A real robotic arm makes the Roborock Saros Z70 the first of its kind, and it reads more like a technology showcase than a mature product. PCMag (3/5) and TechRadar (3.5/5) agree the core cleaning is excellent while the arm amounts to a $1,000+ novelty over the Qrevo Curv. Buy it to be first on your block with a robot-armed vac; otherwise save ~$1,500 and get the Qrevo Curv.
Full review
A five-axis arm that moves one sock at a time
The OmniGrip arm is what $1,699.99 buys over any other Roborock: a jointed appendage that identifies a sock, slipper or cable, picks it up, and carries it to a drop zone you designate in the app. TechRadar, which scored the machine 3.5 out of 5, described the arm as a real engineering achievement that is not yet all that handy. It handles one object at a time, declines to reach in close to furniture legs to avoid damaging itself, and will not tidy a room in any sense a person would recognise.
Vision that loses a dark sock on a dark rug
Object recognition drives the arm, and contrast is where it breaks down. Dark items on dark flooring frequently go unseen, and misclassification happens - a sock on a wood floor read as pet waste in one documented case. Roborock's own representatives acknowledged during briefings that dark carpet troubles the vision system. Reactive AI 3.0 claims 108 object types, but a confident classifier is not the same thing as an arm that can act on it.
22,000 Pa and StarSight 2.0 underneath the novelty
Strip the arm away and this is an excellent cleaner. Suction is rated at 22,000 Pa, the dual spinning mop pads lift when the robot crosses onto carpet, and StarSight 2.0 pairs a dual-eye camera with LiDAR for mapping and obstacle avoidance, though PCMag found it doesn't improve upon obstacle avoidance compared with previous Roborock models. Battery runtime is 180 minutes, and the dock empties the bin, washes the pads in hot water, dries them, dispenses detergent and refills the tank without intervention.
Setup includes coaching it where to put your socks
Commissioning takes a mapping run plus roughly ten minutes in the app defining drop zones for whatever the robot collects. You then choose between sorting as it cleans or a dedicated sorting pass afterwards. A manual mode lets you drive the robot and work the claw through its camera feed, which is entertaining once and tedious after that. Firmware updates have changed behaviour materially since launch, so older impressions do not necessarily describe the machine you would receive.
The Qrevo Curv cleans the same floors for far less
PCMag scored it 3 out of 5 and TechRadar 3.5, and both arrive in the same place: the cleaning is premium, the arm is a proof of concept, and the gap between this price and a Qrevo Curv buys very little anyone will use. Buy it to own the first robot vacuum with an arm. If the goal is clean floors, the same navigation and mopping exist elsewhere in Roborock's range for roughly a thousand dollars less.
Strengths
- +22,000 Pa suction with dual spinning mop pads that lift when transitioning onto carpet
- +Reactive AI 3.0 can identify 108 object types including pet waste
- +Full Omni dock: self-empty, hot-water mop wash with auto-drying, detergent dispensing, water refill
Watch-outs
- −Arm can't actually tidy a room in any meaningful way — it picks one item at a time and places it at a designated drop zone
How it compares
The Roborock Saros Z70 adds the OmniGrip robotic arm, which can move socks, cables and small toys up to 300g, a feature the Roborock Qrevo Curv does not have. Its 22,000 Pa suction is above the Qrevo Curv's 18,500 Pa and the Dreame X50 Ultra's 20,000 Pa, and its Reactive AI 3.0 identifies 108 object types against around 60 for the Qrevo Curv. The arm is slow and picks up one item at a time.
Rating sources
Counts as 3.42/5 in our score — this publisher's 195 scores on the site average 4.25, so its scores are adjusted down to compare fairly with other publishers.
Counts as 3.16/5 in our score — this publisher's 181 scores on the site average 4.00, so its scores are adjusted up to compare fairly with other publishers.
Counts as 4.08/5 in our score — this publisher's 87 scores on the site average 3.98, so its scores are adjusted up to compare fairly with other publishers.
Our 3.6 score is the average of these published ratings, each adjusted for how strictly its publisher scores. More about methodology.
