IN Brief:
- Aurora’s transportation-as-a-service model carries a revenue outlook above US$2 per mile.
- Driver as a service targets more than US$0.85 per mile, with customers owning and managing the trucks.
- The company expects account-by-account migration towards the subscription model during 2027.
Aurora Innovation has put clearer numbers around its two autonomous trucking business models, separating a full transportation service priced above US$2 per mile from a future driver subscription targeting more than US$0.85 per mile.
The difference is not a discount applied to the same service. Under transportation as a service, Aurora owns or controls the truck, holds operating authority, arranges insurance, and sells the freight movement as a complete service. Under driver as a service, a carrier acquires, manages, and maintains the vehicles while subscribing to the Aurora Driver and associated support.
Aurora plans to begin moving customers towards the subscription model during 2027, with the transition handled account by account rather than through a single network-wide cutover. The company expects current transportation-service customers to add driver-as-a-service arrangements as their own equipped fleets enter operation.
The disclosed rates give carriers a more practical basis for comparing autonomous capacity with conventional fleet costs. They also show that Aurora’s revenue per mile will fall sharply when customers take responsibility for the truck, fuel, maintenance, insurance, and other operating costs.
Two prices reflect two ownership structures
The transportation-service rate sits in the same broad range as the full operating cost of a conventional US tractor. Aurora reported that the model carries a revenue outlook above US$2 per mile, with fuel surcharges and negotiated customer terms also affecting revenue.
That rate pays for more than the driving system. Aurora operates the vehicle, maintains terminal and support functions, carries insurance, and manages the commercial freight movement. Its latest Form 10-Q records terminal, personnel, and fuel expenses within cost of revenue, illustrating why the higher rate does not translate directly into a higher-margin business.
Driver as a service removes much of that asset and operating burden from Aurora. The customer owns or controls the truck and retains the conventional fleet cost base, while Aurora charges for the autonomous driving capability and related services. Its target above US$0.85 per mile is therefore intended to replace part of the human-driver cost rather than the whole cost of running a tractor-trailer.
Industry operating data cited during Aurora’s results placed combined driver wages and benefits above US$1 per mile in 2025. On that comparison, an autonomous subscription beginning above US$0.85 leaves a relatively narrow direct labour saving before customers account for equipment integration, terminal procedures, insurance changes, remote support, and any additional maintenance requirements.
The commercial case depends on utilisation as much as the nominal rate. A driverless truck can operate beyond human hours-of-service limits, but only if freight, loading windows, maintenance, and terminal hand-offs keep the asset moving. Paying less per mile for the driving function is of limited value when a tractor spends too much time waiting for a load or an appointment.
Aurora’s expansion is intended to improve that utilisation. The company ended the second quarter with ten driverless routes across the US Sun Belt, and its new customer agreements include Value Truck and Charger Logistics. It is fully allocated to exit 2026 with 200 driverless trucks in operation.
Scale shifts capital towards carriers
Aurora’s second-generation hardware is designed for one million miles of operation and is expected to cost half as much as the previous system. Manufacturing partner Roush is scheduled to reach an annual production run-rate of 1,000 trucks in October, giving the company a route towards larger deployments.
Those figures describe production capability rather than guaranteed fleet demand. Customer agreements, route activation, regulatory approval, and usable freight volumes still determine how many units earn revenue, while Aurora’s contracts can be delayed, reduced, or cancelled.
Hirschbach Motor Lines is expected to provide the template for the subscription transition. The refrigerated carrier has outlined an intention to add 500 equipped tractors during 2027 and 2028, although final commercial terms and a binding agreement were still expected later in 2026.
Carrier ownership changes the risk allocation. Customers gain the asset utilisation and potential labour benefit, but they also carry financing, maintenance, residual value, and much of the operational integration. Aurora receives lower revenue per mile while avoiding a corresponding share of capital and fleet expense.
The structure can be compared with other autonomous freight deployments that remain tied to particular corridors and operating models. Einride and EASE Logistics’ Ohio deployment, for example, combines autonomous electric trucks with controlled warehouse-to-warehouse movements, reducing some of the variability found in general road-freight networks.
Aurora reported second-quarter revenue of US$2 million and a net loss of US$270 million, while ending the period with nearly US$1.2 billion in cash and short-term investments. The company is still funding the move from limited commercial services to industrial-scale production, and its pricing disclosures do not remove that execution gap.
For fleets, the useful comparison is not US$2 against US$0.85 in isolation. It is the total cost and control attached to each model: who owns the tractor, who carries insurance, who operates terminals, who pays when the truck is idle, and how much productive mileage the autonomous system can deliver.
Aurora has made the headline rates easier to understand. The harder calculation begins when carriers place those rates inside their own lanes, assets, customers, and operating constraints.
