Audi Q4 e-tron vs Volvo EC40

Audi Q4 e-tron leads 4 to 3

Biggest differences: Boot — Audi Q4 e-tron 515 l, Volvo EC40 404 l · DC charging — Audi Q4 e-tron 165 kW, Volvo EC40 200 kW · Consumption — Audi Q4 e-tron 13.7 kWh/100 km, Volvo EC40 16.2 kWh/100 km.

Audi Q4 e-tron

Audi Q4 e-tron is a C-segment SUV, in model year 2027 in four variants: WLTP range from 440 to 563 km, power from 204 to 340 hp.

Volvo EC40

The Volvo EC40 (C40 until 2024) is an electric C-segment crossover with drive on one or both axles and a WLTP range of up to 583 km.

Profile against the market: Audi Q4 e-tron vs Volvo EC40

WLTP rangeBatteryPowerDC charging0–100 km/h

Audi Q4 e-tron or Volvo EC40 — who wins where

Audi Q4 e-tron leads 4 to 3

The score leaves out metrics where data is missing on one side.

Click a slice to see only those metrics. Each bar shows where the car stands against the whole catalogue.

  • WLTP range kmVolvo EC40 +20 km
    Audi Q4 e-tron
    563
    Volvo EC40
    583
  • Battery kWhVolvo EC40 +5 kWh
    Audi Q4 e-tron
    77
    Volvo EC40
    82
  • Consumption ↓ kWh/100 kmAudi Q4 e-tron −2.5 kWh/100 km
    Audi Q4 e-tron
    13.7
    Volvo EC40
    16.2
  • Power PSAudi Q4 e-tron +34 PS
    Audi Q4 e-tron
    286
    Volvo EC40
    252
  • 0–100 km/h ↓ sAudi Q4 e-tron −0.7 s
    Audi Q4 e-tron
    6.6
    Volvo EC40
    7.3
  • Top speed km/hNo difference
    Audi Q4 e-tron
    180
    Volvo EC40
    180
  • DC charging kWVolvo EC40 +35 kW
    Audi Q4 e-tron
    165
    Volvo EC40
    200
  • AC charging kWNo difference
    Audi Q4 e-tron
    11
    Volvo EC40
    11
  • Charging ↓ minNo data
    Audi Q4 e-tron
    —
    Volvo EC40
    28
  • Weight ↓ kgNo data
    Audi Q4 e-tron
    —
    Volvo EC40
    2020
  • Boot lAudi Q4 e-tron +111 l
    Audi Q4 e-tron
    515
    Volvo EC40
    404

Add a third car

Technical data: Audi Q4 e-tron vs Volvo EC40

Bold and underline = better value · ↓ = lower is better · — = no data

Technical data: Audi Q4 e-tron vs Volvo EC40
Key parameters Audi Q4 e-tron
e-tron performance
Volvo EC40
Single Motor Extended Range
Difference
Range and energy
WLTP range563 km583 kmVolvo +20 km
Battery77 kWh82 kWhVolvo +5 kWh
Consumption ↓13.7 kWh/100 km16.2 kWh/100 kmAudi −2.5 kWh/100 km
Charging
DC charging165 kW200 kWVolvo +35 kW
AC charging11 kW11 kWNo difference
Charging 10–80% ↓—28 min—
Range per minute of charging—14.6 km/min—
Voltage—400 V—
Performance and drivetrain
Power286 PS252 PSAudi +34 PS
0–100 km/h ↓6.6 s7.3 sAudi −0.7 s
Top speed180 km/h180 km/hNo difference
DrivetrainRWDRWD—
Practicality
Weight ↓—2020 kg—
Boot515 l404 lAudi +111 l
Length—4440 mm—
Width—1873 mm—
Height—1591 mm—
Wheelbase—2702 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

Audi Q4 e-tron

Cost per 100 km4.11
Monthly51
Yearly616

Volvo EC40

Cost per 100 km4.86
Monthly61
Yearly729

Amounts are in your currency — enter prices in the currency you use.

Video reviews of both models

Audi Q4 e-tron

Volvo EC40

Other comparisons in this class: SUV / Crossover, segment C

Frequently asked questions about this comparison

Which has the longer range — Audi Q4 e-tron or Volvo EC40?

The Volvo EC40 goes further: 583 km WLTP against the 563 km of the Audi Q4 e-tron. That is a difference of 20 km.

Which has the bigger boot?

The Audi Q4 e-tron takes more: 515 l against 404 l in the Volvo EC40. The difference is 111 l.

Which charges faster?

The Audi Q4 e-tron accepts up to 165 kW DC, the Volvo EC40 up to 200 kW.

Which is cheaper to run?

The Audi Q4 e-tron uses less electricity: 13.7 kWh/100 km against 16.2 kWh/100 km in the Volvo EC40. 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.