How to Compare Quotes from Chinese Automation Machine Builders

Custom automation prices cannot be compared properly until the buyer confirms that each supplier is quoting the same machine, performance target, acceptance method, documentation package, and support model.

Build a Scope Comparison Before Looking at Price

Two proposals may both be titled:

“Automatic Assembly and Inspection Machine”

One may include:

• Automatic feeding
• Six fixtures
• Vision inspection
• Force monitoring
• Reject segregation
• Data logging
• PLC source code
• Overseas installation

The other may include:

• Manual loading
• Two fixtures
• Basic sensor checks
• Manual reject removal
• No traceability
• No installation
• Protected software

The total price difference may reflect scope, not supplier competitiveness.

Recommended Quote Comparison Categories

1. Machine Scope

Compare:

• Number of stations
• Loading method
• Feeding system
• Orientation
• Fixtures
• Grippers
• Conveyors
• Buffers
• Discharge
• Reject handling
• Guarding
• Electrical cabinet
• HMI
• Utilities
• Interfaces

Ask:

• What is included?
• What is excluded?
• What must the buyer provide?
• What is provisional?
• What will be finalized after deposit?

2. Product and Variant Coverage

Compare:

• Number of SKUs
• Size range
• Weight range
• Change parts
• Recipe changes
• Manual adjustments
• Automatic changeover
• Future variants

Ask:

• Which variants were used for the quotation?
• Are future products included?
• What happens when tolerances change?
• Who pays for tooling modifications?

3. Performance

Compare:

• Cycle time
• Units per minute
• Uptime assumptions
• Operator count
• Changeover time
• Yield
• Reject rate
• Recovery time
• Buffer capacity

Ask:

• Is cycle time simulated or proven?
• Does it include inspection?
• Does it include reject handling?
• Does it include loading and unloading?
• How will output be verified during FAT?

4. Controls

Compare:

• PLC
• HMI
• Servo
• Robot
• Vision
• Sensors
• Safety system
• Industrial PC
• Communication protocols
• Remote access
• Data logging

Ask:

• Who writes the software?
• Are source files included?
• What passwords and access levels are provided?
• How are backups stored?
• Can local engineers support the selected components?

5. Tooling

Compare:

• Fixtures
• Nests
• Grippers
• Feeder tooling
• Change parts
• Wear components
• Spare tooling
• Tool life

Ask:

• Is tooling included in the total?
• How many product sets are included?
• What tolerances are assumed?
• What happens if actual parts differ from samples?

6. Factory Acceptance Testing

Compare:

• Sample quantity
• Product variants
• Runtime
• Output target
• Quality criteria
• False reject limits
• Fault recovery
• Documentation checks
• Punch-list process
• Retest requirements

Ask:

• What happens if FAT fails?
• Who pays for additional testing?
• Can shipment occur with an open punch list?
• What payment remains outstanding?

7. Documentation and Handover

Compare:

• Drawings
• Manuals
• I/O list
• PLC backup
• HMI backup
• Robot software
• Vision files
• Spare-parts list
• Preventive-maintenance schedule
• Training

Ask:

• What exact files will be delivered?
• In which language?
• At what project stage?
• Are editable source files included?

8. Installation and Support

Compare:

• Installation labor
• Commissioning
• Travel expenses
• Training
• Remote support
• Warranty
• Response time
• Spare-parts support
• Local partner availability

Ask:

• How many onsite days are included?
• What happens if installation takes longer?
• Who pays for delays caused by the supplier?
• What support is available after warranty?

Normalize Major Components

Component selection can create large price differences.

A lower-cost proposal may use:

• Chinese PLC and HMI
• Local servo systems
• Domestic sensors
• Lower-cost vision hardware
• Locally sourced safety components

This is not automatically a weakness.

Chinese components can be suitable and cost-effective, particularly when the buyer has local maintenance capability or the supplier can provide reliable spares.

The important point is that substitutions must be explicit.

Request a bill of major components containing:

• Manufacturer
• Model
• Country of origin
• Quantity
• Proposed substitute
• Reason for selection
• Local support availability

Watch for Language That Hides Risk

“Final design after deposit”

Some design work will always happen after deposit. The risk appears when the supplier has not provided a credible concept, process flow, risk list, or preliminary layout before asking for payment.

“Cycle time depends on actual product”

This may be reasonable, but the supplier should state:

• Which product data is missing
• What cycle time is currently estimated
• How it will be validated
• What happens if the target cannot be achieved

“Standard FAT”

There is no useful standard FAT for a custom machine unless the test scope is defined.

“Remote support included”

Clarify:

• Support hours
• Response time
• Language
• Access method
• Duration
• Escalation process
• Included and chargeable work

“Buyer responsible for installation”

Clarify whether the supplier still provides:

• Installation drawings
• Leveling instructions
• Utility requirements
• Startup procedure
• Remote commissioning
• Training
• Troubleshooting

Example of a Normalized Comparison

A North American industrial manufacturer received quotations from four Chinese suppliers for an automated test and labeling station.

Initial prices ranged from USD 95,000 to USD 175,000.

After normalization:

Supplier A excluded:

• Test instrument
• Barcode verification
• Reject conveyor
• Software source files
• Installation

Supplier B included all of these items but used local controls.

Supplier C included premium international controls but assumed manual loading.

Supplier D included automatic loading and full traceability but required a longer development schedule.

Once the scope was normalized, Supplier A was no longer the lowest-cost complete solution. Supplier B became commercially attractive but required additional controls support planning. Supplier D became the best option for future scale.

The quotation comparison produced three different sourcing paths, not one simple ranking.

Suggested Risk Weighting

A starting point for many projects is:

• Technical fit: 25%
• Comparable experience: 20%
• Engineering ownership: 15%
• FAT maturity: 15%
• Overseas support: 10%
• Documentation and controls: 10%
• Price: 5%

The weighting should change by project.

For a standard palletizing cell, price may receive more weight.

For an unproven inspection process, feasibility evidence should receive much more.

Practical Rule

Only compare price inside the group of suppliers that can credibly execute the project.

A cheap proposal from an unsuitable supplier is not a saving.