Report number: MTF-CF-RR-2026-10-12-IR-AWS
Author: MTF Institute Research Team
Independent review: MTF Institute Research QA
Evidence date: 12 October 2026
Geography: United States
Executive summary
This report examines 112 U.S. employer vacancies from 39 employers for work involving industrial robots, autonomous warehouse systems, and their connected software and controls. The evidence comes from a purposive employer-page sample read on 12 October 2026. This is a point-in-time account of selected advertised work, not a representative survey of U.S. hiring or a forecast of employment. Limiting each employer’s contribution to five weighted postings reduces the analytical denominator from 112 to 82; that sensitivity check does not create a probability sample.
The 112 vacancies comprise 36 systems deployment and integration, 23 controls and commissioning, 19 autonomy and software integration, 30 fleet operations and reliability, and four hardware design, test and validation roles. These are connected but distinct responsibilities. Some roles validate a site and use case, resolve interfaces, coordinate installation, plan tests and hand a system to operations. Others build or commission controls and workcells, integrate software or autonomy components, or support the fleet after launch. A vacancy in one group does not establish that every worker must perform all of these tasks. ROS 2 appears in selected software and integration postings; it is not a universal warehouse robotics requirement.
The source pages make the outputs of this work unusually concrete. Amazon describes deployment planning, installation and launch at fulfillment sites; Boxbot connects warehouse controls integration with factory and site acceptance testing; Aumovio names commissioning and production release; Stow Group / Movu US links an integrated schedule with customer activities and acceptance. These examples point to practical work records: a bounded use-case and site-readiness assessment, an interface agreement, test evidence, a risk and issue record, a handoff package, and an operating review. The exact form and approval of those records remains employer- and site-specific.
The corpus shows why technical fluency alone is insufficient. A deployment can involve engineering, installers, safety personnel, software teams, site operations, maintenance and customers. Amazon’s site deployment manager page shows coordination across field teams, engineering, site operations and quality. The professional task is to make assumptions, dependencies, tests, exceptions and ownership visible to authorized people. The vacancy evidence does not grant a reader authority to operate a robot, change energized equipment, approve safety controls or sign off a live installation.
Research question and scope
The question is: What duties, work products, technical and behavioral capabilities, tools, qualifications, work cadence, interfaces and decision boundaries do selected current U.S. employer vacancies describe for industrial robotics and autonomous warehouse systems? The principal geography was declared as the United States before collection. A posting entered the principal sample only when a U.S. location or U.S. hiring context was established and the role had substantive work in warehouse robotics, robot-enabled fulfillment, relevant factory automation, or directly connected controls and software. An employer’s foreign headquarters did not disqualify a U.S. role; a non-U.S. vacancy did not fill a U.S. evidence gap.
The study looked for employer-owned job detail or applicant pages. Search results were discovery leads, not sufficient evidence by themselves. Reviewers looked for the role, location, substantive duties and a current detail or application state in an employer page or its employer-controlled applicant tracking system. Some pages do not show a posting date. In those cases, a live detail page and application control on the retrieval date supported point-in-time currency, not a claim about when the job opened or how long it would remain open. Employer pages can change immediately after collection.
The collection excluded generic warehouse operations without a substantive robotics or automation duty; sales-only vacancies; internships and academic research roles outside the applied work question; and autonomous systems in unrelated fields when a warehouse or factory link was absent. A general robotics title was not enough. For example, a role centered on remote field inspection cannot be counted as warehouse automation merely because the robot is mobile. Closely adjacent warehouse sensing or vision roles can inform an explicitly labeled interface discussion, but cannot silently become evidence of autonomous mobile robot deployment. Those boundaries matter because the technologies in this study do not map neatly onto one occupation.
Sample profile
Each of the 112 retained requisitions was assigned one primary analytic role family. The weighted column gives each requisition the lesser of 1 or 5 divided by its employer’s retained requisition count. This is a concentration sensitivity, not an estimate of national job shares. The five families describe this selected corpus, rather than occupations with interchangeable entry requirements.
| Primary role family | Requisitions | Employer-cap-five weighted count |
|---|---|---|
| Systems deployment and integration | 36 | 31.92 |
| Controls and commissioning | 23 | 19.26 |
| Autonomy and software integration | 19 | 10.17 |
| Fleet operations and reliability | 30 | 19.38 |
| Hardware design, test and validation | 4 | 1.27 |
| Total | 112 | 82.00 |
Employer concentration is material. Nimble Robotics, Symbotic, Formic and Tutor Intelligence account for 16, 15, 12 and 7 retained requisitions respectively, or 50 of the 112 records. Under the five-per-employer sensitivity cap they contribute 20 of the weighted 82. Some requisitions within an employer reuse a role template; distinct openings do not turn repeated wording into independent corroboration.
Each retained record carries an employer, direct URL, location, requisition identifier when available, retrieval date, a short supporting excerpt, inclusion reason and coding fields. Requisitions were deduplicated by normalized direct URL and by employer with requisition identifier. Distinct live requisitions were retained even if an employer used similar text across sites or levels. Repeated template language, however, is not independent corroboration that a capability is widespread. The analysis therefore keeps the employer distribution visible and computes a sensitivity view that limits the contribution of any one employer to five weighted postings. That adjustment explores concentration; it is not a probability weight and does not make the sample nationally representative.
Coding separated stated duties from stated qualifications and named work products from analyst-inferred useful records. It separated required qualifications from preferred ones where the page did so. If a job page did not say whether a skill was required, preferred or optional, the distinction was recorded as unknown. A technology absent from a short excerpt is unknown, not a demonstrated absence from the full vacancy. The five broad role families used below are analytic groupings, not official job classifications: systems deployment and integration; controls and commissioning; autonomy and software integration; fleet operations and reliability; and hardware design, test and validation. One requisition has one primary family, although its duties can cross those boundaries.
The finding sections use individual employer pages to show the meaning of an advertised duty. They do not quote or reproduce job descriptions beyond what is needed to identify the evidence. A short excerpt gives a traceable example; it is not a complete account of every requirement in the page.
The following table counts exact topic matches within one retained short excerpt per requisition. The topic bundles overlap. Each raw count is exact for those retained excerpts but only a lower bound on mentions in the full postings; it is not the proportion of full postings that require a skill. The weighted count applies the same employer cap to the excerpt matches. Neither column describes national prevalence. For example, a full page may mention ROS 2 even when its single retained excerpt does not. No absence or prevalence conclusion about AMRs or collaborative robots follows from this excerpt table.
| Explicit excerpt signal | Excerpts | Weighted excerpts | Illustrative employer page |
|---|---|---|---|
| Robot deployment or commissioning | 34 | 28.79 | Atomic Industries |
| System or robot integration | 17 | 14.96 | Boxbot |
| Controls or PLC | 17 | 12.50 | Daifuku |
| ROS 2 named explicitly | 2 | 2.00 | Applied Intuition |
| Fleet scaling, operation, coordination or support | 13 | 8.26 | Locus Robotics |
| Testing, acceptance, validation or safety-related work | 27 | 19.15 | Aumovio |
| Fault diagnosis, maintenance or reliability | 24 | 16.28 | GXO Logistics |
Deployment and systems integration: turning a site into an operable system
Deployment roles sit at the intersection of a business use case and a physical site. The job is not merely to place a robot on a floor. It requires someone to clarify the intended flow, coordinate equipment and software dependencies, establish what needs testing, and make the handover intelligible to the people who will operate and maintain the system. Amazon’s site deployment manager posting connects field-team leadership with installation, integration and commissioning across several site types, including Automated Robotics facilities. A separate Amazon deployment posting describes guiding installation of robotics, packaging and sortation equipment. These distinct requisitions from one employer are not independent evidence of market prevalence.
The front end of that pattern is use-case and site readiness. Before a deployment team commits to an acceptance date, it needs a shared picture of the process being automated, material characteristics, existing equipment, space and network dependencies, operating hours, exception routes and the owner of each prerequisite. Formic’s robotics deployment project manager posting describes work from scope validation through installation and commissioning. The professional output suggested by that duty is a bounded readiness record: what was observed, what remains unknown, what depends on a customer or specialist, what evidence is required, and who will decide. Such a record can support a disciplined handoff without pretending that a planning document itself certifies a safe installation.
The integration challenge then becomes explicit. Warehouse automation may combine robot equipment, conveyors or other material handling equipment, local controls, site networking, order or task systems, and operator procedures. An integration plan should name each interface, its owner, the information or physical state crossing it, expected normal behavior, failure behavior, and a testable acceptance condition. Stow Group / Movu US includes warehouse controls and robotics equipment in an engineering handover context. Boxbot’s senior controls engineer page explicitly joins warehouse controls integration with factory and site acceptance testing. These pages justify attention to interface contracts and test evidence. They do not justify assuming that one universal interface diagram or test script fits all vendors and sites.
Schedule and decision work is equally tangible. Stow Group / Movu US’s project manager posting spans engineering, procurement, delivery, installation, controls, commissioning, customer activity and acceptance. A schedule in that environment is useful only if dependencies and decision owners are visible. The posting assigns risk communication, recovery coordination and handover work; a decision log or recovery record is a useful analytical example, not a document explicitly named by that employer. A team member needs to distinguish a routine issue from a change in scope, unresolved safety prerequisite or acceptance blocker; record the consequence; and route the decision to the responsible owner. Exotec’s deployment project manager posting explicitly describes maintaining a risk register and driving mitigation.
Deployment ends with a transition, not a ceremonial go-live date. A useful handoff identifies the approved configuration, test results, known exceptions, contacts, recovery paths, operator briefing and support ownership. Tutor Intelligence’s deployment manager page links on-site deployment to early post-launch stabilization. Amazon’s site deployment manager role includes standard work and training. Together, these duties make a handover package a concrete work product. They do not establish that the same individual writes every document, trains every operator and approves release.
Controls, commissioning and validation: proving what was built
Controls and commissioning vacancies focus on the behavior of equipment under defined conditions. Some roles design or modify PLC, HMI and related control systems; some validate installations; some troubleshoot what is already running. Aumovio’s robotics and controls engineer vacancy explicitly names factory acceptance testing, site acceptance testing, commissioning and production release. Daifuku’s aftermarket controls engineer page connects control-system changes with commissioning and support for material handling solutions. Walmart’s automation engineering posting names controls documentation, drawings and commissioning packages.
These duties imply a chain of evidence. A test plan identifies the configuration under test, prerequisites, expected results and the person with authority to witness or accept each step. A recorded result ties an observed outcome to a version, time, environment and issue reference. A deviation becomes an issue with an owner, severity, disposition and retest condition. Factory and site tests differ in context, and the posting evidence does not settle their exact scope for a given project. It does support the professional habit of separating a planned check, an executed check, an observed exception and the later acceptance decision.
Commissioning often spans electrical, mechanical and software interfaces. That combination makes disciplined escalation more important than improvisation. Mytra’s controls posting links PLC-based controls, industrial networks and mobile or stationary equipment integration. Tutor Intelligence’s test and troubleshooting technician posting describes bringing up a mobile base, robot arm, sensors and safety circuits before warehouse shipment. These examples show the breadth of subsystems a specialist may encounter. They do not authorize a general reader to energize a device, modify a stop circuit, enter a restricted area or certify safety. Such activities require the employer’s qualified personnel, site controls, equipment documentation and approval chain.
Testing is also a communication task. A plan that names only test steps but omits the required initial state and expected outcome is difficult to repeat. A punch list that merely says “robot failed” cannot drive diagnosis. The relevant professional capability is to describe the observable behavior, affected interface, evidence collected, suspected scope and owner for the next action. Boxbot and Aumovio support this test-and-acceptance theme directly. The exact acceptance threshold must come from the project specification and authorized site decision, not from an educational example or a generic report.
Software, ROS 2 and autonomy: interfaces before labels
The software roles in the sample do not form one interchangeable “robotics programmer” job. Some focus on system-to-system integration, data flow and acceptance testing; some focus on robot middleware, drivers, perception or planning; others support deployed software. Exotec’s software integration role connects integration testing and user acceptance testing with go-live work and describes warehouse management and control systems as relevant domain context. Applied Intuition’s robotics integration engineer posting links sensors, networking, embedded systems, controls and middleware such as ROS 2. Walmart’s vision engineering posting names a different mix of robotics software and sensing tools in supply-chain automation.
The useful lesson from these examples is about interface reasoning. A robot may report status to a fleet service, receive tasks from another system, consume sensor data, and exchange exceptions with an operator workflow. For each exchange, a professional integration record should specify the producer and consumer, message or state meaning, timing assumption, error response, logging evidence and test boundary. The record can be precise without declaring one middleware framework mandatory. “Uses ROS 2” is a technology statement about a particular system; “understands the purpose and failure modes of an interface” is a broader work capability supported across several role types.
ROS 2 deserves careful interpretation. Selected postings explicitly mention it, including Applied Intuition and Walmart. Walmart mentions ROS 2 in its full employer posting, but not in the short excerpt counted in the table. The table’s two ROS 2 matches come from other retained excerpts. The evidence supports treating ROS 2 workflows as a relevant applied software pathway for understanding nodes, messages, integration and tests. It does not support the claim that every warehouse AMR uses ROS 2, that every deployment role codes in it, or that introductory familiarity meets a senior autonomy engineering job’s experience requirements. Its significance depends on the role, the required or preferred status of the skill, and the role’s level.
The same restraint applies to collaborative robots and autonomous mobile robots. A collaborative manufacturing cell and a warehouse mobile fleet create different integration questions. Standard Bots’ automation engineer vacancy concerns industrial and collaborative robot cell integration at manufacturing sites. Aumovio’s controls page names robot equipment and AMR/AGV context; Stow Group / Movu US names AMR and warehouse-control interfaces. Those examples show why equipment type and interface need separate analysis. They cannot establish a universal equipment mix or a prevalence estimate from the selected excerpts.
Fleet operations and reliability: support after launch
Once equipment is live, the work shifts toward observing performance, triaging faults, planning recovery and feeding recurring problems back to engineering. Locus Robotics’ field role supplies a warehouse AMR example with fleet health and workflow duties. Tutor Intelligence’s technical customer engineer page names uptime, reliability, throughput, customer satisfaction and production diagnosis. Formic’s product support engineer page describes technical escalations and testing changes across PLC, robot, software and configuration layers.
GXO Logistics’ senior automation engineer vacancy in Tracy, California gives a particularly concrete goods-to-person example. It assigns performance and reliability of a named Geek+ system in a continuously operating distribution environment and connects task strategy and grid zoning to maintenance, vendor and customer interfaces. A useful work product in that setting is a bounded uptime and downtime review with the task or zone change being proposed, its expected material-flow effect, evidence to test it and the parties who must approve it. This is a senior site role. It cannot be generalized into a claim that an entry-level worker can change a live fleet’s operating strategy independently.
An effective performance review should keep measurement and explanation separate. A decrease in throughput may coincide with a robot fault, a task-allocation change, an upstream shortage, network instability or an operator process change. A useful review therefore records the metric definition, interval, site state, configuration version, incident timeline, candidate causes and next diagnostic owner. It does not infer causation from a single dashboard trend. The cited employer duties support reliability and performance analysis; they do not provide a universal key performance indicator or an acceptable target for every site.
Recovery is similarly governed. A support worker can capture a symptom, preserve logs, classify impact and route an issue. Whether the worker can reset a robot, change a controller, enter an operating zone or return equipment to service depends on site procedures and specific authorization. A documented escalation route is a professional output because it makes that boundary visible. Symbotic’s software support role places support in a network-operations setting; Formic’s field service role describes deployed robotic-cell diagnosis. These postings should be read as examples of different support positions, not a claim that a software support engineer and a field technician have identical physical duties.
Two GXO robotics technician requisitions in Carlisle, Pennsylvania make that distinction sharper. They concern inspection, functional testing and repair of named warehouse equipment on different shifts. Their similar wording is one employer’s repeated role template, although the requisition identifiers differ. Physical repair belongs to trained site personnel under their employer’s procedures; the public posting does not specify a reader’s authorization or the complete safe-work process.
Fleet work also produces knowledge. A recurring issue may call for an incident record, a tested corrective action, a change request, an updated troubleshooting guide or a training note. The status of each should be explicit: observed problem, proposed change, approved change, tested outcome or remaining risk. The sample’s support postings show why this trace matters: a robot fleet is operated across shifts and teams, and an undocumented fix is difficult to reproduce safely or assess later. The professional capability is to pass a complete, bounded account to the next authorized owner.
Qualifications, levels, cadence and decision boundaries
The selected vacancies span technicians, individual-contributor engineers, specialists, project managers and senior or principal roles. That variety precludes a single entry requirement. Symbotic’s Integration Specialist I role states a two-year experience threshold in its technical posting. Amazon’s site deployment manager role asks for extensive operations, installation and people-management experience; Formic’s controls and automation engineer posting seeks extensive industrial automation experience. Tutor Intelligence’s robot-operator page describes performance tracking, issue reporting and feature testing without stating the same degree or years threshold. These differences leave no defensible single “typical” applicant profile.
Required and preferred tools also vary. A posting may name PLC and HMI work because it is a controls role; another may name Python, Linux, APIs or ROS 2 because it is a software role. A named tool is not automatically a required qualification: it may be background context or a preference. Behavioral capabilities have a similarly practical meaning. Communication here is the ability to tell installers, software engineers, site operations and a customer what is known, what is blocked and what decision is needed. Problem solving is the ability to define a fault, collect evidence, test a hypothesis within one’s authority and escalate a change rather than improvise at the machine.
Cadence depends on the work phase. Deployment pages point to project milestones, site coordination and go-live windows. Commissioning pages point to test and release sequences. Fleet pages point to ongoing monitoring, incident response and periodic review. The vacancy corpus does not provide comparable shift schedules, travel burden or time allocations for all roles. A role may include travel or on-site work, but no one pattern can be generalized from the selected pages. Where an employer does not state the cadence, this report treats it as unknown.
Authority is more consequential than a job title. The person who discovers an unsafe condition, writes a risk entry or proposes a controls change is not necessarily the person who can approve the response. Site safety, equipment operations, energized work, validation and final acceptance follow the employer’s qualified-person and approval arrangements. The vacancy pages describe work, not a complete safety or legal framework. This study draws no normative conclusion about applicable standards, certification, lockout procedures or universal safe operating practice from postings alone.
Interpretation, concentration and limitations
The evidence is strongest as a map of work situations and possible outputs. It shows that robotics deployment and support jobs are not confined to one discipline: planning, controls, software, testing and operations intersect. It is weaker as a measurement of how common any technology or requirement is in the U.S. economy. Employers with multiple openings and reused templates occupy a large part of the source collection. The employer-cap sensitivity view can test how much those employers affect the sample description, but cannot turn it into a national estimate. Search and retrieval paths can also favor employers with accessible applicant systems and prominently indexed pages.
Several further limits matter. Some employer systems show an application state but no posting date; “current” means observable on the retrieval day. Some coded outputs are analyst descriptions of a useful work product rather than an employer’s exact document name. Public vacancies omit details that an internal job description or site procedure might contain. A field that is not stated cannot be counted as absent. Different employers use “systems,” “controls,” “robotics,” “autonomy” and “operations” differently, so the role families are interpretive. A counted requisition can be withdrawn, filled or republished. The collection cannot establish salaries, conversion to hires, graduate job prospects, future demand, national technology adoption or causal safety and productivity gains.
This report is a vacancy study. MTF Institute’s separate current-changes article examines recent technology and practice developments from a separate non-vacancy corpus. Its sources may help readers understand why an interface or workflow is changing, but they do not add postings to this report’s denominator or repair a missing vacancy field.
The practical reading is therefore bounded: use these employer pages to understand specific work choices, interfaces and records; confirm each live role and local process before acting; and preserve the difference between preparation, technical execution and authorized approval. That is a more useful interpretation of the evidence than a claim that one generic robotics role requires every tool named in the corpus.
Source and rights note
This original analysis paraphrases short, necessary evidence from employer-controlled vacancy pages linked at the point of use. It does not reproduce job descriptions, vendor manuals or protected standards. ROS 2 is used as a technology name, without an endorsement claim. ROS is a trademark of Open Source Robotics Foundation. The pages and their application states were read on 12 October 2026; a linked employer page may have changed or closed after that date.
Continue learning
Apply the evidence from this report through MTF Institute's Professional Certificate in Industrial Robotics & Autonomous Warehouse Systems. The programme turns the identified capabilities into structured theory, guided AI practice and reusable workplace artifacts.
Appendix: linked index of all 112 accepted employer vacancies
Each link points to the employer or employer-controlled applicant detail page observed on 12 October 2026. Pages can change or close after that date. The index is a record of this purposive sample, not a list of currently available jobs.
| ID | Employer | Role and U.S. location | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | Amazon | Manager - Site Deployment, OneMHS — United States; Amazon locations include San Diego, CA; Hebron, KY; Republic, MO; Cincinnati, OH; Nashville, TN; Austin and Balch Springs, TX; Arlington, VA; Kent, WA | Employer posting |
| 002 | Amazon | Robotics Systems Engineer, Tech Deployment — Austin, Texas; Nashville, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; North Reading, Massachusetts | Employer posting |
| 003 | Amazon | Robotics Systems Engineer, Tech Deployment — Austin, Texas; Nashville, Tennessee; North Reading, Massachusetts; Lynnwood, Washington | Employer posting |
| 004 | Amazon | Robotics Systems Engineer II, RDPI Technology Deployment — Austin, Texas; North Reading, Massachusetts | Employer posting |
| 005 | Amazon | Robotics Systems Engineer II, Tech Deployment — Austin, Texas; Nashville, Tennessee; Bellevue/Seattle, Washington; North Reading/Westboro, Massachusetts | Employer posting |
| 006 | Applied Intuition | Hardware Engineer, Mechatronics — Sunnyvale, CA | Employer posting |
| 007 | Applied Intuition | Robotics Integration Engineer (TL) — Sunnyvale, CA | Employer posting |
| 008 | Atomic Industries | Automation Engineer — Detroit, Michigan | Employer posting |
| 009 | Aumovio | Robotics/Controls Engineer — New Braunfels, Texas | Employer posting |
| 010 | Block One Automation | Forward Deployed Engineer — Kansas City, MO | Employer posting |
| 011 | BlueSkye Automation / Weisiger | Senior Solutions Engineer — Charlotte, NC or Atlanta, GA | Employer posting |
| 012 | Boxbot | Test and Deployment Systems Engineer — Alameda, CA | Employer posting |
| 013 | Boxbot | Senior Software Engineer (C++) — Alameda, CA | Employer posting |
| 014 | Boxbot | Senior Controls Engineer — Alameda, CA | Employer posting |
| 015 | Bright Machines | Automation Reliability & Performance Manager — Florence, KY | Employer posting |
| 016 | Bright Machines | Site Automation Engineer - Night Shift — Florence, KY | Employer posting |
| 017 | Contoro Robotics | Robotics Field Service Technician — Indianapolis, IN | Employer posting |
| 018 | Daifuku | Aftermarket Controls Engineer — Remote U.S. | Employer posting |
| 019 | Daifuku | ILUS - Controls Engineer I — Ellabell, GA | Employer posting |
| 020 | Dexory | Deployment Technician US — North America; U.S. role with Nashville facility | Employer posting |
| 021 | Dexory | Field Service Engineer (Spanish speaking) — US Client Sites; U.S.-based Service Operations team | Employer posting |
| 022 | Dexterity | Field Service Engineer — Redwood City, CA | Employer posting |
| 023 | Dexterity | Forward Deployed Engineer — Redwood City, CA | Employer posting |
| 024 | Divergent | Automation Engineer — Torrance, California, United States | Employer posting |
| 025 | Exotec | Software Integration Engineer - Automation & Robotics — Atlanta, Georgia | Employer posting |
| 026 | Exotec | Field Commissioning Engineer - Warehouse Robotics & Automation — Atlanta, Georgia; Fort Worth/Dallas, Texas | Employer posting |
| 027 | Exotec | Maintenance Performance Engineer - Warehouse Automation & Robotics — Atlanta, Georgia | Employer posting |
| 028 | Exotec | Deployment Project Manager - Warehouse Robotics & Automation — Atlanta, Georgia | Employer posting |
| 029 | Formic | Robotics Deployment Project Manager — Chicago / Bolingbrook, IL | Employer posting |
| 030 | Formic | Controls & Automation Engineer — Chicago / Bolingbrook, IL | Employer posting |
| 031 | Formic | Robotics & Automation Project Engineer — Chicago / Bolingbrook, IL | Employer posting |
| 032 | Formic | Robotics Install & Commissioning Technician — Chicago / Bolingbrook, IL | Employer posting |
| 033 | Formic | Robotics Field Service Engineer — Temple / Belton, TX | Employer posting |
| 034 | Formic | Robotics Field Service Engineer — Austin, Texas | Employer posting |
| 035 | Formic | Product Support Engineer — Chicago / Bolingbrook, IL | Employer posting |
| 036 | Formic | Robotics Field Service Technician — Dallas - Fort Worth, Texas | Employer posting |
| 037 | Formic | Robotics Field Service Technician — Madison, Wisconsin | Employer posting |
| 038 | Formic | Robotics Deployment Project Manager — San Francisco / Oakland, California | Employer posting |
| 039 | Formic | Solutions Engineer (Application Engineer): End-of-Line Automation — Chicago / Bolingbrook, IL | Employer posting |
| 040 | Formic | Robotics Field Service Technician — Detroit, Michigan | Employer posting |
| 041 | Gather AI | Principal Robotics Systems Engineer — Pittsburgh, PA | Employer posting |
| 042 | GXO Logistics | Robotics Tech - Afternoon shift — Carlisle, Pennsylvania | Employer posting |
| 043 | GXO Logistics | Senior Automation Engineer - 1st Shift — Tracy, California | Employer posting |
| 044 | GXO Logistics | Robotics Tech — Carlisle, Pennsylvania | Employer posting |
| 045 | Hai Robotics | Robotics Engineering Manager — Norcross, GA | Employer posting |
| 046 | Locus Robotics | Onsite Support Engineer, Robotics — North East, MD | Employer posting |
| 047 | Locus Robotics | Onsite Support Engineer, Robotics — Las Vegas, NV | Employer posting |
| 048 | Mytra | Senior Backend Software Engineer, Robot Fleet Orchestration — Remote (United States) | Employer posting |
| 049 | Mytra | Senior Systems Integration Engineer, Safety — Brisbane, CA | Employer posting |
| 050 | Mytra | Deployment Engineer — Brisbane, CA; Remote (United States) with U.S. customer-site travel | Employer posting |
| 051 | Mytra | Senior Robotics Controls Engineer — Brisbane, CA | Employer posting |
| 052 | Nimble Robotics | Senior Robotics Software Engineer — San Francisco, CA | Employer posting |
| 053 | Nimble Robotics | Software Engineer, Robotics Fleet Optimization — San Francisco, CA | Employer posting |
| 054 | Nimble Robotics | Senior Software Engineer, Robotics Platform — San Francisco, CA | Employer posting |
| 055 | Nimble Robotics | Robotics Field Engineer — Haslet, TX | Employer posting |
| 056 | Nimble Robotics | Senior Robotics SWE, System Identification & Modeling — San Francisco, CA | Employer posting |
| 057 | Nimble Robotics | Software Engineer III, Multi-Robot Coordination — San Francisco, CA | Employer posting |
| 058 | Nimble Robotics | Staff Software Engineer, Multi-Robot Coordination — San Francisco, CA | Employer posting |
| 059 | Nimble Robotics | Robot SW Test Engineer — San Francisco, CA | Employer posting |
| 060 | Nimble Robotics | HIL Test / Automation Engineer — San Francisco, CA | Employer posting |
| 061 | Nimble Robotics | Integration Test Technician — South San Francisco, CA | Employer posting |
| 062 | Nimble Robotics | Robotics Software Engineer — San Francisco, CA | Employer posting |
| 063 | Nimble Robotics | Senior Robotics Firmware Engineer — San Francisco, CA | Employer posting |
| 064 | Nimble Robotics | Robot Support Associate — Haslet, TX | Employer posting |
| 065 | Nimble Robotics | Senior Systems Integration Engineer — San Francisco, California, United States | Employer posting |
| 066 | Nimble Robotics | Robot Support Associate, Burlington, NJ — Burlington, NJ | Employer posting |
| 067 | Nimble Robotics | Maintenance Supervisor - Automation & Robotics Fulfillment (Cypress,TX) — Cypress, TX | Employer posting |
| 068 | OSARO | Deployment Engineer — San Francisco, CA or remote | Employer posting |
| 069 | Path Robotics | Deployment Engineer — Columbus, OH | Employer posting |
| 070 | Physical Intelligence | Forward Deployed Robotics Engineer — San Francisco, CA | Employer posting |
| 071 | Pickle Robot | Software Engineer – Task & Motion Planning — Charlestown, MA | Employer posting |
| 072 | Pickle Robot | Senior Perception Software Engineer — Charlestown, MA | Employer posting |
| 073 | Reflection Robotics | Robot Deployment Technician — Seattle, WA | Employer posting |
| 074 | Reflex Robotics | Controls Engineer — New York, NY / San Francisco, CA | Employer posting |
| 075 | RobCo | (Senior) Robotics Software / Forward Deployed Engineer (US) — Austin, TX | Employer posting |
| 076 | Robust AI | Pre-Deployment Manager — San Carlos, CA | Employer posting |
| 077 | Skild AI | Deployment & Support Engineer — San Mateo, California | Employer posting |
| 078 | Skydio | Senior Automation Controls Engineer — San Mateo, CA | Employer posting |
| 079 | Standard Bots | Automation Engineer — Philadelphia, PA | Employer posting |
| 080 | Stow Group / Movu US | Commissioning Engineer — Romeoville, Illinois or Northwestern Indiana / Indianapolis, Indiana | Employer posting |
| 081 | Stow Group / Movu US | Project Engineer — Romeoville, Illinois or U.S. remote | Employer posting |
| 082 | Stow Group / Movu US | Project Manager, Robotics — Romeoville, Illinois / U.S. remote | Employer posting |
| 083 | Symbotic | Bot Field Service Maintenance Technician — USA Remote & Travel | Employer posting |
| 084 | Symbotic | Robotics Engineer (All Levels) — USA Wilmington, MA - HQ | Employer posting |
| 085 | Symbotic | Senior Robotics Engineer - Robot Perception — USA Wilmington, MA - HQ | Employer posting |
| 086 | Symbotic | Site Installation Manager — USA Remote & Travel | Employer posting |
| 087 | Symbotic | Software Support Engineer — USA Andover, MA | Employer posting |
| 088 | Symbotic | Staff Software Engineer - Fleet Controls — USA Wilmington, MA - HQ | Employer posting |
| 089 | Symbotic | Staff Software Engineer - Fleet Operations — USA Wilmington, MA - HQ | Employer posting |
| 090 | Symbotic | Senior Industrial Controls Engineer — USA Remote & Travel | Employer posting |
| 091 | Symbotic | Principal Software Engineer, Perception — USA Austin, TX | Employer posting |
| 092 | Symbotic | Automation Maintenance Technician II — USA Las Vegas, NV | Employer posting |
| 093 | Symbotic | Staff Mechanical Engineer - Mobile Bot — USA Wilmington, MA - HQ | Employer posting |
| 094 | Symbotic | System Engineer — USA Hermiston, OR | Employer posting |
| 095 | Symbotic | Integration Specialist — USA Remote & Travel | Employer posting |
| 096 | Symbotic | Principal Industrial Controls Engineer — USA Remote & Travel | Employer posting |
| 097 | Symbotic | Site Engineer — USA Hermiston, OR | Employer posting |
| 098 | The PAC Group | Testing & Commissioning Field Tech II — United States | Employer posting |
| 099 | Third Wave Automation | Sr. Robotics Field Engineer — Union City, CA | Employer posting |
| 100 | Tutor Intelligence | Controls Engineer (Robotics) — Watertown, MA | Employer posting |
| 101 | Tutor Intelligence | Robotics Maintenance & Field Service Technician II / III - North West — Portland, OR | Employer posting |
| 102 | Tutor Intelligence | Technical Customer Engineer — Watertown, MA | Employer posting |
| 103 | Tutor Intelligence | Robotics Maintenance and Field Services Technician II/III - Mid Atlantic — Philadelphia, PA | Employer posting |
| 104 | Tutor Intelligence | Robot Operator — Watertown, MA | Employer posting |
| 105 | Tutor Intelligence | Robotics Deployment Manager — Watertown, MA | Employer posting |
| 106 | Tutor Intelligence | Robotics Test & Troubleshooting Technician — Watertown, MA | Employer posting |
| 107 | Ultra Robotics | Deployment Engineer — Brooklyn, NY; travel to U.S. customer warehouses | Employer posting |
| 108 | Ultra Robotics | Field Support Technician — Brooklyn, NY; travel to U.S. customer warehouses | Employer posting |
| 109 | Walmart | Senior Manager, Automation Engineering — Wellford, SC | Employer posting |
| 110 | Walmart | (USA) Senior Manager, Automation Engineering — Bentonville, AR | Employer posting |
| 111 | Walmart | (USA) Director, Automation Engineering — Bentonville, AR | Employer posting |
| 112 | Walmart | Manager, Automation Engineering — Bentonville, AR | Employer posting |