How the robot vs labor cost calculator works
Here is the thing almost every automation argument gets backwards: robots do not win on wage, they win on hours. A human works about 2,080 hours a year, on one shift, with breaks, vacations, sick days, and turnover. A robot's big cost is capital, and capital does not care when it works: the same installed dollars spread across every hour you can keep the machine running. At one shift a robot's capital cost per hour is whatever it is; at two shifts it is half that; at three shifts it is a third. Nothing about the robot changed. Only the denominator did. The wage line cannot answer this, because a second human shift costs the full burdened rate all over again. So the honest question is never "is a robot cheaper than a worker" in the abstract; it is "at my wage, my burden, and my hours, what does a robot have to cost to pay for itself." This calculator answers exactly that, and prints the number worth sharing: the break-even robot price.
The second thing it refuses to fudge is what a robot actually costs. The sticker is not the project: the industry convention, confirmed by integrators on both sides of the invoice, is that a deployed cell runs 2 to 3 times the robot's own price once it is bolted down, tooled, fenced, and programmed. And the labor side gets the same honesty in the other direction: a wage is not what an hour costs an employer. BLS's compensation survey puts benefits and payroll taxes at about 30 percent of the total, so the burden multiplier (about 1.43 on the private-industry average) turns the $22 wage into the $31.46 cost it really is. Both corrections are built in, both are editable, and every preset price is labeled for what it is: a measured market price or a company target.
The formula
robot cost per hour = installed ÷ (life × hours per year) + (installed × maintenance %) ÷ hours per year + kW × price per kWh
burdened labor per hour = wage × burden multiplier
payback (years) = installed ÷ (displaced hours × burdened wage - annual maintenance - annual power)
break-even robot price (installed) = life × (annual labor saved - annual power) ÷ (1 + life × maintenance %)
The robot price is the sticker; the installed cost is what the project actually costs after integration, and it is the figure every other line uses. Life is the service life in years, maintenance is a yearly percent of the installed cost, and the displaced hours are the human-hours that genuinely go away, which may be fewer than the hours the robot runs. The break-even price is derived so that a robot at exactly that installed cost pays back in exactly its service life.
Worked example
A typical Western 6-axis arm at $65,000, integrated at 2.5x, running 4,000 hours a year (two shifts) against a $22.00 wage at the BLS burden multiplier of 1.43.
The installed cost is 65,000 × 2.5 = $162,500. Spread over a 12 year life at 4,000 hours a year, capital costs $3.39 an hour; maintenance at 5 percent of installed cost adds $2.03, and 3 kW of power at 8 cents adds $0.24. The robot's all-in rate: $5.66 per hour. The human side: $22.00 × 1.43 = $31.46 per hour, fully burdened.
Over a year of 4,000 displaced hours that is $125,840.00 of labor against $22,626.67 of robot: savings of $103,213.33 a year, a payback of 1.39 years (about 17 months), and a break-even robot price of $936,600 installed. Cut the same robot to one shift and the payback stretches to 2.99 years. That difference is the whole game: paybacks around 2 years get funded before the meeting ends, and paybacks around 7 years get studied until the study is the project.
Now the Optimus case, with its label on. At Tesla's stated target of $25,000 (a company target, not a price; you cannot buy one) the same 2.5x and 4,000 hours give a $62,500 installed cost, an all-in rate of $2.32 per hour, and a payback of about 6 months. That is the humanoid debate in one line: at the target price the arithmetic is a landslide, and the target is doing all of the work.
The $65,000 robot is a $162,500 project
Integration, not the robot, is the big check, and it surprises almost every first-time buyer. The arm arrives needing a gripper or tool designed for your part, a way to feed parts to it, safety fencing and interlocks, programming, and commissioning on your actual line. Integrators' own rule of thumb puts the finished cell at 2 to 3 times the robot's sticker (down toward 2x when you deploy several identical cells, up past 3x when vision, gauging, or complex feeding gets involved), and vendor guides say the same thing from the other side: the robot body is often only 30 to 50 percent of the project. This is why the calculator amortizes the installed cost, never the sticker, and why the break-even result quotes you both numbers. A pitch that quotes payback on the sticker price is not lying, exactly. It is just answering a question nobody asked.
Humanoids: what is claimed, and what actually ships
This page keeps one distinction sacred, the same one our robotaxi page lives by: a target is a hope with a press event, and a price is something you can pay. On the measured side of the ledger, Unitree's G1 humanoid launched in 2024 at a $16,000 list price and was selling for about $13,500 direct from Unitree by mid 2026; its larger H1 runs about $90,000. Agility's June 2026 investor materials model Digit leasing at an illustrative $8,500 a month, deliberately priced against a fully burdened human at about $30.50 an hour, which is at least a real business model with real pilots behind it. On the target side, Elon Musk has said since the October 2024 We, Robot event that Optimus will cost $20,000 to $30,000 at mass scale, and said at Davos in January 2026 that the first public units are planned for late 2027. As of August 2026 you cannot buy one at any price.
But here is the part the spec sheets do not say: measured humanoid prices now exist, and measured humanoid productivity in real workplaces mostly does not. A G1 is a real product at a real price, and it is a research and development platform, not a two-shift worker; nobody has published hours-per-year figures for a humanoid holding down a production task the way a welding arm holds down welding. Demos are not shifts. So when you run a humanoid preset here, remember which inputs are doing the work: the price may be measured, but the 4,000 hours you type in is the claim the whole result rests on, and for humanoids that claim is so far unproven. The integration multiplier is honest-unknown territory too; the 2 to 3x convention comes from the arm world, and humanoids may need less bolting down and more supervision, which is not the same thing as cheaper.
Robots do tasks, not jobs
A welding robot does not replace a welder; it replaces the welding. The fixturing, the exception handling, the changeovers, the inspection, the "that part looks wrong, stop the line" judgment, and roughly the 20 percent of every job that is not repetitive stay human. That is not a consolation line, it is an accounting instruction: if a robot runs 4,000 hours but only removes 2,000 human-hours of work, its labor savings are half of what the per-hour comparison implies, and the payback doubles. The displaced-hours field exists for exactly this. Fill it with the hours that actually leave the payroll, not the hours the robot is powered on, and the result will survive contact with your CFO. The calculator flags the difference and prices the robot per displaced hour whenever the two numbers diverge.
What the dollars cannot price
One paragraph of honesty in both directions. On the robot's side of the ledger sit things this page does not price: weld quality that never has a Friday afternoon, and the shoulder, back, and lung injuries that stop happening when the worst tasks move to a machine. On the human's side sit things it does not price either: a person can be retrained to a new part by Monday while a cell waits weeks for reprogramming, and nobody's spreadsheet carries the cost of a line standing dead at 2 a.m. waiting for the one technician who knows the fault codes. Both sides are real, neither is in the math, and anyone who tells you the spreadsheet settles it has not run a line. This calculator keeps the ledger to dollars and says so in the result; the rest of the decision stays yours, weighed on top of an honest number instead of hidden inside a dishonest one.