Aurora vs Zoox
These two cannot be compared on crash rate. 4 of 5 conditions fail, and the reasons are more informative than the comparison would have been. Both are measured on the 2026 Q3 filings, against California driverless mileage.
Comparability
Five conditions must hold before two operators' crash rates mean the same thing.
| Condition | What the record shows | |
|---|---|---|
| Both have reports in the period | Aurora 3, Zoox 15 | |
| Both have published exposure | Aurora publishes no mileage anywhere, so no per-mile rate exists for it. This is a disclosure gap, not a safety result. | |
| Divisors measure the same thing | Not testable: Aurora has no exposure figure, so there is no second quantity to match against. | |
| Each rate covers most of its record | Only 0% and 40% of reports are rateable. A rate covering half the record cannot be set against one covering all of it. | |
| Both file crashes the same way | Severity mix differs sharply — 8% vs 30% of filings are 5-Day. The two are not applying the same threshold, so their counts are not measuring the same population of events. |
The two rates
Shown because withholding them would be its own distortion, but read the verdict first.
Do not put these two numbers in a sentence together. Aurora publishes no mileage anywhere, so no per-mile rate exists for it. This is a disclosure gap, not a safety result.