We put Tesla's FSD and Waymo's robotaxi to the test. One shocking mistake made the winner clear.
The robotaxi race is speeding up.
Tesla is preparing to debut its autonomous ride-hailing service in Austin next month, and Alphabet's Waymo continues to expand throughout major US cities.
Under the hood of the Tesla and Waymo robotaxis are two key pieces of technology that the companies respectively call Full Self-Driving (FSD) and the Waymo Driver.
We (Business Insider's Lloyd Lee and Alistair Barr) tested both of these AI-powered drivers in San Francisco — and the results truly surprised us.
Given the positive experiences we've had with Waymo and Tesla's FSD, we expected the results of our not-so-scientific test to come down to minute details — maybe by how many times the AI-driver would hesitate or if it would make a curious lane change for no apparent reason.
That didn't happen. Instead, the Tesla made an egregious error that handed Waymo the clear win.
Here's how it went down.
The test
Our vehicles for the test included Waymo's Jaguar I-PACE SUVs and Barr's personal 2024 Tesla Model 3.
The Waymo robotaxis are equipped with the company's fifth-generation Waymo Driver and guided by five lidar sensors, six radars, and 29 cameras.
Barr's Tesla was equipped with Hardware 4 and FSD Supervised software v13.2.8. Tesla released a minor update to the software days after this test was conducted. The vehicle has eight external cameras.
It should be noted that this is not the same software Tesla plans to use in the robotaxis set to roll out this summer. The company said it plans to release FSD Unsupervised, a self-driving system that will not require a human behind the wheel. Nevertheless, we wanted to see how far Tesla's FSD had come since its beta rollout in 2020.
We couldn't compare Tesla and Waymo as a full-package robotaxi service. Tesla has yet to launch that product, so we focused only on the driving experience.
We started at San Francisco's iconic Twin Peaks viewpoint and ended at Chase Center. Depending on the route, that's about a 4- to 7-mile ride.
We chose these destinations for two reasons. One, it would take the cars through winding roads and both suburban and city landscapes. And two, there were a few ways to get to Chase Center from Twin Peaks, including the 280 highway.
Waymo's robotaxis can't take riders on the highway yet. Tesla can.
According to Google Maps, the highway is more time-efficient. For the Tesla, we went with the route the vehicle highlighted first. It pointed out the highway on the way back to Twin Peaks.
We took a Waymo around 8:30 a.m. on a Thursday and the Tesla afterward at around 10 a.m. The traffic conditions for both rides were light to moderate and not noticeably different.
Predictions
Our prediction was that the AI drivers' skills would be nearly neck-and-neck.
But in the spirit of competition, Lee predicted Waymo would deliver a smoother experience and a smarter driver, given the high-tech sensor stack the company relies on.
Barr went with Tesla. He said he'd driven hundreds of miles on FSD with two or three relatively minor interventions so far, and given this previous experience, Barr said he'd have no problem riding in the back seat of a Tesla robotaxi.
Waymo
Throughout our ride in the Waymo, we were impressed by the AI driver's ability to be safe but assertive.
The Waymo was not shy about making yellow lights, for example, but it never made maneuvers you wouldn't want a robot driver you're entrusting your life with to make.
One small but notable moment in our ride was when the Waymo stopped behind a car at a stop sign. To the right of us was an open lane.
For whatever reason, the Waymo saw that and decided to switch lanes, as if it was tired of waiting behind the other car. We found that a bit amusing because it seemed like such a human moment.
As human drivers, we might make choices like that because we get antsy waiting behind another car, even though we're not shaving more than a few seconds, if any, off of our commute.
Barr noted that the Waymo Driver can have moments of sass or attitude. It had an urgency, giving us the feeling that it somehow really cared that we got to the Chase Center in good time.
"It's got New York cab driver energy," Barr said, stealing a line from BI editor in chief Jamie Heller, who also took a Waymo during a trip to San Francisco earlier this year.
Sandy Karp, a spokesperson for Waymo, said the company doesn't have specific details on what happened in that moment but said that the Waymo Driver "is constantly planning its next move, including the optimal route to get its rider where they're going safely and efficiently."
"This planning can involve decisions like changing lanes when deemed favorable," she said.
Ultimately, though, the best litmus test for any robotaxi is when you stop noticing that you're in a robotaxi.
Outside those small but notable moments, we recorded footage for this story and chatted in comfort without feeling like we were on the edge of our seats.
Tesla
Tesla's FSD delivered a mostly smooth driving experience, and we think it deserves some props for doing so with a smaller and cheaper tech stack, i.e., only eight cameras.
FSD knew how to signal a lane change as it approached a large stalled vehicle taking up a lot of road room, and it didn't have any sudden moments of braking. Just a few years ago, Tesla owners were reporting issues of "phantom braking." We experienced none of that on our drive.
Tesla also handled highway driving flawlessly. Sure, the weather was clear and traffic was fairly light, but, as noted earlier, Waymo does not yet offer public rides on highways. The company is still testing.
However, Tesla FSD did make a few mistakes, including one critical error.
At the end of our drive at Chase Center, we assessed how Waymo and Tesla's systems performed. We both gave Waymo a slight edge, but were also impressed with the FSD system.
On our way back to Twin Peaks, Tesla highlighted a route that would take us on the highway — a route that Waymo cannot take. We kept Tesla FSD on for this trip while we continued recording.
San Francisco is known to have a lot of brightly marked, green bike lanes for cyclists. There was one moment during the trip back when the Tesla made a right turn onto a bike lane and continued to drive on it for a few seconds before it merged into the proper lane.
Then, as we approached the last half-mile of our ride, the Tesla, for an unknown reason, ran a red light.
The incident occurred at a fairly complex intersection that resembles a slip-lane intersection, but with a traffic light. The Waymo did not approach this intersection since it took a different route to get back to Twin Peaks.
The Tesla's console screen showed how the car detected the red light and came to a dutiful stop. Then, despite the traffic light not changing, the Tesla drove ahead.
We didn't come close to hitting any cars or humans on the street — Tesla's FSD is good at spotting such risks, and the main source of traffic coming across our path had been stopped by another traffic light. However, the vehicle slowly drove through this red light, which left us both somewhat shocked at the time.
Some Tesla drivers appeared to have reported similar issues in online forums and in videos that showed the vehicle recognizing the red light but driving ahead. One YouTuber showed how the Tesla first came to a stop at a red light and then continued driving before the light changed.
It's unclear how common this issue is. Tesla hasn't publicly addressed the problem.
A spokesperson for Tesla did not respond to a request for comment.
At this point, we thought the winner was clear.
Verdict
Since Tesla's FSD made a critical error that would have landed an automatic fail during a driver's license test, we thought it was fair to give Waymo the win for this test.
The Tesla handled San Francisco's hilly and winding roads almost as flawlessly as Waymo.
We also think FSD's ability to handle routes that Waymo can't handle for now — in particular, the highway — would give Tesla a major upper hand.
In addition, when Lee tried on a different day to make the Waymo go through the same intersection where the Tesla blew the red light, the Waymo app appeared to do everything it could to avoid that intersection, even if it provided the quickest path to get to the destination, according to Google Maps.
A Waymo spokesperson did not provide a comment on what could've happened here.
Still, an error like running a red light cannot be overlooked when human lives are at stake. Consider that when Tesla rolls out its robotaxi service, a human driver will not be behind the wheel to quickly intervene if it makes an error.
For Tesla and Waymo, we expected to be on the lookout for small, almost negligible, mistakes or glitchy moments from the AI driver. We did not anticipate an error as glaring as running a red light.
Once Tesla launches its robotaxi service in more areas, we'll have to see how the pick-up and drop-off times compare.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk said that the company's generalized solution to self-driving is far superior to its competitors. The company has millions of cars already on the roads collecting massive amounts of real-world data. According to Musk, this will make FSD smarter and able to operate with only cameras.
With Tesla's robotaxi service set to launch in June with human passengers, we certainly hope so.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tesla (TSLA) Stock Trades Up, Here Is Why
Shares of electric vehicle pioneer Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) jumped 3.5% in the afternoon session after tension between CEO Elon Musk and President Donald Trump continued to cool off. This de-escalation is likely a major relief for investors who had been worried about the potential negative impacts on Tesla's business, particularly regarding government contracts or regulatory scrutiny. Also, there is growing optimism about Tesla's launch of its robotaxi service. Reports suggest a possible launch date as early as June 12th in Austin, Texas. This highly anticipated launch is seen as a crucial new revenue stream and a significant step forward for Tesla's autonomous driving ambitions, which could help offset challenges in its core EV sales. After the initial pop the shares cooled down to $317.22, up 2.8% from previous close. Is now the time to buy Tesla? Access our full analysis report here, it's free. Tesla's shares are extremely volatile and have had 134 moves greater than 2.5% over the last year. In that context, today's move indicates the market considers this news meaningful but not something that would fundamentally change its perception of the business. The previous big move we wrote about was 5 days ago when the stock dropped 4.9% as momentum slowed after a 40% rally that followed the Q1 2025 selloff, suggesting that the recent surge may have exhausted short-term buying interest. It is also possible some investors were taking profits amid uncertainty as they wait for more concrete updates on Tesla's highly anticipated product updates scheduled for later this year. These updates are critical for improving Tesla's growth story, as reported sales in Europe and China were weak in the first quarter of the year. Contributing to the pullback, a widely circulated Bloomberg report resurfaced concerns about the safety of Tesla's driver-assistance technology, highlighting a fatal 2023 crash. The timing of the story is especially sensitive, as Tesla prepares to unveil its AI-powered robo-taxi service in Austin later in the month, a launch that risked being overshadowed by renewed scrutiny and could shake investor confidence in the company's autonomous driving ambitions. Adding to the wall of worry is Elon Musk increasingly looking like an enemy to President Trump rather than a confidant. President Trump has shown the willingness to punish companies that do not fall in line with his agenda and vision. Tesla is down 16.4% since the beginning of the year, and at $317.22 per share, it is trading 33.9% below its 52-week high of $479.86 from December 2024. Investors who bought $1,000 worth of Tesla's shares 5 years ago would now be looking at an investment worth $4,642. Today's young investors likely haven't read the timeless lessons in Gorilla Game: Picking Winners In High Technology because it was written more than 20 years ago when Microsoft and Apple were first establishing their supremacy. But if we apply the same principles, then enterprise software stocks leveraging their own generative AI capabilities may well be the Gorillas of the future. So, in that spirit, we are excited to present our Special Free Report on a profitable, fast-growing enterprise software stock that is already riding the automation wave and looking to catch the generative AI next. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

The Drive
an hour ago
- The Drive
GMC Hummer EV Quietly Loses Apple CarPlay For 2026
The latest car news, reviews, and features. GM wasn't kidding around, it has no interest in an Apple CarPlay future, at least not in its EVs. Buried in the 2026 GMC Hummer EV fleet vehicle order guides is a nugget of news that the hulking electric SUV and truck will lose wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto support. Pour one out for smartphone mirroring and actual Apple Music onscreen interface usage. The Drive reached out to GM for comment and will update this story if or when we hear back. The GMC Hummer EV launched for the 2022 model year at the tail end of 2021. The SUV variant arrived in 2023. Both versions launched with wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. The end was in sight not long after. In 2023, just two months after the SUV model went into production, GM announced its new EVs would not have Apple CarPlay and Android Auto starting in 2024. Predictably, consumers were not amused and the people want Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. GM has claimed all along this is about the user experience and not having to flip in and out of various interfaces. It's the same argument Rivian and Tesla have used throughout, through, notably, those two automakers have eschewed the usage of buttons and have almost all controls locked into the onscreen interface. It's a key difference. Also different: Both Tesla and Rivian have natively integrated the Apple Music app, among others while not relying on the Google Play store. At the time of the announcement in 2023, then Executive Director of Digital Cockpit Experience Mike Hermiche told Reuters, 'we have a lot of new driver assistance features coming that are more tightly coupled with navigation.' Hermiche also said, 'we don't want to design these features in a way that are dependent on a person having a cellphone.' To date, these features had yet to appear. For 2026 GM's Super Cruiser hands-free driver-assist system is said to integrate with Google Maps to navigate the correct lane for a chosen route . GM's latest infotainment systems run on Android Automotive OS, which also has the Google Store built in for native apps such as Spotify and Pandora. The system also features built-in navigation via Google Maps. Bluetooth streaming works, but is a mess with Apple Music. The rollout of moving away from Apple CarPlay has been a little messy. The Hummer EVs launched with CarPlay as did the Cadillac Lyriq, the latter of which we don't know what 2026 will bring, yet. While the Lyriq's cousins, the Chevrolet Blazer EV and Equinox EV arrived without CarPlay, ironically, the Honda Prologue and Acura ZDX, both of which are reskinned Blazer and Lyriq twins, launched with Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. Consumers wanted CarPlay in their Blazer EV so badly an aftermarket solution was whipped up. GM claimed it was 'unauthorized' and 'could affect critical safety features.' The automaker shut the retrofit kit down. The 2026 GMC Hummer will lose the CarPlay and Android Auto, but it's gaining King Crab mode, which GM said all Hummer EVs will get thanks to an over-the-air software update. The King Crab model is said to turn the rear wheel faster than the front wheels for extra maneuverability in tight spaces. Though, this will only be standard on the 2X and 3X trims. The new Carbon Fiber Edition Pickup is even quicker then the already quick Hummer EVs thanks to revised software dropping the 0-60 mph sprint to 2.8 seconds. Got a tip? Send us a note: tips@


WIRED
an hour ago
- WIRED
A Google Shareholder is Suing the Company Over the TikTok Ban
Jun 10, 2025 1:34 PM Silicon Valley software engineer Tony Tan says his battle against Google and the Trump administration is about upholding the rule of law. The TikTok app page in the Google Play Store. Photograph:The Trump administration is still refusing to enforce a federal ban on TikTok, and Silicon Valley software engineer Tony Tan is fed up. Last month, Tan sued the US Department of Justice for allegedly failing to turn over records about why it has not taken action against Google and Apple, which Tan believes are violating the law by continuing to host TikTok on their respective app stores. Tan is now stepping up his fight against what he sees as a worrying and potentially costly trend away from respecting the American legal system. On Tuesday, he filed a shareholder lawsuit in Delaware state court against Google's parent organization Alphabet. Tan alleges the company wrongfully denied a request he made for internal documents about Google's decision to risk billions of dollars in fines by not complying with the TikTok ban. 'The biggest thing that motivates me here is I've been frustrated by the volume of recent attacks on our legal system,' says Tan, who is in his late 20s and owns a small number of Alphabet shares directly and through investment funds. 'If Google is outright breaking the law, and they don't have to acknowledge it, they very much are above the law, and that doesn't seem right to me.' Google declined to comment on the lawsuit. But in a letter to Tan's attorneys seen by WIRED, a lawyer representing Google questioned whether the tech giant was really violating the TikTok ban, calling the idea an 'unsupported legal conclusion.' Tan's records request 'appears simply to be wondering if Alphabet is complying with applicable laws,' Doru Gavril, a partner at the firm Freshfields, wrote in March. 'Curiosity alone is not a basis for a books and records inspection demand.' TikTok's future in the United States has been under threat for years. President Donald Trump tried banning the app during his first term in 2020, arguing it posed a risk to national security because it was run by ByteDance, a Chinese tech company. After years of congressional debate and a legal battle that made it up to the Supreme Court, a law banning companies such as Apple and Google from helping to distribute TikTok and other Chinese apps in the US went into effect this past January. TikTok then disappeared from app stores for about half a day, until Trump issued an executive order pausing enforcement of the law and giving ByteDance time to reach a deal to reduce its ownership stake in TikTok's US operation. In the months since, Trump has used the popular video platform as a bargaining chip in high-stakes trade negotiations with China. Legal experts and some lawmakers have questioned the legality of Trump's order, which expires next Thursday. But there haven't been any known legal challenges to it, and the president has indicated that he will extend the pause again as discussions with Beijing continue. Tan, who declined to say whether he personally supports the TikTok ban, believes the central issue is enforcement. 'There is a federal law that says the TikTok app should not be on your store, and I can see TikTok is on the app store,' he says of Google. 'Congress passed the law, and the Supreme Court upheld it. It's not debatable.' In his view, Google is openly ignoring the law, and he wants to understand the legal basis for that decision, as well as the extent to which shareholders should be worried about Google's potential liability. 'I felt I should join the someones who are doing something,' Tan says. Books and Records Tan has a history of using records requests and litigation to investigate and combat what he views as injustices. In 2019, he sued a New Hampshire hotel for allegedly violating anti-discrimination laws by barring bookings from adults under 21 years old. Tan says he dropped the case after the hotel amended its policy. This February, Tan filed a public records request with the US Department of Justice seeking copies of letters that Attorney General Pam Bondi reportedly sent to companies such as Google and Apple advising them that they would not be held liable for continuing to distribute TikTok. After the attorney general's office claimed it did not have records matching Tan's request, he took the Department of Justice to court. (The New York Times has filed a similar lawsuit.) In a court filing, the Justice Department denied any wrongdoing. In March, Tan requested minutes and materials from meetings of Alphabet's board of directors related to the TikTok ban, including the same reported letter from the attorney general. Tan made his request under a law in Delaware, where Alphabet is incorporated, that allows shareholders acting in 'good faith' to inspect 'books and records' when investigating suspected mismanagement. Through a series of exchanges between Alphabet's attorneys and his, Tan learned that the company possessed about half a dozen relevant documents, but that it wouldn't turn them over unless ordered to do so by a court. 'The board minutes will show whether or not the board discussed the risks associated with making the TikTok application available through Google Play and, if so, whether and how they assessed the risk of liability,' Tan's lawsuit filed on Tuesday states. 'The board minutes will also show whether the board considered whether making TikTok available through Google Play constituted a positive violation of federal law.' Companies that violate the TikTok ban by continuing to distribute the app can face penalties of up to $5,000 per user. Tan's lawsuit alleges that Google should not be relying on Trump's executive order and Bondi's letter alone to shield them from legal risks, and that the tech giant could be held liable by a future president—or even by Trump, who is known to frequently change his mind. Gavril, the attorney representing Google, contended in one exchange with the attorneys representing Tan that 'a lot of planets would have to align for that hypothetical harm to become reality. Some would argue that a concerned shareholder should wait for there to be an actual harm before progressing to investigate how it came to be.' Alphabet and Apple have yet to specifically mention the TikTok law in shareholder disclosures listing risks to their businesses. Akamai, which provides content hosting services to TikTok, wrote in a February disclosure that the attorney general determined the company could continue serving the app 'without incurring any legal liability,' but added 'there is no assurance that we will not be exposed to liability' in the future. Tan says that many incidents under Trump 2.0 this year have left him concerned about the rule of law, the foundational democratic principle that everyone should be treated the same way by the government. But the TikTok situation was one he felt capable of investigating, and as a shareholder of tech companies such as Alphabet, he felt a duty to try to protect his own bottom line. 'If these companies are openly willing to break the law, will others be pressured into breaking the law because it's politically convenient?' he says. 'Will shareholders be left holding the bag when the legal liability comes due?' Tan says his work in tech has nothing to do with TikTok or Google, but in general, he doesn't want the industry he is part of a trend toward what he considers flagrant lawbreaking. He claims no one—not even friends and family—has encouraged him to pursue his lawsuits over the TikTok ban. His attorneys at Berger McDermott have represented Meta in the past, but the social media company has no hand in his cases, he says. Tan adds he is paying standard rates for his legal representation. 'It's been expensive,' he says, 'and it's going to be more expensive.' Tan explains that he prioritized challenging Google over other companies, including California-incorporated Apple, partly because of the Delaware law allowing him to seek internal records. In recent years, shareholders have filed an increasing number of these kinds of requests, with the hope of using the obtained records as the basis for shareholder resolutions or lawsuits against executives and board members. Most requests are resolved informally, but some end up in court. In March, Delaware enacted a law aimed at limiting the records companies must turn over, which could hamper Tan's request. Lawmakers in the state acknowledged they were under pressure to stop the flight of companies like Tesla to jurisdictions with more business-friendly statutes. Roy Shapira, a professor of law at Reichman University who studies corporate governance in Delaware, says that shareholders trying to hold a company accountable for intentionally violating the law may now find it even more difficult 'to show what directors knew and when they knew it.'