The South Korean industry has been most wary of price in the face of China's competition. Even with somewhat inferior quality, Chinese products have entered the market at low prices, increasing sales and improving technology to catch up with established players. However, the competitive landscape is changing. Chinese companies are rapidly enhancing not only their pricing but also their technology and production capabilities. The competitive dynamics seen in the automotive and battery sectors are now emerging in the humanoid robot market.
Numbers illustrate this shift. According to IPO data from Chinese company Unitree reported by the Korea Economic Daily, the average selling price of humanoid robots dropped from 593,400 yuan in 2023 to 166,400 yuan in 2025, a decrease of about 72% in just two years. When converted to Korean won, the 2025 price is approximately 33 million won. Of course, performance and application vary by model, so price alone cannot determine product competitiveness. Nevertheless, the fact that the selling price has fallen so significantly in just two years indicates a rapid change in the cost structure of robot manufacturing.
The speed of market penetration is also noteworthy. According to data released by market research firm Counterpoint Research in October 2026, global shipments of humanoid robots exceeded 22,000 units in the first half of this year. Aijibot accounted for about 9,700 units, or 43.1%, while Unitree contributed over 7,000 units, or 31.1%. Together, these two Chinese companies hold more than 74% of the market share. All five leading companies in the sector are Chinese. While estimates of shipment volumes may vary depending on the reporting agency and criteria, it is clear that Chinese companies are seizing control of the early market.
The humanoid market is not yet an industry with mass distribution like automobiles. Shipment volumes do not directly correlate with productivity or profitability in industrial settings. However, it would be a mistake to dismiss current figures as mere phenomena of an early market. The criteria determining manufacturing competitiveness are shifting from merely possessing technology to how quickly that technology can be turned into products, validated in real-world settings, and supplied back to the market at lower costs.
China's competitive edge cannot be solely attributed to cheap labor or government support. The key lies in an industrial ecosystem where the supply chain for components, production experience, and development speed are interconnected.
Humanoid robots are complex products that combine motors, reducers, actuators, sensors, batteries, control devices, and artificial intelligence (AI) software. The performance of any single component does not guarantee the competitiveness of the final product. Each component must work organically, maintaining stability even in repetitive tasks. If design, assembly, and control software operate separately, there are limits to reducing costs or improving performance.
China's strength lies in its ability to rapidly iterate through this process. They procure components, assemble products, supply them to the market, and incorporate issues discovered in the field into the next product. As production volumes increase, they can lower component purchase prices and standardize processes. This price drop stimulates demand, which in turn can expand production scale in a virtuous cycle.
This approach resembles the competitive strategies demonstrated by Chinese companies in the automotive industry. The method of closely linking batteries, motors, power electronics, and software to reduce development time and production costs in the electric vehicle market can also be effective in the robotics sector. If core components and finished products are developed together, and data obtained from mass production is applied to the next product, even latecomers can quickly narrow the technology gap.
However, a decline in prices does not automatically equate to a technological advantage or stable profitability. Excessive price reductions can increase financial burdens on companies, and low-cost products do not necessarily guarantee sufficient productivity in actual industrial settings. Humanoid robots still face challenges in performing complex tasks, ensuring safety, responding to failures, and establishing maintenance systems.
What South Korea should focus on is the speed of reducing prices rather than the current price tags. Even if a technology gap exists, if competitors produce more products, accumulate experience in the field, and improve both price and performance as a result, the market landscape could change more rapidly than expected. Successfully developing technology and nurturing it into a competitive industry are separate challenges.
In an early market, shipment volumes carry more significance than just revenue. Companies that supply actual products gain data on customer needs and work environments. They also have more opportunities to correct product errors and validate new features. Securing suppliers and service networks becomes easier with higher sales volumes. The more products sold, the greater the likelihood of quickly identifying and improving production process issues.
Counterpoint Research's data showing that Aijibot and Unitree account for about three-quarters of global humanoid shipments indicates that this race for market dominance has already begun. China's competitiveness does not rest solely on the achievements of individual companies. When manufacturers, component suppliers, research institutions, and AI companies are interconnected, the process from product development to field application can accelerate.
In such a structure, waiting until the market matures to compete with high-quality products could become a disadvantage. This does not mean rushing to release products at the expense of safety and reliability. Rather, it emphasizes that validating and improving products in real-world environments should not be postponed until after research and development are complete.
South Korean companies should not remain at the stage of technology demonstrations and prototype development but should actively seek out the tasks that customers actually need. They must specifically verify where robots can be more efficient than existing equipment, how they can assist human workers, and how to ensure safety when workers collaborate. The early market's leadership is likely to go to companies that accumulate real-world usage experience more quickly than those that merely announce technology first.
The Hyundai Motor Group's humanoid robot Atlas presents a significant opportunity for South Korean manufacturing to respond to this competition. By combining Boston Dynamics' robotic technology with Hyundai's manufacturing capabilities, they can validate and improve performance in actual production environments. Precision, repeatability, and safety are crucial in automotive factories, and changes in production processes significantly impact overall productivity. This makes it an ideal environment to confirm the effectiveness of humanoid technology.
Goldman Sachs estimates that Atlas's initial selling price could be around $120,000, potentially dropping to about $70,000 as production scales up. Hyundai plans to establish a production system capable of manufacturing 30,000 robots annually by 2028. However, since the price is based on external forecasts and the production scale is a corporate plan, these figures should not be taken as confirmed sales prices or production outcomes.
The true test for Atlas is not just how precisely it can execute movements. It also hinges on how successfully it can perform repetitive tasks with a high success rate, how long it can operate without failures or stoppages, and how much it can enhance overall productivity by assisting workers or automating certain processes.
If the purchase price of a robot is low but it frequently malfunctions or incurs high maintenance costs, its economic viability diminishes. Conversely, if the initial investment is high but the robot boasts excellent uptime and accuracy, significantly boosting productivity, the business case could change. Ultimately, what needs to be compared is not the price of a single robot but the productivity it generates and the total operating costs.
Hyundai possesses process management and quality control capabilities accumulated through mass automobile production, along with a global supply chain and large-scale manufacturing sites. If these can be linked to the mass production and on-site learning of robots, there is potential for differentiation from Chinese companies. However, having existing manufacturing capabilities does not guarantee victory. If research and development, production, and field application are separated, the speed of product improvement will inevitably slow.
What is crucial is the simultaneous advancement of the factories producing robots and those where robots will work. A system must be established to reflect data obtained from real-world environments in design and software improvements, and to reintroduce improved products back into the field. The success of Atlas will depend not only on the robot's performance but also on how quickly Hyundai can establish this learning structure.
The questions posed by humanoid robots to the manufacturing sector extend beyond job concerns. A more fundamental issue is whether to add robots to existing factories or to redesign the entire production system based on AI and robotics.
Existing factories are generally designed around human workflows and movement patterns. Introducing robots may require changes to workspace layouts, component supply methods, safety devices, and equipment arrangements. This is why merely increasing the automation rate of individual processes does not lead to a dramatic improvement in overall productivity.
The competitiveness of a factory is not determined solely by the performance of individual robots. It must connect production planning, component logistics, equipment status, and quality inspection data, enabling AI and robots to operate the entire process efficiently. The ability to detect equipment anomalies in advance, identify defects early, and flexibly adjust production sequences is essential. Automation must become a foundation for transforming manufacturing operations beyond just a means of reducing labor costs.
South Korea has accumulated precision manufacturing and quality control capabilities in the automotive, semiconductor, and electronics industries. Experience with industrial robots and automation equipment is also a strength. However, adding robots one by one to existing facilities differs from designing factories from the ground up with AI and robotics in mind.
If South Korea remains focused on gradually improving existing production methods while Chinese companies excel in pricing and production speed, it may struggle to convert its technological advantages into actual cost competitiveness. The emphasis should be on how well robots and equipment share data and enhance overall process productivity, rather than merely on the number of robots owned.
Concerns from labor groups regarding the introduction of robots cannot be overlooked. As humanoid robots become capable of moving parts, assembling, and performing repetitive tasks, some jobs may diminish or change in nature. For workers who have built their skills over years of experience, automation is a matter of livelihood.
However, delaying productivity innovations is not the only way to protect jobs. Falling behind in cost and productivity in global competition could lead to reduced production volumes and new investments. In the long run, existing jobs could also be threatened. Maintaining a competitive factory and protecting workers' employment should not be viewed as opposing tasks.
Labor-management discussions should move beyond simply allowing or blocking robot adoption. They must collaboratively design which processes to automate, how to change workers' roles, and how to ensure retraining and job transitions. There should also be plans to utilize the benefits gained from productivity improvements for safe working environments, skill enhancement, and transition training.
The government’s role should not be limited to supporting companies in purchasing robots. It should assist small and medium-sized component manufacturers in adopting automation equipment and data systems, and support research and development of core technologies such as actuators, sensors, control software, and AI. Policies are needed to elevate the capabilities of the entire industrial ecosystem so that the automation successes of large companies translate into productivity improvements for their partners.
South Korea does not need to develop all technologies independently. It should leverage global supply chains and collaborations while accumulating its own core design, process data, and quality control capabilities. Utilizing foreign technologies and relying on external sources for core competitiveness are entirely different matters.
To respond to China's price offensive, it is necessary to review trade policies and industrial support measures. If there are unfair supports or differences in market access, responses should be made according to international norms and principles of reciprocity. However, tariffs and subsidies can only buy time; they do not create competitiveness on their own.
If technological development and productivity innovation are delayed in a protected market, the same issues will recur once barriers are lowered. Conversely, if the time gained is invested in developing core components, intelligentizing production facilities, validating in the field, and transitioning the workforce, it could become an opportunity to enhance industrial competitiveness.
The decline in prices and increase in shipments in China's humanoid industry serve as a clear warning to South Korea. Developing technology alone is insufficient. The speed at which products are supplied to the market, validated in real-world settings, and production volumes increased, along with the experience gained in that process, is crucial.
South Korean manufacturing still possesses many strengths. Precise quality control, skilled labor, a global customer base, and a supply chain established in the world market are invaluable assets that cannot be easily replaced. By combining AI and robotics and strengthening the connection between development and production, new competitiveness can be secured. Conversely, if complacency sets in based on past successes, even those strengths could quickly weaken.
The outcome of the humanoid robot war will not be determined by who presents the flashiest demonstrations. It will hinge on who can create more reliable robots, lower costs, effectively apply them in real industrial settings, and connect that experience back to product improvements. Technology is merely the starting point. Mass production is the process of transforming technology into industrial competitiveness, and field application is the process of proving that competitiveness works in practice.
Simply producing cheaper than China will not sustain long-term success. A system must be established to produce higher quality more efficiently and respond more quickly to market changes. In an era where automobiles, robots, and AI converge, the competition in manufacturing will hinge not just on how much technology is possessed, but on how quickly that technology can be transformed into competitive advantages in industrial settings.
What South Korean manufacturing needs is not the luxury of waiting to observe the emergence of humanoids, but the execution power to redesign the relationships between production, supply chains, labor, and technology centered around robots. Competitors will not wait. A new era is approaching where the speed of mass production will determine the future of the industry.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.