The global race to build humanoid robots has captured the imagination of investors, policymakers, and engineers alike. Yet beneath the spectacle of bipedal machines walking, running, and manipulating objects lies a less glamorous but arguably more consequential industrial reality: the supply chain. As the sector matures, a clear division of labour is emerging, and for the United Kingdom, the strategic question is no longer whether to compete in humanoid assembly, but where exactly its comparative advantage can be most effectively deployed.
Recent commentary from Dr. Ingo Keller, Head of Robotics at the National Robotarium, has sharpened this debate. Writing for *The Manufacturer*, Keller argues that Britain’s most realistic and profitable path forward is not to chase the dream of producing complete humanoid robots, but rather to become a critical supplier of high-value components to the global robotics ecosystem. This position is grounded in the UK’s historical strengths in precision engineering, a sector that has long been a quiet backbone of advanced manufacturing. Rather than attempting to out-produce China on volume, the UK can focus on the technically demanding elements that require specialised expertise and quality assurance.
The timing of this argument is notable. The humanoid robotics sector is undergoing rapid commercialisation, with public markets beginning to reflect the growing relevance of companies that actually manufacture these machines. The recent initial public offering (IPO) of Unitree, a Chinese robotics firm, serves as a marker of this shift. While the company’s revenue mix has evolved significantly over the past two years, the underlying trend is clear: humanoid robots are moving from research curiosities to commercial products, and the component supply chain that supports them is becoming a strategic asset in its own right.
For European operators, this analysis carries direct implications. The UK’s positioning within the broader European robotics landscape is not merely a national concern; it affects supply chain resilience, technological sovereignty, and the ability of European integrators to source critical parts without depending entirely on Asian manufacturers. Understanding the component opportunity, its scale, and its technical contours is essential for anyone planning to participate in the humanoid robotics value chain over the coming years.
Key findings
The central thesis put forward by Keller is that the UK should pivot its robotics strategy away from complete humanoid assembly and toward the supply of sophisticated components. This is not a defensive retreat but a calculated recognition of where the UK’s industrial heritage provides a genuine competitive edge. British manufacturing has long excelled in precision engineering — the ability to produce parts with extremely tight tolerances, high reliability, and consistent quality. These are exactly the attributes required for the most demanding elements of a humanoid robot.
The scale of the component opportunity is substantial. According to the source material, every humanoid robot requires hundreds of precision-engineered components. On average, a single humanoid contains between 25 and 30 joints, and each joint demands specialised bearings, actuators, sensors, and control systems. This is not a trivial supply requirement; it represents a complex, multi-layered bill of materials that must be sourced, validated, and integrated. For a country with deep expertise in precision engineering, this is a natural fit.
Keller specifically identifies manipulation systems as the most technically challenging aspect of humanoid robotics. These are the mechanisms that allow a robot to grasp, lift, rotate, and interact with objects in its environment. Unlike simple locomotion, manipulation requires a high degree of dexterity, force control, and sensory feedback. It is here that UK engineering excellence could prove decisive. The ability to design and manufacture actuators and sensors that can operate with precision under variable loads is a niche skill, and one that is not easily replicated at scale by volume-focused manufacturers.
The source material also draws a clear contrast between the UK’s potential role and China’s current position. Chinese manufacturers, it is noted, excel at volume production of standard components. This is a strength in cost efficiency and scale, but it is less suited to the production of high-value, technically sophisticated elements that demand specialised expertise. The UK, therefore, can occupy a complementary position in the global supply chain — not competing head-to-head on price, but offering superior quality and technical capability for the most demanding parts.
The commercial relevance of this component opportunity is underscored by recent market developments. Unitree, a company that has become a significant player in the humanoid robotics space, saw its revenue mix shift dramatically in 2025. In the first three quarters of that year, humanoid robots contributed approximately 52% of total revenue. This compares to a very different distribution in 2024, when quadrupeds accounted for roughly 65% of revenue and humanoids about 30%, with components making up the balance. The rapid rise of humanoids as a revenue driver signals that demand for these machines is accelerating, and with it, demand for the components that go into them.
Unitree’s IPO is described in the source material as a clear signal that companies actually manufacturing humanoid robots may become more relevant in public markets sooner than later. This has implications beyond Unitree itself. It suggests that the entire supply chain — including component manufacturers — could see increased attention from investors and strategic buyers. The source material notes that while the “integrators” bucket in a certain investment framework (referred to as KOID) is currently the smallest exposure, the IPO trajectory indicates that this could change rapidly.
The technical requirements of humanoid components are also detailed in the source material. Core components include proprietary high torque motors, actuators, precision reducers, intelligent controllers, and high precision sensors. These are not off-the-shelf parts; they support a highly integrated hardware stack where each element must work in concert with the others. This level of integration demands close collaboration between component suppliers and robot manufacturers, creating opportunities for long-term partnerships rather than transactional supply relationships.
It is worth noting what the source material does not disclose. There are no specific figures for the total market size of humanoid components, no projections for growth rates, and no details on the cost structure of individual components. The argument is qualitative and directional rather than quantitative. This is not a weakness of the analysis but rather a reflection of the early stage of the market. The opportunity is described as immense, but the precise financial contours remain to be established as the sector matures.
What it means for European operators
For European operators — whether they are robot manufacturers, system integrators, component suppliers, or end users — the UK’s positioning as a component supplier has several practical implications.
First, it reinforces the importance of supply chain diversification. European robotics companies have historically relied heavily on Asian suppliers for motors, reducers, and sensors. While this has worked well in terms of cost, it creates vulnerability in terms of lead times, geopolitical risk, and the ability to customise components for specific applications. If the UK can establish itself as a reliable source of high-value components, European operators gain an alternative that is geographically closer and potentially more responsive to their technical requirements.
Second, the emphasis on manipulation systems is a signal for where European R&D investment should be directed. Manipulation is widely regarded as one of the hardest problems in robotics, and the source material identifies it as a particular opportunity for UK engineering excellence. European operators that can develop expertise in this area — whether through internal development, partnerships, or acquisitions — will be well positioned to capture value as humanoid robots move from controlled environments to real-world applications.
Third, the Unitree IPO and the shift in its revenue mix should be read as a market signal. The fact that humanoids became the main revenue driver for a major manufacturer within a single year suggests that the commercial adoption curve may be steeper than many analysts expected. For European operators, this means that the window for establishing component supply relationships is open now, but it may not remain open indefinitely. Early movers who can secure partnerships with robot manufacturers will have a significant advantage over those who wait for the market to stabilise.
Fourth, the source material’s description of core components — high torque motors, actuators, precision reducers, intelligent controllers, and high precision sensors — provides a useful checklist for European operators assessing their own capabilities or evaluating potential suppliers. These are not commodity parts; they require significant engineering expertise to design and manufacture. European operators that already have capabilities in these areas should consider how they can be adapted for the humanoid market, which may have different requirements than traditional industrial automation.
Fifth, the distinction between volume production and high-value production is crucial for strategic planning. The source material is clear that Chinese manufacturers excel at volume production of standard components. European operators should not attempt to compete on this basis; it is a losing proposition. Instead, the focus should be on the technically sophisticated elements where quality, precision, and reliability are more important than cost. This is a classic differentiation strategy, and it aligns well with the historical strengths of European manufacturing.
It is also worth considering the implications for the broader European robotics ecosystem. The UK, while no longer a member of the European Union, remains a significant player in European robotics research and manufacturing. The National Robotarium, where Keller serves as Head of Robotics, is a collaborative initiative involving Heriot-Watt University and the University of Edinburgh. Its positioning as a hub for robotics innovation means that the UK’s component strategy is not just a national matter; it has the potential to influence the direction of European robotics as a whole.
The source material does not provide specific details on how the UK’s component strategy would be implemented, nor does it offer timelines for when the humanoid component market might reach maturity. These are important unknowns. The argument is persuasive in its logic, but the execution will depend on factors such as government policy, industry investment, and the ability of UK manufacturers to scale up from prototype production to commercial volumes.
For European operators, the key takeaway is that the humanoid robotics opportunity is not limited to those who build the complete machines. In fact, the component supply chain may offer a more accessible and less capital-intensive entry point. The technical barriers are high, but so are the potential rewards. As the source material notes, every humanoid robot requires hundreds of precision-engineered components, and each joint demands specialised bearings, actuators, sensors, and control systems. This is a recurring revenue opportunity that grows with every robot deployed.
The Unitree IPO also raises questions about the pace of public market engagement. If humanoid manufacturers are becoming relevant in public markets sooner than expected, then component suppliers may also attract attention from investors seeking exposure to the sector. This could lead to increased valuations for companies with relevant capabilities, making it an opportune time for European operators to strengthen their positions.
In sum, the argument put forward by Keller is a strategic reframing of the UK’s robotics opportunity. It moves the discussion away from the binary question of whether the UK can build a humanoid robot — a question that is likely to have an unfavourable answer given the scale advantages of Chinese manufacturers — and toward a more nuanced question of where the UK can add the most value. The answer, according to the source material, lies in components. For European operators, this is a call to action: assess your capabilities, identify the high-value niches, and position yourself to supply the components that will power the humanoid robots of the future.
Published by Vigla Media OÜ (Estonia).