Cupra Raval vs Volkswagen ID. Polo
Biggest differences: Charging 10–80% — Cupra Raval 28 min, Volkswagen ID. Polo 24 min · 0–100 km/h — Cupra Raval 7.1 s, Volkswagen ID. Polo 7.4 s · Consumption — Cupra Raval 13.6 kWh/100 km, Volkswagen ID. Polo 13.3 kWh/100 km.
Cupra Raval
The Cupra Raval is an all-electric hatchback in the B segment, offered in three different powertrain configurations, each with varying power output and range.
Volkswagen ID. Polo
The Volkswagen ID. Polo is an electric hatchback in the B-segment, offered with three powertrain configurations featuring different ranges and performance levels.
Profile against the market: Cupra Raval vs Volkswagen ID. Polo
Cupra Raval52 kWh
Volkswagen ID. Polo52 kWh 155 kW
Cupra Raval or Volkswagen ID. Polo — who wins where
Volkswagen ID. Polo leads 4 to 1
Click a slice to see only those metrics. Each bar shows where the car stands against the whole catalogue.
- WLTP range kmVolkswagen ID. Polo +10 km
- Battery kWhNo difference
- Consumption ↓ kWh/100 kmVolkswagen ID. Polo −0.3 kWh/100 km
- Power PSNo difference
- 0–100 km/h ↓ sCupra Raval −0.3 s
- Top speed km/hNo difference
- DC charging kWNo difference
- AC charging kWNo difference
- Charging ↓ minVolkswagen ID. Polo −4 min
- Weight ↓ kgVolkswagen ID. Polo −34 kg
- Boot lNo difference
Technical data: Cupra Raval vs Volkswagen ID. Polo
Bold and underline = better value · ↓ = lower is better · — = no data
| Key parameters | Cupra Raval 52 kWh | Volkswagen ID. Polo 52 kWh 155 kW | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Range and energy | |||
| WLTP range | 444 km | 454 km | Volkswagen +10 km |
| Battery | 52 kWh | 52 kWh | No difference |
| Consumption ↓ | 13.6 kWh/100 km | 13.3 kWh/100 km | Volkswagen −0.3 kWh/100 km |
| Charging | |||
| DC charging | 105 kW | 105 kW | No difference |
| AC charging | 11 kW | 11 kW | No difference |
| Charging 10–80% ↓ | 28 min | 24 min | Volkswagen −4 min |
| Range per minute of charging | 11.1 km/min | 13.2 km/min | Volkswagen +2.1 km/min |
| Voltage | 400 V | 400 V | No difference |
| Performance and drivetrain | |||
| Power | 211 PS | 211 PS | No difference |
| 0–100 km/h ↓ | 7.1 s | 7.4 s | Cupra −0.3 s |
| Top speed | 160 km/h | 160 km/h | No difference |
| Drivetrain | FWD | FWD | — |
| Practicality | |||
| Weight ↓ | 1610 kg | 1576 kg | Volkswagen −34 kg |
| Boot | 441 l | 441 l | No difference |
| V2L (external power) | Yes | Yes | — |
| Length | 4046 mm | 4053 mm | Volkswagen +7 mm |
| Width | 1784 mm | 1816 mm | Volkswagen +32 mm |
| Height | 1514 mm | 1530 mm | Volkswagen +16 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2599 mm | 2600 mm | Volkswagen +1 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
Cupra Raval
Volkswagen ID. Polo
Amounts are in your currency — enter prices in the currency you use.
Video reviews of both models
Cupra Raval
Volkswagen ID. Polo
Other comparisons in this class: Hatchback, segment B
Frequently asked questions about this comparison
Which has the longer range — Cupra Raval or Volkswagen ID. Polo?
The Volkswagen ID. Polo goes further: 454 km WLTP against the 444 km of the Cupra Raval. That is a difference of 10 km.
Which charges faster?
The Cupra Raval accepts up to 105 kW DC, the Volkswagen ID. Polo up to 105 kW. Charging from 10 to 80% takes 28 and 24 min respectively.
Which is cheaper to run?
The Volkswagen ID. Polo uses less electricity: 13.3 kWh/100 km against 13.6 kWh/100 km in the Cupra Raval. Over 15000 km a year that is a difference of 45 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.