Guide 7
A practical guide to the cost of companion and assistive robot technology in UK care settings. Covers purchase, lease, and subscription (RaaS) models, what affects the price, realistic cost structures, and how to approach the business case.
Pricing is one of the most common and least well-answered questions for care home managers and commissioners evaluating robot technology. Most vendors do not publish list prices; care organisations end up in sales conversations before they have the context to evaluate whether a product represents value. This guide is designed to change that by explaining how care robot pricing typically works, what the main cost variables are, and how to approach a business case honestly.
Important note on figures in this guide: specific prices for named products are not included because pricing for care robot technology changes, varies by contract terms, and is rarely published publicly. The cost structures described are based on publicly available information and reported market practice (NOT VERIFIED against specific current contracts). Any organisation evaluating this technology should obtain formal quotes from suppliers and treat any indicative figures as illustrative starting points only.
Care robot pricing is frequently not published for the same reasons that apply to many B2B technology products: vendors price by contract, volume discounts are substantial, and the same device may be offered at very different price points to a single care home versus a large care group or an NHS trust.
A second factor is that the market is young. Vendors are still learning what the market will pay, what level of support is genuinely needed (and therefore what the true cost of delivery is), and how to price for a care sector that operates on thin margins and is not used to technology subscription costs.
For a commissioning team, this means that getting to a realistic cost figure requires engaging suppliers directly. This guide gives you the framework to understand what you are being quoted before you enter that conversation.
There are three broad ways to procure care robot and companion device technology. Each has different financial and operational characteristics.
The organisation pays a one-off capital cost to own the device. This is straightforward from an accounting perspective (capital expenditure) but means the buyer carries the risk of obsolescence and bears the full cost of maintenance and repair. For a therapeutic device like a PARO seal, outright purchase has historically been the norm because there is no ongoing software dependency. For AI-powered companion devices, outright purchase is less common because the AI capabilities depend on ongoing software updates and cloud services that typically require a subscription element regardless.
Outright purchase makes sense when the technology is mature, the software is stable and self-contained, and the organisation has the in-house capability to manage and maintain the device without vendor support. These conditions are rarely fully met for current-generation care robots.
A lease arrangement means the organisation pays a regular fee (typically monthly or annually) for use of the device, with the vendor retaining ownership. At the end of the lease term, the organisation can return the device, renew, or in some cases purchase. Leasing converts a capital cost to an operating expense, which may suit organisations with restricted capital budgets. It also transfers the risk of obsolescence to the vendor: when a newer device becomes available, returning the leased unit and upgrading is straightforward.
The disadvantage of leasing is that over a long period the total cost of payments typically exceeds the outright purchase price. Organisations should model the full cost over the likely period of use before assuming a lease is financially advantageous.
RaaS is a subscription model in which the vendor provides not just the device but an ongoing managed service: software updates, remote monitoring, technical support, staff training, and in some cases proactive management of the device's deployment within the care home. The monthly or annual fee covers everything.
RaaS is the model that Service Robotics uses for its GenieConnect companion robot platform in UK care homes. It is increasingly common in the care sector because it removes the need for in-house technical capability, aligns costs with usage (a home that deploys three units pays for three), and ensures the technology remains current as the vendor develops new features.
From a procurement perspective, RaaS works best for organisations that want a managed, low-maintenance deployment and are prepared to commit to a multi-year contract. The per-unit monthly cost is typically higher than the equivalent amortised cost of an outright purchase, but the total cost of ownership, including support and updates, may be comparable or lower once those factors are included.
Within any of the above models, several factors will influence the actual price offered.
Unit costs fall materially with volume. A single care home deploying one companion device will pay a substantially higher per-unit cost than a care group deploying the same device across twenty homes. If you are part of a care group, exploring a group-wide agreement before individual homes engage separately with vendors is worth doing.
Longer commitments generally attract lower per-period pricing. A vendor may price a one-year RaaS contract at a higher monthly rate than a three-year commitment. The risk to the buyer is being locked into a contract for technology that turns out not to work well in the setting; pilot clauses and break provisions are therefore worth negotiating.
What is included in the contract for staff training, ongoing support, and technical maintenance varies significantly between vendors and contract tiers. A lower headline price that excludes training and support may cost more in practice than a higher headline price that includes both. Always compare contracts on a total cost of ownership basis, not just the unit price.
A basic companion device at the lower end of the market has a very different cost structure from a sophisticated AI-powered unit with advanced natural language capability, integrated health monitoring (where offered), and complex family management software. The choice of device should be driven by the care home's specific need, not by price alone, but understanding what capability you actually need is the starting point for cost analysis.
Funding for care technology in UK settings comes from several sources, depending on the type of organisation and the nature of the deployment.
For most independent and group-operated care homes, technology costs are met from the operating budget as a business investment. The business case must show that the technology either reduces other costs (which companion robots generally do not, directly) or improves resident wellbeing and care quality in ways that support occupancy, CQC ratings, or staff satisfaction. The latter is a less tangible but real argument in a market where CQC ratings and reputation affect fee income.
For care technology deployed as part of an NHS-funded pathway (for example, in intermediate care, hospital discharge support, or integrated care programme), NHS commissioners may fund some or all of the cost. NHS England's technology and digital strategy has supported investment in assistive technology, and Integrated Care Boards have discretion to commission digital and technology interventions where evidence supports them. The route is typically through an application to a local digital or innovation fund rather than standard commissioning contracts, and it is competitive.
Local authorities commissioning residential or domiciliary care on behalf of self-funded or council-funded residents may consider assistive technology as part of the care package. Technology that demonstrably reduces social care costs (for example, by extending independence and delaying residential care entry) has the clearest case for local authority funding. Companion devices for residents in care homes are less directly in scope, but technology that supports NHS-equivalent outcomes may attract interest from localities with integrated care funding.
NHS Trusts, Academic Health Science Networks, and local authorities have all at various points provided funding for technology innovation pilots in care settings. These funds are time-limited and competitive. They can be a route to accessing technology at low or no cost during the pilot period, with the expectation that the organisation will fund continuation from its own budget if the pilot succeeds. This route is worthwhile exploring but should not be the primary funding plan.
Care home managers and commissioners evaluating care robot technology need to be able to make a business case internally, and in some cases to board level, a care group head office, or a commissioning body. The following framework is a starting point.
A business case for companion technology should start with a specific, measurable problem: social isolation affecting a defined number of residents, limited family contact among a particular resident cohort, or agitation in the dementia unit that requires staff time to manage. Technology that addresses a specific, evidenced problem makes a stronger case than technology procured on general grounds.
The benefits of companion technology are primarily wellbeing outcomes rather than cost savings. Be honest about this. Attempted cost savings from reduced staff time are rarely realistic; companion devices do not enable staffing reductions and should not be proposed as doing so. The case should be made on wellbeing grounds: resident quality of life, family satisfaction, CQC quality of care ratings, and staff wellbeing (where reduced agitation management is a real effect).
Procurement of care technology should generally start with a time-limited pilot before a full deployment commitment. A well-designed pilot defines in advance how success will be measured, sets a minimum threshold for proceeding, and includes an explicit go or no-go decision point. See our guide on choosing assistive robots for a care setting for a framework for designing a responsible pilot.
The full cost of a technology deployment includes the device or subscription cost, staff training time, management time during the pilot, any IT or connectivity requirements, and the cost of evaluating and reporting on outcomes. These costs are frequently underestimated. A realistic cost model should include them.
When you are in conversation with a vendor, the following questions will help you understand the true cost and make a fair comparison between options.
You are entitled to clear, written answers to all of these questions before committing. A vendor that cannot or will not answer them clearly is not ready for a serious procurement conversation.
If you are a care home manager, commissioner, or NHS technology lead exploring the cost and procurement of care robot technology, write to us at hello@humanoidrobotcare.co.uk. We can help you understand the market and connect you with relevant UK providers. We are an information service, not a vendor; we do not sell devices.
Our For Providers page covers the operational and regulatory context in more depth, and explains the enquiry route for care organisations at the research or planning stage.
Common questions
For most independent and smaller care homes, a Robotics as a Service (RaaS) subscription is the most practical option. It avoids a large upfront capital cost, includes technical support and software updates in the fee, and means the vendor carries the risk of obsolescence. Outright purchase tends to suit organisations with in-house technical capability and a device that has stable, self-contained software, which is rarely the case for current AI-powered companion devices. Leasing converts capital to operating expenditure but can cost more overall than purchase over a longer period. Whichever model you consider, compare on a total cost of ownership basis, including training and support, not just the headline unit price.
There is no dedicated national public funding stream specifically for companion or care robots in UK care homes. However, several routes are worth exploring. NHS Integrated Care Boards have supported assistive technology pilots where there is a clear case tied to NHS-funded pathways. Local authorities may fund technology that forms part of a council-commissioned care package. Academic Health Science Networks and NHS innovation funds have occasionally funded time-limited pilots. These routes are competitive and not guaranteed. For most care homes, technology costs are met from the operating budget, so the business case needs to be made on resident wellbeing and care quality grounds.