Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron vs Omoda E5
Biggest differences: Boot — Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron 535 l, Omoda E5 300 l · Power — Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron 286 PS, Omoda E5 211 PS · DC charging — Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron 175 kW, Omoda E5 130 kW.
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.
Omoda E5
The Omoda E5 is an SUV in the C segment with front-wheel drive and a 61 kWh battery.
Profile against the market: Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron vs Omoda E5
Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron or Omoda E5 — who wins where
Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron leads 8 to 1
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 +143 km
- Battery kWhAudi Q4 Sportback e-tron +16 kWh
- Consumption ↓ kWh/100 kmAudi Q4 Sportback e-tron −0.1 kWh/100 km
- Power PSAudi Q4 Sportback e-tron +75 PS
- 0–100 km/h ↓ sAudi Q4 Sportback e-tron −0.9 s
- Top speed km/hAudi Q4 Sportback e-tron +9 km/h
- DC charging kWAudi Q4 Sportback e-tron +45 kW
- AC charging kWNo difference
- Weight ↓ kgOmoda E5 −360 kg
- Boot lAudi Q4 Sportback e-tron +235 l
Technical data: Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron vs Omoda E5
Bold and underline = better value · ↓ = lower is better · — = no data
| Key parameters |  Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron45 |  Omoda E5E5 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Range and energy | |||
| WLTP range | 573 km | 430 km | Audi +143 km |
| Battery | 77 kWh | 61 kWh | Audi +16 kWh |
| Consumption ↓ | 15.4 kWh/100 km | 15.5 kWh/100 km | Audi −0.1 kWh/100 km |
| Charging | |||
| DC charging | 175 kW | 130 kW | Audi +45 kW |
| AC charging | 11 kW | 11 kW | No difference |
| Charging ⚠ | 28 min 10–80% | 28 min 30–80% | No difference |
| Range per minute of charging | 14.3 km/min | 7.7 km/min | Audi +6.6 km/min |
| Voltage | 400 V | 400 V | No difference |
| Performance and drivetrain | |||
| Power | 286 PS | 211 PS | Audi +75 PS |
| 0–100 km/h ↓ | 6.7 s | 7.6 s | Audi −0.9 s |
| Top speed | 180 km/h | 171 km/h | Audi +9 km/h |
| Drivetrain | RWD | FWD | different type |
| Practicality | |||
| Weight ↓ | 2070 kg | 1710 kg | Omoda −360 kg |
| Boot | 535 l | 300 l | Audi +235 l |
| V2L (external power) | No | Yes | only Omoda |
| Length | 4588 mm | 4424 mm | Audi +164 mm |
| Width | 1865 mm | 1830 mm | Audi +35 mm |
| Height | 1614 mm | 1588 mm | Audi +26 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2764 mm | 2630 mm | Audi +134 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
Omoda E5
Amounts are in your currency — enter prices in the currency you use.
Video reviews of both models
Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron
Omoda E5
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 Omoda E5?
The Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron goes further: 573 km WLTP against the 430 km of the Omoda E5. That is a difference of 143 km.
How do the drivetrains of the Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron and the Omoda E5 differ?
The Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron has RWD and 286 PS. The Omoda E5 has FWD and 211 PS.
Which one can power appliances from a socket (V2L)?
Only the Omoda E5 — its 61 kWh battery then works as a power source. The Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron, with 77 kWh, does not offer it.
Which is more powerful — Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron or Omoda E5?
The Audi Q4 Sportback e-tron is stronger: 286 PS against the 211 PS of the Omoda E5. The gap is 75 PS.
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.