ArduPilot and PX4 are the two leading open-source autopilots. Both fly multirotors, planes, VTOLs and rovers. Both run on Pixhawk hardware. Choosing between them depends on what you want to build and how you like to work.
Quick comparison
| ArduPilot | PX4 | |
|---|---|---|
| License | GPLv3 | BSD-3 (permissive) |
| Hardware support | Very wide, including many FPV-style H7 boards | Focused on Pixhawk-standard hardware |
| Ground stations | Mission Planner, QGroundControl, others | QGroundControl |
| Configuration | Huge parameter set, very flexible | Cleaner defaults, fewer parameters |
| Companion computer | MAVLink, DroneKit legacy, MAVSDK, ROS 2 | MAVSDK, uXRCE-DDS for ROS 2 |
| Community | Large hobby and commercial community | Strong in research and industry |
| Autotune | Mature autotune | Autotune available on recent versions |
ArduPilot strengths
- Hardware breadth: runs on many boards, including popular FPV flight controllers.
- Features: obstacle avoidance, precision landing, terrain following, many sensor drivers.
- Mature autotune that works well on most frames.
- Mission Planner’s extensive tools for setup and log analysis.
PX4 strengths
- Permissive BSD license, which companies prefer when building products.
- Clean architecture with uORB messaging, friendly for developers.
- Tight ROS 2 integration via uXRCE-DDS.
- Simpler configuration for standard airframes.
Feature comparison in more detail
| Feature | ArduPilot | PX4 |
|---|---|---|
| Multirotor, plane, VTOL, rover, boat | Yes | Yes |
| Helicopter (traditional) | Yes | Limited |
| Obstacle avoidance | Built-in proximity and avoidance | Collision prevention and offboard planning |
| Terrain following | Yes | Yes |
| Precision landing | Yes | Yes |
| Scripting on the autopilot | Lua scripting | Modules in C++ |
| Simulation | SITL, Gazebo and others | SITL with Gazebo and others |
| Log analysis | Mission Planner, web tools | Flight Review, PlotJuggler |
Development experience
- ArduPilot: a very large codebase with many vehicle types. Lua scripts let you add behaviors without recompiling firmware.
- PX4: a modular architecture built around uORB messaging. Developers often find it easy to add new modules, and ROS 2 integration is tight.
Switching later
Because both use MAVLink and similar hardware, switching autopilots later is realistic. Your companion computer code written with MAVSDK or MAVLink works with either, with some changes for mode names and parameters.
Our pick for most readers
Start with ArduPilot for your first autonomous build. Its documentation, hardware support and Mission Planner tools make the learning curve gentler. Try PX4 in simulation alongside it; you’ll quickly see which style you prefer.
Ground station differences
Mission Planner (ArduPilot, Windows) is packed with tools: full parameter lists, log analysis, motor tests and calibration wizards. It’s dense but powerful. QGroundControl works with both autopilots on Windows, macOS, Linux and Android, with a cleaner interface. Many ArduPilot users keep both: Mission Planner on the bench and QGroundControl on a tablet in the field.
Parameters and configuration style
ArduPilot exposes a very large number of parameters, which means almost anything can be adjusted, but it also means more to understand. PX4 ships with sensible airframe presets: pick your frame in QGroundControl and most settings are applied for you. If you like to understand and adjust every detail, ArduPilot suits you. If you prefer a guided setup, PX4 may feel friendlier for standard frames.
Questions to ask before you choose
- Does my flight controller have a stable target for this autopilot?
- Does it support the sensors I plan to use (lidar, depth camera, RTK GPS)?
- Will I connect ROS 2, and how?
- Is there a large community for my type of vehicle?
- Will I ever ship a product commercially, where licensing matters?
Your answers usually point clearly to one option.
Common migration gotchas
- Mode names differ: ArduPilot’s Loiter is roughly PX4’s Position mode; Guided corresponds to Offboard in many workflows.
- Coordinate frames and message use differ slightly in offboard control.
- Parameters don’t transfer: you’ll recalibrate and retune from scratch.
Which should you choose?
- First GPS or autonomous build: ArduPilot. The documentation and community make troubleshooting easier, and it runs on more hardware.
- Research, ROS 2-heavy robotics or a commercial product: PX4 is often the choice.
- FPV board you already own: check which firmware supports it. ArduPilot supports more FPV boards.
Both speak MAVLink, so much of what you learn transfers. Start with the ArduPilot quadcopter build or set up SITL simulation to try both without risk.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is ArduPilot or PX4 better for beginners?
Many beginners find ArduPilot easier because of its wide hardware support, extensive documentation and Mission Planner tools.
Can PX4 and ArduPilot run on the same hardware?
Many Pixhawk-standard controllers support both. You can flash either firmware, though not at the same time.
Which autopilot works best with ROS 2?
Both work. PX4 has native ROS 2 integration via uXRCE-DDS, and ArduPilot supports ROS 2 with its own DDS interface and MAVROS.
Why do companies prefer PX4?
PX4’s BSD license lets companies modify and ship the code without releasing their changes, which suits commercial products.