A manufacturing manager in Newcastle asked me last month whether they should invest in cobots or traditional industrial robots. My answer was annoying but honest: “It depends.”

Collaborative robots (cobots) get a lot of press. They’re presented as the friendly, flexible alternative to the big scary industrial robots. And sometimes that’s true. But sometimes a traditional robot is exactly what you need.

Here’s how to think about the decision.

What actually makes a robot “collaborative”

The term “cobot” refers to robots designed to work safely alongside humans without physical barriers. They achieve this through:

Force limiting: The robot senses when it contacts something unexpected and stops or reverses.

Speed limiting: Cobots move slower than traditional robots, giving humans time to react.

Safe design: Rounded edges, pinch-point elimination, lightweight arms.

Monitoring systems: Sensors detect human presence and adjust behaviour.

The key distinction: a traditional industrial robot in a cage can’t hurt you because you can’t reach it. A cobot can’t hurt you (in theory) because of how it’s built and controlled.

When cobots make sense

Changing tasks and layouts

If your production changes frequently—different products, different configurations, short runs—cobots shine. You can reprogram them, move them, and set them up without rebuilding safety infrastructure.

One electronics manufacturer I visited produces 40 different products on the same line. Their cobots get reprogrammed weekly. Traditional robots with fixed tooling couldn’t handle that variability.

Tight spaces

Cobots don’t need safety caging, which takes floor space. In cramped facilities, that matters. A cobot can work on a tabletop next to a human operator.

Human-robot collaboration

Some tasks genuinely benefit from combining human dexterity and judgment with robot precision and endurance. A person might position a complex part while a cobot holds it steady and welds. That genuine collaboration is hard with caged robots.

Lower volumes

The total cost of a cobot installation—including programming, integration, and safety assessment—is typically lower than equivalent traditional automation. For tasks where the volume doesn’t justify high-end automation, cobots hit a sweet spot.

Skill constraints

Cobots are generally easier to program. Many use “teach by demonstration”—you physically guide the arm through the motion and it learns. That reduces dependence on specialised programming skills.

When traditional robots make sense

Speed matters

Cobots are inherently slower than traditional industrial robots because of safety requirements. If your cycle time is critical and you’re trying to maximise throughput, traditional robots win.

An automotive supplier I work with considered cobots for a welding application. The cycle time required was 8 seconds. The cobot could do it in 14. Traditional robot it was.

Heavy payloads

Most cobots handle payloads under 15-20 kg. If you’re moving heavy parts, you need traditional robots. There are some higher-payload cobots emerging, but they start losing the cost and simplicity advantages.

Consistent high-volume production

If you’re making the same thing, the same way, for years—traditional automation usually wins on cost per unit. The flexibility of cobots is wasted, and you’re paying for capabilities you don’t need.

Hazardous environments

Cobots’ safety features assume they’re working with humans. But what if the environment is hazardous? Paint booths, foundries, areas with flying debris—you might need a traditional robot in an enclosure anyway.

Precision requirements

The force-limiting features that make cobots safe also affect their precision under load. For extremely tight tolerances, traditional robots with their rigid mechanics perform better.

The hidden factor: System integration

Here’s something vendors don’t emphasise enough: the robot itself is often a small part of the total system cost.

You also need:

• End-of-arm tooling (grippers, welders, etc.)
• Vision systems (if required)
• Material handling (how do parts get to and from the robot?)
• Integration with existing systems
• Safety assessment and certification

These costs are similar whether you choose a cobot or traditional robot. A $40,000 cobot in a $200,000 system doesn’t save much over a $60,000 traditional robot in the same system.

Don’t make decisions based on the robot price alone. Look at total installed cost.

The safety certification question

“Cobots are safe so you don’t need safety assessments.” I’ve heard vendors imply this. It’s misleading.

Even with cobots, you need risk assessment. The risk depends on what the cobot is doing—not just the cobot itself. A cobot holding a sharp tool is dangerous. A cobot moving fast with a heavy payload is dangerous. A cobot in a cramped space might trap someone against a wall.

Australian standards (AS/ISO 10218 and ISO/TS 15066) still apply. You still need to assess and document the risks. Cobots may reduce the required mitigations, but they don’t eliminate the process.

Questions to ask yourself

1. What’s the task? Describe exactly what the robot needs to do. That determines requirements.

2. What’s the cycle time requirement? Speed-critical applications favour traditional robots.

3. What’s the payload? Above 15 kg, traditional robots are usually needed.

4. How often does the task change? Frequent changes favour cobots.

5. Do humans need to work alongside the robot? Genuine collaboration needs cobots. If humans can stay away, traditional robots work.

6. What precision is required? Tight tolerances may need traditional robots.

7. What’s the production volume? High volume, long runs favour optimised traditional automation.

8. What skills do you have? Cobot programming is more accessible; traditional robots may need specialists.

9. What’s the space situation? Tight spaces favour cobots.

10. What’s the safety environment? Hazardous environments may need enclosures regardless.

A practical approach

If you’re uncertain, here’s a sensible process:

Step 1: Define the application precisely. What tasks, what cycle times, what quality requirements.

Step 2: Get proposals for both approaches from qualified integrators. Not just robot vendors—system integrators who do the whole job.

Step 3: Compare total installed costs, not just robot costs.

Step 4: Talk to similar companies who’ve implemented each approach. What worked? What didn’t?

Step 5: Consider flexibility value. Even if traditional is cheaper today, will your needs change?

The Australian context

Robot adoption in Australian manufacturing lags larger economies. Part of that is scale—smaller production runs often don’t justify automation. Cobots can change that equation for some applications.

Several Australian integrators now specialise in cobot deployments, making expertise more accessible than it was a few years ago. If you’ve looked at automation before and concluded it didn’t make sense, it might be worth another look with cobots in the mix.

The choice between cobots and traditional robots isn’t ideological. It’s practical. Match the technology to your specific requirements, and you’ll make the right call.