Cyborg Index · July 2026

Apptronik Apollo vs Unitree H2

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

Coverage

17/40

Proof

0.08

Unitree H2

Unitree

0.78of 5

Rank

Coverage

17/40

Proof

0.05

The short answer

Apptronik Apollo scores 0.15 higher than Unitree H2, 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. Unitree H2 has more unscored ground than the gap between them, so this could change next month.

Where Apptronik Apollo is ahead

Manipulation+1.00Rests on claims and demos
Learning+0.40Not enough public record yet
Safety+0.40Rests on claims and demos
Autonomy+0.20Rests on claims and demos

Where Unitree H2 is ahead

Locomotion+0.60Rests on claims and demos
Perception+0.40Rests on claims and demos

What would change it

7 sub-axes on the trailing side have no public evidence yet. If all of them scored full marks they would be worth 0.88 — against a gap of 0.15.

Manipulation · Bimanualup to +0.125
Learning · Imitation learningup to +0.125
Perception · Scene understandingup 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

43%of sub-axes covered

We have public evidence for 43% of the 40 sub-axes across these two. Treat this as an early read.

Apptronik Apollo · 43%

Unitree H2 · 43%

Early read

The shape of each score

Apptronik Apollo0.93

17/40 sub-axes have evidence

Faint outline = Unitree H2

Unitree H20.78

17/40 sub-axes have evidence

Faint outline = Apptronik Apollo

Reading the wheels — clockwise from the top

1 Locomotion
2 Manipulation
3 Perception
4 Autonomy
5 Learning
6 HRI
7 Deployment
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

Manipulation1.00 Locomotion0.60 Perception0.40 Learning0.40 Safety0.40 Autonomy0.20 Deployment0.20 HRIlevel

Apptronik ApolloUnitree H2

Shared 0–5 track · widest gap first

Manipulation

2.00 / 1.00◄ 1.00

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

— / 1.00► 1.00

Locomotion

0.80 / 1.40► 0.60

Rests on claims and demosEvidenced cells · 2/5 vs 3/5

Flat ground walking

2.00 / 3.00► 1.00

Uneven terrain

— / —

Stairs

— / —

Disturbance recovery

— / 2.00► 2.00

Speed endurance

2.00 / 2.00

Perception

0.60 / 1.00► 0.40

Rests on claims and demosEvidenced cells · 2/5 vs 2/5

Sensor stack

2.00 / 3.00► 1.00

Scene understanding

1.00 / —◄ 1.00

Spatial memory

— / 2.00► 2.00

Object permanence

— / —

Semantic world model

— / —

Learning

0.60 / 0.20◄ 0.40

Not enough public record yetEvidenced cells · 1/5 vs 1/5

Imitation learning

3.00 / —◄ 3.00

Sim to real

— / —

Foundation policy

— / —

Data flywheel

— / 1.00► 1.00

Transfer fine tune

— / —

Safety

0.60 / 0.20◄ 0.40

Rests on claims and demosEvidenced cells · 2/5 vs 1/5

Functional safety

2.00 / 1.00◄ 1.00

Certifications

— / —

E stop arch

— / —

Incident transparency

— / —

Force impact limits

1.00 / —◄ 1.00

Autonomy

0.60 / 0.40◄ 0.20

Rests on claims and demosEvidenced cells · 2/5 vs 2/5

Unattended operation

1.00 / 1.00

Task horizon

2.00 / —◄ 2.00

Generalization

— / 1.00► 1.00

Instruction following

— / —

Recovery from failure

— / —

Deployment

1.00 / 0.80◄ 0.20

Rests on claims and demosEvidenced cells · 3/5 vs 2/5

Named pilots

2.00 / —◄ 2.00

Field hours

— / —

Customer diversity

1.00 / —◄ 1.00

Supportability

— / 2.00► 2.00

Commercial posture

2.00 / 2.00

HRI

1.20 / 1.20

Not enough public record yetEvidenced cells · 2/5 vs 3/5

Speech io

— / 2.00► 2.00

Nl instruction

— / —

Intent recognition

— / —

Safe proximity

4.00 / 1.00◄ 3.00

Social presentation

2.00 / 3.00► 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 0.87 for Unitree H2.

Running without a human in the loop

Unattended operation and task horizon, backed by what the robot can perceive.

Level

Apptronik Apollo and Unitree H2 read the same on Autonomy and Perception (0.60 vs 0.60).

Moving through difficult ground

Uneven terrain, stairs and disturbance recovery.

Unitree H2

Unitree H2 scores higher on Locomotion — 1.40 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 0.53 for Unitree H2.

Picking up new tasks

Imitation learning, transfer and generalisation across tasks.

Apptronik Apollo

Apptronik Apollo scores higher on Learning and Autonomy — 0.60 against 0.27 for Unitree H2.

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 0.47 for Unitree H2.

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

Unitree H2

Sub-axes on the record: 17 of 40 · 43%
Carried by verified material: 6%
Rests on claims and demos: 0.72

Best documented — Locomotion, Manipulation, HRI

Nothing on the record — every axis has at least one read

What this comparison cannot settle

Neither humanoid has a public read on 16 of the 40 sub-axes, so those cannot be compared at all.
14 sub-axes are read on only one side. A one-sided cell is undecided, not a zero for the silent side.
Public evidence covers 43% 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 Unitree H2's score rests on vendor statements and demo footage rather than independently verified material (6% 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