Key Takeaways

• Robots offer real value only when deployed through experienced security firms, where they can be integrated into a broader protection strategy rather than used as unrealistic replacements for human officers.
• Public acceptance, operational reliability, and strategic fit remain decisive factors, with failed deployments showing that robots can create more work when introduced without the right expertise.
• High turnover isn’t solved by buying robots — it’s addressed by partnering with firms that hire well, manage well, and invest in force multiplying technologies that make human officers more effective.

Security officer turnover is stubbornly high around the world, hitting 89% in the US in 2024, for example (Underpaid, Undervalued, and Essential: The Security Guard Workforce in the United States, UC Berkeley Labor Center, July 2026). Together with today’s rapid and dramatic improvements in robotics, it’s the kind of data point that can get people to wonder at the role robots can play in physical security. Seemingly more of a one-time capital investment, security robots can seem an exciting prospect in terms of ROI.

But what’s possible? What’s smart?

Physical devices are playing a growing role in the protection ecosystem. From smart cameras to drones to technical automations, integrated security solutions — pairing advanced tech with human services — are increasingly popular with clients of security services.

But what about the sci-fi scenario of just replacing security officers with robots?  

Exciting Capabilities and Strict Limitations

As much as technology has advanced, it has limits. In a trial at the San Antonio Airport in the US, a security robot reportedly struggled with basic navigation, crowd movement, and maintaining communication. Instead of reducing workload (the goal), the unit required constant human review of photos and video feeds and troubleshooting, resulting in its quick retirement. “The robot struggled in crowds, couldn't move in a straight line, and was plagued with audio and video problems,” a local paper reported (“A 420-pound robot hired to help out at San Antonio airport was fired within weeks,” San Antonio Express News, May 4, 2026).

The airport’s experience is only one of several documented failed rollouts of security robots. In the same city, for example, an animal protection organization pulled a mobile security unit off duty after one month, the result of public complaints and physical attacks on the devices. The unit reportedly withstood attacks, including with barbeque sauce, feces, and a tarp, but it fell victim to public pressure. Hired to safeguard the area outside its front doors and protect employees and visitors coming and leaving the facility, the robot was sharply criticized for taking pictures and video of people in the area.

Public attitudes are indeed a complicating factor in security robot deployments. In a recent book, How Humans Judge Machines, researchers explain that people judge humans and machines differently, something that has implications for public-facing security operations. Using the setup of a clinical trial, the authors proved that humans tend to judge the actions of machines as more harmful and immoral than the same action when performed by a human. “In scenarios involving physical harm, people tend to see machines as more harmful than humans performing the same actions," the authors explain.

But there are success stories, too. Unmanned mobile security robots are already deployed around the globe to help patrol the perimeters of large properties, like office complexes, parking lots, shopping malls, and warehouses.

In one case study from a member of the Ligue, a luxury car maker tested the use of multi-terrain, mobile sensor devices in conjunction with the firm’s security officers to patrol a 20-acre vehicle processing site. By using the mobile devices to conduct integrity checks of miles of perimeter fence, the firm’s security officers — rather than being stuck in cars on patrol — were free to multi-task in the control room and to focus on more critical safety and security functions, including managing and documenting vehicle assets at the gate, interacting with people coming onto the lot, enforcing safety protocols, and responding to events. In addition to providing a consistent visible deterrence, the value from patrols also improved, with on-board cameras providing full documentation of all activity and an indisputable record of incidents. Impressed during the trial, the car company signed a three-year agreement with the Ligue member to add the security robots to their contract.

Fundamentally, the results proved that mobile security units are both important to the future of security services and ready for selected applications today. “The cost of labor goes up over time and the cost of technology goes down, so it makes sense to look at [robots] as a force multiplier,” noted a senior executive at the Ligue-member company.  

Between Success and Failure

As they navigate, today’s mobile security devices can perform a variety of tasks depending on how they are equipped: from live streaming and recording eye-level video; acting as two-way intercom devices for speaking with employees, visitors, or intruders; or sending an alert to a central station if someone is spotted in a restricted area. They can now perform many of the same activities as their human counterparts—but with a computer’s brain. On a patrol, for example, a unit can take temperature measurements in environmentally sensitive areas, use sensors to monitor gas leaks, or recognize license plate numbers of interest. Importantly, machines can unfailingly identify anomalies no matter how routine or monotonous the chore.

But as case studies in failure show, robots can actually create more work for an organization.

One clear differential in how deployments end is the strategy going in. Purchasing them as equipment from a manufacturer in the hopes of eliminating the need for human officers has proved unrealistic. As part of a comprehensive security package from a reputable security firm, however, autonomous mobile security units have shown they can be successfully integrated into a comprehensive protection plan.

One clear differential in how deployments end is the strategy going in.

By deploying units through security firms, end-users can deploy security robots without major procurement challenges typically associated with bringing in new technology. Instead of purchasing or leasing from manufacturers, organizations can work out a simple addendum to their current statement of work with their security provider. This is supplemental to the critical requirement that robots blend seamlessly into an existing  security program. Leading security firms are investing heavily in drones and robots, to both maximize the effectiveness of security operations and reduce safety risks to security personnel.

Rather than replacing human officers, robots are likely to make their flesh and blood counterparts more important, according to Enrique Lopezlira, director of the UC Berkeley Labor Center’s Low-Wage Work program and coauthor of its July report, with every identified theft still needing human verification. “The realistic near-term effect is not that guards are replaced,” he said. “The human role is going to be pushed toward those hardest, higher-stakes parts of the work.”

The realistic near-term effect is not that guards are replaced. The human role is going to be pushed toward those hardest, higher-stakes parts of the work.

As such, security firm expertise will only grow in importance even as security devices do more of the work — to identify the optimal blend of technology and people to meet protection requirements.

Well-regarded security firms can lead clients through strategic questions related to robotic applications, like:

• Is it technically feasible in our environment?
• Does it fill a gap in our existing security posture?
• What is the cost?
• Is there a human labor cost offset?
• Will its benefits increase productivity in our specific situation?
• Is there regulatory and social acceptance?

But what about the high turnover?

If running out and buying a robot isn’t the solution to the challenge of high turnover among security officers, then  what is? By smart partnering, organizations can minimize the fallout.

Partner with firms that have nimble hiring processes. High turnover doesn’t justify lowering hiring standards. Clients should work with security firms that maintain rigorous selection criteria and use modern recruiting tools to attract quality candidates quickly. Ligue member firms demonstrate that tech enabled hiring — including AI driven scheduling and streamlined candidate communication — can preserve quality while accelerating recruitment, ensuring clients aren’t exposed to substandard personnel.

Partner with firms that have management programs that correlate with low turnover. Turnover falls when officers see a future in the company. Clients should favor suppliers with proven career pathways, mentoring, training, and strong day to day management practices that build connection and trust. Firms that invest in officer development, maintain healthy shift patterns, solicit feedback, and recognize performance — even through small but meaningful incentives — consistently retain talent better and deliver more stable service.

Partner with firms that have invested in force-multiplying technologies. When labor markets tighten, productivity gains come from technology. Security clients benefit most when their provider has already invested in tools that enhance officer effectiveness and deliver capabilities clients couldn’t afford on their own. These technologies make officers more productive and help offset rising labor costs, turning a constrained labor market into an opportunity for better performance rather than a crisis.