Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron vs SERES 5
Biggest differences: DC charging — Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron 270 kW, SERES 5 100 kW · Power — Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron 306 PS, SERES 5 490 PS · 0–100 km/h — Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron 6.6 s, SERES 5 4.5 s.
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.
SERES 5
The SERES 5 is a D-segment SUV with all-wheel drive (AWD) and a WLTP range of up to 480 kilometers, offering a power output of 490 horsepower.
Profile against the market: Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron vs SERES 5
Audi Q6 Sportback e-tronQ6 Sportback e-tron performance
SERES 5Long Range AWD
Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron or SERES 5 — who wins where
Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron leads 6 to 2
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 kmAudi Q6 Sportback e-tron +199 km
- Battery kWhAudi Q6 Sportback e-tron +14.9 kWh
- Consumption ↓ kWh/100 kmAudi Q6 Sportback e-tron −0.8 kWh/100 km
- Power PSSERES 5 +184 PS
- 0–100 km/h ↓ sSERES 5 −2.1 s
- Top speed km/hAudi Q6 Sportback e-tron +10 km/h
- DC charging kWAudi Q6 Sportback e-tron +170 kW
- AC charging kWNo difference
- Charging ↓ minNo data
- Weight ↓ kgNo data
- Boot lAudi Q6 Sportback e-tron +61 l
Technical data: Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron vs SERES 5
Bold and underline = better value · ↓ = lower is better · — = no data
| Key parameters | Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron Q6 Sportback e-tron performance | SERES 5 Long Range AWD | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Range and energy | |||
| WLTP range | 679 km | 480 km | Audi +199 km |
| Battery | 94.9 kWh | 80 kWh | Audi +14.9 kWh |
| Consumption ↓ | 15.3 kWh/100 km | 16.1 kWh/100 km | Audi −0.8 kWh/100 km |
| Charging | |||
| DC charging | 270 kW | 100 kW | Audi +170 kW |
| AC charging | 11 kW | 11 kW | No difference |
| Charging 10–80% ↓ | 22 min | — | — |
| Range per minute of charging | 21.6 km/min | — | — |
| Voltage | 800 V | 400 V | Audi +400 V |
| Performance and drivetrain | |||
| Power | 306 PS | 490 PS | SERES +184 PS |
| 0–100 km/h ↓ | 6.6 s | 4.5 s | SERES −2.1 s |
| Top speed | 210 km/h | 200 km/h | Audi +10 km/h |
| Drivetrain | RWD | AWD | different type |
| Practicality | |||
| Weight ↓ | 2200 kg | — | — |
| Boot | 511 l | 450 l | Audi +61 l |
| V2L (external power) | No | Yes | only SERES |
| Length | 4771 mm | 4700 mm | Audi +71 mm |
| Width | 1939 mm | 1930 mm | Audi +9 mm |
| Height | 1611 mm | 1625 mm | SERES +14 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2893 mm | 2880 mm | Audi +13 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
SERES 5
Amounts are in your currency — enter prices in the currency you use.
Video reviews of both models
Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron
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 SERES 5?
The Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron goes further: 679 km WLTP against the 480 km of the SERES 5. That is a difference of 199 km.
How do the drivetrains of the Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron and the SERES 5 differ?
The Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron has RWD and 306 PS. The SERES 5 has AWD and 490 PS.
Which one can power appliances from a socket (V2L)?
Only the SERES 5 — its 80 kWh battery then works as a power source. The Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron, with 94.9 kWh, does not offer it.
Which is more powerful — Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron or SERES 5?
The SERES 5 is stronger: 490 PS against the 306 PS of the Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron. The gap is 184 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.