<![CDATA[UAV quadcopter technology has advanced rapidly and is widely used in both military and civilian sectors. One critical challenge is precision landing, since conventional GPS-based methods have limited accuracy (0.9–1.8 m). Fiducial marker–based landing offers a practical alternative, but cross-study comparisons remain difficult because marker types and testing procedures vary. This study presents a statistically validated comparative evaluation of five fiducial markers (ArUco, AprilTag, ARTag, WhyCode, and STag) in a standardized PX4–ROS simulation environment. Beyond performance ranking, the study analyzes how marker geometry and coding structure influence homography stability, pose-estimation noise, and landing control response. Evaluation metrics include horizontal and vertical landing errors, landing time, and detection distance, analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests. Results show significant differences in vertical error, landing time, and detection distance, indicating that geometric regularity and edge-contrast structure directly affect visual pose stability. Within the controlled simulation framework, AprilTag shows the most consistent overall performance, with mean errors of 2.99 cm (X-axis) and 5.59 cm (Y-axis) and an average landing time of 21.8 s. The main contribution is a reproducible comparative framework and an explanatory link between marker design and visual-control stability, guiding marker selection in precision UAV landing systems.]]>
