Alpine A290 vs Volkswagen ID. Polo
Biggest differences: Boot — Alpine A290 326 l, Volkswagen ID. Polo 441 l · WLTP range — Alpine A290 380 km, Volkswagen ID. Polo 454 km · Consumption — Alpine A290 15.8 kWh/100 km, Volkswagen ID. Polo 13.3 kWh/100 km.
Alpine A290
This electric hatchback in the B-segment offers two power options, both with the same WLTP range of 380 kilometers.
Volkswagen ID. Polo
The Volkswagen ID. Polo is an electric hatchback in the B-segment, offered with three powertrain configurations featuring different ranges and performance levels.
Profile against the market: Alpine A290 vs Volkswagen ID. Polo
Alpine A290GT
Volkswagen ID. Polo52 kWh 155 kW
Alpine A290 or Volkswagen ID. Polo — who wins where
Volkswagen ID. Polo leads 5 to 1
Click a slice to see only those metrics. Each bar shows where the car stands against the whole catalogue.
- WLTP range kmVolkswagen ID. Polo +74 km
- Battery kWhNo difference
- Consumption ↓ kWh/100 kmVolkswagen ID. Polo −2.5 kWh/100 km
- Power PSVolkswagen ID. Polo +31 PS
- 0–100 km/h ↓ sNo difference
- Top speed km/hNo difference
- DC charging kWVolkswagen ID. Polo +5 kW
- AC charging kWNo difference
- Weight ↓ kgAlpine A290 −93 kg
- Boot lVolkswagen ID. Polo +115 l
Technical data: Alpine A290 vs Volkswagen ID. Polo
Bold and underline = better value · ↓ = lower is better · — = no data
| Key parameters | Alpine A290 GT | Volkswagen ID. Polo 52 kWh 155 kW | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Range and energy | |||
| WLTP range | 380 km | 454 km | Volkswagen +74 km |
| Battery | 52 kWh | 52 kWh | No difference |
| Consumption ↓ | 15.8 kWh/100 km | 13.3 kWh/100 km | Volkswagen −2.5 kWh/100 km |
| Charging | |||
| DC charging | 100 kW | 105 kW | Volkswagen +5 kW |
| AC charging | 11 kW | 11 kW | No difference |
| Charging ⚠ | 30 min 15–80% | 24 min 10–80% | 6 min |
| Range per minute of charging | 8.2 km/min | 13.2 km/min | Volkswagen +5 km/min |
| Voltage | 400 V | 400 V | No difference |
| Performance and drivetrain | |||
| Power | 180 PS | 211 PS | Volkswagen +31 PS |
| 0–100 km/h ↓ | 7.4 s | 7.4 s | No difference |
| Top speed | 160 km/h | 160 km/h | No difference |
| Drivetrain | FWD | FWD | — |
| Practicality | |||
| Weight ↓ | 1483 kg | 1576 kg | Alpine −93 kg |
| Boot | 326 l | 441 l | Volkswagen +115 l |
| V2L (external power) | Yes | Yes | — |
| Length | 3997 mm | 4053 mm | Volkswagen +56 mm |
| Width | 1823 mm | 1816 mm | Alpine +7 mm |
| Height | 1512 mm | 1530 mm | Volkswagen +18 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2534 mm | 2600 mm | Volkswagen +66 mm |
The better value in each row is bold and underlined in the colour of the car. Metrics marked ↓ — lower is better. Dimensions are shown without picking a winner.
Energy cost calculator
Alpine A290
Volkswagen ID. Polo
Amounts are in your currency — enter prices in the currency you use.
Video reviews of both models
Alpine A290
Volkswagen ID. Polo
Other comparisons in this class: Hatchback, segment B
Frequently asked questions about this comparison
Which has the longer range — Alpine A290 or Volkswagen ID. Polo?
The Volkswagen ID. Polo goes further: 454 km WLTP against the 380 km of the Alpine A290. That is a difference of 74 km.
Which has the bigger boot?
The Volkswagen ID. Polo takes more: 441 l against 326 l in the Alpine A290. The difference is 115 l.
Which charges faster?
The Alpine A290 accepts up to 100 kW DC, the Volkswagen ID. Polo up to 105 kW.
Which is cheaper to run?
The Volkswagen ID. Polo uses less electricity: 13.3 kWh/100 km against 15.8 kWh/100 km in the Alpine A290. Over 15000 km a year that is a difference of 375 kWh — the calculator on this page turns it into money.
Technical data comes from official manufacturer materials and we do our best to verify it, but a manufacturer can change a specification without notice and mistakes do happen. Confirm the figures with a dealer before you buy — we accept no liability for decisions made on the basis of this data. Full disclaimer
Range, consumption and weight are given for the base configuration: manufacturers homologate them as a band of values that depends on wheels and equipment (e.g. 533–592 km), and we take the lightest variant, on the smallest wheels — i.e. the most favourable. The same model on larger wheels will travel a shorter distance.