Best robot lawn mower brands: compared

Model counts and analyses describe the shared research catalogue. They do not reflect the offers available in this country. Displayed prices come from verified local offers.

The brands compared in numbers

Click a column heading to sort the table.

Prices recorded on retailer pages. The middle column excludes the cheapest quarter and the most expensive quarter: it reflects the brand's typical range, rather than its extremes. The last column only shows a score for brands for which we have published at least one analysis: we publish two to three analyses a day, so this column fills up over the weeks.

Which robotic mower brand should you choose for your needs

What each robotic lawn mower brand offers

Worx

• 34 models tracked in the range
• mid-range pricing
• median score of 7.8/10 across 8 published analyses
• charging time 215% longer than the rest of the market (15,8 h versus 5 h)
• signature technology: 4 and more, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth

Gardena

• 27 models tracked in the range
• mid-range pricing
• median score of 7.7/10 across 8 published analyses
• charging time 20% shorter than the rest of the market (4 h versus 5 h)
• cutting width 17% narrower than the rest of the market (16,5 cm versus 20 cm)
• signature technology: Yes

Husqvarna

• 23 models tracked in the catalogue
• premium pricing
• median score of 8.1/10 across 6 published analyses
• charging time 60% shorter than the rest of the market (2 h versus 5 h)
• signature technology: Wire-free, IPX5

Mammotion

• 20 models tracked in the catalogue
• upper mid-range pricing
• median score of 8.8/10 across 7 published analyses
• runtime 136% longer than the rest of the market (165 min versus 70 min)
• charging time 53% shorter than the rest of the market (2,3 h versus 5 h)
• maximum slope capability 100% higher than the rest of the market (80% versus 40%)
• signature technology: RTK GPS, Camera vision, Wi-Fi

Robomow

• 16 models tracked in the catalogue
• mid-range pricing
• median score of 8.1/10 across 7 published analyses
• cutting width 40% greater than the rest of the market (28 cm versus 20 cm)

Yard Force

• 16 models tracked in the catalogue
• entry-level pricing
• median score of 7.5/10 across 6 published analyses
• charging time 770% longer than the rest of the market (43,5 h versus 5 h)
• maximum coverage area 19% smaller than the rest of the market (650 m² versus 800 m²)
• runtime 14% shorter than the rest of the market (60 min versus 70 min)
• signature technology: With boundary wire, Yes

Mova

• 14 models tracked in the catalogue
• mid-range pricing
• median score of 7.8/10 across 9 published analyses
• charging time 65% shorter than the rest of the market (1,8 h versus 5 h)
• runtime 21% shorter than the rest of the market (55 min versus 70 min)
• characteristic technology: Artificial intelligence, 4 or more

Segway

• 14 models tracked in the catalogue
• premium pricing
• median score of 8.1/10 across 7 published analyses
• charging time 200% longer than the rest of the market (15 h versus 5 h)
• runtime 68% longer than the rest of the market (117,5 min versus 70 min)
• characteristic technology: Wire-free, RTK GPS, Camera vision

Ecovacs

• 13 models tracked in the catalogue
• mid-range pricing
• median score of 8.5/10 across 7 published analyses
• charging time 70% shorter than the rest of the market (1,5 h versus 5 h)
• cutting width 65% greater than the rest of the market (33 cm versus 20 cm)
• characteristic technology: Artificial intelligence

Einhell

• 12 models tracked in the catalogue
• entry-level pricing
• median score of 7.3/10 across 8 published analyses
• charging time 260% longer than the rest of the market (18 h versus 5 h)
• maximum coverage area 37% smaller than the rest of the market (500 m² versus 800 m²)
• runtime 43% longer than the rest of the market (100 min versus 70 min)
• characteristic technology: 2

Bosch

• 11 models tracked in the catalogue
• entry-level pricing
• median score of 7.6/10 across 6 published analyses
• charging time 60% shorter than the rest of the market (2 h versus 5 h)
• maximum coverage area 56% smaller than the rest of the market (350 m² versus 800 m²)
• runtime 32% shorter than the rest of the market (47,5 min versus 70 min)
• characteristic technology: Weekly schedule

Dreame

• 7 models tracked in the catalogue
• premium pricing
• median score of 8.9/10 across 6 published analyses
• charging time 380% longer than the rest of the market (24 h versus 5 h)
• maximum coverage area 150% larger than the rest of the market (2000 m² versus 800 m²)
• runtime 71% longer than the rest of the market (120 min versus 70 min)
• characteristic technology: Wire-free, Artificial intelligence, 2

Ambrogio

• 6 models tracked in the catalogue
• premium pricing
• median score of 8.1/10 across 6 published analyses
• runtime 286% longer than the rest of the market (270 min versus 70 min)
• charging time 40% longer than the rest of the market (7 h versus 5 h)
• cutting width 25% wider than the rest of the market (25 cm versus 20 cm)
• characteristic technology: 4 and above, Bluetooth, Yes

McCulloch

• 5 models tracked in the catalogue
• mid-range pricing
• median score of 7.2/10 across 5 published analyses
• charging time 80% shorter than the rest of the market (1 h versus 5 h)
• maximum coverage area 25% smaller than the rest of the market (600 m² versus 800 m²)
• cutting width 20% narrower than the rest of the market (16 cm versus 20 cm)
• characteristic technology: Bluetooth, Weekly schedule

Cub Cadet

• 3 models tracked in the catalogue
• median score of 9/10 across 3 published analyses
• maximum coverage area 275% greater than the rest of the market (3000 m² versus 800 m²)
• charging time 60% shorter than the rest of the market (2 h versus 5 h)
• cutting width 110% wider than the rest of the market (42 cm versus 20 cm)
• distinctive technology: Yes

Kress

• 3 models tracked in the catalogue
• premium pricing
• median score of 8.6/10 across 3 published analyses
• charging time 380% longer than the rest of the market (24 h versus 5 h)
• maximum coverage area 125% greater than the rest of the market (1800 m² versus 800 m²)
• maximum slope capability 110% greater than the rest of the market (84% versus 40%)
• distinctive technology: RTK GPS, Camera vision, Artificial intelligence

RoboUp

• 2 models tracked in the catalogue
• entry-level median pricing
• median score of 8.4/10 across 2 published analyses
• no notable difference compared with the rest of the robotic lawn mower market

Oleo-Mac

• 1 model tracked in the catalogue
• entry-level median pricing
• median score of 8.1/10 across 1 published analysis
• no notable difference compared with the rest of the robotic lawn mower market

ONLI

• 1 model tracked in the catalogue
• entry-level median pricing
• median score of 7/10 across 1 published analysis
• no notable difference compared with the rest of the robotic lawn mower market

Stihl

• 1 model tracked in the catalogue
• median score of 8.5/10 across 1 published analysis
• no notable difference compared with the rest of the robotic lawn mower market

Frequently asked questions about robotic lawn mower brands

What is the best robotic lawn mower brand?

Among the brands for which we have published several analyses, Cub Cadet has the highest median score (9/10 across 3 analyses), ahead of Dreame (8.9/10). This score compares technical specifications against the entire catalogue, rather than brand reputation. Brands we have not yet analysed are not included in this answer: they will be added as we publish more analyses.

Which robotic lawn mower brand should you choose on a small budget?

Einhell has the lowest median pricing among the well-represented brands, followed by Yard Force. In this price segment, focus on the features that matter for your garden rather than the logo.

How many robotic lawn mower brands are there?

Our comparison covers 20 brands, with a total of 229 models. Worx has the largest catalogue, with 34 models tracked.

Are all robotic lawn mower brands equally good?

No, and the differences are measurable. Worx, for example, has a median charging time of 15,8 h, which is 215% higher than the rest of the market. Differences like this should guide your choice, rather than overall brand recognition.

Our advice

To make the right choice, start with your needs, not brand recognition. Defining the area to mow and the terrain's constraints helps rule out unsuitable ranges from the outset. Budget is the second filter: analysing market positioning reveals options across the entry-level, mid-range and premium segments. A catalogue of 34 models like Worx's certainly offers flexibility, but it also makes choosing harder for buyers who have yet to establish their criteria. Once the mowing area and budget are clear, you can compare suitable models brand by brand without being swayed solely by a manufacturer's reputation.