36Kr Reports Unitree’s “No. 1 in the World” Achievement

On Aug. 15, 2025, 36Kr published an article saying Unitree Robotics had achieved “No. 1 in the world.”

The first distinction to make is between the ranking reported by the publication and the evaluation criteria behind it. The excerpt provided confirms the phrase “No. 1 in the world,” but does not specify the category, judging method or scope of comparison. The phrase therefore cannot be taken to mean that the robot is superior in overall performance or practical utility. Refer to the original 36Kr article for its specific details and evaluation criteria. The connection to related coverage by this newspaper is also the need to avoid conflating different measures of achievement. Beijing Humanoid: 8 papers accepted to CoRL 2026, leaderobot.com reports covers paper acceptances and illustrates the need to distinguish academic results from sustained operation of physical robots. Meanwhile, [Digirise surveys 3 Chinese cities and 7 companies; robot retrieves online-order medicines from shelves at a Shanghai pharmacy](/en/news/digirise-surveys-seven-companies-in-three-chinese-cities-finds-robot-r-008c5b) reports an example of work performed at a specific site. These are not evidence supporting Unitree’s ranking, but serve only as comparisons showing that research results, competition evaluations and on-site work records are separate matters to verify. From an industrial perspective, this report shows how difficult it is to assess a company based on a single ranking. A ranking is a result under specific competition or judging conditions and does not necessarily demonstrate manufacturing capacity, uptime, maintenance or repeatability of tasks. An article asking which companies support China’s robotics industry, published by leaderobot.com, also notes that publication of an article alone does not independently substantiate the assessments or figures it presents. When evaluating a company’s competitiveness, the basis for a ranking and evidence of product deployment and operation must be checked separately. The next points to verify are the category and judging criteria behind the reported “No. 1 in the world” ranking, the participating robots and the source that published the results. Separately, publicly available information is needed to verify the scope of capabilities the ranking represents and how they relate to sustained operation in real-world environments and experience applying the robots to multiple tasks. The information provided is not enough to establish these points.