['Endovascular robotics systems, now approved for clinical use in the United States and Europe, are seeing rapid growth in interest. Determining who has sufficient expertise for safe and effective clinical use remains elusive. Our aim was to analyze performance on a robotic platform to determine what defines an expert user.', 'During three sessions, 21 subjects with a range of endovascular expertise and endovascular robotic experience (novices <2 hours to moderate-extensive experience with >20 hours) performed four tasks on a training model. All participants completed a 2-hour training session on the robot by a certified instructor. Completion times, global rating scores, and motion metrics were collected to assess performance. Electromagnetic tracking was used to capture and to analyze catheter tip motion. Motion analysis was based on derivations of speed and position including spectral arc length and total number of submovements (inversely proportional to proficiency of motion) and duration of submovements (directly proportional to proficiency).', 'Ninety-eight percent of competent subjects successfully completed the tasks within the given time, whereas 91% of noncompetent subjects were successful. There was no significant difference in completion times between competent and noncompetent users except for the posterior branch (151 s:105 s; P = .01). The competent users had more efficient motion as evidenced by statistically significant differences in the metrics of motion analysis. Users with >20 hours of experience performed significantly better than those newer to the system, independent of prior endovascular experience.'] Do kinematics effectively delineate accomplished users of endovascular robotics with a physical training model?