Kia Niro EV vs SERES 3

Biggest differences: WLTP range — Kia Niro EV 460 km, SERES 3 300 km · Boot — Kia Niro EV 475 l, SERES 3 318 l · Power — Kia Niro EV 204 PS, SERES 3 160 PS.

Kia Niro EV

The Kia Niro EV is an electric crossover in the C-segment, offering front-wheel drive and a range of up to 460 km according to the WLTP cycle.

SERES 3

The electric SUV belongs to the C-segment and is equipped with front-wheel drive and a 54 kWh battery.

Profile against the market: Kia Niro EV vs SERES 3

WLTP rangeBatteryPowerDC charging0–100 km/h

Kia Niro EV or SERES 3 — who wins where

Kia Niro EV leads 8 to 0

The score leaves out metrics where data is missing on one side.

Click a slice to see only those metrics. Each bar shows where the car stands against the whole catalogue.

  • WLTP range kmKia Niro EV +160 km
    Kia Niro EV
    460
    SERES 3
    300
  • Battery kWhKia Niro EV +10.8 kWh
    Kia Niro EV
    64.8
    SERES 3
    54
  • Consumption kWh/100 kmKia Niro EV −1.4 kWh/100 km
    Kia Niro EV
    16.2
    SERES 3
    17.6
  • Power PSKia Niro EV +44 PS
    Kia Niro EV
    204
    SERES 3
    160
  • 0–100 km/h sKia Niro EV −1.1 s
    Kia Niro EV
    7.8
    SERES 3
    8.9
  • Top speed km/hKia Niro EV +12 km/h
    Kia Niro EV
    167
    SERES 3
    155
  • DC charging kWNo data
    Kia Niro EV
    80
    SERES 3
  • AC charging kWNo difference
    Kia Niro EV
    11
    SERES 3
    11
  • Charging minNo data
    Kia Niro EV
    43
    SERES 3
  • Weight kgKia Niro EV −155 kg
    Kia Niro EV
    1610
    SERES 3
    1765
  • Boot lKia Niro EV +157 l
    Kia Niro EV
    475
    SERES 3
    318

Add a third car

Technical data: Kia Niro EV vs SERES 3

Bold and underline = better value · ↓ = lower is better · — = no data

Technical data: Kia Niro EV vs SERES 3
Key parameters Kia Niro EV
64.8 kWh
SERES 3
Standard
Difference
Range and energy
WLTP range460 km300 kmKia +160 km
Battery64.8 kWh54 kWhKia +10.8 kWh
Consumption16.2 kWh/100 km17.6 kWh/100 kmKia −1.4 kWh/100 km
Charging
DC charging80 kW
AC charging11 kW11 kWNo difference
Charging 10–80%43 min
Range per minute of charging7.5 km/min
Voltage400 V
Performance and drivetrain
Power204 PS160 PSKia +44 PS
0–100 km/h7.8 s8.9 sKia −1.1 s
Top speed167 km/h155 km/hKia +12 km/h
DrivetrainFWDFWD
Practicality
Weight1610 kg1765 kgKia −155 kg
Boot475 l318 lKia +157 l
V2L (external power)YesNoonly Kia
Length4420 mm4415 mmKia +5 mm
Width1825 mm1850 mmSERES +25 mm
Height1570 mm1650 mmSERES +80 mm
Wheelbase2720 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

Kia Niro EV

Cost per 100 km4.86
Monthly61
Yearly729

SERES 3

Cost per 100 km5.28
Monthly66
Yearly792

Amounts are in your currency — enter prices in the currency you use.

Video reviews of both models

Kia Niro EV

SERES 3

Other comparisons in this class: Crossover / SUV, segment C

Frequently asked questions about this comparison

Which has the longer range — Kia Niro EV or SERES 3?

The Kia Niro EV goes further: 460 km WLTP against the 300 km of the SERES 3. That is a difference of 160 km.

Which one can power appliances from a socket (V2L)?

Only the Kia Niro EV — its 64.8 kWh battery then works as a power source. The SERES 3, with 54 kWh, does not offer it.

Which has the bigger boot?

The Kia Niro EV takes more: 475 l against 318 l in the SERES 3. The difference is 157 l.

Which is cheaper to run?

The Kia Niro EV uses less electricity: 16.2 kWh/100 km against 17.6 kWh/100 km in the SERES 3. Over 15000 km a year that is a difference of 210 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.