Citroën ë-C5 Aircross vs Škoda Elroq
Biggest differences: 0–100 km/h — Citroën ë-C5 Aircross 8.8 s, Škoda Elroq 6.6 s · Battery — Citroën ë-C5 Aircross 96.9 kWh, Škoda Elroq 77 kWh · Power — Citroën ë-C5 Aircross 231 PS, Škoda Elroq 286 PS.
Citroën ë-C5 Aircross
The Citroën ë-C5 Aircross is a C-segment SUV offering two variants with a long range and powerful performance, both powered by the front wheels.
Škoda Elroq
The Škoda Elroq is a compact SUV in the C-segment, offering rear-wheel drive or all-wheel drive options, and power outputs ranging from 170 to 340 horsepower.
Profile against the market: Citroën ë-C5 Aircross vs Škoda Elroq
Citroën ë-C5 AircrossLong Range
Škoda Elroq85
Citroën ë-C5 Aircross or Škoda Elroq — who wins where
Škoda Elroq leads 5 to 4
Click a slice to see only those metrics. Each bar shows where the car stands against the whole catalogue.
- WLTP range kmCitroën ë-C5 Aircross +107 km
- Battery kWhCitroën ë-C5 Aircross +19.9 kWh
- Consumption ↓ kWh/100 kmŠkoda Elroq −2.6 kWh/100 km
- Power PSŠkoda Elroq +55 PS
- 0–100 km/h ↓ sŠkoda Elroq −2.2 s
- Top speed km/hŠkoda Elroq +10 km/h
- DC charging kWCitroën ë-C5 Aircross +25 kW
- AC charging kWNo difference
- Weight ↓ kgŠkoda Elroq −121 kg
- Boot lCitroën ë-C5 Aircross +95 l
Technical data: Citroën ë-C5 Aircross vs Škoda Elroq
Bold and underline = better value · ↓ = lower is better · — = no data
| Key parameters | Citroën ë-C5 Aircross Long Range | Škoda Elroq 85 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Range and energy | |||
| WLTP range | 680 km | 573 km | Citroën +107 km |
| Battery | 96.9 kWh | 77 kWh | Citroën +19.9 kWh |
| Consumption ↓ | 17.8 kWh/100 km | 15.2 kWh/100 km | Škoda −2.6 kWh/100 km |
| Charging | |||
| DC charging | 160 kW | 135 kW | Citroën +25 kW |
| AC charging | 11 kW | 11 kW | No difference |
| Charging ⚠ | 27 min 20–80% | 28 min 10–80% | 1 min |
| Range per minute of charging | 15.1 km/min | 14.3 km/min | Citroën +0.8 km/min |
| Voltage | 400 V | 400 V | No difference |
| Performance and drivetrain | |||
| Power | 231 PS | 286 PS | Škoda +55 PS |
| 0–100 km/h ↓ | 8.8 s | 6.6 s | Škoda −2.2 s |
| Top speed | 170 km/h | 180 km/h | Škoda +10 km/h |
| Drivetrain | FWD | RWD | different type |
| Practicality | |||
| Weight ↓ | 2171 kg | 2050 kg | Škoda −121 kg |
| Boot | 565 l | 470 l | Citroën +95 l |
| V2L (external power) | Yes | No | only Citroën |
| Length | 4652 mm | 4488 mm | Citroën +164 mm |
| Width | 1936 mm | 1884 mm | Citroën +52 mm |
| Height | 1691 mm | 1625 mm | Citroën +66 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2784 mm | 2765 mm | Citroën +19 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
Citroën ë-C5 Aircross
Škoda Elroq
Amounts are in your currency — enter prices in the currency you use.
Video reviews of both models
Citroën ë-C5 Aircross
Škoda Elroq
Other comparisons in this class: SUV, segment C
Frequently asked questions about this comparison
Which has the longer range — Citroën ë-C5 Aircross or Škoda Elroq?
The Citroën ë-C5 Aircross goes further: 680 km WLTP against the 573 km of the Škoda Elroq. That is a difference of 107 km.
How do the drivetrains of the Citroën ë-C5 Aircross and the Škoda Elroq differ?
The Citroën ë-C5 Aircross has FWD and 231 PS. The Škoda Elroq has RWD and 286 PS.
Which one can power appliances from a socket (V2L)?
Only the Citroën ë-C5 Aircross — its 96.9 kWh battery then works as a power source. The Škoda Elroq, with 77 kWh, does not offer it.
Which has the bigger boot?
The Citroën ë-C5 Aircross takes more: 565 l against 470 l in the Škoda Elroq. The difference is 95 l.
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.