While this might seem like an odd comparison considering the different engine capacities and nature of both motorcycles, if you are considering one of these bikes, the other should also be on your radar. They are both accessible motorcycles with similar power figures and carry a similar price tag. Yamaha calls the XSR a sport retro as it shares its chassis and engine with the R15 and MT-15, while the Royal Enfield Hunter 350 has a more old-school vibe to it. 

Yamaha XSR 155 vs Royal Enfield Hunter 350: Performance, Refinement, and Mileage

Rev Happy vs Torque Rich

The XSR 155 gets a 155cc single-cylinder, liquid-cooled engine putting out 18.4hp at 10,000rpm and a peak torque of 14.2Nm at 7,500rpm, and comes mated to a 6-speed gearbox. The Hunter 350, on the other hand, uses a 349cc single-cylinder, air-cooled engine producing 20hp at 6,100rpm and a peak torque of 27Nm at 4,000rpm. In this comparison, numbers do not really tell the full story, because these engines have very different characteristics. Despite the Hunter’s engine being more than twice the size, the XSR 155’s performance is a lot more potent. In our tests, the XSR got to 100kph in  just 11.66 seconds, while the Hunter took 15.15 seconds. The XSR 155, with its Variable Valve Actuation (VVA) tech, likes to be revved out and has a lovely exhaust note as it crosses the 7,000rpm mark. In comparison, the Hunter 350 produces its peak power at just 6,100rpm and feels in its element when kept in the mid-range rpms. Both bikes can comfortably cruise on the highway at 100kph, but the XSR 155 does have a higher top speed and the advantage of a sixth gear. In the city, the Hunter 350 excels with its enjoyable torque – it requires less gear shifts while wading through traffic and can cruise along in third gear at low speeds. The XSR is also tractable, but you’ll have to make regular downshifts if you want any meaningful acceleration. Both motorcycles have a slip-and-assist clutch, where the action is light, and both gearboxes are also slick.

Thanks to the XSR having a smaller engine and being so much lighter, it also delivered impressive results in our mileage test. We achieved 51.7kpl on the highway and 50.3kpl in the city on the XSR 155, which is superb considering the performance this engine offers. The Hunter 350, on the other hand, gave us 30.6kpl in the city and 39.8kpl out on the highway, which is decent for a bike in its class.

Yamaha XSR 155 vs Royal Enfield Hunter 350: Ride Comfort and Handling

Nimble City Slicker vs Composed Roadster

With a kerb weight of 137kg, the XSR 155 is 44kg lighter than the Hunter 350, and that is a huge difference. In the city, the XSR feels extremely nimble, and I preferred riding it in heavy traffic. Riders who have a build shorter than 5ft 5in will prefer the Hunter, as it has the more accessible seat height – 790mm – compared to the XSR 155’s 810mm. The handlebar of the XSR is wider with a slight reach forward, and the footpegs are also set towards the rear, keeping the rider in a slightly aggressive position. The seat and handlebar of the Hunter 350 keeps the rider more upright and relaxed, and its footpegs, though still a bit rear-set, are placed more comfortably than the Yamaha. In terms of handling, the XSR is the more engaging machine through a set of corners. Thanks to it being based on the same platform as the R15, its deltabox frame and relatively firm suspension make it feel nimble while flicking it into corners or making quick direction changes. The Hunter 350 takes a little more effort to steer, but once in a corner, it feels extremely planted. While riding both bikes together through a corner, we realised that the Hunter 350 keeps up with the XSR 155 for the most part, but it feels like it runs out of steam while powering out of corners; the XSR’s top-end rush helps it power out of corners more convincingly. That said, anyone who opts for the Hunter is going to be riding it in a more relaxed manner, which is what it does really well.

Royal Enfield updated the suspension of the Hunter 350 last year, and it has surely made a world of a difference. What used to be a harshly uncomfortable setup now glides through potholes, speed breakers and unpredictable road conditions with ease, making for a really comfortable ride. There were even moments when I did hit some bad potholes at higher speeds, and the bike took them on without losing stability. The XSR has a stiffer suspension setup (especially at the rear shock), and I needed to be cautious while hitting speed breakers and undulations. This stiff nature will take a toll on your lower back after extended periods on poor roads. The braking on both bikes feels equally confidence inspiring, and they were almost on par in our tests as well.

Yamaha XSR 155 vs Royal Enfield Hunter 350: Features and Safety

Modern Tech vs Thoughtful Simplicity

Features wise, the XSR 155 gets a fully digital instrument cluster, smartphone connectivity for call and message alerts, traction control and Yamaha’s Variable Valve Actuation (VVA) system. It also gets premium hardware like a USD front fork, a monoshock, full-LED lighting, and an assist-and-slipper clutch. 

The Hunter 350 keeps things simpler and more traditional. It has a semi-digital instrument cluster that misses out on a tachometer, but on higher variants, the bike gets Royal Enfield’s Tripper navigation pod for turn-by-turn directions, which the XSR lacks. While it does get dual-channel ABS and a slipper clutch, it misses out on rider aids like traction control, although that’s hardly necessary on a 20hp motorcycle. The suspension setup on the Hunter is more conventional too, with telescopic front forks and twin rear shock absorbers, prioritising comfort and a classic riding feel over outright sportiness.

Yamaha XSR 155 vs Royal Enfield Hunter 350: Design and Quality

Similar Retro Vibe, Different Personalities

Both bikes have good fit-and-finish levels for this price and feel premium. Styling is subjective but worth talking about in this comparison. The neo-retro looks of the XSR 155 are what I personally prefer compared to the fully retro Hunter 350, but riders looking for practicality will find the Hunter 350 better. That is thanks to its lower seat height, more comfortable ergonomics and pillion grab rails. And despite the Hunter being the heavier motorcycle, it looks like the more compact one of the two. 

Yamaha XSR 155 vs Royal Enfield Hunter 350: Price and Verdict

The XSR 155 is the winner of this comparison, but the Hunter 350 will still appeal to many riders.

Priced at an introductory Rs 1.50 lakh (ex-showroom), the XSR 155 is more affordable than the MT-15 and the R15. The top-spec Hunter 350 is currently priced at Rs 1.67 lakh (ex-showroom), making it Rs 17,000 more expensive than the XSR 155. The XSR proves to be the more value-for-money product and the winner of this comparison as it’s faster, lighter and more fuel efficient. That said, the Hunter 350 has some qualities that make it quite compelling, especially now that its suspension and previously heavy clutch have both been upgraded. It’s a comfortable bike, has a charmingly characterful engine and doesn’t carry the ‘old’ vibe of its 350cc siblings. To sum it up, younger riders are sure to prefer the performance, looks and tech of the XSR, while the Hunter 350 will appeal to those who value a more relaxed and comfortable ride.
 

The newly localised Kawasaki KLX230 entering the mix at a much more realistic price has made the entry-level, off-road-capable segment in India more interesting than ever. In fact, it now sits close enough to the Xpulse 210 to make this a meaningful comparison, yet they approach the same mission with very different philosophies.

Hero Xpulse 210 vs Kawasaki KLX230 design and ergonomics

The KLX230 looks like a proper dual sport whereas the Xpulse 210 has a more modern, ADV  design

At first glance, the KLX230 looks every bit the trail-focused dual-sport bike it is meant to be. The localisation update has introduced subtle but important changes to the bodywork, exhaust routing and certain engine components, but the overall silhouette remains lean, stylish and functional. Despite its raw and simple appearance, the KLX is not poorly built. Panel fit is clean, the welds on the now-made-in-India frame are tidy, and the overall construction feels robust. It does not try to look premium, but it certainly does not feel cheap either.

 KLX’s seat is great off-road but understandably not very practical

The Xpulse 210, in comparison, carries a more modern and fuller adventure-bike stance than the 200. The fairing, tank and side panels have an everyday friendliness that suits its broader role. It feels more contemporary, but not necessarily more durable, and both bikes execute their respective identities well.

It gets a comfy seat with mounting points.

Ergonomically, the KLX230 immediately communicates its trail heritage, and its tiny 7.6-litre tank and slender chassis allow riders to grip the bike effortlessly between the legs, giving a strong sense of control. Seated, the flat seat provides excellent freedom to move fore and aft for weight shifts during climbs and descents. However, the handlebar sits lower than ideal for extended standing, and riders of most sizes will benefit from a taller handlebar. Comfort is further limited by the stiff, narrow, dirt-bike style seat.

The Xpulse 210, by contrast, offers an ergonomics package that suits everyday life far better. The seating triangle is relaxed, the handlebar position is natural, and the plush, broader seat makes long rides vastly easier. Standing up is comfortable too, though the scooped seat restricts the amount of rearward movement available when seated off-road. It is not a disadvantage on most trails, but it does highlight how the Xpulse is tuned for general usability rather than pure off-road technique. Taken as a whole, the Hero is the more comfortable motorcycle for all round use, while the Kawasaki excels for riders who spend serious time on trails.

Hero Xpulse 210 vs Kawasaki KLX230 Performance, ride and handling

The KLX230 is more appropriate for low-speed riding

Out on the road, the Xpulse 210 presents a more eager power delivery. It feels smoother through the revs, and its cleaner low-end response makes it easier to navigate traffic or climb to cruising speeds. This matches its slightly stronger 0-60kph and roll-on acceleration figures, which translate directly into its more relaxed urban performance. The short gearing, along with a crisp and engaging sound and good refinement, makes it the sweeter engine on the road.

Marginally brighter headlamp is nice but very expensive to replace

The KLX230 tells a different story. It may not match the Xpulse’s outright pace on the road, but the way it makes its power is tailored to off-road riding. Its thumpy, immediate response at low speeds gives you a higher sense of acceleration, and it feels more appropriate for lower speed riding, just like you’ll find in tricky off-road situations. The tractable bottom end helps during tight trail sections, steep climbs or loose surfaces, where delicate throttle work matters more than outright acceleration that arrives at higher revs. On tarmac, it requires more effort to build speed and feels the less relaxed of the two, but off road, it feels alive and encouraging in a way the Hero does not quite match.

The localisation update has significantly changed the way the KLX230 behaves on rough and smooth surfaces. The new suspension setup has 20/27mm less suspension travel than before, but it now has firmer springs and is no longer as excessively soft and easily compressed as before.

The recovery bar is a neat touch

You feel more of the imperfections of broken city roads, but there are positives as well. The bike resists bottoming out far better than before, especially during rocky climbs or harsh compressions, giving the rider more confidence to push. This firmer character has also tightened up road manners and, combined with its light weight, makes the KLX230 an absolute hoot to ride home from work. There is less pitch under acceleration and braking, and the KLX now holds its line more cleanly through fast corners. The improved behaviour under hard braking, combined with the larger disc, makes it noticeably better at shedding speed.

The KLX’s massive weight advantage amplifies all of this. Being a massive 31kg lighter than the Xpulse, it responds instantly to inputs, changes direction with minimal effort, and feels far more manageable on technical trails. In fact, the KLX230 is so light and manageable that I’d be a lot more confident venturing into the unknown alone with it,given the considerably lower effort it would take to recover in case of a fall. This low mass also contributes to its stability off road, since the suspension does not have to work as hard to control the chassis. In most situations, this suspension does well for the kind of amateur/fun riding this bike is expected to provide, but there were a few rare instances where we did miss having the extra travel from the CBU model.

While there's plenty of room to move around on the KLX, the standing ergos are not very natural

The Xpulse 210 delivers a more rounded ride quality, and its suspension strikes a balance that suits India’s mix of tarmac and uneven surfaces. It is not as communicative or agile as the KLX off road, but it offers significantly greater comfort and capability on the road, be it in the city or over long distances. Off road, its 210/205mm of suspension travel and 220mm of ground clearance mean it is capable and confidence-inspiring, though it lacks the KLX’s playfulness and sheer ease when the terrain becomes truly demanding.

Back to back, the Xpulse’s lower suspension travel and ground clearance sometimes become apparent, especially over rocky terrain, but what you will mainly notice is the extra weight it carries. The bike can get through much of the same terrain as the KLX, but its rider will need more skill and stamina over longer rides to do so.

Hero Xpulse 210 vs Kawasaki KLX230 features and practicality

The Xpulse 210 comes with a TFT whereas the KLX230 sticks to the basics

LCD dash is pretty bare-bones

On equipment, the Xpulse 210 comfortably takes a big lead. The TFT display, even with its matte finish that occasionally compromises visibility, adds real everyday usability through Bluetooth connectivity, turn-by-turn navigation and call control. The dual-channel ABS with three modes allows riders to personalise the braking behaviour depending on the surface, something genuinely useful for mixed-use riding.

Xpulse's TFT is the opposite

The KLX230 remains intentionally stripped back, and its monotone LCD has only the basics, lacking a gear indicator or tachometer. The single-channel ABS can be switched off, but the process feels unnecessarily complicated. There is no connectivity or rider aids, and the bike relies almost entirely on rider skill. For some, this simplicity is the appeal, but in a market that values features, the KLX’s minimalist approach does stand out.

Hero Xpulse 210 vs Kawasaki KLX230 Price and verdict

Post localisation, the KLX230 is now priced at Rs 1.84 lakh, whereas the Xpulse 210 is priced from Rs 1.62 lakh

Localisation has reshaped the KLX230’s position entirely. What was once an expensive, niche trail bike is now a much more competitively priced option. Even so, the Xpulse 210 remains the more affordable motorcycle, not only in terms of initial purchase but also in ongoing service and spare part costs. Hero’s extensive network and lower running expenses make a noticeable difference here.

Choosing between the two ultimately depends on the riding you intend to do. The Kawasaki KLX230 is easily the more focused machine. It rewards technique, encourages exploration and delivers a level of connection that makes off-road riding more engaging. The Hero Xpulse 210 is the more well rounded of the two. It is quicker and smoother in everyday use, significantly more comfortable, far better equipped and much easier on the wallet in the long term. For most riders who want a single motorcycle to handle commuting, touring and occasional off-road fun, the Xpulse remains the smarter purchase.

The scooters you see here are two of the highest-selling two-wheelers in India and really require no introduction. Moreover, chances are, if you’re in the market for a brand-new scooter, you’re probably looking at one of these – the Honda Activa and the TVS Jupiter. We’ve ridden these two around Mumbai for a fair few days to determine which one deserves your money.

Honda Activa vs TVS Jupiter design and features

Both have their own strong points and weaknesses

Between the two, the Activa is the more recognisable because its straightforward appearance has only seen minor nip-and-tuck jobs in the 25 years it has been on sale. Some might even say it’s a little long in the tooth now, especially when parked next to the newer, more stylish Jupiter. However, a quick look at the sales statistics proves that market demand for the Honda is clearly unaffected by its design. As you’d expect from a Honda, the Activa’s quality levels are quite commendable for a product in this class.

The Jupiter's design feels much more modern in comparison to the Activa's.

Thankfully, while the Activa’s silhouette hasn’t changed much, Honda has sprinkled in a fair few features, especially so on this top Smart variant. Over here, you get a well-laid-out, Bluetooth-compatible colour TFT display – surrounded by a little too much black plastic, though – complemented by a tactile four-way joystick, keyless ignition and start/stop tech. This is also the only variant to get alloy wheels. The keyless ignition, in particular, adds a layer of convenience to the experience that no other rival in the segment matches.

The Activa’s colour TFT dash is really slick and intuitive.

However, some areas where the Activa clearly feels its age are its small 18-litre underseat storage area, the archaic two-hands-necessary rear brake lock clasp, and the lack of a front disc brake, even as an option.

The Activa’s 18 litre boot feels too small in 2025.

The topic of features is a rather nice way to segue to the Jupiter, because with its 33-litre boot, apron-mounted fuel filler, electric boost, 12-inch wheels, front disc brake, and much more, it is ahead of the Activa. While the Jupiter also has start/stop tech, its execution isn’t as straightforward because TVS has chosen to prioritise safety over an immediate response, which can be annoying in big-city traffic.

The Jupiter’s cavernous 33 litre boot is an unbeatable USP.

Unlike the Activa’s system, where all you need to do is twist the accelerator to get going, the Jupiter’s system needs you to hold the brake as well and then release the accelerator momentarily before you can make a move. Another area where the Jupiter can do better is in the display. Don’t get me wrong, the colour LCD is info-rich and well laid-out, but at the end of the day, nothing matches the feel-good factor of the colour TFT you get with the Honda.

The Jupiter's LCD dash quite small and a little cluttered.

Those little quibbles aside, the Jupiter is an impressive machine, and judging by how many latest Jupiters are plying our roads today, TVS too seems to have hit the ground running. 

Some small but noteworthy features on the Jupiter that will actually be helpful in day-to-day situations are its handy parking brake lock clasp, which literally takes just a single finger to operate, and its light centre-stand mechanism, which allows smaller riders to prop it up on the stand with just a single push. Other niceties include a handlebar that doesn’t foul with taller riders’ knees when making lock-to-lock U-turns and the fact that TVS has given you a winged adjuster for the rear shock, making it super easy to bump up spring preload when carrying a pillion and/or luggage. 

Of course, if this was just a spec-sheet shootout, the Jupiter would have already been declared the winner by now, but in our findings after riding them back-to-back, it’s not as straightforward in the real world.

Honda Activa vs TVS Jupiter performance, ride and handling

Activa a perfectly pleasant machine to ride but Jupiter has the clear edge here

We’ll start with the Activa once more, because this is arguably the benchmark for most people, and it’s not hard to see why. It has a smooth, peppy engine, neutral ergonomics and pretty good ride comfort, setting a really high baseline. But then you get on the Jupiter, and suddenly, many things become better.

Jupiter has the better ride and handling balance between the two.

This feels a little strange to pen down, but TVS has created an engine that’s smoother than Honda’s, although it does judder noticeably more at idle. Performance is not a valuable metric to a family scooter buyer, but crucially, the Jupiter’s engine feels more relaxed and responsive in every scenario. Its ride and handling balance, too, is a cut above the Activa, and while the difference isn’t large, the TVS’ better high-speed stability and well-judged suspension setup help it feel more sure-footed than the Honda.

In our tests, both scooters were evenly matched in terms of performance and braking, but the Jupiter was quicker than the Activa in roll-on acceleration due to its sharper throttle response and momentary electric boost. While the stopping force on both is rather evenly matched, the Jupiter’s front disc inspires more confidence and won’t need repeated adjustment like the Activa’s drum, which makes all the difference.

Honda Activa vs TVS Jupiter fuel economy

Both are very fuel efficient but Activa edges ahead 

The difference that’s more likely to matter to the average person, though, is fuel economy. It’s here that the Activa ekes out a small but crucial advantage over the Jupiter. Both scooters weigh exactly the same and have start/stop tech, so the difference is likely down to the Honda’s frugal engine.

Honda Activa vs TVS Jupiter price and verdict

Activa rightly a juggernaut in sales figures but does fall behind in some areas

That said, aside from the important factor of fuel efficiency, we’ve established by now that, by and large, whatever the Honda Activa does well, the TVS Jupiter does even better.

The Jupiter is the better product but the Activa's stranglehold over the market continues.

But there are still some reasons why nobody has been able to dethrone the Activa yet. Its reputation for bulletproof reliability, stellar resale value and great fuel efficiency are very tangible reasons why people all across the country have flocked to Honda showrooms for the near 25 years it has been on sale now.

And this version, with its convenient key fob, good-looking TFT dash and slick start/stop tech, makes a solid case for itself. Even today, despite not being the flashiest offering out there, there’s a credible case to be made for choosing it. 

Jupiter is the more compelling product and priced keenly too

At the same time, I cannot ignore just how much better the TVS Jupiter is on pure objective terms. It is the more practical of the two (the big boot makes a big difference), its engine is even smoother and doesn’t feel as strained at faster highway speeds, it has the better suspension comfort and high-speed composure, and it looks and feels more modern, which is something the Activa just can’t do.

However, as our readers have pointed out repeatedly, TVS’ reputation for service is rather hit or miss, and that’s one area where the company has some work to do.

That said, as a product, the Jupiter does so many things expected of a scooter so well (while also costing a little less) that we have to declare it the winner of this comparison.

The sporty 125cc scooter space has long been ruled by the Ntorq, with none being able to challenge its dominance. While the Ntorq has long been the benchmark in this space, Hero’s Xoom 125 is the company’s latest attempt at cracking this sporty space. Both scooters target the same audience but offer distinctly different experiences out on the road.

Hero Xoom 125 vs TVS Ntorq Race XP design and features

The Xoom 125 is the more practical scooter but the Ntorq Race XP is more feature loaded.

Both scooters come dressed to impress, and the Xoom 125 wears a sleek, modern design that’s sharper and more premium-looking than its 110cc sibling. The Xoom’s 14-inch alloys, minimalist yet sharp styling, and sequential indicators give this mature design some youthful touches. It also packs in LED lighting, a fully digital LCD cluster with Bluetooth, turn-by-turn navigation, and even a USB charger hidden in the front cubby.

The Xoom 125’s simple and easy-to-read LCD display does the job but with no extra flash or flair.

The Ntorq Race XP, meanwhile, goes for a racier aesthetic with excessive graphics, faux carbon finishes, better build quality in comparison, and a slightly more muscular profile. It gets a densely packed LCD screen that’s feature-rich and even has two riding modes.

The Ntorq Race XP gets an LCD that is feature loaded and packed with information.

If you go for the top XT variant, you’ll also get a TFT display. Additionally, it also gets Bluetooth connectivity with a host of connected features. TVS has added newer variants over time that bring more tech and features to the overall package, but there is no denying that the Ntorq has started to feel old and hasn’t seen any significant design changes since its inception.

You get 17 litres of underseat storage with the Xoom 125.

While the Xoom leans towards a cleaner design and practical features – like an external fuel filler with a buzzer – the Ntorq counters with more gadgetry and flashy touches that might appeal to tech-savvy riders. I, for one, prefer the Xoom’s subtle yet thoughtful approach.

The Ntorq Race XP claws back with 22 litres of underseat storage.

Its additional front cubby has proven genuinely useful for stashing my gloves or a water bottle, and the all-in-one key slot adds everyday convenience. The Ntorq claws back some ground with its larger 22-litre underseat storage, which is 5 litres more than the Xoom.

Hero Xoom 125 vs TVS Ntorq Race XP riding position and comfort

TVS's Ntorq Race XP is the more comfortable and versatile scooter of the two.  

The Xoom’s riding position is upright and neutral, but taller riders will find it a bit cramped, mainly due to the seat design. Its sculpted saddle has a pronounced scoop that limits how far back you can slide, which can start to feel restrictive over longer rides.

The aggressive scoop on the Xoom 125's seat will limit comfort.

This proved to be our biggest issue with the Xoom, although it is something that should be fixable by an aftermarket seat maker without spending too much money. Pillion comfort is reasonable, and while the underseat storage can manage groceries or a backpack, neither scooter has enough room for a full-face helmet.

Ntorq's seat is more accomodating for riders of different heights.

The Ntorq Race XP, by comparison, is noticeably more comfortable and accommodating. Its flatter, more spacious seat and relaxed handlebar-to-footpeg geometry make it a better fit for taller riders – or anyone doing longer commutes – and the pillion perch is better shaped, too.

Interestingly, even though the Ntorq’s seat height is just 7mm lower than the Xoom’s, most shorter riders I spoke to found it easier to get their feet down on the Ntorq – perhaps owing to the seat contour and overall stance. This is probably why Hero went for such an aggressive scoop on their seat to counter the added height brought in by the bigger wheels.

Hero Xoom 125 vs TVS Ntorq Race XP performance and efficiency 

While the Ntorq Race XP is the quicker scooter, the Xoom 125 is more efficient.

The Xoom’s 124cc motor feels smoother and more refined, especially at low speeds and during steady mid-range cruising. It’s more responsive off the line and easy-going in traffic. The Ntorq Race XP, on the other hand, feels noticeably more eager and aggressive. Right from the moment you thumb the starter, its deeper exhaust note and bassy rumble set the tone – this is the sportier feeling machine of the two.

Interestingly, despite weighing 10kg less, producing 0.2hp more, and running on smaller wheels, the Ntorq isn’t quicker off the line. The Xoom 125 gets to 60kph faster in our tests, and it’s only above this that the Ntorq claws back and pulls ahead by the time you hit 80kph. The TVS’ roll-on acceleration is also quicker, and overall, the Ntorq Race XP is the quicker scooter here, but the Xoom has the slight edge below 60kph.

The Ntorq Race XP does feel slightly different from when we first rode it four years back. It seems to have sacrificed a bit of the low-end snap in favour of slightly better high-end performance. What stands out more, though, is that the scooter is now more efficient than when we last rode it, so it’s quite possible that TVS has tweaked this engine over time.

That said, the Xoom still claws back a win in terms of city fuel efficiency, returning a noticeably higher 56.70kpl vs 52.4kpl, making it the more economical option. This was aided by Hero’s stop-start system, but it could be a little quicker in its operation.

That said, the Ntorq’s 0.8-litre larger fuel tank and slightly better highway efficiency give it the advantage in terms of overall range. While both scooters wear sporty badges, it’s the Ntorq Race XP that feels more performance-focused. The Xoom 125, by contrast, feels more like a well-rounded everyday scooter with a sporty flavour. 

Hero Xoom 125 vs TVS Ntorq Race XP ride comfort and handling

The Xoom 125 has better high speed stability thanks to its larger 14-inch wheels.

The Xoom’s larger 14-inch wheels offer better stability over poor roads, but it still has a good amount of agility and reasonably light steering, which is a nice thing in dense, slow-moving traffic. Its suspension is not bad, but there is an underlying firmness at the rear (there’s no preload adjust), and larger potholes do make their presence felt. At speeds up to 80kph, it remains a little more composed and confidence-inspiring than the TVS.

In comparison, the Ntorq has a noticeably softer suspension, which is great at lower speeds. However, ridden back-to-back with the Hero, it doesn’t have the same planted and poised feel at higher speeds.

Even cruising at 60kph on concrete roads can be a bouncy affair, although the scooter remains fully under control. Predictably, its smaller wheels give it better agility at slower speeds in the city, and it’s easier to flick into turns.

Adding to it is its tighter turning radius, which makes it easier to dart through traffic. When it comes to braking, the Ntorq takes the edge offering better brake bite, lever feel and feedback. Meanwhile, the Xoom’s brakes perform adequately but feel wooden and are devoid of feedback.

Hero Xoom 125 vs TVS Ntorq Race XP price and verdict

Hero's Xoom 125 is the more affordable of the two but TVS's Ntorq Race XP has more variants priced across a broader range. 

The TVS Ntorq has long been the benchmark for performance in the 125cc segment, and even today, it remains one of the sportiest scooters you can buy. Its engaging motor, comfortable ride, and strong blend of practicality and fun have helped it stand out over the years. That said, the Ntorq is now seven years old, and some aspects of it are beginning to show their age. The Ntorq range starts at Rs 90,153 for the base disc variant and goes up to Rs 1.10 lakh for the latest tech-loaded XT variant with its TFT display.

The Xoom 125, by contrast, is the new kid on the block. It brings a fresher take to the sporty 125cc space with its handsome style, good city efficiency, practical design touches and larger 14-inch wheels, which noticeably change the riding experience. The Xoom has real appeal, but it’s let down a little by its overall comfort, which is a crucial factor on a scooter. It could have had a bit more sporty character as well, particularly the exhaust. Prices for the Xoom 125 range start at Rs 86,900 and go up to Rs 92,900 for the top-spec variant, which means it offers good value and is definitely worth going for if you’re keen on the 14-inch wheels.

While the Xoom 125 range is the more affordable of the two, the Ntorq range offers far more variants that suit different budgets and preferences. As far as sporty scooters go, the Ntorq continues to strike a better blend between practicality and sportiness, and it also feels better built. It delivers on the fun-to-ride front without much compromise on efficiency and is noticeably more comfortable. Plus, the range of variants on offer has something for everyone, and due to these factors, it is our pick of these two.

Also see: Royal Enfield Hunter 350 vs Triumph Speed T4 comparison review 
 

The Royal Enfield Hunter 350’s recent update has made significant improvements to its appeal, which means it’s now time to ask where it stacks up against the competition. Its strongest rival is another neo-retro roadster with a British badge and a similar price point that’s aiming straight at the Hunter buyer.

The Triumph Speed T4 could be considered the Speed 400’s lesser sibling, but its reduced performance brought along increased tractability and better city manners, which makes for a fine fit for this kind of motorcycle. With its recent price revision, the Triumph Speed T4 now costs just Rs 21,000 more than the top Hunter, and that makes this a very valid comparison review.

Royal Enfield Hunter 350 vs Triumph Speed T4 design and features

Handsome modern classic lines with good quality levels

Both motorcycles wear clean, classic lines, and when parked side by side, they do look quite similar, especially since these test bikes have similar colour schemes. Both have round LED headlamps, slim 13-litre teardrop-shaped fuel tanks and clean tail sections. While the Triumph here has a black finish for the exhaust, the bike is now shipped with a classier-looking brushed stainless steel finish.

Both bikes have semi-digital instrument consoles as well, and the top Hunter models come with RE’s Tripper navigation display. This is a small circular TFT display that shows simple arrow-based navigation assists when connected to the RE app, and it doubles up as a clock when not in use.

The fit and finish on these bikes are commendable, and both will leave you with a happy feeling about the quality you get for the money paid. While neither of the two is a large bike by any means, the Hunter comes across as slightly smaller. This can be felt in the seat height, which is at 790mm on the Hunter and 806mm on the Speed. For shorter riders, this can make a crucial difference.

There’s only a kilo of difference between the two on paper, but the Triumph manages to feel noticeably lighter on the move. Where the RE claws back some advantage is that it has a tighter turning radius. Both are reasonably spacious even for larger riders, but tall folk will find the knee-bend on the Triumph a little more comfortable thanks to the taller seat. If carrying a pillion is important, the Triumph does a little better here, too, in terms of the space, seat comfort and grab handles.

Royal Enfield Hunter 350 vs Triumph Speed T4 performance and efficiency

The Triumph has a big performance advantage

The common theme throughout this comparison is that these two bikes are really quite close to each other in most aspects. However, there is one area of great difference, and that is the engine. The Triumph’s single-cylinder liquid-cooled unit makes 31hp and 36Nm, which are both leaps ahead of the RE’s 20.2hp and 27Nm, and it shows in our performance tests. The Triumph’s 0-100 time of 8.08 seconds is nearly half of what it takes the Hunter to hit the same speed. Effectively, the Triumph can easily leave the Hunter behind in pretty much any situation and any gear, should you whack the throttle open.

It’s not like this is anything new, and pretty much any motorcycle at a similar price point will outrun an RE, but the difference here is that the Triumph manages to also retain a decent sense of character in its sound and tractable nature. Essentially, this engine makes for a nice fit with what kind of bike the Speed T4 is trying to be – even over the more powerful engine in the Speed 400.

To be fair, the Hunter comfortably keeps pace with the Triumph within the city, and all of us who rode them unanimously agreed that it was the more engaging engine. The Hunter’s slower thump, meaty low-end torque and delightful sound with that occasional pop from the exhaust make it a very endearing engine to live with inside the city. The T4’s fuelling is good, but the RE’s is even better, and its new slip-and-assist clutch is now just as light as the Triumph’s. While RE’s 5-speed transmission has one less gear, it has a slicker and more precise shift action.

Up to about 80kph, the Hunter is a thoroughly enjoyable bike to ride. While it can hold a steady 90-100kph with nearly no vibrations to be felt, there’s not a lot more performance in reserve. This means highway overtakes need some planning, and if you intend to do a lot of highway riding, the Triumph will be a better choice. Remarkably, the Triumph manages to give you all this extra performance while still consuming about the same amount of fuel in our tests.

Royal Enfield Hunter 350 vs Triumph Speed T4 ride comfort and handling

One bike has better seats, the other has better suspension

Where the T4 has a clear performance advantage, the Hunter claws back some ground when it comes to suspension and handling. With its latest update, it has gone from being uncomfortably stiff to pleasantly pliant. It handles potholes and bad roads without hammering the rider’s back like it used to, and we found that ride comfort was better than the Triumph’s. The T4 is not bad over broken surfaces, but if you hit bumps at higher speeds, the suspension feels a little underdamped and doesn’t cope as well as the Hunter’s.

It’s a similar story with the handling, where the Hunter has a more planted, confidence-inspiring feeling when leaned over that hasn’t been compromised with its new suspension. In comparison, the Triumph chassis gets a little more disturbed by things like central white lines in the road, and its MRF tyres weren’t as good as the Hunter’s Ceats in wet conditions.

The Hunter produced slightly shorter braking distances in our tests, but that was likely due to the ABS intrusion being a little higher on the Speed. In general riding conditions, the Triumph’s brakes have noticeably better bite and feel than the Hunter’s front disc, which is rather wooden and needs a full handful of the lever for strong braking.

Royal Enfield Hunter 350 vs Triumph Speed T4 verdict

Two different riding experiences, but one winner

The Hunter and Speed T4 are remarkably similar in the type of experience they’re trying to offer the rider. If you are someone who has no particular need for performance, you will probably enjoy the Hunter more, and the price savings will simply be a bonus on top.

However, with on-road prices of over Rs 2 lakh, these bikes aren’t cheap, and they are likely to be someone’s first premium motorcycle purchase. With that in mind, it’s impossible to ignore just how much more performance the Triumph is giving you while still retaining the engaging and easy-going nature a bike like this should have – and that’s why it’s our winner here.

Also see: Royal Enfield Hunter 350 vs Triumph Speed T4 comparison video

BSA Gold Star 650 vs Royal Enfield Interceptor 650 comparison review
 

Explosive performance at an accessible price – these words instantly bring a certain orange machine to mind. Since 2013, the KTM 390 Duke has dominated its class, and every single rival that has gone up against the Duke has retreated with its tail tucked between its legs. But today, the Duke will have to deal with its toughest challenge yet posed by the Aprilia Tuono 457.

KTM 390 Duke vs Aprilia Tuono 457 design and ergonomics

Both have sharp designs and can feel tight for taller folks

With some bikes, just a glance is enough to tell you what they are meant to do, and the designs of these two machines are true to their function. Neither is classically good-looking, and both are aggressively styled, although in its latest avatar, the 390 might be too aggressive for some. 

The rider’s triangle is the first difference you’ll notice, and while both are reasonably comfortable, on the Aprilia, there is a bit of a forward reach to the handlebar, whereas you’re almost bolt upright on the KTM. Over bad roads, this will be felt in the lower back. With their 800mm perches, these bikes will be welcoming for shorter riders but feel cramped for taller ones. 

At 5’11”, I just about fit on both these machines, but taller riders should look elsewhere. The Duke can be had with an accessory tall seat, raising its perch to 820mm, which will liberate some knee room for taller riders. The optional comfort seat on the Tuono keeps the same height as the stock unit. Neither is geared toward all-out comfort, and that’s par for the course. 

KTM 390 Duke vs Aprilia Tuono 457 quality and features

Duke has larger number of useful features and better quality all across

Modern-day KTMs have made huge strides when it comes to the quality front, and that is clearly visible here. The Tuono 457, with its aluminium chassis, looks great, but crucial areas, such as the cheap-feeling key, the more basic levers and an ugly misaligned panel on the headlight surround, just feel like a step down from the KTM. Fun fact: the adjustable brake lever on the Tuono is a Rs 5,500 accessory (!) and appears to be the exact same unit as the one on the Gen 2 390 Duke that sells for under Rs 1,000.

Another facet where the Duke is ahead of the Tuono is the features (and bragging rights) department. Its suspension has damping adjustability, the bidirectional quickshifter is standard, it comes with a cornering anti-lock braking system (ABS) and traction control (TC), and the latest model even has cruise control. The Tuono, with its three riding modes, switchable ABS and TC and preload-adjustable front suspension, has a good level of kit, unlike the contender from the tuning fork brand. As for the Aprilia’s bidirectional quickshifter? A cool Rs 20,000 for that. 

KTM 390 Duke vs Aprilia Tuono 457 handling

Both are superb handlers and will put a big smile on your face

However, you don’t ride a bike’s build quality or features, so I’ll stop rambling about that and start raving about how these things behave on the road. Both take very different approaches to their chassis – the KTM uses a steel trellis, while the Aprilia has an aluminium perimeter frame (the only one in this class to do so). Predictably, their behaviour on the side of the tyre is markedly different, but both are almost equally fast in the real world. 

It might sound cliché, but the Duke feels a lot like a supermoto, and the Tuono feels a lot like a sportbike with a taller handlebar in the corners. They handle with a different feeling: the Duke prioritises lightness and reactivity, while the Aprilia feels agile but also beautifully composed. That said, both handle very well, and you’ll have a great time on either machine, whether on road or track. 

KTM 390 Duke vs Aprilia Tuono 457 ride comfort

Duke's suspension more pliant; Tuono's brake fade issue an annoyance

While chasing twisty ribbons of tarmac is what owners will dream of doing with these bikes, the reality is they will be used for commuting more often. Mumbai’s lumpy roads are a proper test of a bike’s suspension, and here, the Duke’s sophisticated setup will be worth its weight in gold. The bike feels a lot more absorptive while going over bumps, without sacrificing poise when you turn up the wick.  

In comparison, the Tuono’s suspension system, carried over unchanged from the RS 457, feels much stiffer, and you will feel more of the bumps. The brake-fade issue under repeated hard use on the 457s is another sore point, and while it isn’t a very difficult fix, Aprilia should’ve ironed it out by now. Especially since customers have shared that certain dealerships say warranties will be cancelled when brake master cylinders are upgraded. 

KTM 390 Duke vs Aprilia Tuono 457 engine and performance

Aprilia's engine is the star of the show, KTM is quick but not as characterful

So far, it’s neck and neck, but one area where the Tuono scores a massive victory is the engine. The twin-cylinder mill is smooth, brimming with character, and makes all the right sounds. Its strong low-end and mid-range also mean you needn’t frantically work the gearbox, and it also pops nice power wheelies. In outright performance, the Tuono is quicker in the 0-100kph sprint by just 0.3 seconds, but its engine’s effortless grunt is more apparent in the roll-on acceleration tests. 

Hopping onto the KTM after the Aprilia will make you realise you need to work the gearbox more and give the engine revs to make quick progress. You’ll also feel a more pronounced buzz, especially in the handlebar. However, the Duke’s refinement levels are respectable for a single-cylinder engine of this size with this level of performance. That said, the excitable hooligan nature of the KTM is great fun, if that’s the riding experience you’re after. 

KTM 390 Duke vs Aprilia Tuono 457 price and verdict

Tuono is an impressive machine let down by pressing issues

All that back and forth now means I need to tell you which bike is the winner. The Tuono 457 feels very special to ride, but it’s nearly Rs 1.50 lakh more (on-road, Mumbai) with the accessory quickshifter installed. The engine and sublime handling are two very big factors to get one, and this motorcycle won’t be as common a sight on our roads as the Duke. There are buyers out there for whom the extra Rs 1.5 lakh will be justified because the Tuono feels like a scaled-down big bike, which is a very special feeling. 

However, in the last couple of months, several customers have reported varied and significant engine reliability issues. Aprilia India recently attributed these issues to unauthorised modifications and/or irregular service and says that it has addressed the few genuine cases. Whether the issues are fully addressed is something only time can tell. 

Beyond that, there is no escaping the fact that the 390 Duke has a much more accessible price, more features and better ride comfort, and it can be nearly as fast as the Tuono. There were some isolated engine incidents at the beginning, but Bajaj swiftly addressed them, and the bike has been around for long enough that there are no significant reliability concerns. All this is why the KTM 390 Duke will continue to reign in this segment.

Also See: KTM 390 Duke vs Aprilia Tuono 457 comparison video

Also See:

KTM 390 Enduro R vs Kawasaki KLX230 comparison review

As India’s off-road riding community grows, so does the need for purpose-built but cost-effective machines. KTM’s 390 Enduro R and Kawasaki’s KLX230 offer two vastly different interpretations of what an accessible, dirt-focused bike should be. While there’s a huge gap in their performance, their price tag is where they are quite close. Both claim to be proper off-roaders, but which one truly fits the brief?

KTM 390 Enduro R vs Kawasaki KLX230: Design and features

Both motorcycles are designed to go off-road but take a different approach

The 390 Enduro R may appear like a stripped-down 390 Adventure at first glance, but look closer, and you can appreciate KTM’s effort to keep its design unique. Based on the 390 Adventure platform, it gets a larger 18-inch rear wheel, a smaller 9-litre fuel tank, less bodywork, and off-road oriented tyres. The plastic tank and black panels look a tad budget and don’t seem like they’d age too well.

The 4.2-inch TFT on the KTM is packed with information but doesn't get a fuel gauge

While the dirty white panels give this motorcycle a proper “enduro” aesthetic, the premature discolouration is a bit concerning. That said, the rest of the motorcycle feels solidly built. The switchgear quality is good and feels tactile. The tiny TFT display looks premium, and it shows most of what you’d want to see, except for a fuel gauge, which would’ve been handy while exploring remote trails.

The KLX230's monotone LCD is quite basic and misses out on a gear position indicator.

In contrast, the Kawasaki KLX230 feels solid and has durable plastics and a no-nonsense design. Discolouration seems to be a common theme, and the KLX230’s dual-tone seat gets dirty fairly easily. It gets an LCD with basic information and a simple layout. While it includes a fuel gauge, it skips a rev counter and gear position indicator – features you will miss but can learn to live without. The switchgear feels budget and a tad rudimentary. It’s also worth mentioning that parts like the mirrors, indicators and levers, which are likely to get damaged off-road, cost significantly more for the KLX as it is a CKD import.

KTM 390 Enduro R vs Kawasaki KLX230: Ergonomics

Both bikes are ergonomically compromised in their own way.

At 860mm, the KTM’s seat height is tall but not extreme, and riders around 5’7” should be able to get the balls of their feet down. The Enduro R has a nicer seat and is the better option if you ever need to ferry a pillion. Standing up on the Enduro R feels more natural, and over time, you’ll prefer riding it on your feet. The Enduro R also offers decent mounting points for luggage, and it will definitely be the better option if you intend to cover bigger distances to get to interesting locations. A noticeable flaw is the engine guard that will bump your knees, nudging you to stand.

The KTM is better suited for standing up and riding.

The KLX230 has a similarly upright posture, but its ergonomics feel a bit too forward-set while standing, especially for taller riders who will want a higher handlebar. On paper, it has a taller 880mm perch, but once seated on it, the suspension sags enough that even riders around 5’7” can touch down easier than the KTM. However, the narrow and firm standard seat quickly becomes uncomfortable on the road.

The 390 Enduo R also has better seating ergonomics

The more unusual challenge is getting the KLX230 off its stand – a task that needs to be done with the suspension unloaded, as the rear shock doesn’t allow the side-stand to retract when loaded. There are no built-in mounting points for luggage, but Kawasaki sells an accessory carrier.

KTM 390 Enduro R vs Kawasaki KLX230: Performance and efficiency

The 390 Enduro R outclases the KLX230 by a long shot in terms of performance

This is where the two bikes couldn’t be more different. The Enduro R borrows its 399cc liquid-cooled engine from the other 390s and puts out the same 46hp and 39Nm – more than double the KLX’s peak output. However, on technical trails, this performance can be a bit much. Its motor doesn’t have much of a bottom end and then easily spins up the rear when the revs build. That said, the engine is decently tractable and rides well on the road with the same highway cruising performance as its Adventure siblings.

Despite the tame nature, the 390 Enduro R is still a hoot on dirt.

The engine may feel slightly tame for seasoned riders used to KTM’s raw nature, but that makes it surprisingly beginner-friendly. The Enduro R can cruise at triple-digit speeds all day and doesn’t feel out of place in traffic either. With its 9-litre tank, the KTM can achieve about 200km on a full tank in the real world. What makes the KTM even more manageable are its electronics – switchable ABS, a very effective off-road traction control, two riding modes, and a bi-directional quickshifter, all make life easier.

Given the huge difference on paper, you’d expect the KLX230 to struggle, but it keeps up remarkably well off-road. It uses a simpler, smaller engine and there’s no sudden surge, but it has great bottom and mid-range. In fact, we definitely preferred this engine for off-road riding. Naturally, on road, the KTM easily leaves the Kawasaki behind, and anything above 90kph feels laboured; you also need to plan your overtakes.

The lack of power allows the KLX230 to feel more stable and predictable off-road.

Surprisingly, when ridden at higher speeds on- and off-road, there was only a 4kpl difference between the Kawasaki and the KTM. This is largely due to the KLX’s smaller engine that needs to work harder, and we often found that it needed filling sooner than the KTM. The KLX has no electronic aids apart from switchable ABS, but truth be told, it doesn’t need any.

KTM 390 Enduro R vs Kawasaki KLX230: Ride and handling

The KLX230 has much better off-road handling than the 390 Enduro R.

The KTM gets adjustable suspension, but the India-spec bike gets reduced suspension travel compared to the export model, and we also found that the damping control can be improved. Ridden over the same rocky trails, the KTM is more bouncy and fights the same surfaces that the KLX glides over, which makes it tougher to manage. Reducing the compression damping to make it more compliant only results in a tendency to bottom out over jumps, so we elected to deal with the bounciness instead.

The 390 Enduro R strikes a much better balance between road and off-road handling

In tighter off-road sections, its 37kg weight disadvantage over the KLX also becomes noticeable and demands more from the rider. While the suspension lacks the plushness of the Kawasaki off-road, it shines on the tarmac. The Enduro R resists diving under braking, doesn’t squat under acceleration, and can be hustled in corners like a road bike despite its dual-purpose tyres.

Thanks to the light weight, the KLX230 loves big jumps

The KLX230’s suspension componentry is more basic, but despite that, it is far more capable off-road and soaks up imperfections with ease, giving riders more confidence to explore. It boasts 265mm of ground clearance, but that drops considerably with rider weight. The KLX is also more forgiving of rider mistakes, but push it, and it begins to show its limits, which is a reminder that neither of these bikes can be used for a very high level of off-road riding. On the road, the KLX’s dirt orientation is evident in the excessive front-end dive under braking. Yet, in our braking tests, the KLX was nearly on par with the KTM, thanks to its significantly lighter weight.

The KLX230 isn't at home around corners and can feel too soft.

The KLX changes direction easily, and it feels very light and nimble. However, its on-road handling is a bit vague and takes some getting used to. The MRF tyres are not bad, but the Mitas E-07s on the KTM are noticeably better.

KTM 390 Enduro R vs Kawasaki KLX230: Verdict

The KTM offers great value for just an additional Rs 6,000

At Rs 3.30 lakh, the simpler KLX’s value proposition feels a bit lopsided. It lacks features, and its highway manners aren’t comparable to the KTM’s. Kawasaki is reportedly working on a localised version, which could improve the price equation significantly, but that’s still some time away.

Given the minimal price delta between the two, the 390 Enduro R makesa great case for itself.

Still, the KLX230 is a charming little trail bike, and we enjoyed riding it off-road a lot more than the KTM. It’s unintimidating, lightweight, and promises to be reliable – the kind of machine that lets you explore and make mistakes without punishing you. As a second or third bike, it’s an excellent option. But as a one-bike solution? Only if you’re a true off-road maniac.

For an additional Rs 7,000 over the KLX230, the 390 Enduro R offers higher performance, sophisticated electronics, and versatility. It’s more physically demanding off-road, but with enough skill and commitment, it will go where the KLX can while simultaneously being a more accomplished road bike. Its biggest shortcoming is its suspension, but KTM will bring in the international-spec longer-travel variant soon, albeit at a higher cost. For the small price delta between the two bikes, KTM’s 390 Enduro R makes a much stronger case for itself and is the better contender for a single-bike garage.

Also see: KTM 390 Adventure vs Royal Enfield Himalayan comparison review
 

Two of the most compelling options in the mid-capacity category in India are the 2025 KTM 390 Adventure and the Royal Enfield Himalayan 450. While both bikes promise adventure-ready capabilities, they take different approaches to design, features, performance and ride quality. However, the most significant difference between the two is their price, and we’re here to tell you if the new kid on the block justifies its higher price tag.

Form and function

The latest KTM 390 Adventure embraces a more rugged ADV-focused design. While it appears more premium than its predecessor, its underbelly exhaust design deviates from traditional adventure bikes.

The KTM’s headlamp easily outshines the RE’s.

Available in only two colours, the KTM’s aesthetic may not appeal to everyone, but it does feel modern and carries less visual bulk than the Himalayan. However, the extensive use of plastic panels means you will need to learn to live with buzzes and rattles, something our test bike already had.

The RE’s headlamp has adequate illumination.

The Royal Enfield Himalayan 450 has less of a traditional ADV aesthetic and instead focuses on a more muscular naked look with a big fuel tank, minimal bodywork and a small windscreen. The larger dimensions, heavier weight and distinct side-stand lean angle make it feel like a bigger motorcycle, but the downside is that this makes it heavy and intimidating for some riders. The Himalayan’s more metal-heavy construction gives it a greater sense of durability and toughness.

The 390 Adventure's TFT has a better user interface.

Both motorcycles have essential electronics such as a TFT display, switchable ABS and riding modes, but the KTM 390 Adventure goes one step ahead with segment-first features like cruise control, traction control, cornering ABS and dedicated ABS modes.

KTM's switchgear feels higher quality and more tactile.

The KTM’s user interface is smoother, retains rider preferences even after being switched off, and has a more premium feel with tactile switchgear.

Himalayan's circular TFT is legible even on a sunny day.

In contrast, the Himalayan 450’s electronics feel less refined. The mode-switching response is inconsistent, and the built-in Google Maps navigation, while excellent in theory, requires an unlocked smartphone screen to function, making it less practical.

The Enfield's switchgear doesn't feel nearly as tactile as the KTMs.

The toggle switch to browse the menu also feels flimsy and tricky to control, diminishing the user experience. Given these quirks, the KTM’s interface feels more polished and rider-friendly. 

Comfort and convenience

The KTM 390 Adventure has an upright seating position with wide handlebars, making it comfortable for taller riders. Its slightly forward-leaning stance aids control, while the taller windscreen provides better wind protection. However, the non-adjustable windscreen can be intrusive for some and blocks airflow, making city riding in hot weather uncomfortable. Its LED headlamp is among the best on any Indian motorcycle, significantly outperforming the Himalayan’s.

KTM doesn’t offer an alternative to their hard seat.

KTM has equipped the 390 Adventure with crash bars, a bash plate and handguards, but the bike lacks a centre stand and has limited luggage-mounting points. While KTM offers optional accessories, the Himalayan takes the lead in customisation.

Useful rear rack and optional touring seats make the Himalayan better equipped for a long tour.

Royal Enfield offers a wide range of OEM accessories, including luggage options, seat choices and crash protection. It has better standard luggage mounting points, and its tank guard doubles up as an extra mounting location. The optional touring seat is among the most comfortable in its class, making it better suited for long rides.

Off the beaten path

The KTM 390 Adventure is a significant 13kg lighter than the Himalayan, making it easier to manoeuvre. The lighter weight also helps shorter riders feel more confident in handling the bike, particularly off-road. The KTM’s throttle response is precise, its electronics enhance trail riding, and its brakes offer better control.

Thanks to its lighter weight, the KTM is easier to handle off-road.

The bi-directional quickshifter is a great addition, making gear shifts seamless – especially when wearing off-road boots. However, the KTM’s suspension struggles with aggressive off-road riding, frequently bottoming out. While KTM offers adjustable suspension, it doesn’t cope as well as the Himalayan, even when firmed up, and most riders would prefer a well-balanced setup out of the box.

The Himalayan 450, on the other hand, offers a superior suspension setup that absorbs off-road bumps effortlessly. Despite its heavier weight, it manages low-speed manoeuvres and jumps surprisingly well. The torquey engine is easy to control, and the clutch, though precise, is not as light as the KTM’s. The brakes require careful modulation, as the rear locks up easily. While lacking advanced electronic rider aids, the Himalayan still performs admirably in off-road conditions, handling about 95 percent of what the KTM does and keeping its rider more comfortable while at it.

On the open road

On highways, the KTM 390 Adventure is more engaging and stable and equipped with cruise control, which is a game-changer for long-distance touring. The KTM shares its main frame and engine with the 2024 KTM 390 Duke, but it features a bespoke rear subframe, swingarm and steering head for enhanced stability. It holds triple-digit speeds effortlessly and accelerates faster than the Himalayan. In our tests, the 390 Adventure was nearly a second quicker to 100kph, while roll-on acceleration is almost on par.

The Himalayan 450 offers a more tractable mid-range and better overall comfort. Its plush suspension smooths out rough patches, making it the better option for long-distance touring. It also has a larger fuel tank, improving range. However, the Himalayan’s handlebar vibrates at higher RPMs, leading to numb hands after extended riding.

Despite this, the Himalayan performs well as a commuter, with a tighter turning radius and smooth lane-splitting capabilities. Meanwhile, the KTM feels  smooth at highway speeds but has harsh vibrations in the footpegs at lower revs within the city. What took me by surprise were the Himalayan’s braking figures, which were pretty much on par with the KTM’s despite a significantly higher weight.

Different strokes for different folks 

Both motorcycles present compelling options depending on rider priorities. The KTM 390 Adventure offers lighter weight, superior electronics and stronger performance. The main attraction is that it is lighter and easier to ride than the Himalayan, and it has a chassis that is engaging both on and off the road. On the other hand, the Royal Enfield Himalayan 450 is a more rugged, comfortable and budget-friendly alternative.

The KTM is clearly the better adventure bike, but the issue arises when you look at the on-road price difference, which stretches to as much as Rs 80,000-90,000 in Mumbai. If you simply want the KTM’s lighter and friendlier nature, then the lower-spec 390 Adventure X with its 19-inch front wheel is the answer, especially since it costs the same as the Himalayan.

However, those willing to pay additional money for the standard 390 Adventure will probably be doing so for the extra edge in off-road performance, and that’s where the KTM’s suspension doesn’t quite match the expectation. That’s why, in this particular comparison, the Himalayan 450 just about wins by a whisker from a value-for-money perspective.

Also see: 

KTM 390 Adventure vs Royal Enfield Himalayan comparison video

CFMoto 450MT quick ride review

Here are two modern retro motorcycles that carry a British badge and a sizeable chunk of motorcycling history behind their names. At first glance, these two bikes seem relatively identical since they have similar designs, performance, engine capacity, weight and price. However, the difference is more apparent when these two are ridden back to back. BSA’s Gold Star is the new kid on the block and has no direct rival apart from Royal Enfield’s Interceptor 650. Both these motorcycles approach the same goal in a different manner, which delivers a very different riding experience overall. We’re here to tell you what those differences are and how these two stack up in the real world.

Flamboyance & Flair

Given their retro credentials, both motorcycles take a rather minimalist approach to their throwback aesthetics. There is abundant use of chrome, and while looks are subjective, I found myself gravitating a little more towards the Gold Star. Both motorcycles get a round headlamp, flat seats and a well-shaped fuel tank. They are available in multiple colours, depending on which the price can vary.

Classy retro dials fit the aesthetic, but the tiny screens are hard to read.

The feature list, too, is relatively minimal, and while the Interceptor 650 now gets an LED headlamp that outperforms the simple halogen setup on the Gold Star, BSA’s approach seems a tad more authentic, given the overall aesthetic. On the flip side, both motorcycles get analogue-styled dials, but I quite like the amber backlight on the Gold Star. However, there is no denying that the Interceptor 650’s dials are more readable and that the LCD screen has better visibility. The Gold Star is equipped with a Type-A and Type-C charging socket, while the Interceptor 650 gets a USB port that’s hidden away. Royal Enfield has also equipped the Interceptor with a set of adjustable levers – a welcome addition.

While the 650 has more expensive-feeling switchgear with aluminium housings, the Gold Star’s conventional switches are more straightforward to use. In terms of build quality, both motorcycles lack the premium touch and feel like they’re built on a budget. That said, the Gold Star is by far the best offering to come out of Classic Legends’ stable despite having areas that could use improvement. Early signs of rust and  a loose-fitting side panel did seem concerning, but the brand says it is working on improving its overall quality. The Interceptor 650, too, has some signs of rust, but overall, it feels like the better-built machine in this comparison.

Interceptor’s clocks are simpler, but the larger digital display is more legible.

It is worth mentioning that the Gold Star does not come with a main stand as standard, and BSA – for now – doesn’t offer one as an accessory either.

RE’s footpeg placement is a well-known issue.

The Interceptor 650 is not only equipped with a main stand but also has a higher ground clearance. My issue with this RE is with its footpegs, which tend to jut out and come in the way while you ‘walk’ the motorcycle in traffic. While this issue is less bothersome for taller riders, shorter ones will find it more tedious.

In the saddle

The Gold Star’s riding position feels more natural and less aggressive in comparison. You get a slightly more upright seating posture and a more relaxed footpeg position. Coupled with a soft seat and a 780mm seat height, this is more approachable for shorter riders, but someone over 6 feet may find the leg space to be a bit cramped. Rishaad did wish for a slightly firmer seat, which is an easy fix in comparison to the Interceptor 650’s shortcomings.

Gold Star has a wider seat with softer padding.

Royal Enfield has built the Interceptor 650 with slightly more sportier ergonomics. It’s noticeable from the moment you swing your leg over its taller and narrower seat, and you’ll notice a more forward lean as you reach for the handlebar. Its footpegs, too, are slightly higher, and the narrow seat does rob it of some comfort as it puts more pressure on your tail bones and causes saddle soreness sooner than you’d expect. Royal Enfield does sell a more comfortable accessory, but it doesn’t exactly solve the problem – only makes it slightly more bearable.

Seat is well cushioned but uncomfortably narrow.

Take aim, fire!

The BSA Gold Star’s single-cylinder engine is one of the largest in its class and traces its roots back to the Rotax engine used in the BMW Funduro F650. This motor packs a healthy low- to mid-range performance, builds power from as low as 2,500rpm, and does so linearly. Despite the single-cylinder unit, BSA has done a commendable job of keeping the vibrations in check. Though it is short on one gear, the Gold Star’s engine and gearbox combination work well in tandem and will rarely ever leave you wanting that extra gear. That said, I have a few gripes with this motor, starting with its low-speed throttle response, which can sometimes feel too snatchy. We faced low-speed stalling issues with both motorcycles, but the Gold Star stalled more frequently.

Underdamped rear shocks are the main complaint.

The Interceptor 650, on the other hand, felt a lot smoother thanks to its extra cylinder and had a more pleasant sound to its exhaust. RE’s 650cc motor will happily cruise in higher gears at lower speeds, and the tractable motor will even reward you with a soothing note each time you downshift, but it is no match for the BSA’s mid-range punch. It felt like the more engaging motor, regardless of the speed or riding style I took up. Our numbers reveal that the Gold Star is the quicker motorcycle of the two. Not only did the Gold Star have better acceleration figures, but it also showcased quicker in-gear acceleration. It is also worth noting that we tested the BSA in the wet, which means we could expect even better numbers with dry tarmac.

Interceptor’s suspension setup does a better job.

Fuel economy is where the Interceptor 650 shines with a larger fuel tank, longer range and better city and highway efficiency. Its engine also handles high-speed touring better, with a calmer demeanour at higher RPMs. However, in city traffic, the BSA is more accessible to ride due to its more relaxed riding position and lighter clutch. Neither engine had a heating issue in bumper-to-bumper traffic and kept their cool in tight jams. 

It’s about to get bumpy

In terms of weight, both motorcycles have a mere 5kg variance, but the difference feels higher, and the Interceptor comes across as a heavier, more cumbersome machine. The Gold Star is nimble at low speeds and showcases capable handling around flat, well-paved corners. However, its underdamped rear suspension is its biggest flaw and renders the ride and handling a bit too wallowy around most bumpy roads. It can take getting used to, but it does hamper the overall day-to-day experience with this motorcycle. On the flip side, the Gold Star’s Pirelli tyres and Brembo brakes do a fantastic job of providing stopping power, and the lever packs a decent amount of feedback. All in all, the bike rides well, but it deserves better rear suspension. 

RE’s brakes and tyres aren’t as good as the BSA’s.

While not exceptional, the Interceptor 650’s suspension has been improved over time and feels more balanced than the BSA’s. However, its brakes and tyres could use some improvement. Regarding handling, the Interceptor feels more capable with higher lean angles, but it takes more work to manage at low speeds in heavy traffic.

BSA’s fit and finish can be improved.

Old but gold

Price isn’t likely to be the deciding factor, as both bikes are similarly priced. The actual choice comes down to the experience you’re looking for. The BSA Gold Star offers a more authentic retro experience with a delightful torque-driven engine. It’s more comfortable, easier to manage in the city, and can be fun around well-paved corners. Although it falls short on one cylinder and the lower refinement that comes with it, it makes up for it with its engaging power delivery and solid braking performance. It is our choice when it comes to a modern, classic riding experience. However, Classic Legends must prove its long-term reliability. And while the quality levels on its bikes have improved over time, there is still some way to go.

BSA’s brake and tyre combo works surprisingly well.

The Royal Enfield has a gem of an engine, and if you want a twin-cylinder experience, it has to be the RE. What also works in its favour is RE’s extensive service network and its vast accessory list. So, while we enjoyed riding the BSA more, the Interceptor 650 might be the safer bet for some people.

Also See: BSA Gold Star 650 vs Royal Enfield Interceptor 650 comparison video