CYBORGS OF EARTH
Cyborg Index · July 2026

Apptronik Apollo vs NEURA 4NE-1

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
Apptronik Apollo
Apptronik
0.93of 5
Rank
#7
Coverage
17/40
Proof
0.08
NEURA 4NE-1
NEURA Robotics
1.00of 5
Rank
#6
Coverage
22/40
Proof
0.08
The short answer

NEURA 4NE-1 scores 0.07 higher than Apptronik Apollo, but that lead rests mostly on vendor claims and demos.

Only 8% of NEURA 4NE-1's score is carried by independently verified material — the rest is claimed or shown in demos. Apptronik Apollo has more unscored ground than the gap between them, so this could change next month.

Where Apptronik Apollo is ahead
  • Manipulation+0.80Rests on claims and demos
  • Deployment+0.60Rests on claims and demos
Where NEURA 4NE-1 is ahead
  • HRI+0.60Rests on claims and demos
  • Autonomy+0.60Rests on claims and demos
  • Perception+0.40Rests on claims and demos
  • Learning+0.40Rests on claims and demos
What would change it

10 sub-axes on the trailing side have no public evidence yet. If all of them scored full marks they would be worth 1.25 — against a gap of 0.07.

  • Autonomy · Instruction followingup to +0.125
  • Learning · Data flywheelup to +0.125
  • Learning · Transfer fine tuneup to +0.125
  • HRI · Speech ioup to +0.125
  • HRI · Nl instructionup 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
49%of sub-axes covered

We have public evidence for 49% of the 40 sub-axes across these two. Treat this as an early read.

Apptronik Apollo · 43%
NEURA 4NE-1 · 55%
Early read
The shape of each score
Apptronik Apollo0.93
LocomotionManipulationPerceptionAutonomyLearningHRIDeploymentSafety

17/40 sub-axes have evidence

Faint outline = NEURA 4NE-1

NEURA 4NE-11.00
LocomotionManipulationPerceptionAutonomyLearningHRIDeploymentSafety

22/40 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
Manipulation0.80HRI0.60Autonomy0.60Deployment0.60Perception0.40Learning0.40LocomotionlevelSafetylevel
Apptronik ApolloNEURA 4NE-1
Shared 0–5 track · widest gap first
Manipulation
2.00 / 1.20◄ 0.80
Rests on claims and demosEvidenced cells · 3/5 vs 3/5
Grasp variety
4.00 / 2.00◄ 2.00
Bimanual
4.00 / —◄ 4.00
Force control
2.00 / 2.00
In hand reorient
— / —
Tool use
— / 2.00► 2.00
HRI
1.20 / 1.80► 0.60
Rests on claims and demosEvidenced cells · 2/5 vs 4/5
Speech io
— / 2.00► 2.00
Nl instruction
— / 2.00► 2.00
Intent recognition
— / 2.00► 2.00
Safe proximity
4.00 / 3.00◄ 1.00
Social presentation
2.00 / —◄ 2.00
Autonomy
0.60 / 1.20► 0.60
Rests on claims and demosEvidenced cells · 2/5 vs 3/5
Unattended operation
1.00 / 2.00► 1.00
Task horizon
2.00 / 2.00
Generalization
— / —
Instruction following
— / 2.00► 2.00
Recovery from failure
— / —
Deployment
1.00 / 0.40◄ 0.60
Rests on claims and demosEvidenced cells · 3/5 vs 1/5
Named pilots
2.00 / —◄ 2.00
Field hours
— / —
Customer diversity
1.00 / —◄ 1.00
Supportability
— / —
Commercial posture
2.00 / 2.00
Perception
0.60 / 1.00► 0.40
Rests on claims and demosEvidenced cells · 2/5 vs 3/5
Sensor stack
2.00 / 2.00
Scene understanding
1.00 / 1.00
Spatial memory
— / 2.00► 2.00
Object permanence
— / —
Semantic world model
— / —
Learning
0.60 / 1.00► 0.40
Rests on claims and demosEvidenced cells · 1/5 vs 3/5
Imitation learning
3.00 / —◄ 3.00
Sim to real
— / 1.00► 1.00
Foundation policy
— / —
Data flywheel
— / 2.00► 2.00
Transfer fine tune
— / 2.00► 2.00
Locomotion
0.80 / 0.80
Not enough public record yetEvidenced cells · 2/5 vs 2/5
Flat ground walking
2.00 / 2.00
Uneven terrain
— / —
Stairs
— / —
Disturbance recovery
— / —
Speed endurance
2.00 / 2.00
Safety
0.60 / 0.60
Not enough public record yetEvidenced cells · 2/5 vs 3/5
Functional safety
2.00 / 2.00
Certifications
— / 0.00
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.
Apptronik Apollo
Apptronik Apollo scores higher on Deployment and Manipulation — 1.33 against 0.67 for NEURA 4NE-1.
Running without a human in the loop
Unattended operation and task horizon, backed by what the robot can perceive.
NEURA 4NE-1
NEURA 4NE-1 scores higher on Autonomy and Perception — 1.13 against 0.60 for Apptronik Apollo.
Moving through difficult ground
Uneven terrain, stairs and disturbance recovery.
Level
Apptronik Apollo and NEURA 4NE-1 read the same on Locomotion (0.80 vs 0.80).
Working alongside people
Functional safety and certification, plus how it reads and answers people.
NEURA 4NE-1
NEURA 4NE-1 scores higher on Safety and HRI — 1.00 against 0.80 for Apptronik Apollo.
Picking up new tasks
Imitation learning, transfer and generalisation across tasks.
NEURA 4NE-1
NEURA 4NE-1 scores higher on Learning and Autonomy — 1.07 against 0.60 for Apptronik Apollo.
Research and developer use
How much of the stack is documented and reproducible.
NEURA 4NE-1
NEURA 4NE-1 scores higher on Learning and Perception — 1.00 against 0.60 for Apptronik Apollo.
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
NEURA 4NE-1
Sub-axes on the record
22 of 40 · 55%
Carried by verified material
8%
Rests on claims and demos
0.92
Best documented — Manipulation, Perception, Autonomy, Learning, HRI, Safety
Nothing on the record — every axis has at least one read

What this comparison cannot settle

  • Neither humanoid has a public read on 13 of the 40 sub-axes, so those cannot be compared at all.
  • 15 sub-axes are read on only one side. A one-sided cell is undecided, not a zero for the silent side.
  • Public evidence covers 49% 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 NEURA 4NE-1's score rests on vendor statements and demo footage rather than independently verified material (8% 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.

Go deeper on either humanoid

Nearby comparisons

All comparisons →
Cyborg IndexJuly 2026 editionCapability scoremethodology