CYBORGS OF EARTH
Cyborg Index · August 2026

Kepler Forerunner K2 vs Kepler Forerunner K3

Both humanoids read on the same 8 axes and 40 sub-axes, using the published Index scores. Every difference below carries the public evidence behind it, and sub-axes with no public evidence count as 0 rather than being skipped.

Overall standing

Capability score · 0–5 over 40 sub-axes
Kepler Forerunner K2
Kepler Robotics
1.10of 5
Rank
#6
Coverage
26/40
Proof
0.05
Rank down 2 to 6 (was 4)
Kepler Forerunner K3
Kepler Robotics
1.18of 5
Rank
#5
Coverage
27/40
Proof
0.07
The short answer

Kepler Forerunner K3 scores 0.07 higher than Kepler Forerunner K2, but that lead rests mostly on vendor claims and demos.

Only 6% of Kepler Forerunner K3's score is carried by independently verified material — the rest is claimed or shown in demos. Kepler Forerunner K2 has more unscored ground than the gap between them, so this could change next month.

Where Kepler Forerunner K2 is ahead

Not ahead by enough on any axis to be worth reporting.

Where Kepler Forerunner K3 is ahead
  • Learning+0.40Rests on claims and demos
  • Autonomy+0.20Rests on claims and demos
What would change it

1 sub-axis on the trailing side have no public evidence yet. If all of them scored full marks they would be worth 0.13 — against a gap of 0.07.

  • Learning · Data flywheelup to +0.125
There is more unscored ground than there is gap, so this result could turn over after the next research month.
How much we know
66%of sub-axes covered

We have public evidence for 66% of the 40 sub-axes across these two.

Kepler Forerunner K2 · 65%
Kepler Forerunner K3 · 68%
The shape of each score
Kepler Forerunner K21.10
LocomotionManipulationPerceptionAutonomyLearningHRIDeploymentSafety

26/40 sub-axes have evidence

Faint outline = Kepler Forerunner K3

Kepler Forerunner K31.18
LocomotionManipulationPerceptionAutonomyLearningHRIDeploymentSafety

27/40 sub-axes have evidence

Faint outline = Kepler Forerunner K2

Reading the wheels — clockwise from the top
  1. 1 Locomotion
  2. 2 Manipulation
  3. 3 Perception
  4. 4 Autonomy
  5. 5 Learning
  6. 6 HRI
  7. 7 Deployment
  8. 8 Safety

Each wheel has 40 spokes — five per axis. A longer spoke is a higher score, and the dashed rings mark 1 to 4. Hover or tab onto any spoke to read the axis, the sub-axis and the exact value. A missing spoke means there is no public evidence for that sub-axis yet, which is not the same as scoring zero. The faint outline on each wheel is the other humanoid, drawn on the same scale.

Every axis, every sub-axis
Learning0.40Autonomy0.20LocomotionlevelManipulationlevelPerceptionlevelHRIlevelDeploymentlevelSafetylevel
Kepler Forerunner K2Kepler Forerunner K3
Shared 0–5 track · widest gap first
Learning
0.80 / 1.20► 0.40
Rests on claims and demosEvidenced cells · 2/5 vs 3/5
Imitation learning
2.00 / 2.00
Sim to real
— / —
Foundation policy
2.00 / 2.00
Data flywheel
— / 2.00► 2.00
Transfer fine tune
— / —
Autonomy
1.00 / 1.20► 0.20
Rests on claims and demosEvidenced cells · 4/5 vs 4/5
Unattended operation
0.00 / 0.00
Task horizon
2.00 / 2.00
Generalization
1.00 / 2.00► 1.00
Instruction following
2.00 / 2.00
Recovery from failure
— / —
Locomotion
1.60 / 1.60
Not enough public record yetEvidenced cells · 4/5 vs 4/5
Flat ground walking
2.00 / 2.00
Uneven terrain
2.00 / 2.00
Stairs
— / —
Disturbance recovery
2.00 / 2.00
Speed endurance
2.00 / 2.00
Manipulation
1.20 / 1.20
Not enough public record yetEvidenced cells · 3/5 vs 3/5
Grasp variety
2.00 / 2.00
Bimanual
2.00 / 2.00
Force control
2.00 / 2.00
In hand reorient
— / —
Tool use
— / —
Perception
1.40 / 1.40
Not enough public record yetEvidenced cells · 4/5 vs 4/5
Sensor stack
2.00 / 2.00
Scene understanding
1.00 / 1.00
Spatial memory
2.00 / 2.00
Object permanence
— / —
Semantic world model
2.00 / 2.00
HRI
1.60 / 1.60
Not enough public record yetEvidenced cells · 4/5 vs 4/5
Speech io
2.00 / 2.00
Nl instruction
2.00 / 2.00
Intent recognition
— / —
Safe proximity
2.00 / 2.00
Social presentation
2.00 / 2.00
Deployment
1.00 / 1.00
Not enough public record yetEvidenced cells · 4/5 vs 4/5
Named pilots
1.00 / 1.00
Field hours
1.00 / 1.00
Customer diversity
2.00 / 2.00
Supportability
— / —
Commercial posture
1.00 / 1.00
Safety
0.20 / 0.20
Not enough public record yetEvidenced cells · 1/5 vs 1/5
Functional safety
1.00 / 1.00
Certifications
— / —
E stop arch
— / —
Incident transparency
— / —
Force impact limits
— / —
Segment length and thickness are the gapNo public evidence yet
Which is better for what

Each row is decided by the axes that matter for that kind of work, read off the same Capability scores as the ranking. Rows only appear where both humanoids have enough public record to answer.

Manufacturing and warehouse work
Named pilots and field hours, backed by what the hands can actually do.
Level
Kepler Forerunner K2 and Kepler Forerunner K3 read the same on Deployment and Manipulation (1.07 vs 1.07).
Running without a human in the loop
Unattended operation and task horizon, backed by what the robot can perceive.
Kepler Forerunner K3
Kepler Forerunner K3 scores higher on Autonomy and Perception — 1.27 against 1.13 for Kepler Forerunner K2.
Moving through difficult ground
Uneven terrain, stairs and disturbance recovery.
Level
Kepler Forerunner K2 and Kepler Forerunner K3 read the same on Locomotion (1.60 vs 1.60).
Working alongside people
Functional safety and certification, plus how it reads and answers people.
Level
Kepler Forerunner K2 and Kepler Forerunner K3 read the same on Safety and HRI (0.67 vs 0.67).
Picking up new tasks
Imitation learning, transfer and generalisation across tasks.
Kepler Forerunner K3
Kepler Forerunner K3 scores higher on Learning and Autonomy — 1.20 against 0.87 for Kepler Forerunner K2.
Research and developer use
How much of the stack is documented and reproducible.
Kepler Forerunner K3
Kepler Forerunner K3 scores higher on Learning and Perception — 1.27 against 1.00 for Kepler Forerunner K2.
How solid the record is on each side
Kepler Forerunner K2
Sub-axes on the record
26 of 40 · 65%
Carried by verified material
5%
Rests on claims and demos
1.05
Best documented — Locomotion, Manipulation, Perception, Autonomy, HRI, Deployment
Nothing on the record — every axis has at least one read
Kepler Forerunner K3
Sub-axes on the record
27 of 40 · 68%
Carried by verified material
6%
Rests on claims and demos
1.10
Best documented — Locomotion, Manipulation, Perception, Autonomy, Learning, HRI, Deployment
Nothing on the record — every axis has at least one read

What this comparison cannot settle

  • Neither humanoid has a public read on 13 of the 40 sub-axes, so those cannot be compared at all.
  • 1 sub-axis is read on only one side. A one-sided cell is undecided, not a zero for the silent side.
  • Most of Kepler Forerunner K2's score rests on vendor statements and demo footage rather than independently verified material (5% carried by verified evidence).
  • Most of Kepler Forerunner K3's score rests on vendor statements and demo footage rather than independently verified material (6% carried by verified evidence).
  • Demonstrations happen in different environments and product revisions are not always equivalent, so like-for-like uptime and throughput figures do not exist for most of the field.

Go deeper on either humanoid

Nearby comparisons

All comparisons →
Cyborg IndexAugust 2026 editionCapability scoremethodology