
Gardena
Gardena smart Sileno free 800
- Autonomy
- IIIConditional
- Score
- 65/100Capable
- Readiness
- Ready Now
- Price
- Not tracked

Gardena

Segway
Up to three
All robot lawn mowers. Every figure below is placed against the whole class, so a gap can be read against how much the class itself varies.
The conditions each robot was assessed against, side by side. Rows marked in gold are where these machines genuinely differ.
| Condition | smart Sileno free 800 | Navimow i2 LiDAR Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Yard size | ||
| Under ¼ acre | GoodCoverage rated for up to 800 m² (8,600 sqft); quarter-acre yards fall well within range. | GoodSegway rates the i210 for 1,000 m², about a quarter acre, and Notebookcheck tested it on 300 m². |
| ¼ – ½ acrethey differ | DependsUpper end of rated coverage; multiple dock zones or split scheduling may be required for consistent weekly cuts. | GoodSegway rates the i220 LiDAR Pro for 2,000 m², close to half an acre. |
| Over ½ acre | PoorExceeds 800 m² rating. Manufacturer documentation does not address larger properties; runtime and battery capacity unspecified for boundary sprawl. | PoorLawns over half an acre exceed Segway's 2,000 m² rating for the larger i220 LiDAR Pro. |
| Terrain | ||
| Mostly flat | GoodIdeal operating condition. Flat turf with firm ground optimizes GPS accuracy and traction. | GoodNotebookcheck saw straight paths, full coverage and an even cut on open lawn. |
| Gentle slopesthey differ | DependsRated for up to 25% gradient; 15-20% slopes perform reliably. Steeper sections may cause traction loss or GPS signal fade. | GoodAll-wheel drive and front-wheel steering gave Notebookcheck's unit off-road capability on uneven lawns. |
| Steep / hillythey differ | PoorAbove 25% gradient, traction failure and boundary-detection unreliability documented. Sidehilling on slopes above 20% produces GPS accuracy loss. | DependsIt climbed a 55% artificial-turf ramp for Notebookcheck, but no test on real steep grass was found. |
| Grass type | ||
| Typical lawn grass | GoodDesigned for standard residential turfgrass. Mulching blade and systematic navigation optimized for fine-to-medium blade grass types. | GoodNotebookcheck found the cutting deck produced an even cut on open lawn areas. |
| Mixed / tall growth | DependsBlade dulling accelerates in tall or coarse grass; more frequent replacement intervals expected. Manufacturer cadence based on standard mowing height assumption. | DependsNo test of the i2 LiDAR Pro in long or overgrown grass was found. |
| Thick (Bermuda / Zoysia) | DependsDense, thick grass increases blade stress and motor load; slower coverage and potential battery drain on single-pass schedules. Test in heavy-growth season before committing. | DependsNo test in thick or dense turf was found for its 22 cm six-blade disc. |
| Boundary setup | ||
| Wireless required | GoodWire-free GPS geofencing is this mower's defining feature. No perimeter wire required; virtual boundary drawn via app. | GoodIt maps and navigates with LiDAR, network RTK and vision, with no wire or antenna. |
| Wire requiredthey differ | DependsThis mower does not support perimeter wire operation. If you prefer wire-based boundaries, older Sileno+ models (wired) offer that option with proven RTK availability on select tiers. | PoorSegway sells it as wire-free only, with no boundary wire installation option listed. |
| No preference | GoodWireless GPS geofencing is the only boundary method available; no wire option. Works well for owners with no preference. | GoodIts wire-free setup meets a buyer with no boundary preference. |
A robot being poor for a condition is a fact about fit, not a fault. “Depends” means the record names a limit worth reading, not that the answer is unknown.
Nine inputs across three pillars, each weighted as shown and each scored so more is better. A robot can lead on one and trail on another, which is the point of showing them apart.
A number only means something next to the spread it sits in. Each track is the real range across every classified robot in the class, with the median marked.
Not compared, because fewer than two of these robots carry a published figure: Price, Runtime, Charge time.
Written on each record, and the only thing here every robot on the site carries.
What each design gives up to be good at what it is good at.
Satellite positioning here is corrected over the internet, not by an RTK base station. Published accuracy is roughly 10 to 30 cm, against the centimeter-level figures consumer RTK mowers from Segway Navimow and Mammotion had been selling at and below this price for two seasons before the Sileno free arrived. Canopy shadow degrades the fix; cloud does not.
Maintenance is seasonal, not absent. The mower mulches, so there is nothing to empty and no clippings to dispose of, but blades are a yearly consumable and the machine and its charging station both need winter storage.
LiDAR navigation keeps it on course under trees without an antenna, but there is no edge deck and about 20 cm of border stays uncut.
Quiet in use, below 55 dB in Notebookcheck’s measurement, yet about 13 W on standby lifts its monthly energy use.
Stated by the record itself. A robot being wrong for a household is a fact about fit, not a fault.
The upkeep ownership hands back to you, whatever the autonomy level says.
Classifications rest on different depths of evidence. A pre-release assessment and a verified one are not the same kind of claim.
| Robot | Evidence status | Sources reviewed | Last assessed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gardena smart Sileno free 800 | Pending | 4 | Aug 2026 |
| Segway Navimow i2 LiDAR Pro | Provisional | 4 | Sep 2026 |
Evidence status counts the sources behind a classification, not their kind. A high count can be maker documentation and price coverage, so read it as how much was reviewed rather than as independent testing. How we weigh evidence.
The full recordGardena smart Sileno free 800Specifications, evidence, the Fit Check in full, and every tracked change.
The full recordSegway Navimow i2 LiDAR ProSpecifications, evidence, the Fit Check in full, and every tracked change.Robovations classifies robots; it does not rank them. Nothing on this page is a recommendation, and no manufacturer influences a classification or its placement here.
Comparing across classes is allowed — the page will switch to per-class positioning and tell you it has.