Cyborg Index · July 2026

Apptronik Apollo vs Boston Dynamics Atlas (electric)

Both humanoids read on the same 8 axes and 40 sub-axes, using the published Index scores. Every difference below carries the public evidence behind it, and sub-axes with no public evidence count as 0 rather than being skipped.

The public record is still thin on at least one side of this pair, so treat the ordering as provisional rather than settled.

Overall standing

Capability score · 0–5 over 40 sub-axes
0.93of 5
Rank
#7
Coverage
17/40
Proof
0.08
0.68of 5
Rank
#10
Coverage
14/40
Proof
0.11
The short answer

Apptronik Apollo scores 0.25 higher than Boston Dynamics Atlas (electric), but that lead rests mostly on vendor claims and demos.

Only 9% of Apptronik Apollo's score is carried by independently verified material — the rest is claimed or shown in demos. Boston Dynamics Atlas (electric) has more unscored ground than the gap between them, so this could change next month.

Where Apptronik Apollo is ahead
  • HRI+0.80Rests on claims and demos
  • Manipulation+0.60Rests on claims and demos
  • Autonomy+0.40Rests on claims and demos
  • Perception+0.20Rests on claims and demos
Where Boston Dynamics Atlas (electric) is ahead
  • Locomotion+0.20Rests on claims and demos
  • Deployment+0.20Rests on claims and demos
What would change it

5 sub-axes on the trailing side have no public evidence yet. If all of them scored full marks they would be worth 0.63 — against a gap of 0.25.

  • Learning · Imitation learningup to +0.125
  • Perception · Scene understandingup to +0.125
  • HRI · Social presentationup to +0.125
  • Safety · Force impact limitsup to +0.125
  • Autonomy · Task horizonup to +0.125
There is more unscored ground than there is gap, so this result could turn over after the next research month.
How much we know
39%of sub-axes covered

We have public evidence for 39% of the 40 sub-axes across these two. Treat this as an early read.

Apptronik Apollo · 43%
Boston Dynamics Atlas (electric) · 35%
Early read
The shape of each score
Apptronik Apollo0.93
LocomotionManipulationPerceptionAutonomyLearningHRIDeploymentSafety

17/40 sub-axes have evidence

Faint outline = Boston Dynamics Atlas (electric)

Boston Dynamics Atlas (electric)0.68
LocomotionManipulationPerceptionAutonomyLearningHRIDeploymentSafety

14/40 sub-axes have evidence

Faint outline = Apptronik Apollo

Reading the wheels — clockwise from the top
  1. 1 Locomotion
  2. 2 Manipulation
  3. 3 Perception
  4. 4 Autonomy
  5. 5 Learning
  6. 6 HRI
  7. 7 Deployment
  8. 8 Safety

Each wheel has 40 spokes — five per axis. A longer spoke is a higher score, and the dashed rings mark 1 to 4. Hover or tab onto any spoke to read the axis, the sub-axis and the exact value. A missing spoke means there is no public evidence for that sub-axis yet, which is not the same as scoring zero. The faint outline on each wheel is the other humanoid, drawn on the same scale.

Every axis, every sub-axis
Apptronik ApolloBoston Dynamics Atlas (electric)
Shared 0–5 track · widest gap first
HRI
1.20 / 0.40 0.80
Rests on claims and demosEvidenced cells · 2/5 vs 1/5
Speech io
/
Nl instruction
/
Intent recognition
/
Safe proximity
4.00 / 2.00 2.00
Social presentation
2.00 / 2.00
Manipulation
2.00 / 1.40 0.60
Rests on claims and demosEvidenced cells · 3/5 vs 3/5
Grasp variety
4.00 / 2.00 2.00
Bimanual
4.00 / 3.00 1.00
Force control
2.00 / 2.00
In hand reorient
/
Tool use
/
Autonomy
0.60 / 0.20 0.40
Rests on claims and demosEvidenced cells · 2/5 vs 1/5
Unattended operation
1.00 / 1.00
Task horizon
2.00 / 2.00
Generalization
/
Instruction following
/
Recovery from failure
/
Locomotion
0.80 / 1.00 0.20
Rests on claims and demosEvidenced cells · 2/5 vs 2/5
Flat ground walking
2.00 / 3.00 1.00
Uneven terrain
/
Stairs
/
Disturbance recovery
/
Speed endurance
2.00 / 2.00
Perception
0.60 / 0.40 0.20
Rests on claims and demosEvidenced cells · 2/5 vs 1/5
Sensor stack
2.00 / 2.00
Scene understanding
1.00 / 1.00
Spatial memory
/
Object permanence
/
Semantic world model
/
Learning
0.60 / 0.40 0.20
Not enough public record yetEvidenced cells · 1/5 vs 1/5
Imitation learning
3.00 / 3.00
Sim to real
/ 2.00 2.00
Foundation policy
/
Data flywheel
/
Transfer fine tune
/
Deployment
1.00 / 1.20 0.20
Rests on claims and demosEvidenced cells · 3/5 vs 4/5
Named pilots
2.00 / 2.00
Field hours
/
Customer diversity
1.00 / 1.00
Supportability
/ 2.00 2.00
Commercial posture
2.00 / 1.00 1.00
Safety
0.60 / 0.40 0.20
Rests on claims and demosEvidenced cells · 2/5 vs 1/5
Functional safety
2.00 / 2.00
Certifications
/
E stop arch
/
Incident transparency
/
Force impact limits
1.00 / 1.00
Segment length and thickness are the gapNo public evidence yet
Which is better for what

Each row is decided by the axes that matter for that kind of work, read off the same Capability scores as the ranking. Rows only appear where both humanoids have enough public record to answer.

Manufacturing and warehouse work
Named pilots and field hours, backed by what the hands can actually do.
Level
Apptronik Apollo and Boston Dynamics Atlas (electric) read the same on Deployment and Manipulation (1.33 vs 1.27).
Running without a human in the loop
Unattended operation and task horizon, backed by what the robot can perceive.
Apptronik Apollo
Apptronik Apollo scores higher on Autonomy and Perception — 0.60 against 0.27 for Boston Dynamics Atlas (electric).
Moving through difficult ground
Uneven terrain, stairs and disturbance recovery.
Boston Dynamics Atlas (electric)
Boston Dynamics Atlas (electric) scores higher on Locomotion — 1.00 against 0.80 for Apptronik Apollo.
Working alongside people
Functional safety and certification, plus how it reads and answers people.
Apptronik Apollo
Apptronik Apollo scores higher on Safety and HRI — 0.80 against 0.40 for Boston Dynamics Atlas (electric).
Picking up new tasks
Imitation learning, transfer and generalisation across tasks.
Apptronik Apollo
Apptronik Apollo scores higher on Learning and Autonomy — 0.60 against 0.33 for Boston Dynamics Atlas (electric).
Research and developer use
How much of the stack is documented and reproducible.
Apptronik Apollo
Apptronik Apollo scores higher on Learning and Perception — 0.60 against 0.40 for Boston Dynamics Atlas (electric).
How solid the record is on each side
Apptronik Apollo
Sub-axes on the record
17 of 40 · 43%
Carried by verified material
9%
Rests on claims and demos
0.85
Best documented — Manipulation, Deployment
Nothing on the record — every axis has at least one read
Boston Dynamics Atlas (electric)
Sub-axes on the record
14 of 40 · 35%
Carried by verified material
16%
Rests on claims and demos
0.57
Best documented — Manipulation, Deployment
Nothing on the record — every axis has at least one read

What this comparison cannot settle

  • Neither humanoid has a public read on 21 of the 40 sub-axes, so those cannot be compared at all.
  • 7 sub-axes are read on only one side. A one-sided cell is undecided, not a zero for the silent side.
  • Public evidence covers 39% of the sub-axes across the two. Treat the overall ordering as an early read.
  • Most of Apptronik Apollo's score rests on vendor statements and demo footage rather than independently verified material (9% carried by verified evidence).
  • Most of Boston Dynamics Atlas (electric)'s score rests on vendor statements and demo footage rather than independently verified material (16% carried by verified evidence).
  • Demonstrations happen in different environments and product revisions are not always equivalent, so like-for-like uptime and throughput figures do not exist for most of the field.
Cyborg IndexJuly 2026 editionCapability scoremethodology