Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron vs Škoda Enyaq
Biggest differences: DC charging — Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron 270 kW, Škoda Enyaq 135 kW · Charging 10–80% — Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron 22 min, Škoda Enyaq 28 min · Battery — Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron 94.9 kWh, Škoda Enyaq 77 kWh.
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.
Škoda Enyaq
The Škoda Enyaq is an SUV in the D segment, offering four different powertrain options with varying power and range, and boasts a luggage capacity of 585 liters.
Profile against the market: Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron vs Škoda Enyaq
Audi Q6 Sportback e-tronQ6 Sportback e-tron performance
Škoda Enyaq85
Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron or Škoda Enyaq — who wins where
Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron leads 7 to 3
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 +98 km
- Battery kWhAudi Q6 Sportback e-tron +17.9 kWh
- Consumption ↓ kWh/100 kmŠkoda Enyaq −0.4 kWh/100 km
- Power PSAudi Q6 Sportback e-tron +20 PS
- 0–100 km/h ↓ sAudi Q6 Sportback e-tron −0.1 s
- Top speed km/hAudi Q6 Sportback e-tron +30 km/h
- DC charging kWAudi Q6 Sportback e-tron +135 kW
- AC charging kWNo difference
- Charging ↓ minAudi Q6 Sportback e-tron −6 min
- Weight ↓ kgŠkoda Enyaq −134 kg
- Boot lŠkoda Enyaq +74 l
Technical data: Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron vs Škoda Enyaq
Bold and underline = better value · ↓ = lower is better · — = no data
| Key parameters | Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron Q6 Sportback e-tron performance | Škoda Enyaq 85 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Range and energy | |||
| WLTP range | 679 km | 581 km | Audi +98 km |
| Battery | 94.9 kWh | 77 kWh | Audi +17.9 kWh |
| Consumption ↓ | 15.3 kWh/100 km | 14.9 kWh/100 km | Škoda −0.4 kWh/100 km |
| Charging | |||
| DC charging | 270 kW | 135 kW | Audi +135 kW |
| AC charging | 11 kW | 11 kW | No difference |
| Charging 10–80% ↓ | 22 min | 28 min | Audi −6 min |
| Range per minute of charging | 21.6 km/min | 14.5 km/min | Audi +7.1 km/min |
| Voltage | 800 V | 400 V | Audi +400 V |
| Performance and drivetrain | |||
| Power | 306 PS | 286 PS | Audi +20 PS |
| 0–100 km/h ↓ | 6.6 s | 6.7 s | Audi −0.1 s |
| Top speed | 210 km/h | 180 km/h | Audi +30 km/h |
| Drivetrain | RWD | RWD | — |
| Practicality | |||
| Weight ↓ | 2200 kg | 2066 kg | Škoda −134 kg |
| Boot | 511 l | 585 l | Škoda +74 l |
| Length | 4771 mm | 4658 mm | Audi +113 mm |
| Width | 1939 mm | 1879 mm | Audi +60 mm |
| Height | 1611 mm | 1622 mm | Škoda +11 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2893 mm | 2766 mm | Audi +127 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
Škoda Enyaq
Amounts are in your currency — enter prices in the currency you use.
Video reviews of both models
Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron
Škoda Enyaq
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 Škoda Enyaq?
The Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron goes further: 679 km WLTP against the 581 km of the Škoda Enyaq. That is a difference of 98 km.
Which has the bigger boot?
The Škoda Enyaq takes more: 585 l against 511 l in the Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron. The difference is 74 l.
Which charges faster?
The Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron accepts up to 270 kW DC, the Škoda Enyaq up to 135 kW. Charging from 10 to 80% takes 22 and 28 min respectively.
Which is cheaper to run?
The Škoda Enyaq uses less electricity: 14.9 kWh/100 km against 15.3 kWh/100 km in the Audi Q6 Sportback e-tron. Over 15000 km a year that is a difference of 60 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.