ROS1 Noetic reached end-of-life in May 2025, and the ROS community no longer maintains ROS1. ROS2 is significantly better than ROS1 in architecture, real-time performance, security, and ecosystem extensibility. For new projects, start directly with ROS2; for existing ROS1 systems, weigh the migration cost against long-term gains. The table below maps ROS2 distributions to Ubuntu versions (details in the official ROS release documentation), followed by a full comparison of the two frameworks:
| ROS 2 version | Ubuntu version | LTS or not | Release time |
| Jazzy | 24.04 (Noble) | Yes (LTS) | 2024 |
| Humble | 22.04 (Jammy) | Yes (LTS) | 2022 |
| Kilted | 24.04(Noble) | No | 2025-05 |
Quick answer: ROS2 is the right choice for new mobile robot projects — ROS1 Noetic is end-of-life (May 2025), and ROS2 wins on real-time performance, security, multi-platform support, and fault tolerance. Keep ROS1 only for maintaining existing fleets, and use ros1_bridge to migrate gradually. The comparison tables below cover all 11 dimensions in detail.
History and Development
- ROS1: Developed by Stanford University and Willow Garage, focusing on research and prototyping.
- ROS2: Initiated in 2014, targeting industrial-grade robotics with DDS middleware to improve real-time capability, cross-platform support, and security.
Conclusion: ROS1 is better suited for research and prototyping, while ROS2 is ideal for industrial and commercial deployment.
2. System Architecture
| Dimension | ROS1 | ROS2 |
| Core Architecture | Centralized architecture built around a Master node that manages node registration and communication. | Distributed architecture: nodes communicate directly without a Master and support dynamic discovery. |
| Communication Model | Custom TCP/UDP-based communication with known issues: latency, packet loss, and no built-in encryption. | Standardized DDS middleware supporting real-time communication, encryption, and cross-platform operation. |
| Reliability | Relies on TCP for peer-to-peer communication, prone to packet loss | Reliable transmission is guaranteed by QoS policies (e.g., Reliable). |
| Compilation System | Uses rosbuild (early) and catkin compilation systems. | Uses the ament build system with flexible dependency management and multi-language builds. |
3. User Experience
| Dimension | ROS1 | ROS2 |
| Learning curve | Rich community resources and mature documentation — the easiest way to get started. | New features (DDS configuration, real-time debugging) add a learning curve, but the architecture is more maintainable long-term. |
| Migration Costs | Migrating a ROS1 project to ROS2 requires refactoring communication logic, node management, and the build system. | Migration tools (e.g., ros1_bridge) are available to interoperate between ROS 1 and ROS 2 nodes. |
| Debugging and Toolchain | Relying on tools such as roslaunch and rviz, the debugging process is more traditional. | New launch framework (supporting Python configuration), built-in logging system, and better testing tools. |
| Community and Ecology | The ecosystem is large, but some features are difficult to extend due to architectural limitations. | New features are easier to integrate (e.g., deeper integration with Gazebo and Web technologies), and the ecosystem continues to expand. |
4. Key Technology Comparison
| Dimension | ROS1 | ROS2 |
| Node Communication | Peer-to-peer communication is established through Master registration. | Nodes automatically discover and communicate directly with each other via DDS. |
| Messaging | Uses custom message type (.msg), relies on roscpp/rospy implementation. | Generate multi-language messages based on IDL (Interface Definition Language) for better compatibility. |
| Fault Tolerance | Master failure can cause the whole system to go down. | Distributed architecture to avoid a single point of failure, nodes can dynamically join/exit. |
5. Syntax differences
| Dimension | ROS1 | ROS2 |
| Node creation syntax | Use ros::NodeHandle to manage nodes, which relies on roscore to start the centralized manager. | Use rclcpp::Node or rclpy::Node to create nodes directly without roscore, which supports distributed architecture. |
| Communication mechanism | Based on a customized TCP/UDP protocol to achieve communication, need to manually manage node registration and discovery. | Based on the DDS (Data Distribution Service) standard, nodes automatically discover and communicate with each other. |
| Message Definition | Use .msg file to define message type, rely on roscpp/rospy implementation. | Use IDL (Interface Definition Language) to generate multi-language messages for better compatibility. |
| Launch Files | Use XML to write a .launch file, single function, difficult to configure dynamically. | Python-based .launch.py files support dynamic logic (conditionals and parameter passing). |
6. Differences in actual use
| Dimension | ROS1 | ROS2 |
| Multi-language support | Officially supports C++ and Python; other languages require adaptation. | Extends language support (e.g., Rust, Java) with cross-language compatibility via IDL. |
| Compilation System | Relies on the catkin compilation system, which requires strict adherence to the workspace structure. | Use the ament build system for more flexible dependency management and multi-language builds. |
| Real-time support | Limited real-time performance, unsuitable for industrial real-time control. | Better real-time support (rclcpp provides real-time thread scheduling). |
| Security | Lack of native encryption and authentication mechanisms. | Supports DDS security extensions (DDS-Security) to provide authentication, data encryption, and access control. |
| Cross-platform support | Runs primarily on Linux systems with limited Windows/macOS support. | Supports multiple platforms such as Linux, Windows, macOS, RTOS, etc., and clearly divides platforms into Tier 1 (officially supported by the ROS team) and Tier 2 (community-supported) for stronger cross-system compatibility. |
| Debugging Tools | Traditional tools (roslaunch, rviz) with a relatively basic logging system. | Built-in logging (RCLCPP_INFO), Python scripting support, and better testing tools. |
| Fault Tolerance | A roscore failure can cause the entire system to go down. | Distributed architecture to avoid a single point of failure, nodes can dynamically join/exit. |
7. Typical Application Scenarios
- ROS 1: Education and research projects (e.g., mobile robot navigation and SLAM) that do not require strict real-time performance or security. If your project is mature, stable, and depends heavily on the ROS1 ecosystem, continuing with ROS1 is reasonable.
- ROS 2: Industrial automation, autonomous driving, drones, and other scenarios requiring strong real-time performance, security, and cross-platform support — including long-term maintenance of large-scale projects (e.g., delivery robots, industrial robots, medical robots). Prefer ROS2 when you need industrial-grade stability, real-time control, secure encryption, or cross-platform deployment.
8. Hardware and Platform Compatibility
- ROS1: Mainly supports Linux (Ubuntu).
- ROS2: Natively supports Linux, Windows, macOS, and embedded platforms.
9. Ecosystem and Community Support
- ROS1: A large number of packages and an active community.
- ROS2: A rapidly growing ecosystem, but the package count is still catching up.
Conclusion: ROS1 has a mature ecosystem, while ROS2 is catching up fast.
10. Migration and Upgrade Cost
- APIs are incompatible, requiring code rewrites.
- Drivers may need adaptation; ros1_bridge can help with gradual migration.
Conclusion: Migration costs are high, but risks can be reduced by phased upgrades.
11. Security and Industrial Standards
- ROS1: No native security mechanisms (unencrypted communication by default).
- ROS2: Complies with DDS security standards and can integrate OPC UA and TSN.
Conclusion: ROS2 is better suited for security-critical and industrial applications.
Future Trends and Roadmap
- ROS1 Noetic is the final release, maintained until May 2025.
- ROS2 follows a Long-Term Support (LTS) strategy with active feature updates.
Conclusion: The trend clearly favors ROS2.
Conclusion and Recommendations
For researchers or beginners, ROS1 remains a mature and stable choice; for industrial users or commercial teams, ROS2’s advantages in distributed systems, real-time performance, and security bring long-term value.
Actionable Advice: Evaluate the ROS version early in project planning and make decisions based on ecosystem maturity and team capabilities.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is the difference between ROS1 and ROS2 for mobile robots?
For mobile robots, the key difference is architecture: ROS1 relies on a central Master node with custom TCP/UDP communication, while ROS2 uses a distributed DDS architecture. ROS2 adds real-time control, built-in security (DDS-Security), and multi-platform support — critical for commercial AMRs and AGVs, while ROS1 remains simpler for research prototypes.
Should I use ROS1 or ROS2 for my new mobile robot project?
Use ROS2. ROS1 Noetic reached end-of-life in May 2025, and new mobile robot development should start on an LTS ROS2 distribution such as Jazzy. ROS1 only makes sense for maintaining existing robot fleets or academic prototypes.
Is ROS1 still supported for mobile robot development in 2026?
No. Official ROS1 maintenance ended in May 2025, and mobile robot platforms running ROS1 no longer receive security patches or updates. Plan a migration to ROS2 for any robot still in active development.
Can I run ROS1 and ROS2 together when migrating my robot fleet?
Yes. The ros1_bridge package lets ROS1 and ROS2 nodes communicate on the same robot or fleet, enabling gradual migration — move navigation, drivers, and control nodes to ROS2 one module at a time without stopping operations.
Which ROS2 distribution should I use for my AMR in 2026?
Use an LTS distribution with active support: Jazzy Jalisco (Ubuntu 24.04, supported until 2029) is the current safe choice for production AMRs. Avoid non-LTS releases for commercial robots, and verify your LiDAR and motor drivers support your chosen distribution first.
Does Fdata’s mobile robot chassis support ROS1 and ROS2?
Fdata’s AMR chassis ship with ROS2 drivers — motor control, odometry, and sensor interfaces are ready for ROS2 integration. ROS1 driver packages are also available for legacy projects. Contact us for the driver package matching your chassis model.
How much effort does migrating my mobile robot from ROS1 to ROS2 take?
Migration requires refactoring communication logic, node management, build files, and often sensor drivers. A small mobile robot project can take weeks; a production AMR fleet can take months. Using ros1_bridge for phased migration reduces risk and downtime.
