This is the accompanying repository from the paper "Survey on Physics Engines, Simulation Frameworks, and Benchmarks for Robot Learning." This repository tracks updates in the field following our definition of Physics Engines, Simulation Frameworks, and Benchmarks in the robot learning domain. We include a curated list of tools for each type of software, but more exhaustive lists can be found in other repositories (see the best-of-robot-simulators for example).
This table provides a side-by-side overview of the core capabilities and trade-offs offered by the most popular physics engines in robot learning. Each column highlights a key dimension—accuracy, GPU acceleration, joint configurability, soft-body support, contact solver behavior, documentation quality, open-source status, sensor modalities, multi-agent scalability, and ease of physics parameter tuning for domain randomization. Use it to quickly spot which engines are best suited for high-precision manipulation tasks (e.g., MuJoCo, Chrono), GPU-parallelized large-scale training (e.g., PhysX, MJX), or rich soft-body interaction (e.g., Bullet, Chrono).
| Physics Engine | Accuracy | GPU | 6-DoF Configurable Joint | Soft Body Support | Contact Solver Characteristics | Docs | Open Source | Sensor Support | Multi-agent Scalability | Physics Params Support |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mujoco | High | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | No internal forces, Robust, Convergence guarantees | Comprehensive | ✅ | Limited (Camera, no LiDAR) | Limited | High |
| MJX | Medium | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | No internal forces, Robust, Convergence guarantees | Comprehensive | ✅ | Limited (inherits MuJoCo's model) | Support with JAX | Medium |
| Bullet | Medium | ~ | ✅ | ✅ | Hard contacts | Well-documented | ✅ | Moderate | CPU bottlenecks | Medium |
| Havok | Low | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | Not strict convergence | Limited documentation | ❌ | Very limited | Limited | Low |
| ODE | Low | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | Hard contacts | Partially documented | ✅ | Very limited | Limited | Medium |
| PhysX | Medium | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | Hard contacts | Well-documented | ✅ | Moderate | High | Medium |
| Dart | High | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | Hard contacts | Well-documented | ✅ | Good | Good | High |
| Genesis | Medium | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ~ | Partially documented | ✅ | Limited | Moderate | Medium |
| Chrono | High | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | Hard contacts | Well-documented | ✅ | Comprehensive | Moderate | High |
Simulation frameworks wrap a physics engine in high-level tooling for robot modeling, environment construction, sensor emulation, and experiment management. This table compares their native interoperability with learning libraries, support for curriculum and domain randomization (both physical and visual), rendering fidelity, proven sim-to-real workflows, and out-of-the-box support for locomotion, manipulation, and navigation tasks. “✅” means full built-in support, “~” indicates partial or emerging capabilities, and “❌” means none. Choose a framework that matches your workflow needs—whether that’s top-tier rendering for vision-based manipulation (e.g., Unity, IsaacSim), flexible randomization APIs for robust policy training (e.g., MuJoCo Playground, SAPIEN), or strong multi-agent and navigation features (e.g., Habitat, CARLA).
| Frameworks | IsaacSim | SAPIEN | Unity | CoppeliaSim | Gazebo | CARLA | Habitat | AI2Thor | Robosuite | iGibson | MuJoCo Playground | PyBullet |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interoperability with Learning Frameworks | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ~ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ~ |
| Domain Randomization Curriculum | ~ | ~ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | ❌ |
| Visual Domain Randomization | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ~ | ❌ | ❌ | ~ |
| High Fidelity Rendering Support | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ~ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ |
| Sim-to-Real Track Record | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ~ | ~ | ❌ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ |
| Locomotion Support | ✅ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ~ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Manipulation Support | ✅ | ✅ | ~ | ✅ | ~ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Navigation Support | ~ | ~ | ✅ | ~ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ❌ | ~ |
Benchmarks offer standardized tasks and evaluation protocols so that algorithms can be rigorously compared. In this table you’ll find each benchmark’s target domains (manipulation, locomotion, navigation), whether it offers diverse reward structures, environment complexity, built-in sim-to-real evaluations, visual robustness tests, and the overall breadth of tasks included. Use this to pick a benchmark aligned with your research focus—whether that’s long-horizon compositional manipulation (e.g., CALVIN, ManiSkill), multi-domain challenges (e.g., RoboHive, HumanoidBench), or navigation-specific suites (e.g., Habitat Challenge).
| Benchmark | Domains Supported | Reward Diversity | Environment Complexity | Sim2Real | Visual Robustness | Diversity of Tasks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mujoco Playground | Manipulation, Locomotion | ~ | ❌ | ~ | ~ | ~ |
| DeepMind Control | Locomotion | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ |
| OGBench | Manipulation | ~ | ❌ | ❌ | ~ | ✅ |
| RoboHive | Manipulation, Locomotion | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ~ | ✅ |
| Meta-World | Manipulation | ✅ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ✅ |
| RlBench | Manipulation | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| ManiSkill | Manipulation | ✅ | ✅ | ~ | ✅ | ✅ |
| DMC-VB | Manipulation | ~ | ❌ | ❌ | ~ | ~ |
| DMC-GB2 | Manipulation, Locomotion | ~ | ❌ | ❌ | ~ | ~ |
| VD4RL | Manipulation | ~ | ~ | ❌ | ✅ | ~ |
| RL-ViGen | Manipulation | ~ | ~ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ |
| CALVIN | Manipulation | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Colosseum | Manipulation | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ |
| HumanoidBench | Manipulation, Locomotion | ❌ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ |
| LocoMuJoCo | Locomotion | ✅ | ❌ | ~ | ❌ | ✅ |
| Habitat Challenge | Navigation | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ~ |
Beyond general simulation comparisons, it's often helpful to look at task-specific research and implementations. This section curates representative works and public repositories categorized by robotic capabilities such as locomotion, manipulation, and navigation. Each table includes references to learning-based approaches, real-world deployments, and sim-to-real workflows for specific robot platforms.
Note: We only list the latest commercially available or open‐source versions of legged robots that multiple research labs have used. Contributions are welcome via pull request.
Note: We only list the latest commercially available or open-source versions of legged robots that have been used by multiple research labs. If you know of any additional papers or repositories that are not shown here, feel free to open a pull request.
This section will track all major updates to the engines, frameworks, and benchmarks covered in this survey. Whenever a new major version is released, capabilities are added or changed, or entirely new entries appear, record the date, the tool affected, and a short description of what’s new.
| Date | Tool | Change Description | Notes / Links |
|---|---|---|---|
| June 2025 | NA | Initial Commit of Resources after paper submission | – |
Entries will be added here as releases are announced or new tools are included.