This article is from the WeChat public account:Note Master, author: Lao Jia, original title: “China and the U.S. are Competing for this Trillion Dollar Market!”, cover image from: Visual China
Note Master says:
Yesterday, U.S. President Trump personally confirmed that the tariff rate on Chinese imports will not remain at the current level (145%), “it will drop significantly, but it will not go to zero,” while Trump is confident that “China will be very satisfied with the final tariff rate.”
In addition, Trump also stated that although he is dissatisfied with the Federal Reserve’s failure to cut interest rates in a timely manner, he has “no intention of removing Powell from office.”
Trump greatly underestimates the difficulty of splitting the global supply chain; the tariff measures he employs are akin to a simplistic and crude approach.
However, we still cannot underestimate Trump, as his observations about the decline of American industry are entirely accurate, and he sees a trend—the era of Industry 4.0 is about to arrive.
The era of Industry 1.0 refers to the mechanical revolution at the end of the 18th century, the era of Industry 2.0 is the revolution of assembly line production, Industry 3.0 refers to the information and digital production revolution, and Industry 4.0 is marked by the comprehensive intelligent revolution of industry represented by industrial robots.
There is no doubt that the U.S. maintains a leading position in the technology field, especially in AI algorithms and high-end software ecosystems, globally. Moreover, as an energy powerhouse, this determines that the U.S. has great potential in industrial robot technology.
Meanwhile, China, with policy support, advantages in the industrial chain, and accelerated domestic substitution, has become the world’s largest industrial robot market (accounting for 51% of global installations in 2023).
If there are any countries that truly have the strength to seize the opportunities of the Industry 4.0 era, it can only be China and the U.S.
Today, we will analyze the competition logic between China and the U.S. in the industrial robot track from four dimensions: market status, differences in paths, future trends, and challenges.
We hope today’s content will inspire you.
1. Global Industrial Robot Market Status
Industrial robots, also known as production robots, are not the clumsy mechanical arms we used to see, but rather “intelligent production experts” with three core capabilities:
First, autonomous navigation, which allows them to accurately position themselves in real-time using sensors, like experienced drivers.
Second, flexible transformation, enabling them to quickly switch programs based on different work tasks; for example, moving goods today and welding tomorrow.
Third, stable output, with a repeat positioning accuracy of up to 0.02 millimeters, which is much steadier than human hands.
These characteristics make them the “saviors” of flexible manufacturing—from the welding workshops in automobile factories to the precision assembly lines in mobile phone production, they replace humans in completing high-repetition, high-precision, and high-risk “three high” tasks.
Industrial robots can be categorized by function into handling robots, processing robots, assembly robots, spraying robots, and more.
Additionally, there are other types of industrial robots, such as laser processing robots and vacuum robots, which are applied in special fields like laser processing and vacuum environment operations.
Industrial robots not only improve efficiency but also represent a revolutionary change in production relationships.
In the automotive industry, welding robots have compressed the production cycle of a single vehicle from 72 hours to 18 hours; in the 3C electronics sector, assembly robots have reduced the model change time on mobile phone production lines from 2 hours to 15 minutes; in aerospace special scenarios, vacuum robots have solved the problem of extreme environment operations that humans cannot endure.
1. Market Size and Competitive Landscape
You may not know that for every two industrial robots produced globally, one is in China. In 2024, China’s industrial robot output is expected to reach 556,400 units, a year-on-year increase of 14.2%, with the market size approaching 70 billion—this figure is equivalent to one-tenth of Tesla’s total global revenue in 2024.
But don’t think this is just us “self-indulging.” The global market is also making crazy bets: the five major industrial countries—China, the U.S., Japan, South Korea, and Germany—plan to invest over $13 billion in robot research and development by 2025.
Why? Because “replacing humans with machines” is no longer a choice but a matter of survival.
Everyone knows that the hourly wage of Chinese workers is lower than that of American workers, but the installation density of robots in China is many times that of the U.S.
Why? Behind this is a threefold consideration of policy + industrial chain + cost in China.
There is an interesting detail here: in 2024, China’s industrial robot sales are expected to decline by 5% year-on-year, but exports are expected to grow against the trend by 15%. What does this indicate? The domestic market is digesting inventory, while the overseas market is being opened up by Chinese brands, and stepping onto the international stage has become a necessary path for Chinese industrial robot manufacturers.
Currently, manufacturing a mechanical arm similar to Universal Robots UR5e (Danish UR collaborative robot) in the U.S. costs about 2.2 times that of China. More critically, even if labeled “Made in America,” these components still heavily rely on Chinese parts and raw materials, and there are no alternative solutions available.
The global robotics industry is relatively concentrated, mainly dominated by four major families: Japan’s FANUC, Japan’s Yaskawa, Germany’s KUKA (acquired by China’s Midea), and Switzerland’s ABB.
These “four families” continue to maintain a leading position in the robotics industry, occupying half of the global market share, thanks to their deep technical accumulation in fields such as machine tools, servo systems, and welding equipment.
In the Chinese market, although the “four families” once occupied 70% of the market share, this figure has now dropped to 30% with the rise of domestic brands.
As an industry currently leading in growth, industrial robots are being favored by various regions in China, especially driven by the strong leadership and accelerated layout in the two major economic hubs of the Pearl River Delta and the Yangtze River Delta, regions like Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei, Central China, Western China, and Northeast China are speeding up their entry, forming a “six major regional linkage” group combat situation.
Chinese robot companies are rapidly rising, with companies like Estun, Efort, and Siasun accelerating their layout through acquisitions of European companies.
These companies adopt a deep vertical integration strategy: Estun self-develops and produces 95% of core components, achieving rapid product iteration; Efort plans to increase annual production capacity by 100,000 units with a “super factory”; Siasun’s global production base reaches 2.3 million square feet, while acquiring a German mechanical engineering school and establishing a robotics academy to build a dual-cycle system of technology and talent.
Although the traditional four giants (ABB, KUKA, Fanuc, Yaskawa) still dominate the industrial robot market, their innovation lag has opened a breakthrough opportunity for Chinese companies.
The expansion of Chinese companies is not only a corporate behavior but also a systematic breakthrough driven by national strategy.
2. Industrial Chain and Technical Bottlenecks
The cost structure of industrial robots is very similar to that of smartphones, with 70% of the money spent on “invisible” core components.
The industrial chain of this industry can be divided into three major links: upstream providing basic raw materials and core components, midstream manufacturing complete robots, and downstream system integration and application of robots.
The upstream of the industrial chain mainly provides basic raw materials and core components, with key core components including servo systems, reducers, and controllers, which directly affect the performance, stability, and load capacity of robots.
Reducers, servo systems, and controllers may sound dull, but to put it simply: the reducer is the “joint,” the servo system is the “muscle,” and the controller is the “brain.” Meanwhile, China is staging a “domestic substitution” counterattack.
For example, the localization rate of harmonic reducers has surged from 20% five years ago to 52.5%, with companies like New Jian Transmission and Green Harmonic even entering overseas supply chains. However, high-end chips remain a “hard injury”—NVIDIA’s AI training chips and Qualcomm’s edge computing solutions still monopolize the computing power of the robot’s “brain.”
What is most concerning is the “software hegemony.” 80% of the value of global robots still lies in software, and the U.S. relies on tools like VLA visual language models and Google Gemini’s spatial algorithms to maintain a high ground in “intelligent decision-making.”
Chinese manufacturers like Yushu Technology and UBTECH may have lower hardware costs, but to make robots “understand human language” and “avoid obstacles autonomously,” they still need to pay some tuition to Silicon Valley.
3. Differentiation of Application Scenarios
The battlefield of industrial robots is no longer as simple as factory assembly lines.
In China, new energy vehicles are the number one “gold master”—a car’s white body requires over 3,000 welding points, relying on workers? It’s more reliable to let welding robots work 24 hours a day.
In 2024, sales of welding robots are expected to surge, with shipyards around the world scrambling to purchase mechanical arms produced in China. Another invisible battlefield is in 3C electronics. The 60% of assembly processes in our smartphones are also contracted by SCARA (KUKA) robots.
Looking elsewhere, robots in semiconductor workshops delicately handle chips like embroiderers, while mechanical hands on new energy production lines stack batteries more deftly than playing mahjong.
Moreover, for large items like photovoltaic panels and power batteries, everything from cutting to stacking is now handled by mechanical arms. Even the delivery warehouse workers and production lines for smart home devices have become new stages for industrial robots.
And what about the U.S.? They prefer “high precision and sophistication.” Boston Dynamics’ Atlas robot can do backflips, Tesla’s Optimus moves goods in warehouses, and Figure AI’s medical robots can even assist in surgeries.
But here’s the problem: these flashy products are particularly expensive, and their mass production capabilities cannot keep up; one surgical robot costs as much as ten welding machines in China.
So you see, China is “crushing with scale,” while the U.S. is “showing off technology”; neither side can afford to relax.
Because everyone knows that the future battle may take place in two new arenas—humanoid robots and AI embodied intelligence.
The global industrial robot market is like a “Game of Thrones”: China is surging forward with its industrial chain and cost advantages, while the U.S. builds a moat with AI and software.
But don’t forget, the true winner will always be the one who can “be a welder” and “write code” at the same time.
2. What Insights Can We Gain from the Comprehensive Comparison of China and the U.S.?
1. A Comprehensive Comparison of China and the U.S. Across Dimensions
In terms of power systems, Chinese players are all using electric drives, with Yushu Technology’s high-torque motors directly cutting costs to the heels of Boston Dynamics’ hydraulic systems, while UBTECH has even brought the price of bipedal robots down to the level of domestic cars.
In algorithms, both sides have their own tricks. Chinese companies are using BYD’s factory’s customized secrets to achieve a task success rate of 98%.
① Supply Chain
China’s localization of harmonic reducers has directly reduced prices by 40%, with Yushu Technology’s self-developed motors accounting for 80%, but high-end chips still depend on the U.S.;
American Tesla robots’ joint modules and Boston Dynamics’ electric Atlas both require Japan and South Korea as core supply chains.
② Application Scenarios
UBTECH’s educational robots account for 60% of total revenue; Yushu G1 is turning to enterprise customization.
American Tesla’s Optimus is planning mass production in factories, preparing to deliver 10,000 units by 2025, while Figure AI’s medical robots have just passed FDA certification, adding more value in medical scenarios.
③ Mass Production Capability
China’s Huichuan Technology’s servo systems have an annual output of 10 million units, harmonic reducers have an annual capacity of 500,000 units; UBTECH’s Liuzhou factory plans to produce 20,000 units annually, but the actual delivery volume is less than 1,000 units. In the U.S., Tesla’s Optimus claims to reach a monthly production of 10,000 units by 2026, but currently can only produce a few hundred units each month.
④ Capital Support
Chinese companies like Meituan and CATL are making all-in-one investments (Meituan led the C round investment in Yushu Technology), personally getting involved in organizing and emphasizing industrial chain collaboration; however, the secondary market lacks confidence (UBTECH’s performance in Hong Kong stocks has been mediocre).
On the American side, Figure AI’s current valuation is $40 billion, relying on venture capital from firms like Sequoia and a16z; Tesla uses cash flow to support Optimus’ research and development, essentially using the money from car sales to support this “favorite child” of robots, which has a stronger risk resistance.
In terms of policy orientation, China’s “14th Five-Year Plan” lists humanoid robots as a strategic emerging industry, with cities like Beijing and Shenzhen offering a 15% tax credit for R&D however, data security laws restrict foreign technology cooperation.
The U.S. CHIPS Act directly disrupts supply, restricting the export of high-end AI chips to China, and the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency funds Boston Dynamics’ military projects, with strict oversight on technology exports.
2. Insights from the Competition and Cooperation between China and the U.S. in Industrial Robots
It is not difficult to see from the comparison that in this competition, China quickly seizes the market with cost advantages and vertical integration, while the U.S. leads high-end scenarios with technological breakthroughs and ecosystem construction.
To truly achieve an industrial leap, Chinese companies need to maintain strategic determination in localization while also learning from the following experiences of American companies:
First, find a “third way” in balancing performance and cost.
Although American hydraulic drives and general algorithms are costly, they validate the engineering limits of complex scenarios; China’s electric drive solutions are efficient and practical, but caution is needed to avoid excessive cost competition leading to technological stagnation.
In the future, modular design can be explored, aligning core components (such as high-precision sensors) with American performance standards while maintaining China’s manufacturing advantages in mass production, creating a flexible technology system that is “performance expandable and cost controllable.”
Second, establish a balance between deep cultivation of scenarios and general intelligence.
Although American end-to-end neural networks and other general technologies are slow to land, they lay a solid foundation for long-term evolution; China’s customized solutions yield quick results but can easily fall into the trap of fragmented technology.
A research and development mechanism should be established to “feed back general capabilities from specialized scenarios,” such as summarizing and refining the customized experiences of various factories into a reusable “process knowledge base,” while also learning from Tesla’s FSD algorithm’s continuous evolution model to promote the upgrade of specialized technology to semi-general technology architecture.
Third, grasp the dynamic balance between supply chain security and technological openness.
The U.S. maintains technological hegemony through global division of labor, while China strengthens its industrial foundation through domestic substitution, but both face the risk of “decoupling and breaking chains.”
Here, we can refer to Silicon Valley’s “open hardware + ecological authorization” model, ensuring control over the industrial chain while co-establishing precision component joint laboratories with leading companies in Japan and South Korea; at the same time, we can learn from Boston Dynamics’ “military-to-civilian” technology transformation mechanism to explore the civilianization path of cutting-edge technologies in aerospace and military fields.
The ultimate competition of industrial robots is essentially a protracted battle of innovative ecosystems.
China must leverage its policy-driven industrial cluster advantages while also cultivating an enterprise ecosystem like Tesla that promotes a positive cycle of “technology-capital-scenario.”
Learning from the excellent is not about “diminishing our own prestige while raising others’ spirits,” but rather about developing better and accelerating our pace of catching up.
Only when domestic robots can compete with Boston Dynamics in automobile factories and match Figure AI in operating rooms can we truly achieve the transformation from a follower to a leader.
3. Future Trends: The Intertwined Game of Technological Integration and Global Competition
1. Pathways to Breakthroughs in Technical Bottlenecks
① Electrification of Power Systems.
For instance, Boston Dynamics has abandoned hydraulic technology, and Tesla’s Optimus fully adopts self-developed motors, marking that electric drive has become the industry mainstream.
However, this brings about a new problem regarding energy solutions; the ideal energy solution needs to meet a power density of over 300-500 watts per square meter and a charge-discharge cycle of over 1,000 times, which is a very stringent standard.
Only by overcoming the challenges of energy technology can we provide more durable and stable power support for industrial robots, enabling broader application scenarios.
China, relying on rare earth permanent magnet materials and large-scale manufacturing advantages, will significantly reduce motor costs; for example, Yushu Technology aims to lower the price of joint modules from the current $600 to $200 by 2028. The U.S. will break through through solid-state battery technology to compensate for the shortcomings of industrial robot endurance.
We can make an analogy: in 2024, training a robot to perform the action of picking up a cup will consume 100 kilowatt-hours of electricity; by 2030, it is estimated that charging a mobile phone will be enough to teach a robot to make fried rice.
② The Paradigm Revolution of Embodied Intelligence Leading to Explosive Training Efficiency.
Figure AI’s Helix system, combined with Tesla’s Dojo supercomputer, will drive a hundredfold increase in “end-to-end” neural network training efficiency, equivalent to the learning speed of robots directly transforming from infants to sprinters.
It is expected that by 2028, breakthroughs in reinforcement learning algorithms aided by quantum computing will enable industrial robots to adapt to dynamic environments at a level close to that of humans.
It is very likely that future surgical robots, even if they have never seen a medical record before entering the operating room, will be able to infer the best plan through data reasoning, surpassing experienced old doctors.
2. Scale Effects Brought by Cost Reduction
By 2025, global shipments of humanoid robots are expected to exceed 20,000 units.
By 2027, the penetration rate of industrial robots is expected to surge from 5% to 30%, replacing 50% of repetitive jobs, with the daily output value of each robot reaching $500, which is one-third of the current output value of high-end American workers;
At the same time, the price of household service robots is expected to drop to $10,000, focusing on cleaning, companionship, and education functions, which will give rise to the next trillion-dollar market.
In the U.S., moving heavy objects over 25 kilograms requires auxiliary equipment, while this robot is expected to handle 30-40 kilograms of lifting work, effectively replacing humans in high-intensity and high-risk physical labor.
Moreover, there are many positions in industrial production lines that are unsuitable for human operation or may cause harm to the human body; these scenarios also urgently require humanoid robots.
Additionally, special operations such as disaster rescue and space exploration will significantly reduce the cost of executing tasks using industrial robots.
More importantly, heavy-duty joint actuators are an important direction for future development; if humanoid robots can achieve a thrust of 1 ton at each joint, it will greatly expand the application boundaries of robots. However, the core technology in this field is still monopolized by foreign companies.
Some experts believe that Chinese humanoid robot companies should not blindly pursue “large and comprehensive” system development but should focus on key materials, core components, and innovative algorithms.
Innovative breakthroughs in new algorithms, new materials, and new components are likely to trigger disruptive changes in the industry, becoming the core driving force for the development of the entire humanoid robot industry.
3. Global Competition Simulation
By 2040, humanoid robots will complete the cognitive leap from “tools” to “partners,” with the global industry scale expected to exceed $10 trillion.
Faced with such a huge market, China and the U.S. will engage in rule games around the software and hardware technologies of industrial robots, data sovereignty, technical standards, and employment policies.
China, with its advantage of holding 80% of the global market share in rare earth processing and the localization of core components such as reducers, joint modules, and sensors, will become the “hardware factory” for global robots.
The U.S., through 3D printing, composite materials technology (such as Boston Dynamics’ carbon fiber joints), and its leading position in software ecosystems, will maintain 20%-30% of the high-end market share in the industrial robot industry.
Conclusion
The industrial robot track is not only a technological competition but also a struggle between national strategies and industrial ecosystems.
China accelerates domestic substitution with policy and scale advantages, while the U.S. consolidates high-end barriers with AI innovation.
In the future, technological integration and regional differentiation will run in parallel, while supply chain resilience, ethical governance, and global cooperation will become key variables determining victory or defeat.
The competition between the Chinese and American robotics industries is essentially a confrontation between two innovative paradigms.
China excels in industrial chain integration and cost control, quickly occupying the mid-range market through policy-driven strategies, but it needs to address the issue of being “large but not strong.”
The U.S. builds technological barriers relying on cutting-edge algorithms and capital density, but faces dual challenges of commercialization and social acceptance.
In the future, both sides may move towards “differentiated symbiosis”—China leading in education, service robots, and core component supply, while the U.S. monopolizes the high-end industrial and medical robot markets.
However, Tesla Optimus’ ambition to price at $20,000 and Figure AI’s blueprint for general embodied intelligence may completely rewrite the competition rules. This contest, concerning future productivity, is not only a marathon of technology but also a total war of ecosystems.
The best teacher is our opponent.
Undoubtedly, while both China and the U.S. have their strengths in the field of industrial robots, the U.S. still leads us significantly in software, algorithms, and high-end technology. We must not close ourselves off but actively learn the most advanced technologies and research concepts from the U.S.
This article is from the WeChat public account:Note Master, author: Lao Jia
This content represents the author’s independent viewpoint and does not represent the position of Huxiu. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited; for authorization matters, please contact [email protected]. If you have any objections or complaints regarding this article, please contact [email protected].
End
Want to gain knowledge? Follow Huxiu’s video account!