Two SwarmFarm SwarmBot 5 robots have each logged roughly 7,500 hours over five years on a 26,300-hectare Australian mixed farm, and owner Tom Coggan estimates total operating costs are about 70% lower than conventional spraying. Coggan Farms uses the machines mainly for fallow and in-crop spraying with WEED-IT optical spot-spray technology, and Coggan would buy them again.

The SwarmBot 5 carries an 18-metre Hayes spray boom, WEED-IT cameras and a 3,000-litre tank. At 9.5 km/h, working capacity sits around 13 hectares per hour, with daily output of 100–200 hectares. Boom widths of up to 27 metres are possible on the platform.

"Performance is reasonable. It could be better, but for the task it is conducting, it is the perfect speed," Coggan said of the machine's pace.

What are the real running costs?

Coggan reports concrete per-robot figures from five seasons of use:

• Servicing: approximately A$1,000 per service
• Software subscription: A$12,500 per year
• Labour: approximately one hour per day
• Fuel: 4–7 litres per hour

Service intervals run at 500 operating hours, with daily greasing at roughly 14 points. Based on those numbers, Coggan puts total operating costs about 70% below conventional spraying equipment. That figure is his own assessment rather than a verified cost comparison, and he notes calculating the exact financial benefit remains difficult.

How did the robots score?

Coggan rated the machines on nine practical criteria, from ease of use to overall value, based on field experience rather than laboratory measurements.

• Ease of use and interface — 4/5. "The system is very simple and intuitive to learn and operate," he said. The interface offers about 26 settings pages, all clearly labelled, and operators can build a favourites menu of frequently used functions.
• Commissioning and setup — 3/5. The robots needed only minor adjustments to fit existing operations, but every field first had to be mapped and prepared for autonomous work, and each spraying task must be created and scheduled.
• Autonomy and reliability — 4/5. Under normal conditions the SwarmBots run independently with little intervention, though difficult field conditions can cut capacity.
• Build quality — 4/5. After approximately 7,500 hours each, both robots remain in reasonable condition with normal wear and tear.
• Integration — 3/5. Season start-up is the biggest challenge, particularly when field layouts have changed or wet weather has affected paddocks. SwarmFarm Robotics supplied the robots, with attachments from a partner company. Spraying is the primary job, but Coggan sees potential for tillage and seeding later.
• Capacity and performance — 3/5. The 13 ha/hour figure limits outright output, but suits the spot-spraying task.
• Operating costs — 3/5. See the figures above.
• Maintenance and support — 4/5. Coggan rates manufacturer support 10 out of 10.
• Overall value — 4/5. Beyond savings, the robots have improved work planning and helped the farm spray at the right time.

What does this mean for growers weighing autonomy?

The review confirms autonomy pays off on repetitive, routine tasks: consistent spraying performance, reduced chemical use through WEED-IT spot application, and the ability to redeploy labour elsewhere on the farm. Coggan says the planning changes required for the robots have also improved the efficiency of the farm's conventional machinery.

But autonomy does not remove human involvement. Seasonal shifts in paddock conditions and field layouts remain the single biggest weakness, demanding extra preparation before each season. Coggan's verdict on a repeat purchase is an unqualified yes.

The review is based on practical experience reported by the farmer; star ratings represent the grower's own assessment and should not be read as independently verified performance measurements. Growers considering the platform should watch SwarmFarm's expanding attachment options, given Coggan's expectation that the same robots will take on tillage and seeding work beyond spraying.