BYD Atto 3 vs Škoda Elroq
BYD Atto 3 leads 6 to 3
Biggest differences: DC charging — BYD Atto 3 220 kW, Škoda Elroq 165 kW · Charging 10–80% — BYD Atto 3 25 min, Škoda Elroq 29 min · Weight — BYD Atto 3 1880 kg, Škoda Elroq 2132 kg.
BYD Atto 3
The BYD Atto 3 is an SUV in the C segment, offering three different configurations of power output and range according to the WLTP standard.
Škoda Elroq
The Škoda Elroq is an all-electric SUV in the C segment, available with either RWD or AWD: it offers power outputs ranging from 190 to 340 horsepower, a range of up to 576 km according to the WLTP standard, and DC fast charging capabilities up to 165 kW.
Profile against the market: BYD Atto 3 vs Škoda Elroq
BYD Atto 3Design
Škoda Elroq85x
BYD Atto 3 or Škoda Elroq — who wins where
BYD Atto 3 leads 6 to 3
Click a slice to see only those metrics. Each bar shows where the car stands against the whole catalogue.
- WLTP range kmŠkoda Elroq +66 km
- Battery kWhŠkoda Elroq +2.2 kWh
- Consumption ↓ kWh/100 kmŠkoda Elroq −0.9 kWh/100 km
- Power PSBYD Atto 3 +14 PS
- 0–100 km/h ↓ sBYD Atto 3 −0.7 s
- Top speed km/hNo difference
- DC charging kWBYD Atto 3 +55 kW
- AC charging kWNo difference
- Charging ↓ minBYD Atto 3 −4 min
- Weight ↓ kgBYD Atto 3 −252 kg
- Boot lBYD Atto 3 +20 l
Technical data: BYD Atto 3 vs Škoda Elroq
Bold and underline = better value · ↓ = lower is better · — = no data
| Key parameters | BYD Atto 3 Design | Škoda Elroq 85x | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Range and energy | |||
| WLTP range | 510 km | 576 km | Škoda +66 km |
| Battery | 74.8 kWh | 77 kWh | Škoda +2.2 kWh |
| Consumption ↓ | 16.4 kWh/100 km | 15.5 kWh/100 km | Škoda −0.9 kWh/100 km |
| Charging | |||
| DC charging | 220 kW | 165 kW | BYD +55 kW |
| AC charging | 11 kW | 11 kW | No difference |
| Charging 10–80% ↓ | 25 min | 29 min | BYD −4 min |
| Range per minute of charging | 14.3 km/min | 13.9 km/min | BYD +0.4 km/min |
| Voltage | 800 V | 400 V | BYD +400 V |
| Performance and drivetrain | |||
| Power | 313 PS | 299 PS | BYD +14 PS |
| 0–100 km/h ↓ | 5.5 s | 6.2 s | BYD −0.7 s |
| Top speed | 180 km/h | 180 km/h | No difference |
| Drivetrain | RWD | AWD | different type |
| Practicality | |||
| Weight ↓ | 1880 kg | 2132 kg | BYD −252 kg |
| Boot | 490 l | 470 l | BYD +20 l |
| V2L (external power) | Yes | Yes | — |
| Length | 4455 mm | 4488 mm | Škoda +33 mm |
| Width | 1875 mm | 1884 mm | Škoda +9 mm |
| Height | 1615 mm | 1620 mm | Škoda +5 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2720 mm | 2766 mm | Škoda +46 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
BYD Atto 3
Škoda Elroq
Amounts are in your currency — enter prices in the currency you use.
Video reviews of both models
BYD Atto 3
Škoda Elroq
Other comparisons in this class: SUV, segment C
Frequently asked questions about this comparison
Which has the longer range — BYD Atto 3 or Škoda Elroq?
The Škoda Elroq goes further: 576 km WLTP against the 510 km of the BYD Atto 3. That is a difference of 66 km.
How do the drivetrains of the BYD Atto 3 and the Škoda Elroq differ?
The BYD Atto 3 has RWD and 313 PS. The Škoda Elroq has AWD and 299 PS.
Which charges faster?
The BYD Atto 3 accepts up to 220 kW DC, the Škoda Elroq up to 165 kW. Charging from 10 to 80% takes 25 and 29 min respectively.
Which is cheaper to run?
The Škoda Elroq uses less electricity: 15.5 kWh/100 km against 16.4 kWh/100 km in the BYD Atto 3. Over 15000 km a year that is a difference of 135 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.