Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron vs Mazda CX-6e
Biggest differences: Boot — Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron 511 l, Mazda CX-6e 363 l · WLTP range — Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron 679 km, Mazda CX-6e 484 km · DC charging — Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron 270 kW, Mazda CX-6e 195 kW.
Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron
The Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron is a D-segment crossover offering four powertrain variants with power ranging from 252 hp to 489 hp.
Mazda CX-6e
The Mazda CX-6e is a D-segment SUV with rear-wheel drive, offering a range of 484 km in the WLTP cycle and fast DC charging capabilities.
Profile against the market: Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron vs Mazda CX-6e
Audi Q6 Sportback e-tronQ6 Sportback e-tron performance
Mazda CX-6eTakumi
Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron or Mazda CX-6e — who wins where
Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron leads 9 to 1
Click a slice to see only those metrics. Each bar shows where the car stands against the whole catalogue.
- WLTP range kmAudi Q6 Sportback e-tron +195 km
- Battery kWhAudi Q6 Sportback e-tron +16.9 kWh
- Consumption ↓ kWh/100 kmAudi Q6 Sportback e-tron −3.6 kWh/100 km
- Power PSAudi Q6 Sportback e-tron +48 PS
- 0–100 km/h ↓ sAudi Q6 Sportback e-tron −1.3 s
- Top speed km/hAudi Q6 Sportback e-tron +25 km/h
- DC charging kWAudi Q6 Sportback e-tron +75 kW
- AC charging kWNo difference
- Charging ↓ minAudi Q6 Sportback e-tron −2 min
- Weight ↓ kgMazda CX-6e −70 kg
- Boot lAudi Q6 Sportback e-tron +148 l
Technical data: Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron vs Mazda CX-6e
Bold and underline = better value · ↓ = lower is better · — = no data
| Key parameters | Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron Q6 Sportback e-tron performance | Mazda CX-6e Takumi | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Range and energy | |||
| WLTP range | 679 km | 484 km | Audi +195 km |
| Battery | 94.9 kWh | 78 kWh | Audi +16.9 kWh |
| Consumption ↓ | 15.3 kWh/100 km | 18.9 kWh/100 km | Audi −3.6 kWh/100 km |
| Charging | |||
| DC charging | 270 kW | 195 kW | Audi +75 kW |
| AC charging | 11 kW | 11 kW | No difference |
| Charging 10–80% ↓ | 22 min | 24 min | Audi −2 min |
| Range per minute of charging | 21.6 km/min | 14.1 km/min | Audi +7.5 km/min |
| Voltage | 800 V | 400 V | Audi +400 V |
| Performance and drivetrain | |||
| Power | 306 PS | 258 PS | Audi +48 PS |
| 0–100 km/h ↓ | 6.6 s | 7.9 s | Audi −1.3 s |
| Top speed | 210 km/h | 185 km/h | Audi +25 km/h |
| Drivetrain | RWD | RWD | — |
| Practicality | |||
| Weight ↓ | 2200 kg | 2130 kg | Mazda −70 kg |
| Boot | 511 l | 363 l | Audi +148 l |
| V2L (external power) | No | Yes | only Mazda |
| Length | 4771 mm | 4850 mm | Mazda +79 mm |
| Width | 1939 mm | 1935 mm | Audi +4 mm |
| Height | 1611 mm | 1620 mm | Mazda +9 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2893 mm | 2902 mm | Mazda +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 Q6 Sportback e-tron
Mazda CX-6e
Amounts are in your currency — enter prices in the currency you use.
Video reviews of both models
Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron
Mazda CX-6e
Other comparisons in this class: Crossover / SUV, segment D
Frequently asked questions about this comparison
Which has the longer range — Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron or Mazda CX-6e?
The Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron goes further: 679 km WLTP against the 484 km of the Mazda CX-6e. That is a difference of 195 km.
Which one can power appliances from a socket (V2L)?
Only the Mazda CX-6e — its 78 kWh battery then works as a power source. The Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron, with 94.9 kWh, does not offer it.
Which has the bigger boot?
The Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron takes more: 511 l against 363 l in the Mazda CX-6e. The difference is 148 l.
Which charges faster?
The Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron accepts up to 270 kW DC, the Mazda CX-6e up to 195 kW. Charging from 10 to 80% takes 22 and 24 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.