When an overseas warehouse receives proposals from several Chinese unmanned forklift manufacturers, comparing the quoted unit price is rarely enough. Different suppliers may propose different vehicle types, navigation systems, software architectures, integration scopes, commissioning services, and warranty terms.

A procurement comparison should therefore put every supplier into the same technical and commercial framework before a purchase decision is made.

1. Start With the Same Warehouse Requirements

Send every supplier the same basic site information.

• Warehouse layout

• Pallet dimensions

• Maximum pallet weight

• Load center

• Required lift height

• Required aisle width

• Daily and hourly pallet movements

• Travel distances

• Floor conditions

• Temperature and environmental conditions

• WMS and ERP requirements

If each supplier makes assumptions from different information, the resulting proposals may not actually be comparable.

2. Compare the Actual Vehicle Configuration

The first technical comparison should focus on whether each proposed vehicle can perform the required warehouse tasks.

3. Compare Navigation Based on the Actual Environment

A supplier may propose laser SLAM, 3D SLAM, reflector-based navigation, magnetic navigation, QR navigation, or another configuration.

The important question is not which technology sounds more advanced. The buyer should ask which navigation method has been validated for the actual warehouse.

For example, consider long repetitive aisles, open spaces, reflective surfaces, changing staging areas, rack ends, pedestrian traffic, and temporary obstacles. The supplier should explain how localization is maintained in those conditions.

4. Compare Pallet-Handling Performance

Two AGVs with the same payload rating may perform very differently with a customer's pallets.

Ask each supplier to confirm:

• Fork dimensions

• Fork spacing

• Fork adjustment range

• Minimum fork-entry clearance

• Supported pallet types

• Load center assumptions

• Approach tolerance

• Placement requirements

The best comparison is based on representative pallets and actual rack locations rather than a specification sheet alone.

5. Compare Fleet Software

The vehicle is only one component of a multi-AGV system. Ask suppliers to demonstrate the fleet-management functions included in the proposal.

• Task dispatch

• Traffic management

• Vehicle monitoring

• Battery management

• Alarm history

• Mission history

• Manual intervention

• Map management

• User permissions

• Data export

• API access

Also determine whether the software is installed locally or hosted externally, whether Internet access is required, and what happens if the external connection is unavailable.

6. Compare WMS Integration Scope

One proposal may include WMS integration while another may only provide an API.

These are commercially different scopes.

Ask suppliers to document the actual interface, task format, status feedback, error handling, cancellation process, and testing responsibilities.

7. Compare Engineering and Commissioning

The quotation should clearly identify how much engineering support is included.

• Warehouse mapping

• Route configuration

• Traffic rules

• Charging configuration

• WMS integration

• Safety parameter configuration

• Operator training

• On-site commissioning

• FAT and SAT support

If on-site Chinese engineers are included, clarify the number of engineers, number of days, included activities, and additional-day charges.

8. Compare Warranty and Service Terms

Warranty should be compared by scope, not simply by duration.

Ask what happens when a drive motor, controller, sensor, battery, hydraulic component, or fleet server fails. Determine who diagnoses the problem, who supplies the replacement, and whether remote technical support is included.

For overseas buyers, response time and spare-parts logistics can be as important as the warranty period itself.

9. Compare What Is Excluded

Exclusions can create a major difference between proposals.

Check whether each quotation excludes shipping, customs, electrical installation, network infrastructure, rack modifications, WMS development, local unloading, safety-related site work, or additional engineering.

A higher initial quotation may contain a broader project scope, while a lower quotation may leave more work for the buyer or a local integrator.

10. Compare Using a Common Evaluation Sheet

A useful procurement sheet should contain at least four sections:

1. Vehicle: payload, lift, aisle, dimensions, battery, navigation and safety.

2. Software: fleet management, WMS integration, API, data and cybersecurity.

3. Project: simulation, engineering, commissioning, FAT, SAT and training.

4. Commercial: equipment price, software fees, shipping, warranty, spare parts and exclusions.

Only after these items are normalized should the procurement team compare the total commercial proposal.

11. Ask Each Supplier to State Its Assumptions

Every proposal should identify important assumptions.

For example, a throughput estimate may assume a specific travel distance, pallet weight, lift height, traffic level, charging strategy, and number of operating hours.

If Supplier A and Supplier B use different assumptions, their throughput or fleet-size recommendations cannot be compared directly.

12. Turn the Comparison Into a Contract Specification

The final comparison should not remain an internal spreadsheet. The approved technical scope should become part of the purchase specification.

This creates a clear reference for production, FAT, shipment, commissioning, SAT, warranty, and future fleet expansion.

For overseas buyers, the objective of proposal comparison is therefore not simply to identify the lowest quotation. It is to make sure every supplier is being compared against the same warehouse requirements, deliverables, assumptions, and acceptance conditions.