Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron vs Lynk & Co 02
Biggest differences: Boot — Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron 535 l, Lynk & Co 02 410 l · WLTP range — Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron 573 km, Lynk & Co 02 445 km · 0–100 km/h — Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron 6.7 s, Lynk & Co 02 5.5 s.
Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron
The Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron is an all-electric SUV in the C segment, offering four different drive variants with varying power outputs and ranges.
Lynk & Co 02
The Lynk & Co 02 Long Range (Model Year 2025) is a compact SUV with rear-wheel drive and a WLTP range of 445 kilometers.
Profile against the market: Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron vs Lynk & Co 02
Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron45
Lynk & Co 02Long Range
Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron or Lynk & Co 02 — who wins where
Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron leads 7 to 2
Click a slice to see only those metrics. Each bar shows where the car stands against the whole catalogue.
- WLTP range kmAudi Q4 Sportback e-tron +128 km
- Battery kWhAudi Q4 Sportback e-tron +11 kWh
- Consumption ↓ kWh/100 kmAudi Q4 Sportback e-tron −1.7 kWh/100 km
- Power PSAudi Q4 Sportback e-tron +14 PS
- 0–100 km/h ↓ sLynk & Co 02 −1.2 s
- Top speed km/hNo difference
- DC charging kWAudi Q4 Sportback e-tron +25 kW
- AC charging kWNo difference
- Charging ↓ minAudi Q4 Sportback e-tron −2 min
- Weight ↓ kgLynk & Co 02 −250 kg
- Boot lAudi Q4 Sportback e-tron +125 l
Technical data: Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron vs Lynk & Co 02
Bold and underline = better value · ↓ = lower is better · — = no data
| Key parameters | Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron 45 | Lynk & Co 02 Long Range | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Range and energy | |||
| WLTP range | 573 km | 445 km | Audi +128 km |
| Battery | 77 kWh | 66 kWh | Audi +11 kWh |
| Consumption ↓ | 15.4 kWh/100 km | 17.1 kWh/100 km | Audi −1.7 kWh/100 km |
| Charging | |||
| DC charging | 175 kW | 150 kW | Audi +25 kW |
| AC charging | 11 kW | 11 kW | No difference |
| Charging 10–80% ↓ | 28 min | 30 min | Audi −2 min |
| Range per minute of charging | 14.3 km/min | 10.4 km/min | Audi +3.9 km/min |
| Voltage | 400 V | 400 V | No difference |
| Performance and drivetrain | |||
| Power | 286 PS | 272 PS | Audi +14 PS |
| 0–100 km/h ↓ | 6.7 s | 5.5 s | Lynk & Co −1.2 s |
| Top speed | 180 km/h | 180 km/h | No difference |
| Drivetrain | RWD | RWD | — |
| Practicality | |||
| Weight ↓ | 2070 kg | 1820 kg | Lynk & Co −250 kg |
| Boot | 535 l | 410 l | Audi +125 l |
| V2L (external power) | No | Yes | only Lynk & Co |
| Length | 4588 mm | 4460 mm | Audi +128 mm |
| Width | 1865 mm | 1845 mm | Audi +20 mm |
| Height | 1614 mm | 1573 mm | Audi +41 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2764 mm | 2755 mm | Audi +9 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 Sportback e-tron
Lynk & Co 02
Amounts are in your currency — enter prices in the currency you use.
Video reviews of both models
Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron
Lynk & Co 02
Other comparisons in this class: SUV, segment C
Frequently asked questions about this comparison
Which has the longer range — Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron or Lynk & Co 02?
The Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron goes further: 573 km WLTP against the 445 km of the Lynk & Co 02. That is a difference of 128 km.
Which one can power appliances from a socket (V2L)?
Only the Lynk & Co 02 — its 66 kWh battery then works as a power source. The Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron, with 77 kWh, does not offer it.
Which has the bigger boot?
The Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron takes more: 535 l against 410 l in the Lynk & Co 02. The difference is 125 l.
Which charges faster?
The Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron accepts up to 175 kW DC, the Lynk & Co 02 up to 150 kW. Charging from 10 to 80% takes 28 and 30 min respectively.
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.