Mobile Transport Robots vs. Conveyor Technology vs. Forklifts – What Pays Off and When?
A comparison of mobile robots, conveyor technology, and forklifts in intralogistics – with tips for selecting the right Solution.
In a nutshell: Mobile robots offer a flexible, scalable, and automatable transport Solution in intralogistics – especially when processes change frequently, labor costs are high, or round-the-clock operations are required. Conveyor technology excels at maximum throughput for stable, standardized processes, while forklifts demonstrate their strengths in spontaneous, manual flexibility. The right choice depends on volume, process structure, budget, and scaling requirements – and often a smart combination is the most effective approach.
Market Overview: AGVs and AMRs on the Rise in Europe
Mobile transport robots – including Automated Guided Vehicles (AGV) and Autonomous Mobile Robots (AMR) – are currently experiencing a boom in logistics and manufacturing. Installation numbers worldwide have risen rapidly in recent years: while around 52,000 such vehicles were newly installed in 2018, that figure had already reached 114,000 by 2020 – more than double. The industry association IFR continues to forecast annual growth rates of approximately 40%. This trend is also clearly visible in Germany: between 2018 and 2020, the number of installed Automated Guided Vehicle Systems (AGVS) and mobile robots in German facilities more than doubled.
Particularly in the DACH region (Germany, Austria, Switzerland) and across the EU as a whole, an increasing number of companies are investing in automated guided vehicle systems. Market analyses put global revenue from AGVS/AMR at around USD 5.2 billion in 2019 – with an upward trend toward more than USD 13.5 billion by 2027. European manufacturers and users play an important role in this: over 500 Vendors are now active in the market, many of them from Germany. Mobile robots already account for approximately 41% of all professional service robots – the largest share within this category. The signs clearly point to growth, as more and more warehouses and factories successfully scale their initial pilot projects.
All of this demonstrates that increasing automation is in full swing. Decision-makers in intralogistics no longer view mobile robots as an exotic future technology, but as a tried-and-tested option. But in which cases do they truly pay off? In the following sections, we compare the three core intralogistics Solutions – mobile robots, conventional conveyor technology, and forklifts – in terms of performance, flexibility, scalability, and cost.
Technology Comparison: Throughput, Flexibility, Scalability, and Cost
When it comes to internal transport, three technologies are available:
- Mobile Transport Robots (AGV/AMR) – automated vehicles that autonomously transport goods from point A to point B.
- Stationary Conveyor Technology – e.g. roller or chain conveyors, conveyor belts, fixed installations that mechanize material flows.
- Manual Industrial Trucks (Forklifts) – conventional forklifts or pallet trucks with an operator, deployable flexibly anywhere.
Each Solution has specific strengths and weaknesses. Throughput and efficiency, flexibility and scalability, as well as costs (capital and operational) differ considerably. The following table provides an overview:
| Criterion | Mobile Robots (AGV/AMR) | Stationary Conveyor Technology | Manual Forklifts |
|---|---|---|---|
| Throughput Performance | Medium throughput per vehicle; expandable through 24/7 operation and fleets, but individually slower than forklifts. Additional robots absorb increased demand. | Very high continuous throughput on defined routes. Ideal for high volumes without interruption. | Dependent on operator and shift operations; additional forklifts/shifts increase capacity, while breaks and safety considerations limit it. |
| Flexibility | Very high – routes and workflows can be adjusted via software, no fixed installation required. | Very low – fixed installation, layout changes barely possible. Suitable only for consistent processes. | High – human operators respond flexibly, retraining possible quickly. |
