This comparison between my experience as a passenger in Baidu’s Apollo robotaxis and Alphabet’s Waymo robotaxis is based on multiple rides I took in Wuhan and San Francisco in early 2025 as well as on other publicly available information. Three caveats are especially important:
First, although I am in regular contact with many automated driving developers, my comparison does not include any information I may have learned in these communications.
Second, Wuhan and San Francisco are dramatically different municipalities in terms of population, physical area, density, road types, traffic composition, driving behavior, and other conditions. This makes some direct comparisons difficult.
Third, while a few rides can demonstrate that an automated driving system is unsafe, a few rides cannot demonstrate that an automated driving system is safe. In no way do my anecdotal experiences represent a comprehensive assessment of safety or performance.
Vehicle
Apollo
Apollo currently provides robotaxi service in Wuhan with electric vehicles outfitted with its “5th Generation” hardware as well as electric vehicles outfitted with its “6th Generation” hardware.
Apollo's 5th Generation vehicles seat no passengers in the front and three in the back. The rear doors swing open. The primary lidar unit rotates. The steering wheel is not covered. The rear and side-view mirrors remain.
Apollo's 6th Generation vehicles seat one person in the front and two in the back (in bucket seats, one with a massage function). The rear door slides open. All the lidar units appear to be solid state. The steering wheel is covered. The rear- and side-view mirrors remain.
Waymo
Waymo currently provides robotaxi service in San Francisco with electric Jaguar I-Pace vehicles outfitted with its “5th Generation” hardware.
Waymo's 5th Generation vehicles seat one passenger in the front and three in the back. The rear doors swing open. The primary lidar unit rotates. The steering wheel is not covered. The rear- and side-view mirrors remain (and the side-view mirrors are customized to incorporate sensors).
Waymo plans to deploy Zeekr vehicles outfitted with its “6th Generation” hardware but has not yet done so.
Remote Facilitation of the Driving Task
I use the term “remote facilitation of the driving task” to include both remote driving and remote assistance.
Apollo
When the “Apollo Go” automated driving system (ADS) needs assistance, a remote driver located in Baidu’s Wuhan support center uses vehicle-like controls to steer, brake, and accelerate the vehicle. I do not know when or even if remote driving occurred during my trips, but I did note several episodes in which both the traffic conditions and the driving style suggested remote driving rather than automated driving.
Waymo
When the “Waymo Driver” automated driving system needs assistance, it requests input from a remote assistant located in Waymo’s support center. According to Waymo, this remote assistant may provide advice or assistance to the automated driving system but does not actually direct the vehicle’s steering, braking, or acceleration in real time. I do not know when, what, or even if remote assistance was provided during my trips.
Level Classification
Both Apollo and Waymo classify their automated driving systems as level 4 driving automation. Unlike at level 3, an ADS at level 4 is designed to achieve a “minimal risk condition” when a trip cannot or should not continue. (The next version of SAE J3016 might change this term.)
I do not know what would happen if Apollo’s remote drivers failed to perform the driving task when requested. If the automated driving system is designed to independently achieve a minimal risk condition, then that system would be properly classified as level 4. If, however, the vehicle would find itself in an unreasonably dangerous trajectory or position while awaiting remote intervention, then the more appropriate classification would arguably be level 3.
Similarly, I do not know what Waymo’s automated driving system does while awaiting the provision of remote assistance. If the system continues moving in a safe manner or achieves a minimal risk condition, then that system would be properly classified as level 4. If, however, the vehicle would simply pause in an active lane of traffic in a way that a human driver would not, then the more appropriate classification would arguably be level 3.
In each case, the answer depends in part on the automated driving system’s capabilities and in part on assumptions about what constitutes a “minimal risk condition.” From the term’s beginning, the exemplar for achieving a minimal risk condition has been bringing the vehicle to a stop on a roadway shoulder or otherwise outside an active travel lane. Unfortunately, however, the concept itself has become rather hopelessly confused.
Operational Area
Apollo
Apollo services, among other areas, large parts of Wuhan on a 24/7 basis. This currently excludes the city’s central business district—but includes areas that nonetheless would be considered quite dense in the United States). It includes freeways. It also includes the city’s airport (although I did not take this route).
Wuhan occasionally receives snow—but not during my time there. In 2023, I did take a series of short Apollo trips in a small area of Beijing while there was still ice on the roads. (At the time, Apollo publicly noted that its automated service might not be available in inclement weather.)
Waymo
Waymo services, among other areas, large parts of San Francisco on a 24/7 basis. This includes the city’s central business district. (San Francisco recently indicated that it would invite Waymo vehicles onto Market Street, which in recent years has been a primary transit, bicycle, and pedestrian thoroughfare in the city.) Although Waymo has permission from the State of California to operate on freeways, at the time of my rides it did not appear to be doing so—which in one case at least doubled my travel time. Waymo does not currently service the city’s airport, although it has long been in talks to do so. (Waymo does service Phoenix’s airport.)
Snow in San Francisco is exceedingly rare. However, there is occasionally snow in some of the other markets that Waymo has started to enter.
Presence in City
Although this is highly subjective and anecdotal, Waymo’s robotaxis seemed more ubiquitous than Apollo’s robotaxis in key areas in their respective cities. It was much more common for me to observe multiple Waymo vehicles traveling in proximity to each other than to observe multiple Apollo vehicles traveling in proximity to each other. At the same time, Waymo vehicles were sparse in areas of San Francisco that are less dense (e.g., a suburban shopping model). I am not familiar enough with Wuhan to offer a corresponding characterization. However, Apollo robotaxis were active and visible on freeways in a way that Waymo robotaxis were not.
Pickup and Drop-off
Apollo
Apollo picks up passengers only at a limited number of specific points in its operational area. This means that some locations that are nominally in Apollo’s service area are nonetheless nearly two kilometers from a pickup point. It appears that drop-off points are similarly limited.
It also appears that Apollo vehicles can pick up and drop off only at a precise roadway location at each of these geographic points. If that location is blocked, the robotaxi does not seem to stop immediately behind that location or seek another location. Instead, it simply waits. In one popular area, this resulted in queuing of multiple robotaxis.
Some of these curbside locations are in active travel lanes, including on surface streets with higher speeds. While surprising to me, this may be consistent with how roads in China are used.
Passengers must select their pickup and drop-off points when they order an Apollo robotaxi, and if they have used the Apollo Go app then they can change their destination in that app. It appears that they are otherwise unable to instruct the vehicle to stop prematurely. (I did not try asking a customer support agent to manually change or direct a stop.)
Waymo
Waymo appears able to pick up and drop off passengers at specific addresses throughout its entire operational area—either immediately in front of the address or within a walk of generally no more than a minute. Waymo’s automated driving system also appears to operate flexibly in picking up and dropping off passengers, including by dynamically selecting stopping points based on curbside availability and other roadway conditions. Some of these points are intuitive, and some are not.
Passengers are able to change their destination while in route (with a limit), to schedule multistop trips, and to prematurely terminate their ride. In my experience, there can be a significant delay—multiple minutes and multiple city blocks—between the point at which premature termination is requested and the point at which the vehicle actually stops to allow egress.
Driving Style
My observations about driving style are necessarily subjective and may have either no relationship to safety or a complicated relationship to safety.
Apollo
Generally speaking, Apollo Go feels like a cautious human driver—almost to the point of stereotype. It sometimes hesitates when many human drivers would likely proceed. It often maintains following distances that allow other vehicles to cut in front, which then requires it to slow. It seems to prefer the left lane. It does not speed. Indeed, on freeways, it appears to travel both significantly under the speed limit and significantly under the prevailing vehicle speed—for example, never more than 72 km/h on freeways posted at 80 km/h.
In portions of my trip that I suspect used remote driving rather than automated driving, the robotaxi behaved more assertively (even as the steering wheel moved more gradually).
In my experience, Apollo's Generation 6 feels smoother than Generation 5—although there could be many explanations for this.
Waymo
Generally speaking, the Waymo Driver feels like a cautious robot. Lateral and longitudinal movements are often subtly different than in a human-driven vehicle. It also often maintains following distances that allow other vehicles to cut in front, which then requires it to slow. It signals to make lane changes that it eventually abandons. It attempts to or actually does change lanes frequently in situations where a human driver probably would not do so. It does not speed. It gives a very “uncanny valley” vibe—though generally not uncomfortably so.
Driving Situations
Apollo
My Apollo trips tended to feature driving maneuvers and traffic situations that appeared more complex than those in my Waymo trips. These included executing a complex merge on a freeway, executing another complex merge on a surface street without traffic control devices and with pedestrians and motorcyclists, sharing a narrow lane with passing bicyclists, and interacting with traffic control officers giving directions. Drivers regularly honked at or otherwise signaled displeasure with Apollo’s vehicles, especially when the robotaxis were behaving cautiously on freeways, turning left at large intersections, or attempting to stop for pickup or drop-off.
Congested freeways presented some especially interesting situations. In one, the in-vehicle automated voice for no apparent reason warned me not to leave the vehicle. In another, the robotaxi became stuck between two streams of merging vehicles until it was eventually rescued (I suspect) by a remote driver. In yet another, the robotaxi came to an abrupt stop near an offramp, and the in-vehicle automated voice explained that the emergency brake had been engaged (and again that I should not exit).
Waymo
My many Waymo trips also featured some situations of note. In one instance, another Waymo robotaxi repeatedly prevented the Waymo robotaxi in which I was riding from changing lanes. On higher-speed surface streets, Waymo vehicles did not yield the right-of-way to pedestrians who were near (that is, behind or in front of) the curb and who clearly wanted to cross. The in-vehicle display did not show or identify a camping tent that was located on a sidewalk adjacent to the road, even though it appeared to me that a person was likely inside of it.
Mobile Application
Apollo
Passengers in Wuhan can access Apollo through the Apollo app or through the general Baidu app (which is roughly comparable to Google Maps).
Of particular note: Passengers must register with both a Chinese phone number (which can be easily obtained) and a Chinese ID card (which cannot). This means that foreigners are unable to order rides on Apollo. In contrast, common Chinese services such as WeChat, Alipay, Meituan, and Didi—as well as Pony AI’s robotaxis—do not require a Chinese ID card.
Waymo
Passengers in San Francisco can access Waymo only through the company’s own Waymo One app. In other markets, Waymo uses only the Waymo One app or only the Uber app—but not both.
(Uber in the United States is roughly comparable to Didi in China. Uber and Waymo are distinct companies, but there is a long and complicated history between them. Indeed, the entire Alphabet-Uber-Aurora saga should really be a movie.)
I recall, although I have not recently confirmed, that registration on the Waymo and Uber apps within the United States requires a phone number (which can be international) and a credit or debit card that works in the United States.
In-Vehicle User Interface
Apollo
There are significant differences between the user interfaces in Apollo’s 5th and 6th Generation vehicles.
At pickup, a user unlocks an Apollo vehicle by entering a code on a touchpad on the outside of the vehicle.
Apollo’s vehicles have user displays in the front and the back (even though, in the 5th Generation, passengers are not allowed in the front). In the 5th Generation robotaxis, at least the back display shows other road users and indicates the robotaxi’s planned path in relation to them. In contrast, its 6th Generation does not show other road users or indicate the robotaxi’s planned path in relation to them. Turn signals are audible in the 5th Generation but the 6th Generation.
The user interface can be set to Chinese or English, and this setting is also reflected in automated in-vehicle announcements. Voice command is available in at least the 6th Generation, although this works in Chinese only.
Passengers can use standard vehicle buttons, the touchscreen, or voice command to open windows and presumably the trunk and to control the air conditioning.
Apollo offers a choice of music by genre or vibe.
Waymo
Waymo’s interface is broadly similar to Apollo’s 5th Generation interface.
At pickup, a user either unlocks a Waymo vehicle by entering a code on a touchpad or sets the vehicle to unlock automatically based on Bluetooth proximity.
There are user displays in the front and the back. At least the back display shows other vehicles and road users and indicates the robotaxi’s planned path in relation to them. Turn signals are audible. There are automated in-vehicle announcements. Waymo reportedly offers Spanish and Chinese language options in addition to English.
Passengers can use standard vehicle buttons to open and close windows, but they cannot use the touchscreen or app to do so. (This can prevent robust natural air circulation.) They can use the app or an exterior vehicle button to open the trunk, and they can use the touchscreen to control the air conditioning.
Waymo offers a choice of music by genre or vibe.
Seatbelts
Both Apollo’s system and Waymo’s system did not require me to be belted before the vehicle began to move, and the vehicle continued moving if I undid my seatbelt—at least for the limited time I was comfortable remaining unbelted. Whenever I was unbuckled and the vehicle was moving, a continuous automated voice did remind me to buckle up; I don’t know whether this would at some point have led to intervention by a human agent or to trip termination.
Passenger Support
Apollo and Waymo each have an option on their in-vehicle interfaces for customer support. A passenger pressing the Apollo button is then given a choice between SOS and general support, whereas a passenger pressing the Waymo button is directly connected to a human agent. The wait time was similar for both Apollo’s general support (I did not try “SOS”) and Waymo’s support: several seconds that, in the moment, feels much longer.
Apollo’s agent spoke in Chinese and was not able to speak in or translate to and from English. Waymo’s agent spoke in English; I did not try other languages. This Waymo agent was able to direct the robotaxi to pull over but was not able to open or close the car’s windows.
Accessibility
I did not evaluate either Apollo or Waymo for their accessibility to persons with disabilities. Broadly speaking, it was difficult for me to understand how someone who has a significant visual impairment or who uses a wheelchair would be able to independently travel with either Apollo or Waymo. Some of the differences that I have previously noted—such as stopping location or voice interaction—may nonetheless have some relevance to accessibility. Unfortunately, people with disabilities already face myriad obstacles and dangers with respect to conventional transportation infrastructure, vehicles, and services.
Privacy
Apollo and Waymo each have interior microphones and cameras. I am not familiar with the privacy policies of Apollo and Baidu. Waymo advises passengers that video recording is always active and that audio recording is active only when interacting with a support agent.
Customer Experience
My Apollo trips were generally less expensive than an equivalent Didi trip. In contrast, my Waymo trips were generally at least as expensive as an equivalent Uber trip (although the US practice of tipping human drivers complicates this).
Both my Apollo and my Waymo trips generally took more time than equivalent Didi or Uber trips. On Apollo trips, this time difference was slight, even on longer trips. In contrast, the time difference was significant for Waymo trips that used surface streets rather than faster freeways. (And to be clear: Complying with speed limits is a good thing.)
Waymo’s vehicles appear to be newer and more regularly cleaned than Apollo’s vehicles, especially on the outside.