Robotics in Manufacturing

Robot performance

How much energy does an industrial robot use? Mostly overhead

Less than 2.5% of the energy an industrial robot uses becomes useful mechanical work. The rest is overhead: electronics, brakes, and the power just to hold position.

That figure comes from a measured study of a UR5e arm, and a second study of a Franka Emika arm found overhead accounts for roughly 95% of the power during a movement. These are the energy numbers robot spec sheets almost never carry.

This page traces both measurements to their sources and is clear that each is a single study of a single arm, not a universal constant.

Data covers Measured energy studies of two collaborative arms (UR5e and Franka Emika). Last reviewed by a human editor before publication.

The figures and where they come from

Each figure is rated for how safely you can cite it today. Ratings judge current usability, not whether a number was ever correct.

FigureWhat it isSourceCitation ConfidenceNotes
less than 2.5%Energy that becomes useful work[A]MediumMeasured on a UR5e. Most of a robot's energy never becomes motion; it runs the electronics and holds position. One study, one arm.
91.14 WElectronics power draw (UR5e)[A]MediumThe electronics drew 91.14 W against 7.12 W for the mechanical brakes, showing where the energy actually goes in a lightweight arm.
about 95%Overhead share of power in motion (Franka)[B]MediumA separate study of a Franka Emika arm found overhead is roughly 95% of active power during a movement. Different arm, same lesson.
about 92 WMeasured overhead power (Franka)[B]LowThe measured overhead was about 92 W. A supporting figure from the modeling study, specific to that arm and setup.

Why the numbers disagree

Energy claims about robots tend to describe motion, but motion is the small part. Both studies find that the bulk of a robot's power goes to overhead: the electronics that run the controller and the current needed to hold a pose against gravity. The share that becomes useful mechanical work is tiny, under 2.5% in the UR5e measurement.

That reframes how to think about a robot's running cost. A robot idling or holding position is still drawing most of its operating power, so utilization and duty cycle matter more to energy cost than the headline motion draw. A robot that runs a third of the time is not using a third of the energy.

The honest limit is generalization. Each figure is one measured study of one arm, a UR5e in one case and a Franka Emika in the other, both lightweight collaborative robots. The pattern, overhead dominates, is consistent across the two, but the exact percentages should not be treated as constants for every robot.

How to cite these figures

Use the measurements to make the qualitative point safely: most of a robot's energy is overhead, and only a small fraction, under 2.5% in one measured case, becomes useful work.

Attribute each number to its study and arm. The under-2.5% and 91.14 W figures are the UR5e study; the roughly 95% overhead is the Franka study.

For running-cost estimates, weight overhead heavily. Because holding position draws most of the power, idle and low-duty-cycle time still costs energy.

Where people go wrong

Treating a single measured percentage as universal. Each figure is one arm in one study; the pattern generalizes, the exact numbers do not.

Estimating energy from motion alone. Overhead dominates, so a motion-only figure badly understates consumption.

Assuming a lightly used robot uses proportionally little energy. Holding position and running the electronics keep drawing power regardless of how much the arm moves.

How we checked

The figures come from two open-access research papers that instrumented real arms and measured power directly. We retrieved both and confirmed the under-2.5% useful-work figure and the 91.14 W electronics draw in the first, and the roughly 95% overhead share and 92 W overhead in the second.

We treat these as single measured studies, not settled facts, and label them that way. The two arms are different, and the agreement between them on the overhead-dominates pattern is what makes the qualitative claim safe even though the exact numbers are arm-specific.

We looked for a broad, independent dataset of industrial-robot energy consumption and did not find one; vendor energy figures are scattered and rarely come with a method. So the page leans on peer-style measured studies and is explicit about their scope.

Full source list

Primary sources, with live links. Every figure above traces to one of these.

  1. [A]arXiv preprint2025

    "Evaluating Robot Program Performance with Power Consumption-Driven Metrics in Lightweight Industrial Robots" (arXiv:2508.06295)

    https://arxiv.org/html/2508.06295v1
  2. [B]arXiv preprint2024

    "Energy Consumption in Robotics: A Simplified Modeling Approach" (arXiv:2411.03194)

    https://arxiv.org/html/2411.03194v1

Common questions

How much energy does an industrial robot use?
Most of it goes to overhead, not motion. A measured study of a UR5e found less than 2.5% of the energy consumed becomes useful mechanical work; the rest runs the electronics and holds position.
Why is so little of the energy useful work?
Because a robot spends power on its controller electronics and on holding position against gravity whether or not it is moving. In one measured arm the electronics alone drew about 91 W against 7 W for the brakes.
Do these numbers apply to every robot?
No. Each figure is a single measured study of a single lightweight arm, a UR5e and a Franka Emika. The pattern that overhead dominates holds across both, but the exact percentages are arm-specific.
Does a robot use less energy when it runs less?
Less, but not proportionally. Because holding position and running the electronics draw most of the power, idle and low-duty-cycle time still consume energy.

More data, traced to source