DHS Test Scores Put DJI Matrice 4T Above Skydio X10D

Quick answer

A DHS addendum reported by DroneXL scores the DJI Matrice 4T at 4.6 and the Matrice 30T at 4.3 at Hudson Yards, above the Skydio X10D at 3.7, but the public report omitted those DJI scores.

• The DJI Matrice 4T scored 4.6 and the Matrice 30T scored 4.3 in the DHS addendum.
• The Skydio X10D scored 3.7 in the same Hudson Yards testing.
• The public DHS report did not include the DJI scores.
• DroneXL obtained the addendum and published the comparison on October 2, 2026.
• The omission raises procurement transparency questions for commercial drone buyers.

Evidence: DroneXL.co · DIU Blue UAS

DJI buying context

Match product news to hardware you can actually deploy.

Check inspected DJI aircraft, repair support, and trade-in timing before deciding whether to upgrade, repair, or wait.

Pre-owned DJI drones > DJI repair > Drone trade-in guide >

A Department of Homeland Security testing addendum obtained by DroneXL.co shows the DJI Matrice 4T scoring 4.6 and the Matrice 30T scoring 4.3 in evaluation at Hudson Yards, placing both DJI platforms above the Skydio X10D at 3.7. The public version of the report did not include those DJI scores. For commercial operators, fleet buyers, and anyone tracking the pre-owned DJI market, the omission is now the story as much as the numbers themselves.

The reporting, published by DroneXL.co on October 2, 2026, frames the gap between the internal addendum and the public release as a transparency problem. If the scores are accurate, they complicate the narrative that Blue UAS-approved alternatives are consistently outperforming DJI hardware in government testing. That matters well beyond Washington, because state and local agencies, enterprise fleets, and private operators often use federal procurement signals as a shortcut for their own buying decisions.

What the DHS addendum actually shows

According to the DroneXL report, the addendum scores the DJI Matrice 4T at 4.6 and the DJI Matrice 30T at 4.3 in the Hudson Yards evaluation. The Skydio X10D, a Blue UAS-listed platform, scored 3.7 in the same testing environment. The public DHS report left the DJI results out entirely, which is why the addendum has drawn attention from operators who follow government drone procurement closely.

The practical takeaway is not that one manufacturer is universally better than another. Field performance varies by mission, environment, and operator skill. But when a federal agency runs a structured evaluation and then publishes only part of the results, buyers lose a data point they could otherwise use for platform selection, spare parts planning, and fleet lifecycle decisions. The missing DJI scores are the kind of information that helps a fleet manager justify keeping a Matrice platform in service rather than replacing it early.

Why procurement transparency matters for commercial operators

Government test results influence commercial behavior in ways that are easy to underestimate. A city police department, a utility inspection team, or a construction survey group may not read every DHS document, but their procurement consultants and integrators do. When DJI scores are omitted from public reporting, the downstream effect is a quieter but real bias in platform recommendations, training budgets, and long-term fleet planning.

For operators who already run DJI Matrice 30T or Matrice 4T airframes, the addendum suggests the hardware remains competitive in structured evaluation. That has direct implications for repair versus replacement decisions. If a Matrice 30T airframe is still scoring well in federal testing, a fleet manager may be more inclined to invest in genuine OEM spare parts and professional repair rather than retiring the platform early. This is where the commercial picture gets interesting for the pre-owned DJI market as well.

What this means for drone owners and the market

The reported scores reinforce something many commercial operators already suspected: DJI enterprise hardware continues to perform strongly even as government procurement rules push agencies toward Blue UAS alternatives. For private buyers who are not bound by federal procurement restrictions, the addendum is a reminder that performance data does not always align neatly with approved vendor lists. A platform can score well in testing and still be excluded from certain government contracts for policy reasons.

That split between performance and policy creates a specific opportunity in the pre-owned DJI market. Operators who want Matrice-class capability without paying full retail for a new unit can look at inspected pre-owned DJI drones as a practical path, especially when the underlying hardware is still demonstrating strong field scores. For repair customers, the same logic applies: a Matrice 30T or Matrice 4T that is still competitive in federal evaluation is worth maintaining with genuine OEM spare parts rather than treating as a depreciating asset headed for early retirement. Readers evaluating their options can consult the Drone Wiki for reference material on DJI platform maintenance and lifecycle planning. For owners evaluating service and lifecycle risk, Drone Wiki explains the relevant repair, parts, resale, or operational path.

The broader market signal is that DJI enterprise hardware retains operational relevance even in a policy environment that restricts its use in certain federal programs. That supports resale values for well-maintained Matrice units and keeps demand steady among commercial buyers who do not face the same procurement constraints. Fleet managers should treat the DHS addendum as one more data point in a longer trend: performance and policy are moving on separate tracks, and smart buyers plan around both.

What operators should watch next

The immediate question is whether DHS or other agencies will release the full testing data or explain why the DJI scores were withheld from the public report. DroneXL has framed the omission as a transparency issue, and any follow-up from the agency could clarify whether the scores were excluded for methodological reasons, policy reasons, or something else. For now, the addendum stands as the only public window into how DJI platforms performed in that specific evaluation.

Operators who fly Matrice platforms should keep an eye on two things: first, whether any additional testing data surfaces that confirms or contradicts the addendum scores, and second, whether state or local agencies begin citing the Hudson Yards results in their own procurement justifications. Both developments would shape demand for new and pre-owned DJI enterprise hardware, spare parts availability, and repair service volume in the months ahead.