Automated Guided Vehicles (AGVs) are an essential part of warehouse automation. They reduce manual labor, support continuous operations, and help maintain predictable material flow. As more facilities look to expand automation, the number of commercially available AGV platforms continues to grow.
However, not all AGVs are built alike. Selecting the right platform is not just about speed or weight capacity. Practical considerations like layout, safety systems, ease of maintenance, and restart behavior under fault conditions can have a greater long-term impact than headline specifications.
This article compares two AGV platforms developed by Supplier A and Supplier B. Both were tested under identical conditions in a warehouse environment, with repeat tasks and controlled failure simulations. The goal was to understand how each design holds up in practice, particularly under real-world operational stress.
Evaluation Focus
The evaluation followed a structured framework with the following seven focus areas:
- Structural design and internal layout
- Battery system and swap ergonomics
- Drive motor and traction performance
- Human-machine interface and control access
- Obstacle detection and safety redundancy
- Manual movement and maintainability
- Fault recovery and restart behavior
Each platform performed repeat cycles along the same transport route while engineers observed system behavior under normal and abnormal conditions.
Structural Design and Movement
Both platforms supported the required payload and showed adequate structural stability during testing. However, the internal layout and chassis structure varied significantly.
Supplier A featured a tightly integrated design, with vibration-sensitive components located away from high-impact areas. This setup minimized electrical interference and protected circuit boards from mechanical stress. By contrast, Supplier B used a more modular layout, which improved service access but introduced narrow clearances between components. During testing, mechanical contact occurred in specific zones when the unit encountered floor shocks.
The two units also differed in maneuverability. Supplier A completed a 180-degree turn with a cart in 3040 mm. Supplier B required 3650 mm for the same maneuver. In dense fulfillment centers with narrow aisles, tighter turning radii increase flexibility in route planning and layout design.
Battery Configuration and Swap Procedure
Battery capacity and runtime were comparable between the two AGVs, but the swap procedure introduced meaningful differences.
Supplier A used a 100Ah battery that lasted 12 hours on a full charge and recharged in 5 hours. Supplier B used a 70Ah battery that lasted more than 10 hours but required up to 8 hours for a full recharge.
The main distinction came from battery replacement. Supplier A’s battery was mounted at standing height, with guide rails that aligned the battery automatically with the charging cart. This minimized the effort needed and eliminated the need for operators to squat or manually adjust connectors. Supplier B’s battery design required a lower posture and careful manual alignment to connect and disconnect the power terminals.
For facilities that perform multiple swaps per shift, ergonomic design affects efficiency, worker fatigue, and long-term safety.
Drive System Performance
Both platforms used dual-motor differential drives capable of moving up to 1000 kg at speeds of 60 meters per minute. Each handled basic transport, acceleration, and cornering without fault during short-term testing.
However, without extended runtime testing, it is unclear how either drive system performs over thousands of cycles. Continuous-use sites should plan longer-term assessments to evaluate motor wear, gear degradation, and traction control over time.
Drive systems that show early signs of decline can increase maintenance demands and reduce system availability. Lifecycle testing is an important step in any full-scale deployment plan.
Interface and Control Access
Each AGV relied on a vendor-designed single-board controller with no industrial PLC. This limited architecture met daily control needs but introduced tradeoffs in access and security.
Supplier B used a touchscreen that allowed users to configure settings, view logs, and make route changes directly on the unit. This streamlined system updates, but creates risks. Anyone with access could change control settings, increasing the risk of accidental misconfiguration. Supplier A used a sealed button panel and required an external device for updates or diagnostics.
While Supplier B’s touchscreen reduced setup time, it also required more staff training. Supplier A’s button-based interface was more limited but easier to manage in operations where staff frequently rotate or lack deep technical training.
Safety and Obstacle Detection
Safety was one of the most significant differences between the platforms.
Both AGVs used laser-based PBS-03 sensors for frontal object detection. These sensors worked well under ideal conditions. However, Supplier A added mechanical bump sensors on the front and sides as a secondary safety layer. These physical sensors triggered a stop when contacted by any object. Supplier B relied only on laser detection.
During testing, Supplier B’s sensors failed to detect dark or fast-moving objects under low lighting. Supplier A’s bump sensors stopped the unit in similar situations where the laser sensors did not activate.
In real warehouse environments where visibility changes and foot traffic is unpredictable, physical redundancy in safety systems helps prevent accidents.
Manual Handling and Maintainability
Manual movement becomes necessary when an AGV loses power or encounters an unplanned obstruction.
Supplier A included a clutch system that disengaged the drive motor, allowing the unit to roll freely without pushing against mechanical resistance. This feature also protected control circuits from voltage feedback during movement. Supplier B lacked this clutch. Operators had to shut down the power and push the unit manually against motor resistance. The unit lacked dedicated handles, making repositioning more difficult.
Facilities with tight layouts or frequent manual recovery needs benefit from systems that reduce strain during repositioning.
Fault Recovery and Restart Behavior
Both AGVs restarted as expected after standard stop-start cycles. During a simulated emergency stop, however, one Supplier B unit failed to resume regular operation. A loose emergency stop base caused the system to reset and drop its saved configuration. It took engineers several minutes to restore functionality.
Supplier A restarted without any issues after identical testing. This suggests a more robust internal recovery process and better protection against configuration loss.
AGVs that cannot recover automatically from common fault states put extra pressure on support staff and can increase downtime in facilities without in-house engineering teams.
Cost and Vendor Support
The unit cost for Supplier A was ¥88,495. Supplier B was priced at ¥71,808, offering a 23 percent savings for the same route configuration involving three AGVs over a 1300-meter path.
Supplier B’s team responded quickly to support requests during testing. They also implemented design changes without delay. Supplier A responded more slowly but required fewer design changes during the test phase, reflecting a more stable platform.
Procurement teams must weigh the tradeoff between initial cost and the ongoing need for vendor support. Rapid feedback loops are helpful in pilot phases, but stable platforms can reduce technical intervention after launch.
Comparison Summary
| Category | Supplier A | Supplier B |
| Structure | Compact, vibration-resistant | Modular, easier to service |
| Turning Radius | 3040 mm | 3650 mm |
| Battery Swap | Standing height, guided rails | Manual alignment, squatting |
| Drive System | Stable in short-term use | Stable in short-term use |
| Interface | Sealed buttons, external config | Touchscreen, full access |
| Safety Redundancy | Laser and mechanical sensors | Laser only |
| Manual Movement | Clutch included | No clutch, more resistance |
| Recovery Behavior | Immediate restart | Manual config restore needed |
| Unit Price | ¥88,495 | ¥71,808 |
| Vendor Support | Fewer changes, slower response | Fast changes, responsive team |
Conclusion
Both AGVs completed their assigned tasks under the same test conditions. However, key design differences affected performance, reliability, and long-term fit.
Supplier A offered more robust recovery, easier battery handling, and safer manual movement. Its protective design also helped reduce issues during high-impact events. Supplier B delivered a lower upfront cost and responsive vendor support but required more hands-on intervention during testing and presented a recovery issue that caused downtime.
Procurement decisions should go beyond specs and focus on actual performance under operational stress. Facilities benefit from real-world testing that includes recovery, safety, and handling scenarios. Limited deployment pilots can help confirm stability before broader adoption.
About the Author
Xiaoming Li is an industrial systems engineer specializing in warehouse automation and robotics integration. With hands-on experience in AGV platform testing and deployment, Xiaoming focuses on bridging engineering design with real-world operational performance.
