertical spindle as well as total carried mass. A broad multi-part gripper can satisfy the mass limit while exceeding permitted rotational inertia. Set the controller load and inertia parameters for empty and loaded states, then check insertion stroke and any allowable vertical pressing force separately. Nominal cycle figures do not establish performance at maximum payload.

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. DENSO HM-4085 provides a stated 850 mm reference, while KUKA KR SCARA KR 6 R700 provides 700 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 SCARA assembly, check the full XY sweep, inner dead zone and Z stroke. A horizontal reach figure does not establish that the spindle can descend into the fixture without the tool body or cable loop colliding. Vertical pressing force is a separate limit from payload. Validate screwdriving or insertion forces, spindle inertia and settling with the real fixture. Neither robot gains six-axis pitch and roll freedom merely by having enough horizontal reach.

SCARA motion and assembly fit

The selected DENSO HM-4085 and KUKA KR SCARA KR 6 R700 should be assessed on the same horizontal transfer, vertical insertion and rotation sequence. Smaller horizontal reach can support a compact bench; larger reach can serve more nests, but also changes the swept area and cable clearance. Check actual Z stroke and tool length against the lowest station and tallest obstruction. Compare XY repeatability with XY repeatability, while keeping Z and rotational values in their own units.

Precision and throughput: compare the same task

The comparison uses ±0.025 mm for DENSO HM-4085 and ±0.02 mm for KUKA KR SCARA KR 6 R700. 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 DENSO HM-4085 over KUKA KR SCARA KR 6 R700. Use a measured or validated application cycle before assigning a throughput benefit.

Programming, controls and production integration

DENSO HM-4085 is paired here with Confirm offered DENSO controller, while KUKA KR SCARA KR 6 R700 uses KUKA KR C5 micro. 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.

Configuration and communication detail

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. These robot systems require task-specific safeguarding; payload or compact size does not establish safe unguarded operation. 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: DENSO HM-4085 is listed from $32,000 and KUKA KR SCARA KR 6 R700 is listed from $11,000. Request configuration-specific quotations for DENSO HM-4085 and KUKA KR SCARA KR 6 R700. 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

Advance DENSO HM-4085 when 10 kg planar handling within the selected 850 mm SCARA envelope solves the real constraint and its selected configuration passes the load and access checks. Advance KUKA KR SCARA KR 6 R700 when 6 kg planar handling within the selected 700 mm SCARA envelope 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.

Motion architecture and functionality

DENSO HM-4085 has 4 arm axes and KUKA KR SCARA KR 6 R700 has 4 arm axes. A four-axis mechanism cannot independently supply every pitch and roll angle. Assess whether the tool must stay level or be presented at varying attitudes. Compare tool detection, sensing, machine I/O and recovery as separate delivered functions.

Industries and application fit

For DENSO HM-4085 vs KUKA KR SCARA KR 6 R700, use the actual part and process as the industry filter. Electronics assembly, component packaging and small mechanical assembly are plausible candidates when the required movement is primarily horizontal transfer plus vertical insertion. These are application-selection judgments, not claims that either exact model is installed at a named customer. A food, medical-device or clean-production application additionally requires the correct material, lubrication and protection package; the base model name does not establish hygienic or cleanroom compliance.

Frequently asked questions

Which robot is better for this application?

DENSO HM-4085 is the stronger starting point for 10 kg planar handling within the selected 850 mm SCARA envelope, while KUKA KR SCARA KR 6 R700 is worth shortlisting for 6 kg planar handling within the selected 700 mm SCARA envelope. 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 10 kg for the specified DENSO HM-4085 example and 6 kg for KUKA KR SCARA KR 6 R700, subject to all documented load and orientation conditions. Include the tool, adapters, sensors and carried part. Four axes do not provide arbitrary wrist pitch and roll.

Does the stated reach guarantee access to my fixture?

No. The comparison gives 850 mm for DENSO HM-4085 and 700 mm for KUKA KR SCARA KR 6 R700 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 ±0.025 mm for DENSO HM-4085 scope and ±0.02 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 DENSO HM-4085 and KUKA KR SCARA KR 6 R700 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 DENSO HM-4085 and KUKA KR SCARA KR 6 R700. 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

Read the DENSO HM-4085 review

Read the KUKA KR SCARA KR 6 R700 review

Specifications describe the model scope identified above. Purchase pricing requires a current configuration-specific quotation. Confirm current manufacturer documentation, local supply, controller compatibility and the exact configuration before purchase.