Citroën ë-Berlingo vs Peugeot E-Rifter
Biggest differences: Boot — Citroën ë-Berlingo 597 l, Peugeot E-Rifter 775 l · Consumption — Citroën ë-Berlingo 17.5 kWh/100 km, Peugeot E-Rifter 18.3 kWh/100 km · Top speed — Citroën ë-Berlingo 135 km/h, Peugeot E-Rifter 132 km/h.
Citroën ë-Berlingo
The Citroën ë-Berlingo is a compact van with front-wheel drive, offering a WLTP range of up to 345 kilometers and a spacious cargo area.
Peugeot E-Rifter
The Peugeot E-Rifter is a compact van with front-wheel drive, offering a WLTP range of up to 339 kilometers.
Profile against the market: Citroën ë-Berlingo vs Peugeot E-Rifter
Citroën ë-Berlingo50 kWh
Peugeot E-Rifter50 kWh
Citroën ë-Berlingo or Peugeot E-Rifter — who wins where
Citroën ë-Berlingo leads 3 to 2
Click a slice to see only those metrics. Each bar shows where the car stands against the whole catalogue.
- WLTP range kmCitroën ë-Berlingo +6 km
- Battery kWhNo difference
- Consumption ↓ kWh/100 kmCitroën ë-Berlingo −0.8 kWh/100 km
- Power PSNo difference
- 0–100 km/h ↓ sPeugeot E-Rifter −0.2 s
- Top speed km/hCitroën ë-Berlingo +3 km/h
- DC charging kWNo difference
- AC charging kWNo difference
- Charging ↓ minNo difference
- Weight ↓ kgNo difference
- Boot lPeugeot E-Rifter +178 l
Technical data: Citroën ë-Berlingo vs Peugeot E-Rifter
Bold and underline = better value · ↓ = lower is better · — = no data
| Key parameters | Citroën ë-Berlingo 50 kWh | Peugeot E-Rifter 50 kWh | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Range and energy | |||
| WLTP range | 345 km | 339 km | Citroën +6 km |
| Battery | 46.3 kWh | 46.3 kWh | No difference |
| Consumption ↓ | 17.5 kWh/100 km | 18.3 kWh/100 km | Citroën −0.8 kWh/100 km |
| Charging | |||
| DC charging | 100 kW | 100 kW | No difference |
| AC charging | 11 kW | 11 kW | No difference |
| Charging 0–80% ↓ | 30 min | 30 min | No difference |
| Range per minute of charging | 9.2 km/min | 9 km/min | Citroën +0.2 km/min |
| Voltage | 400 V | 400 V | No difference |
| Performance and drivetrain | |||
| Power | 136 PS | 136 PS | No difference |
| 0–100 km/h ↓ | 11.7 s | 11.5 s | Peugeot −0.2 s |
| Top speed | 135 km/h | 132 km/h | Citroën +3 km/h |
| Drivetrain | FWD | FWD | — |
| Practicality | |||
| Weight ↓ | 1755 kg | 1755 kg | No difference |
| Boot | 597 l | 775 l | Peugeot +178 l |
| V2L (external power) | Yes | No | only Citroën |
| Length | 4410 mm | 4405 mm | Citroën +5 mm |
| Width | 1848 mm | 1848 mm | No difference |
| Height | 1775 mm | 1818 mm | Peugeot +43 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2785 mm | 2785 mm | No difference |
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
Citroën ë-Berlingo
Peugeot E-Rifter
Amounts are in your currency — enter prices in the currency you use.
Video reviews of both models
Citroën ë-Berlingo
Peugeot E-Rifter
Other comparisons in this class: Van, segment C
Frequently asked questions about this comparison
Which one can power appliances from a socket (V2L)?
Only the Citroën ë-Berlingo — its 46.3 kWh battery then works as a power source. The Peugeot E-Rifter, with 46.3 kWh, does not offer it.
Which has the bigger boot?
The Peugeot E-Rifter takes more: 775 l against 597 l in the Citroën ë-Berlingo. The difference is 178 l.
Which charges faster?
The Citroën ë-Berlingo accepts up to 100 kW DC, the Peugeot E-Rifter up to 100 kW. Charging from 0 to 80% takes 30 and 30 min respectively.
Which is cheaper to run?
The Citroën ë-Berlingo uses less electricity: 17.5 kWh/100 km against 18.3 kWh/100 km in the Peugeot E-Rifter. Over 15000 km a year that is a difference of 120 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.