Ross Gerber boosts Waymo’s robotaxi approach and questions Tesla’s ability to “catch up” on autonomous driving

Investor Ross Gerber used Waymo’s expanding robotaxi operation to argue that Alphabet’s approach to autonomous driving is producing better real-world results than Tesla’s Full Self-Driving, or FSD, software. In remarks reported this week by Yahoo Finance, Gerber said Waymo is “way safer and better” at handling the kinds of conditions drivers face in a major city, including Los Angeles traffic.

Gerber’s comparison focused on practical driving behavior rather than demonstrations alone. He suggested that Waymo’s system is performing at a higher level in the environments it is designed to operate in, and he framed the difference as a matter of operational competence rather than just capability in controlled settings.

The investor also raised a question that has become a recurring theme in the autonomy market: whether Tesla can close the gap fast enough if Waymo continues to advance. Gerber’s comments, as characterized in the report, included skepticism about Tesla’s ability to “catch up,” implying that Tesla’s software progress may not translate into faster improvement on city streets at the same pace.

Tesla’s FSD is Tesla’s software package intended to provide advanced driver-assistance and, in some contexts, automated driving features. The company’s strategy has emphasized broad deployment of cameras and related onboard data collection across its vehicle fleet, paired with software updates. However, Gerber’s comments, as relayed by Yahoo Finance, indicate that he believes Waymo’s hands-on approach in a defined operating area is yielding a stronger safety and quality outcome right now.

Waymo, backed by Alphabet, has pursued robotaxi services that rely on a combination of sensing, mapping, and system design choices tuned to specific geographic areas. The thrust of the reported exchange is that Waymo’s robotaxi operation has reached a level of day-to-day performance that is visible to customers and observers, making it a benchmark for the rest of the industry.

Tesla’s autonomous-driving ambitions have faced years of scrutiny from both regulators and independent analysts, with debate centered on how performance claims translate into consistently safe behavior at scale. In the absence of additional details in the reported comments, it is not clear what specific metrics, incident rates, or evaluation methodology Gerber relied on for his “safer and better” conclusion.

Gerber did not outline in the report what concrete timeline he uses to judge “catch up,” nor did he provide any new Tesla product milestones or Waymo operational statistics. Likewise, the report does not include counterpoints from Tesla executives or official statements from either company responding directly to his claims. That leaves open how investors should interpret his view: as a confidence statement about near-term operational performance, or as a broader assessment of which technical approach is currently winning in dense urban conditions.

For markets, the key takeaway is that prominent investors are publicly sharpening distinctions between robotaxi deployments that are already running in cities and autonomous-driving software aimed at broader availability. Investors may watch for additional commentary from other industry figures, as well as any new evidence from either company about safety validation, system updates, and expansion plans. For Tesla specifically, the debate about “catching up” is likely to remain tied to whether its FSD roadmap delivers improvements that can match or exceed the real-world performance people associate with robotaxi services like Waymo’s.