Which robotics applications can deliver a customer payback period below two years under real operating conditions?

Evidence(6)

1. 

   Hollar deploys InVia robots for goods-to-person picking

   [5]

   2018

   InVia’s robots were deployed at the beginning of 2018. The AMR-enabled process increased orders picked fivefold and allowed Hollar to operate with one-fifth of the otherwise required workforce. InVia charged per robot cycle under a transactional Robots-as-a-Service model; the source described the payback as almost immediate, but also noted that Hollar still paid implementation costs. The deployment and implementation timing support warehouse picking as a qualifying application when labor is genuinely avoided and usage pricing remains below the comparable human activity cost.

   1

   This is the earliest specifically dated operating example in the report. It supports goods-to-person warehouse picking as a potential sub-two-year application, while the report cautions that RaaS economics are not directly comparable with conventional upfront-capex payback.

   See how this bears on the question
2. 

   APT publishes a 33-week CNC machine-tending return

   [2]

   12 Apr 2019

   APT reported implementation of a FANUC Robodrill machine tender. The project investment was $87,000, with stated savings of $2,610 per week under a two-shift, five-day schedule and a reported return on investment of 33 weeks. The case supports CNC machine tending as a strong sub-two-year application because the benefit came from machine utilization and cycle consistency as well as labor economics.

   See how this bears on the question
3. 

   DENSO operates MiR robots for line-side material transport

   [1]

   Sept 2020

   DENSO reported operating MiR robots since September 2020. Associates had been walking up to 12 miles per day and spending about 60% of their time pushing carts. The conveyance automation freed six workers for value-added roles, and DENSO reported indirect-cost ROI of one year or less. The case supports AMR transport as a sub-two-year application when routes are frequent and repetitive and the labor burden is substantial; redeployment alone should not be treated automatically as avoided cash cost.

   See how this bears on the question
4. 

   Vention reports a 20-month palletizing return

   [4]

   22 Jan 2024

   Vention reported that its Rev-A-Shelf palletizing deployment reallocated eight operators within six months and achieved a return on investment in just 20 months. The case supports palletizing and case packing where repetitive heavy work, labor scarcity and multi-line utilization create measurable savings. The report excludes Vention’s separate forecasted one-year result from the historical evidence because it was not an achieved payback.

   See how this bears on the question
5. 

   Teradyne reports FY2025 results used as a shareholder-return caution

   [7]

   2 Feb 2026

   Teradyne reported its fourth-quarter and full-year 2025 results on February 2, 2026. The supplied report uses the results as a counterweight to application-level payback claims: a customer can achieve strong operational economics while the equipment supplier’s Robotics revenue still declines. Accordingly, a sub-two-year customer case is not treated as a standalone buy signal for a robotics stock.

   See how this bears on the question
6. 

   Assatec publishes actual Israeli robotic-cell payback cases

   [3]

   28 May 2026

   Assatec reported three actual robotic-cell outcomes: a FANUC ARC Mate welding cell with 13.2 months of payback, an end-of-line palletizing cell with 19.5 months, and a medical-electronics cobot assembly cell with 22 months. The welding case combined labor redeployment with lower rejects, while the palletizing case included fewer back injuries and lower absenteeism. The assembly result remains below two years but is treated as a boundary case because it required less labor-intensive economics and was close to the cutoff.

   See how this bears on the question