The recently launched Tata Punch facelift made the sub-compact SUV more rounded than before, bringing in tweaked styling, more features and an all-new turbo-petrol manual that’s shared with the larger Nexon compact SUV.

Thanks to its pricing, the top variants of the Punch iTurbo overlap with the lower- to mid-spec variants of the Nexon, which makes it an interesting proposition. So, should you go for the more spacious Nexon or the compact little Punch? We brought together two variants close in price to figure this out.

Tata Punch vs Tata Nexon: design and dimensions 

Obviously, it’s the Punch that has the more compact footprint and, as such, is smaller than the Nexon in every metric. The Nexon is 119mm longer overall, 62mm wider, 5mm taller, and has a 53mm longer wheelbase. This makes the Punch more city-friendly and easier to manoeuvre in tight spaces. 

Still, it has an impressive 193mm of ground clearance (compared to the Nexon’s 205mm), and being based on the ALFA platform, unlike the Nexon, the Punch benefits from 90-degree opening doors, which make access to the cabin easier. The Nexon’s larger dimensions translate into a larger boot – 382 litres vs 366 litres for the Punch – but in reality, they both can fit a similar amount of luggage. The Punch does have the higher loading lip, though. 

As for styling, the facelift brings the Punch in line with Tata’s latest design language. The reworked front end includes new vertically stacked LED headlamps, split LED DRLs and a new bumper. The alloys are now larger at 16 inches and feature a new dual-tone design. At the rear, there’s now a new connected LED light bar, like all Tata SUVs.

The Nexon clearly sits in the next size bracket, both in dimensions and presence. It also has the distinct Tata family look, complete with LED lighting elements and LED light bar at the rear. However, the tapering coupé-like roofline and curvy fenders lend it its distinct identity and road presence. Like the Punch, the Nexon also gets 16-inch dual-tone alloys, plastic body cladding and roof rails, all of which help add a bit of character.

Tata Punch vs Tata Nexon: interior and features

Like the exterior, there are similarities inside the cabin too. With the facelift, the Punch falls more in line with the latest Tata SUVs, featuring a two-spoke gloss-black steering wheel with an illuminated Tata logo and a touch-based climate control panel, though it isn’t intuitive to use on the move. The dash, like the Nexon, features different textures and a light-coloured panel. The Punch also has dual-tone upholstery, which helps aesthetics. However, its front seats don’t feel as accommodating as the Nexon’s, but thanks to the facelift’s better cushioning and extended thigh support, comfort has improved over the outgoing Punch. 

Rear-seat space is reasonable given the Punch’s size, and the flat floor does help matters, but the narrower cabin means three adults here will be a squeeze. The Punch does get a centre armrest and charging ports at the rear, which this variant of the Nexon doesn’t. The Punch’s cabin also features more storage spaces.

The Nexon, in this Creative+ S trim, features a predominantly black theme for the dash and the upholstery, which robs you of that sense of space to some extent. The quality of materials and fit/finish is similar in both, but the Nexon does feature some soft-touch materials on the door cards, which help it feel slightly more premium. 

The Nexon’s front seats are larger, but they don’t feel as comfy as the Punch’s thanks to their shape and cushioning. The Nexon also misses out on a centre armrest at the front, which is replaced by a cupholder. Higher variants do get an armrest, but that comes at the expense of cupholders, which are oddly placed in the glovebox. At the rear, the Nexon is better than the Punch in all departments, be it knee room, headroom, shoulder room, under-thigh support and seat cushioning. Thanks to the wider cabin, three adults can sit here comfortably.

There are some significant differences when it comes to features between the two SUVs. Commonalities include auto LED headlamps, auto wipers, 16-inch alloys, a 10.25-inch touchscreen with wireless smartphone integration, a digital driver’s display, a sunroof, a 360-degree parking camera, auto climate control, cruise control and rear AC vents. 

In addition, the Punch Accomplished+ S gets a wireless phone charger, a 7-inch instrument cluster (Nexon gets a 4-inch unit), ambient lighting, an auto-dimming IRVM, a centre rear armrest and an 8-speaker audio system, compared to the Nexon’s 4-speaker system. Meanwhile, the Nexon Creative+ S gets drive modes like Eco, City and Sport, which the Punch doesn’t. It’s worth noting, however, that the Nexon also gets all the features of the Punch, and some more, but in the higher variants.

There’s a difference when it comes to safety. Both SUVs feature 6 airbags, ESP, traction control, hill-hold assist, and both have received a full 5-star crash safety rating from Bharat NCAP. However, the Punch does get a tyre pressure monitoring system, which the Nexon misses out on.

Tata Punch vs Tata Nexon: performance, ride and handling 

Both the Punch and Nexon use the same 1.2-litre, three-cylinder, MPFi turbo-petrol engine that puts out 120hp and 170Nm, and comes paired with a 6-speed manual gearbox. It’s worth noting, though, that this engine can also be had with 5-speed manual, 6-speed AMT and 7-speed DCT options in the Nexon.

With a lower kerb weight of around 1,143kg, the Punch has better power-to-weight and torque-to-weight ratios than the Nexon, which has an approximate kerb weight of around 1,350kg. In our preliminary performance test, the Punch clocked a 0-100kph time of 11.56sec, narrowly edging out the Nexon’s 12.11sec time. There’s a more prominent gap in rolling acceleration, with the Punch doing 20-80kph in third gear in 10.98sec, while the Nexon took 12.85sec.

What is also similar is the driving experience. There are some noticeable vibrations in both at idle, though it does smoothen out on the move. The engine is quick to respond to throttle inputs, and save for a step up around 2,000rpm, power delivery is linear. The 6-speed manual gearbox has well-defined gates in both SUVs, but the throws are long, and the shift action isn’t the slickest.

What also doesn’t help matters is the snappy clutch, which requires careful modulation for a smooth drive. The Nexon does have the advantage of drive modes, however, which alter the SUV’s response. 

However, thanks to a shorter gear lever, more compact dimensions and lighter kerb weight, the Punch does feel the more engaging of the two and is easier to drive as well. As for efficiency, the Nexon has a claimed figure of 17.44kpl, while Tata is yet to reveal the Punch’s figure. But realistically, expect the fuel efficiency to hover in the single digits to low teens, depending on how you drive. Another small yet significant point of difference is that the Nexon’s fuel tank is slightly larger than the Punch’s, which means a slightly healthier driving range.

An inherent strength of Tata models is ride comfort and handling, and both SUVs impress in this regard. Where the Punch feels more nimble and eager, the Nexon feels more assured and planted around bends. The Nexon’s wider track, wider tyres, longer wheelbase and heavier weight also make it feel more composed at higher speeds and on highways.

The steering on both SUVs also adds to the driving experience. At low speeds, it is light, which makes manoeuvring in traffic and parking easy, and it remains consistent and accurate as speeds rise. Bump absorption in both SUVs is excellent too. The Punch and Nexon both feel tough and take potholes, ruts and broken roads in their stride with ease. Both ride with the maturity of SUVs from a class above, so there’s little that separates them here.

Tata Punch vs Tata Nexon: price and verdict 

Coming to pricing, the Punch Accomplished+ S costs Rs 9.80 lakh, while the Nexon Creative+ S is priced at Rs 10.34 lakh (ex-showroom, India), a difference of Rs 54,000. Both SUVs come well-equipped, have similar performance, and excel in the ride and handling department.

The Punch, in its turbo guise, has the edge in terms of outright acceleration, certain feel-good features and a lower price; and being smaller, it’s also easier to drive and park in the city. As such, the Punch is the one to go for if you want a tough, small and feature-rich car that you would drive yourself mostly in the city.  

The Nexon, on the other hand, is bigger, has more road presence, and is more spacious on the inside. It feels the more mature of the two on the road, more so on highways, and it doesn’t miss out on any crucial features compared to the Punch, apart from TPMS. Therefore, the Nexon represents a more rounded package than the Punch, and as a result, it would be our pick, especially for family buyers.

The Hyundai Creta has long been an indomitable force and the leader in the midsize SUV segment. Over the years, competition has intensified, but the Creta has successfully gone toe-to-toe with them all. Now it’s got another challenger to square off against.

Enter the all-new Tata Sierra, a thoroughly modern SUV that has generated significant buzz thanks to its famous moniker and a standout design that borrows cues from the original. Then there’s the upmarket interiors, extensive equipment list and multiple powertrain options. On paper then, it appears Tata has arrived fully prepared to take on the segment benchmark head-on.

For this comparison, we have the top-spec Accomplished Plus variant of the Sierra with a 1.5-litre direct injection turbo-petrol automatic. It takes on the sportiest and range-topping Creta, the N Line N10 dual-tone. The Hyundai is powered by a 1.5-litre direct-injection turbo-petrol engine and comes in at Rs 20.09 lakh, ex-showroom, while the Sierra’s list price is Rs 20.99 lakh. On paper, they’re closely matched; on the road, their characters couldn’t be more different.

Explore full specs, features, and a price breakdown in our Creta vs Sierra comparison

Tata Sierra vs Hyundai Creta: Exterior design

Being substantially larger, the Sierra unquestionably makes a stronger visual statement. Its taller stance, imposing proportions, 19-inch alloy wheels and the striking ‘Andaman Adventure’ yellow paint on our car lend it considerable road presence. The design cleverly blends nostalgia with modernity – the wraparound glass effect is a nod to the original Sierra, while the clean surfacing and upright proportions feel contemporary. That said, the bluff rear design may divide opinion.

The Creta, by contrast, is a familiar sight. The facelifted version has been on sale since 2024, and the N Line adds a healthy dose of sportiness – red accents, revised bumpers, twin muffler tips, unique badging and sportier alloy wheels. It may not command attention quite like the Sierra, but it feels cohesive and polished, with tighter panel gaps and consistently strong fit and finish.

Tata Sierra vs Hyundai Creta: Interior and features

The Sierra’s cabin feels markedly contemporary, and Tata’s efforts to elevate perceived quality is immediately evident. In fact, material quality and overall finish are arguably the best we’ve seen from the brand to date.
The dashboard is dominated by a seamlessly integrated triple-screen layout. The relatively low-set dash, complemented by the commanding seating position improves forward visibility. The front seats are broad and supportive, and the adjustable under-thigh support enhances comfort for taller occupants.

The infotainment system is slick and responsive, with sharp resolution and one of the best 360-degree camera displays in the segment. The dedicated passenger screen is more than a novelty and adds a layer of indulgence. Furthermore, its Dolby Atmos sound system delivers strong output, although purists find its bass-heaviness slightly overbearing.

However, usability isn’t entirely flawless. The gear selector lacks tactility and can feel slow to respond, occasionally slipping into neutral during quick parking manoeuvres. The touch-sensitive HVAC control panel is not easy to operate on the move. The wireless charging pad, positioned ahead of the centre console, is conceptually smart but compromised by its smooth base; phones tend to slide out under acceleration or cornering.

At the rear, space is a clear advantage. Thanks to the longer wheelbase, knee room is generous, headroom is excellent, and the bright upholstery – combined with the expansive panoramic sunroof – enhances the sense of airiness. Seating three abreast is easier here, and all three occupants get adjustable headrests.

Tata lists boot capacity at 622 litres to the roof, but measured below the parcel shelf, it is around 450 litres. While its loading lip is slightly higher, the Sierra’s squarer cargo area makes it more accommodating overall.

The Creta N Line’s cabin adopts a contrasting approach. The all-black upholstery with red accents reinforces its sporty theme. While the darker tones limit the sense of space, the design works and the overall fit and finish are exemplary. That said, it doesn’t offer the same generous use of soft-touch materials as the Sierra.

The dual displays are crisp and intuitive, and while the infotainment system lacks wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto (requiring an aftermarket adapter), the user interface remains among the best in the segment. Crucially, Hyundai retains physical buttons for climate and key functions too – a significant advantage in everyday usability. Controls operate with great finesse.

The front seats are supportive, but the fixed armrest slightly detracts from long-distance comfort. Rear space is adequate, but the Sierra enjoys a noticeable advantage in headroom and cabin width. The Creta’s larger central tunnel also compromises middle-seat comfort.

Tata Sierra vs Hyundai Creta: Powertrain and performance

Both SUVs are powered by a 1.5-litre direct-injection turbo-petrol engine producing 160hp. Torque figures are nearly identical at 255Nm for the Sierra and 253Nm for the Creta. However, a key differentiator is weight; at 1,552kg, the Sierra is 183kg heavier than the Creta.

Despite this disadvantage, Tata’s new 1.5-litre Hyperion engine impresses with its performance, refinement and smoothness. Power delivery is linear and strong at lower revs, building speed progressively without dramatic spikes. The 6-speed torque converter complements this relaxed character, delivering smooth and unobtrusive shifts even during kickdown. It prioritises comfort over urgency, upshifts quite early and doesn’t spin its engine as fast as the Creta.

On the highway, the Sierra feels effortless, with ample power in reserve for overtakes. Its added mass masks the sensation of speed. Make no mistake, though – it is a surprisingly quick sprinter. It accelerates from 0-100kph in just 9.49 seconds, 0.59 seconds quicker than the Creta. And this gap only widens as the speeds increase.

Switch to the Creta N Line, and the difference is apparent. Its turbo-petrol engine feels more eager, freer revving and delivers its performance in a more dramatic manner. While both cars get drive modes, the Sport mode in the N Line sharpens responses a bit more prominently.

Even though the Hyundai’s 7-speed dual-clutch automatic isn’t the quickest around, between the two, it feels more responsive than the Sierra’s torque converter, which seems more tuned towards smoothness than performance. The Creta’s paddle shifters, which give drivers manual control over the gearbox, enhance engagement much more than those in the Sierra, which very often fail to respond to a driver input due to a higher threshold (more conservative setup). On the flipside, in stop-and-go city traffic, the Hyundai’s gearbox can occasionally feel a bit jerky.

Tata Sierra vs Hyundai Creta: Ride comfort

Like all modern Tata vehicles, the Sierra excels when it comes to ride comfort. Aided by the frequency-selective dampers, it absorbs bad roads confidently. You can feel a hint of firmness at low speeds, even more so due to the 19-inch wheels; however, the Sierra feels composed and tough, even over the most broken patches of road. Its high 205mm ground clearance adds to the driver’s confidence while tackling bad roads. Handling is stable, and its mature road manners add to its touring credentials. The steering is light but lacks sharpness.

Being the lighter car, the Creta feels a lot more agile and playful in comparison. It’s lighter on its feet, with a more direct steering and better front-end response. As far as ride comfort goes, the N Line feels stiff-kneed, and its bump absorption capability is nowhere as forgiving as the Sierra, especially on badly broken surfaces.

Tata Sierra vs Hyundai Creta: Verdict

There’s a reason why the Hyundai Creta has been dominating the midsize SUV segment – it is a fundamentally sorted product that has hit the market’s sweet spot. It has everything that buyers are looking for – user-friendliness, space, comfort, refinement, features, and moreover, it is backed by Hyundai’s widespread support network.

Expanding over a price range of Rs 10.79 lakh to Rs 20.20 lakh, it caters to a wide spectrum of buyers, giving them multiple powertrain choices – petrol, turbo-petrol and diesel, with manual and automatic options. The Creta remains one of the easiest options to recommend – one you can barely go wrong with.

Our test Sierra had some small niggles – the sunroof failed to operate on a few occasions. So, Tata needs to work harder to ensure the user experience is improved and consistent. However, as things stand, there’s plenty going for the Sierra.

It seems Tata has taken the Creta template and improved further. The Sierra offers a stronger road presence, more space and better rear-seat comfort and a genuinely premium-feeling cabin. The new engine also helps the Sierra pip the N Line in performance, and it rides better too. The Sierra does come in at a premium, but with all that’s going for it, it feels justifiable. Tata has then finally built a rival that doesn’t just compete, it edges ahead. Over to you, Hyundai. Your move next!

The compact SUV space is India’s most crowded segment, with no fewer than seven contenders measuring just under four metres in length. Largely owner-driven, these cars are expected to be practical, user friendly and feature packed, while also delivering a strong dose of aspirational appeal. Hyundai has now introduced the second-generation Venue, built on an all-new platform and designed to build upon the strengths of its predecessor. But does it stand tall against its fiercest rivals? To find out, we’ve lined it up against the Maruti Brezza, Tata Nexon, Kia Sonet, Skoda Kylaq, Mahindra XUV 3XO and Kia Syros.

Compact SUV comparison: Dimensions and price

Dimensionally, the differences between these SUVs are marginal. The Brezza is the tallest of the lot, while the XUV 3XO is the widest and boasts the longest wheelbase. Ground clearance honours go to the Nexon at 208mm, with the Kia Sonet close behind at 205mm. 

The Tata Nexon is the most affordable of these turbo-petrol automatic SUVs. While it can be had with a 6-speed AMT, priced between Rs 8.78 lakh and Rs 10.98 lakh, we’ve chosen the more premium 7-speed dual-clutch automatic for this comparison, which costs between Rs 11.16 lakh and Rs 13.53 lakh. The Skoda Kylaq undercuts most of the rest with an attractive automatic starting price of Rs 9.25 lakh, topping out at just Rs 12.99 lakh.

Mahindra has also managed to keep the XUV 3XO automatic’s starting price under Rs 10 lakh, at Rs 9.71 lakh, though that’s for the less powerful MPI turbo-petrol engine paired with a 6-speed torque converter. The more potent GDI turbo AT we’re testing is priced between Rs 12.84 lakh and Rs 14.55 lakh, placing it among the pricier options here.

Thanks to its larger 1.5-litre petrol engine and the resulting higher tax bracket, the Maruti Brezza’s automatic variants are priced between Rs 10.60 lakh and Rs 12.85 lakh. 

The Hyundai Venue, the newest entrant in this comparison, is offered in both standard and N Line guises, though both share the same 1.0-litre turbo-petrol engine and 7-speed dual-clutch automatic. For this test, we’ve chosen the standard version, priced between Rs 10.82 lakh and Rs 14.56 lakh.

The Kia siblings command the highest starting prices. The Sonet turbo-DCT begins at Rs 9.89 lakh and tops out at Rs 13.65 lakh, while the Syros starts at Rs 11.93 lakh and stretches all the way to Rs 15.29 lakh, making it the most expensive SUV here, and Rs 73,000 pricier than the top-spec Venue.

Compact SUV comparison: Interior

The Venue’s interior ambience has significantly improved over the outgoing version, with a noticeable step up in quality, fit and finish. Its new twin-screen setup is thoroughly modern, and thanks to better packaging and a 20mm longer wheelbase, its cabin feels more spacious than before, particularly at the rear. 6-footers can sit one behind another in reasonable comfort.

The Kia siblings, however, have a distinct edge in terms of sheer cabin quality and an overall premium feel. When it comes to the tactility of switches, buttons and controls, the feel of the air vents, and just cabin finesse overall, the Syros and Sonet are hard to beat. The Syros’ newer Electrical/Electronic (E/E) architecture (shared with the Venue) gives it a considerable edge, as do its boxy dimensions. The space and even the sense of space can match cars from a class above, and its largest-in-class panoramic sunroof exacerbates that effect. Its flexible rear seat, which slides and reclines, makes it the winner on space and comfort. Shoulder room is the most, and the seat is comfy to seat three abreast, although the centre seat doesn’t get an adjustable head restraint.

Mahindra has dressed up the XUV 3XO’s cabin with light upholstery and soft-touch materials, which add to its premium appeal. However, its dashboard design reveals the age of the underlying platform. Its front seats aren’t large enough to support those with broader frames, but on the other hand, its back seat is among the comfiest, particularly to accommodate three adults abreast.

Skoda’s Kylaq delivers that familiar European solidity, right down to the reassuring door thud. Several bits are borrowed from its larger, pricier siblings – the Kushaq and Slavia – such as the steering, instrument cluster, touchscreen, as well as the climate control console with touch sliders. Its front seats are among the nicest and the most supportive in this company, and even though the heavily sculpted rear seats themselves are very comfortable for two adults, space at the back is the least. 

Tata has worked consistently to keep the Nexon relevant, borrowing several elements from its newer, more premium offerings. While this does elevate its appeal, limited storage, average seat support and some ergonomic shortcomings stand out in this comparison. The sloping roofline and dark interior further reduce the sense of space, and although width is adequate, the sculpted rear backrest makes it more comfortable for two rather than three adults.

The Brezza takes a more functional, fuss-free approach. It may not dazzle with technology, but its excellent ergonomics, large and comfortable seats and generous rear space make it one of the most user-friendly cabins here. It can seat three abreast comfortably, although it lacks a centre head restraint.

Compact SUV comparison: Boot space

On paper, the Syros offers the largest boot thanks to its sliding rear seats. Our measurements reveal that it has the deepest boot, the Venue’s is the widest, and the Kylaq offers the most height up to the parcel shelf. The Kylaq also has the lowest loading lip, making it the easiest to load heavy luggage into.
In a real-world luggage test, the Syros, Sonet, Venue and Kylaq impressed by accommodating one medium suitcase, four cabin bags, a backpack and a laptop bag. The remaining SUVs couldn’t match this haul but still managed to fit a medium suitcase, two cabin bags and a backpack.

Compact SUV comparison: Features

At the top-spec level, feature lists are broadly similar (see box), but the details set them apart. The Kia Syros emerges as the most comprehensively equipped, thanks to highlights such as rear seat ventilation and adjustable rear seating. While even the XUV 3XO and Nexon offer panoramic sunroofs, the Kia’s is the largest. The Brezza and XUV 3XO miss out on ventilated seats, the Kylaq lacks a 360-degree camera and has a sub-par reversing camera display, and while all others offer wireless connectivity, the Sonet still gets wired Android Auto and Apple CarPlay. Paddle shifters are absent on the XUV 3XO, while ADAS is missing on the Kylaq and Brezza.

Compact SUV comparison: Performance

The Hyundai Venue, Kia Sonet and Kia Syros share their 120hp, 172Nm 1.0-litre 3-cyl turbo-petrol engine and 7-speed dual-clutch automatic transmission. This is a friendly powertrain option that’s smooth, refined, and feels at home on the open road. In bumper-to-bumper traffic, though, the gearbox can feel a touch hesitant, particularly while downshifting. Thankfully, all three cars get paddle shifters for manual control. All three cars also get drive modes (Eco, Normal and Sport) to alter performance.

As far as acceleration times go, the Venue and Sonet perform similarly and rank at number four and three, respectively, in this company. The Syros is around 90kg heavier than the Sonet, and its outright acceleration feels noticeably blunted; as a result, the Syros accelerates to 100kph from a standstill in 13.62sec – 2.1sec slower than the Sonet, and ranks sixth out of seven here.

The quickest car in this company is unsurprisingly the Mahindra XUV 3XO, which is powered by a 131hp 230Nm 1.2-litre turbo-petrol engine mated to a 6-speed torque converter. A hallmark of Mahindra SUVs, throttle responses feel sharp, and even though this engine doesn’t feel as rev-happy as some others here, its strong mid-range performance lends it an enjoyable and effortless character. This 3-cylinder unit’s refinement further impresses. The automatic is smooth in its operation, although downshifts are quite conservative, and that’s when you’d long for paddle shifters for manual control; it does at least get a tiptronic mode. The XUV 3XO completes the 0-100kph sprint in just 11.10sec.

The Kylaq, with its 115hp 178Nm 1.0-litre turbo-petrol and 6-speed torque converter, is just 0.2sec slower. Its TSI engine punches above its weight and feels significantly stronger than its numbers suggest. Furthermore, its strong mid-range and paddle shifters add to the engagement. However, compared to the Mahindra, this powertrain doesn’t feel as responsive, especially at low speeds. Also, the Kylaq’s engine is noticeably noisier in comparison.

Interestingly, Tata’s 120hp 1.2-litre turbo-petrol and 7-speed dual-clutch automatic combination accounts for less than 4 percent of total Nexon sales. It is a shame, because this is the nicest and smoothest version of the Nexon. The gearbox nicely complements the engine’s character and irons out the inconsistencies in its power delivery well. Sporty, it isn’t, and it’ll hesitate before downshifting to avoid any sudden spikes in performance. And even if you use the paddles, it will not oblige with aggressive downshifts. Refinement isn’t the Nexon’s strong suit either, and you can feel vibrations inside the cabin at idle and at low speeds.

Going against the tide, the Brezza is the only one to be equipped with a 1.5-litre four-cylinder naturally aspirated petrol engine, and while it produces the lowest output – 103hp and 137Nm – as far as drivability goes, it does a fine job. This engine is responsive in urban conditions, and the 6-speed torque converter makes for a seamless drive experience. That said, demand more of it, and its weakness shows. Mid-range performance is flat, especially in this company of turbo-petrol offerings, and while this motor feels quite rev-happy, it gets very vocal, which detracts from its otherwise refined nature. Outright acceleration, too, is the slowest here.

Compact SUV comparison: Ride and handling 

Mahindra has nailed the XUV 3XO’s ride and handling balance, lending it mature driving manners. A hallmark of a Mahindra SUV, the XUV feels tough, and is most capable of taking a beating. Its squat stance and good mechanical grip make it handle well, although its inert steering feel hampers the sporty feel to some extent. 
Speaking of sporty, it is the Kylaq that is clearly the better driving car in this company. Its chassis feels taut, suspension feels well balanced, and its steering weighs up reasonably well to infuse confidence in the driver while pushing hard around corners.

Both the Brezza and Nexon exude an inherent toughness, which becomes apparent while tackling bad and broken roads. But while the Brezza’s low-speed ride comfort and bump-absorption capability are impressive, the Tata feels firm and a bit jittery. On the flip side, the Nexon feels very stable at high speeds, although its steering feels overly sharp, especially for the highway.

Even though the Venue and Sonet are built on different platforms, both feel very similar to drive, exuding an underlying firmness at low speeds and a composed ride at high speeds. The Syros’ setup feels a touch softer than the Venue’s and seems like it is tuned more towards comfort than sportiness. That said, the suspension of these three cars doesn’t feel as well-cushioned as the other four rivals. As far as handling goes, they feel quite predictable, with the Syros exhibiting a bit more body roll around corners on account of its tall stature and softer setup.

Compact SUV comparison: Verdict

Being among the oldest models in this group, the Maruti Brezza is beginning to show its age. And while it remains very user friendly, thanks to its excellent ride quality, spacious cabin and friendly power delivery, its naturally aspirated engine simply can’t match the performance or effortless cruising ability of its turbocharged rivals. Still, the Brezza remains one of the most practical options here, and with Maruti’s widespread service network backing it up, it’s a car you can rarely go wrong with. Plus, with a facelift inbound soon, its appeal is sure to go up.

There’s little the Tata Nexon does wrong, too. It remains the only car here with the widest powertrain choices – turbo-petrol, CNG, diesel and even electric. But from the ICE range, it feels best with the turbo-DCT combination. Over the years, the Nexon has evolved well, now packing in modern must-haves like large screens, seat ventilation and a panoramic sunroof. Despite this, like the Brezza, its design and cabin now feel a touch dated in this company.

The Kia Sonet may also have been around for a while, but it continues to feel among the most polished and sophisticated offerings here. Interior quality, features list, boot space and powertrain performance are all strong points, and the Sonet exudes a sense of finesse. The only real drawback is its relatively tight rear seat, which could be a deal-breaker for family buyers.

The XUV 3XO is on the pricier side. But typical of a Mahindra, not only does it feel tough and well-built, its ride and handling balance feels spot on. The cabin is among the most spacious here, and its outright performance is the strongest of the lot. While the XUV is one of the few cars to get a panoramic sunroof, it still misses ventilated seats and paddle shifters, and even though it has two screens, they don’t look as contemporary as rivals’.

For those who want ‘big-car-like space’ in a sub-4-metre footprint, the Syros is an impressive package. Space and practicality are its strengths, and features like sliding and reclining rear seats with ventilation, along with the largest panoramic sunroof here, make it the best-equipped car of this group. While its performance isn’t as strong as others, what could deter buyers are its exorbitant price tag – the loftiest here, as well as its design, which isn’t universally appealing.

The Skoda Kylaq’s excellent dynamics will make it appeal to those who enjoy driving. Its tidy handling, strong engine-gearbox pairing and well-judged ride make it enjoyable behind the wheel. The front seats are among the best here, and while the rear seat is very comfortable for two adults, accommodating three will be a squeeze. Its top-spec variant is also the most affordable of the group, though it misses out on ADAS and a few other features.

The new Venue is a big step over the outgoing version, and as a result, its pricing has increased, making it among the pricier cars in this company. But the good news is that along with the latest tech and features, Hyundai has addressed one of the outgoing model’s biggest shortcomings, cabin space. Rear seat room is now on par with most rivals, boot space is generous, performance is adequate, and it drives well, too. The Venue may not pull out a huge lead over the others in any single area, but it does everything superbly. A true jack of all trades, its well-rounded nature makes it the winner of this comparison. 

	Hyundai Venue (Our choice)	Skoda Kylaq Prestige+	Kia Syros HTX+(O)	Mahindra XUV 3XO AX7L T-GDi	Kia Sonet X Line	Tata Nexon Fearless+ A PS	Maruti Brezza ZXI+
Verdict	A well-rounded modern offering that does the job superbly	It is solidly built and easily the most fun to drive.	Big on space and features, but is the priciest too.	Excellent ride-handling balance and has the strongest engine.	High-quality interiors make it feel like the most sophisticated here.	Despite its age its cabin and features bring it up to speed with the times	Low on frills, but high on user-friendliness and practicality.
Rating	8/10	8/10	8/10	8/10	8/10	7/10	7/10
L/W/H (mm)	3995/1800/1665	3885/1783/1619	3995/1805/1680	3990/1821/1647	3995/1790/1642	3995/1804/1602	3995/1790/1685
Wheelbase (mm)	2520	2566	2550	2600	2500	2498	2500
Boot capacity (litres)	375	360	390	295	385	382	328
Engine	3cyls, 997cc, turbo-petrol	3cyls, 999cc, turbo-petrol	3cyls, 997cc, turbo-petrol	3cyls, 1197cc, turbo-petrol	3cyls, 997cc, turbo-petrol	3cyls, 1199cc turbo-petrol	4cyls, 1462cc, petrol
Power	120hp at 6000rpm	115hp at 5000-55000rpm	120hp at 6000rpm	131hp at 5000rpm	120hp at 6000rpm	120hp at 5500rpm	103hp at 6000rpm
Torque	172Nm at 1500-4000rpm	178Nm at 1750-4000rpm	172Nm at 1500-4000rpm	230Nm at 1500-3750rpm	172Nm at 1500-4000rpm	170Nm at 1750-4000rpm	137Nm at 4400rpm
Transmission	7DCT	6AT	7DCT	6AT	7DCT	7DCT	6AT
Ground clearance (mm)	190	189	189	201	205	208	198
Price (ex-showroom, India)	Rs 14.56 lakh	Rs  12.99 lakh	Rs 15.29 lakh	Rs 14.55 lakh	Rs 13.65 lakh	Rs 13.53 lakh	Rs 12.85 lakh

If you’re in the market for a three-row EV, your primary choices today are the Kia Carens Clavis EV and the recently launched Mahindra XEV 9S. While both are offered with multiple battery options, there’s a good overlap between the two, with the Clavis ranging from Rs 17.99 lakh-24.49 lakh and the XEV going from Rs 19.95 lakh-29.45 lakh. So, which one makes more sense? We gathered the two long-range versions and put them through our exhaustive test regime.

Explore full specs, features, and a price breakdown in our Carens Clavis EV vs XEV 9S comparison.

Kia Carens Clavis EV vs Mahindra XEV 9S Exterior Design and Engineering

These two EVs approach the brief from very different angles. The XEV 9S, with its blanked-off nose and oversized LED DRLs, goes the SUV route and looks like a futuristic evolution of the XUV700, with which it shares its basic top hat. Aerodynamically optimised alloy wheels, along with a blacked-out tailgate and distinctive LED tail-lamps, help visually separate it from its ICE sibling.

The Kia Carens Clavis EV, by contrast, goes with the understated MPV style. Against its ICE sibling, subtle EV-specific cues are the green number plates, a light bar above the grille, a centrally mounted charging flap, a redesigned bumper with active aero elements, ‘ice-cube’-style fog lamps and a revised scuff plate. Overall, the XEV still looks every bit a modern SUV, while the Clavis unmistakably remains an MPV in its stance and proportions.

Dimensionally, the XEV 9S is larger than the Clavis EV in length, width and height; and even its 18-inch wheels look noticeably more substantial than the Kia’s 17-inch units. That said, the Clavis counters with an 18mm longer wheelbase, which plays a key role in interior packaging. A closer look, however, reveals that the Kia’s underfloor battery pack remains visually exposed, which isn’t a pleasant sight.

Kia Carens Clavis EV vs Mahindra XEV 9S Interior Space and Comfort

The Mahindra XEV 9S shares its dashboard layout with the XEV 9e, and that’s a double-edged sword. On the positive side, the triple-screen setup, beige leatherette upholstery with olive accents, and generous use of soft-touch and piano black materials give the cabin a premium, techy feel. On the downside, the same confusing user interface carries over. Several functions are buried deep within menus, the steering-mounted controls are prone to accidentally triggering the horn, and the passenger screen still lacks a privacy filter, thus making video playback distracting for the driver.

Comfort levels, however, are excellent. The front seats are wide and supportive, though the driver’s seat is mounted slightly high even in its lowest setting. The middle row is spacious and comfortable, helped by a flat floor and generous width that makes it friendlier for three passengers. The outboard seats even get ventilation, and the sliding function allows occupants to prioritise either second- or third-row legroom.

Access to the third row is where compromises begin. It is easy only via the kerbside – 40 percent section of the middle-row bench, which tumbles forward; the remaining 60 percent merely folds flat. Once inside, third-row comfort is limited – adults sit low with a pronounced knees-up posture, and headroom is tight regardless of seatback angle. It’s acceptable for short trips, but for longer journeys, the Clavis EV is clearly superior. With all seats up, boot space is limited to soft bags, though the generous 150-litre frunk does help.

Kia Carens Clavis EV vs Mahindra XEV 9S Features and Safety

The Kia Carens Clavis EV’s cabin adopts a cleaner, more intuitive approach. The beige colour scheme, twin-screen setup and backlit touch panels lend it a modern feel, but it’s the ease of use that truly stands out. Physical knobs and buttons for key functions, a logical layout and a simpler touchscreen interface make it far easier to live with. That said, wireless Android Auto and Apple CarPlay are missing; both require a wired connection.

Seat comfort is strong across the board. The driver’s seat is comfortable, though only partially powered and lacking a memory function. The middle row slides fore-aft and offers a greater recline angle than the Mahindra’s, and while the cabin is narrower, three adults can still sit abreast without feeling too cramped. The absence of an adjustable headrest for the middle passenger is a miss. Access to the third row is good thanks to one-touch tumble-forward seats on both sides, aided by pneumatic struts. Impressively, even tall adults will find the third row genuinely usable, with ample headroom and comfortable recline options. Boot space with all seats up is slightly better than the XEV’s, though the frunk is only large enough for a charging cable or a small bag.

Kia Carens Clavis EV vs Mahindra XEV 9S Value for Money

The Mahindra XEV 9S is offered with three battery options – 59kWh, 70kWh and 79kWh – with prices starting at Rs 19.95 lakh. The Kia Carens Clavis EV gets two battery options – 42kWh and 51.4kWh – starting at Rs 17.99 lakh.

Crucially, the long-range 79kWh XEV 9S starts at Rs 21.95 lakh, almost identical to the Rs 21.99 lakh starting price of the Clavis EV 51.4kWh. At this price point, both cars offer a strong safety and feature baseline, including six airbags, ESP, hill-start assist, a panoramic sunroof, a touchscreen infotainment, a digital instrument cluster, cruise control, a reverse camera and TPMS.

The XEV’s highlights include wireless Android Auto/Apple CarPlay and a passenger-side display, while the Kia counters with electric folding mirrors, one-touch power windows, ambient lighting and leatherette upholstery.

At the top end, however, the gap widens considerably. The XEV 9S tops out at Rs 29.45 lakh, while the Clavis EV maxes out at Rs 24.49 lakh. The Mahindra, however, adds features such as a driver’s knee airbag, powered front seats with memory, rear seat ventilation, a sophisticated head-up display and dual-zone climate control, which justify the premium to an extent.

Kia Carens Clavis EV vs Mahindra XEV 9S Performance and Refinement

The XEV 9S uses Mahindra’s familiar born-EV powertrain setup, featuring a 79kWh Blade LFP battery and a rear-wheel-drive motor producing 286hp and 380Nm. Performance is strong, with brisk acceleration and a choice of multiple drive modes – Range, Default, Everyday and Race. In Race mode, the XEV unleashes its full potential, sprinting from 0-100kph in just 7.54 seconds, with a top speed north of 190kph.

The Clavis EV, meanwhile, uses a smaller 51.4kWh NMC battery paired with a front-mounted motor producing 171hp and 255Nm. While it lacks the Mahindra’s outright punch, performance is more than adequate for family use. Throttle response varies noticeably across Eco, Normal and Sport modes, and despite the lower output, the Clavis doesn’t feel underpowered even when fully loaded. It completes the 0-100kph sprint in 8.44 seconds and tops out at 168kph.

Both cars offer five levels of regenerative braking, including regen off and a single-pedal mode. We discovered that the Clavis EV’s Level 3 and single-pedal regen was more aggressive, while the XEV decelerated more forcefully in Level 1 and Level 2.

Kia Carens Clavis EV vs Mahindra XEV 9S Range and Efficiency

Not only is the XEV the larger vehicle, but its bigger 79kWh battery also makes it nearly half a tonne heavier than the Kia Carens Clavis EV. That added mass takes a toll on efficiency, with the XEV returning 6.05km/kWh in the city and 6.04km/kWh on the highway in ‘Range’ mode. However, sheer battery capacity works in its favour, translating to an impressive real-world average range of 477km on a single charge.

The lighter Clavis EV, by comparison, is noticeably more efficient. It delivered 7.45km/kWh in urban driving and 6.71km/kWh on the highway, which, due to its smaller 51.4kWh battery capacity, extrapolates to a real-world range of around 364km – a substantial 113km short of the XEV’s.

Charging is another area where the gap widens. The XEV’s 409V electrical architecture supports DC fast-charging speeds of up to 175kW, while the Clavis EV manages an average DC charging rate of just 42kW. Both manufacturers offer an optional 11kW AC wallbox charger – priced at Rs 75,000 for the Mahindra and Rs 62,000 for the Kia. Kia buyers also have the option of a 7.2kW AC charger, which costs Rs 54,000.

Kia Carens Clavis EV vs Mahindra XEV 9S Ride Comfort and Handling

Mahindra’s born-EV platform delivers an impressive ride-handling balance, and the XEV 9S is no exception. Riding on 18-inch high-profile tyres and equipped with semi-adaptive dampers, it prioritises comfort at city speeds. However, compared to its platform siblings, the setup is noticeably softer, and at highway speeds, the XEV exhibits persistent vertical movement, which feels unsettling and will induce motion sickness in those prone to it. Even in Race mode, where the dampers firm up slightly, it doesn’t match the Kia’s composure.

That said, it feels robust and confidence-inspiring over broken roads, effortlessly soaking up large potholes. Its light steering and tight turning radius, remarkable for a vehicle of this size, make it easy to manoeuvre and park.

The Carens Clavis EV, by contrast, has a firmer suspension tune. You feel this at low speeds, where it doesn’t absorb bumps as plushly as the Mahindra, but it never feels harsh. As speeds rise, the Kia feels more stable and better tied down. Neither car is particularly sporty, but while the Clavis rolls less through corners, it’s the XEV’s steering that feels marginally more engaging. Both feature disc brakes all around, though in panic braking tests from 80kph, the lighter Kia consistently stopped in a shorter distance.

Kia Carens Clavis EV vs Mahindra XEV 9S Vedict

In terms of sheer fitness for purpose, the Kia Carens Clavis EV gets a lot right. Its cleverly packaged cabin is spacious, and its third row is roomier than that of the XEV 9S. Pair that with a more tied-down highway ride, a sensible user interface, agreeable ergonomics and a top-spec variant that significantly undercuts the XEV on price, and the Clavis EV comes across as a practical, well-rounded family EV. However, its notably lower real-world range and much slower fast-charging capability are hard to ignore, which weaken its case in this EV comparison. 

The XEV 9S, meanwhile, makes its case with a starting price comparable to the Kia, while offering a more powerful motor, quicker acceleration and a substantially larger battery pack, resulting in a longer real-world range too, important for vehicles that will do the odd highway run. It also has a stronger road presence and a distinct ‘X-factor’ that adds to its appeal. And when you look at the lower variants that are similarly priced and still well equipped with even the three-screen setup thrown in, the XEV 9S gives you considerably more car for the money and ultimately feels like the more compelling EV.

Small turbo-petrol automatics have been gaining popularity of late, and we’ve brought together three of the smallest ones on offer today – the Citroën C3 X, the Nissan Magnite and the Toyota Urban Cruiser Taisor. They all measure under 4 metres, take the shape of a small SUV/crossover, get a turbo petrol-automatic powertrain and cost under Rs 12 lakh, but there are some key differences too. Let’s take a closer look.

Explore full specs, features, and a price breakdown in our C3X vs Magnite vs Taisor comparison.

Citroen C3 vs Nissan Magnite vs Toyota Taisor exterior design

C3's wheelbase is the longest

Being compact SUVs, they all measure about the same size. The Citroën is the tallest and has the longest wheelbase of the lot, while the Taisor is the widest and the longest overall. The Magnite has the shortest wheelbase here, but where it gets a leg up over the other two is in regards to boot space – 336 litres against the Citroën’s 315 litres and the Toyota’s 308 litres.

In terms of style, the Taisor and C3X are more crossover or a jacked-up hatch rather than SUV. The C3 X is the newest of the lot, and it gets the typical Citroën design cues of a split headlamp and a chrome-lined grille with the Chevron logo in the centre. A faux skid plate element, wheel arch cladding and roof rails add some SUV appeal to its design. On the whole, it does cut a handsome figure, but certain elements like the flap-type door handles and the simple halogen tail-lamps give away its cost-cutting measures.

Magnite styling is the most SUV-like of the lot

The Nissan Magnite, meanwhile, received a refresh late last year. The front grille has been tweaked, featuring gloss black and chrome elements, while the new front bumper gets a faux silver skid plate element lower down that also houses the fog lights. Along the sides, not much has changed save for a new design for the 16-inch alloy wheels. At the back, there are new tail-lights with new 3D LED signatures that make it stand out. Thanks to its upright stance, it’s the Magnite that looks the most like an SUV here.

The Toyota Taisor is a badge-engineered Fronx, which is a handsome car to begin with, owing to its crossover-esque stance and coupé-like roofline. But Toyota has done well to give it some familiar design elements. For example, its DRLs are similar to the Hyryder, and the grille, with its honeycomb pattern, is similar to the pre-facelift Innova Crysta.

Compared to the Fronx, the Taisor gets different 16-inch alloys, and at the rear, the outer section of the tail-lamps with C-shaped LEDs is new. The connected LEDs on the tailgate are identical to the Fronx – when you look closely, the LEDs in the tail-lights and the tailgate don’t match. Still, it’s a design that has some serious appeal.

Citroen C3 vs Nissan Magnite vs Toyota Taisor interior and features

'X' update for C3 spruced up its cabin

In typical French fashion, the Citroën’s cabin is unconventional, and certain elements like the unique AC vents add flair. The plastics feel decent up top, but some cheap bits are visible lower down in the cabin. What helps uplift the ambience, though, is the new leatherette pad on the dash and the new toggle-type switches for the climate control unit. The all-black theme does look a bit drab, and a dual-tone theme like on the larger Aircross would’ve definitely helped matters. 

The Citroën’s slim front seats are generously cushioned, though some might find the driving position too tall even in its lowest setting. The back seat is roomy with good leg- and headroom, and it can even fit three adults in relative comfort. But there’s no rear armrest, adjustable headrests or dedicated AC vents, but you do get two USB ports. The 315-litre boot is practical, and you can even fold the rear seat backrest, though lifting bags over the tall loading lip isn’t ideal.

Magnite interior looks bright and feels premium

With the refresh, the Magnite also got an updated cabin, which looks and feels more premium than before. Key to this is the large leatherette panel on the dashboard and the dual-tone brown and black upholstery. The touch and feel inside has improved, and a nice touch is the frameless rear view mirror, which looks classy. The front seats also get the same dual-tone upholstery and a unique stitching pattern, though they are a bit flat and the cushioning is on the firm side.

At the back, the Magnite feels the most spacious for three adults with ample width, kneeroom and legroom. The Nissan is also the only one that gets a rear armrest with cup holders, and you also get AC vents and adjustable head rests for the outer two passengers. The Nissan has the largest boot here that can be further expanded thanks to the split-folding rear seat. While the Magnite’s interior does look and feel more premium now, there’s some evident cost-cutting – like the steering column that’s visible in the footwell.

Taisor feels sportier thanks to lower seating position

The Taisor feels the most car-like from behind the wheel, thanks to a lower seating with your legs stretched more forward than down. If you’re someone who enjoys a sporty driving position, you’ll like the Taisor, but if you prefer a more upright seating like an SUV, you’ll prefer the other two. The Taisor’s layered dash looks attractive, as does the dual-tone maroon and black upholstery with silver accents. The Taisor has the best front seats, which are supportive and generously padded.

At the back, it’s got a good amount of headroom and kneeroom, but shoulder room is the tightest while sitting three abreast. The Taisor is the only one to get adjustable head rests and three-point seat belts for all three passengers. You also get dedicated AC vents and charging ports, but it misses out on a centre armrest. It may have the smallest boot on paper, but you can fit in a similar amount of luggage as the other two, and you also have the option of split-folding rear seats.

In terms of features, all three get 6 airbags, ESP, LED headlamps, a touchscreen infotainment system, wireless charging, auto climate control, auto-folding mirrors, auto-dimming IRVM, a 360-degree parking camera, and more. Unique features on the Taisor include a heads-up display and paddle shifters, while the Magnite is the only one to get a rear armrest.

Citroen C3 vs Nissan Magnite vs Toyota Taisor engine and gearbox

C3 develops 10 percent more power than the rest

All three feature a 3-cylinder, turbocharged petrol engine mated to an automatic gearbox, and that’s where the similarities end. The Citroën has the largest engine – 1.2 litres –and as a result, it also has the highest output of 110hp/205Nm and is paired to a 6-speed torque converter automatic. The Nissan is powered by a smaller 1.0-litre unit that makes 100hp/152Nm and is mated to a CVT automatic. While the Toyota also gets a 1.0-litre unit, its output of 100hp/147Nm is the lowest here. And like the C3 X, the Taisor also comes paired with a conventional 6-speed torque converter automatic gearbox.

Citroën’s 1.2 turbo-petrol is one of the nicest small-capacity engines on sale today, and it impresses with its responsive nature. There is that typical three-cylinder thrum at idle, but it does smoothen out on the move. Paired with the automatic, response off the line is immediate – a little too eager even. It comes off as jerky in slow-moving traffic, but on the move, quick overtakes are a breeze. The Aisin-sourced gearbox is a smooth-shifting unit, and you can even take manual control via the gear lever, which does its bit to add engagement.

Magnite's CVT barely presents rubberband effect

The Magnite’s 1.0-litre turbo-petrol is also thrummy at idle, but it has a strong mid-range punch and works well with the smooth CVT to mask any turbo lag at lower revs. What’s nice is that at low and medium engine speeds, the typical ‘rubberband’ effect is barely there, and it sets in only with a heavy right foot.

Taisor is the only one to offer paddle shifters

The Taisor’s 1.0-litre BoosterJet unit is also responsive like the other two. It is rev happy and has the upper hand when it comes to refinement. On the move, it feels the most linear of the lot, and paired with the Aisin 6-speed torque converter, it makes for a seamless drive experience. The gearbox isn’t particularly a quick-shifting unit, but it is smooth. What’s nice is that it comes with paddle shifters for manual control, unlike the other two. On the whole, it’s the Taisor’s powertrain that feels the best in terms of drivability, refinement and efficiency, while not sacrificing much performance.

Citroen C3 vs Nissan Magnite vs Toyota Taisor performance and refinement

Speaking of which, with the most cubic capacity, power and torque, the Citroën is the quickest accelerating car here, but it’s much closer than you’d expect. 0-100kph takes 10.82sec in the Citroën, compared to the Nissan’s 10.87sec and the Toyota’s 10.96sec.

Taisor is the slowest overall

In the 20-80kph run, the Magnite mid-range punch makes it the quickest, followed by the C3 and the Taisor. But in the 40-100kph run, it’s the Citroën that comfortably outpaces the other two. On the clock then, the Toyota Taisor is the slowest. Not by much, though, and you’d be hard-pressed to tell that from behind the wheel.

Citroen C3 vs Nissan Magnite vs Toyota Taisor fuel efficiency

Given that the Citroën has the most performance and weighs the most, it has an effect on its fuel efficiency. The C3 X was the least fuel efficient in our real-world efficiency tests, returning 8.46kpl in the city and 13.38kpl on the highway. Its throttle calibration is noticeably aggressive, making the car feel eager and responsive – something enthusiasts will enjoy. However, this trait also contributes to its lower real-world efficiency.

Magnite doesn't get auto start/stop function

The Magnite is up next, managing 9.5kpl in the city and 15.22kpl out on the highway. The Magnite’s CVT automatic has been tuned for drivability, so it keeps the engine spinning optimally and feels very responsive; as a result, it isn’t quite frugal. The Nissan is also the only one here that doesn’t feature fuel-saving auto stop/start tech.

That brings us to the Taisor, which is the most efficient here, returning 10.17kpl in the city and 15.35kpl out on the highway. What helps efficiency is the Taisor AT’s relatively low kerb weight and the fact that it gets mild-hybrid technology. However, high ambient temperatures, ranging between 35 and 40 deg C, during our test meant that the ACs of all three had to work hard to keep the cabin cool, affecting efficiency.

Citroen C3 vs Nissan Magnite vs Toyota Taisor ride comfort and handling

C3 features excellent ride quality

As is with all Citroëns, the C3 X’s ride comfort is outstanding. The suspension soaks up bumps and potholes with ease, making it feel composed while keeping passengers comfortable. High-speed stability is excellent, the steering feels direct, and handling is tidy with predictable body roll. Thanks to its mature road manners, the C3 feels like a car from a segment above.

The Magnite’s ride is on the stiff side but not to the point of being uncomfortable. The Nissan does take broken roads in its stride, but it doesn’t feel as tough as the other two. The light steering and controls make it easy to drive in the city, while the handling can be best described as neutral. A downer, though, is the tyre and road noise, which is much more apparent in the Magnite than in the other two.

Taisor has a firm ride, but handles well

The Taisor’s ride feels firm at low speeds, though that makes it feel stable at highway speeds. The light steering and tight turning circle mean it’s easy to drive in the city. And despite not having much in terms of feel and feedback, the Toyota does feel engaging around bends. Overall, the Taisor drives with a sense of confidence and feels composed at all speeds.

Citroen C3 vs Nissan Magnite vs Toyota Taisor price and verdict

C3 is the most affordable by a hefty margin

If this were a comparison based purely on price, the Citroën C3 X would comfortably be the winner. It undercuts the Magnite by about Rs 1.5 lakh and the Taisor by over Rs 2 lakh. The Citroën C3 X also has a roomy back seat for three, and it excels in terms of ride and handling; so it’s great value for money. But you can’t shake the feeling that it’s built to a strict budget, and that dampens the experience.

Both Magnite and C3 feel somewhat built to a cost

The Magnite strikes a great balance between performance, features and price, and it makes for the best in-city car of the three thanks to its responsive and smooth turbo-petrol CVT and well-calibrated throttle. The Nissan is also reasonably efficient, decently equipped and has a spacious cabin. But in this company, it falls short in terms of robustness, and this, too, shows some traits – like the NVH levels – of being built to a cost.

That brings us to the Taisor; though the most expensive, it clearly feels like it belongs in a class above. It comes across as the most polished of the lot, it has the most refined powertrain, the best fuel efficiency and is very well loaded. It also comes with the peace of mind associated with Toyota/Maruti Suzuki ownership, and you’re backed up by the widest spread service network of the trio. So, if you can stretch your budget, the Taisor definitely feels worth the extra cash.

These two homegrown electric SUVs we’ve brought together follow two very different approaches. On one side is the new Tata Harrier EV, built on the familiar and mature Harrier template. On the other is the Mahindra XEV 9e, a mould-breaking and radical EV. Both hover around the Rs 30 lakh mark, both pack in the latest features and tech, and both boast claimed ranges of over 600km. So, which one makes the stronger case?

The Harrier EV can be had with a single motor (rear) setup with either a 65kWh or 75kWh battery – the former priced between Rs 21.49 lakh and Rs 23.99 lakh, and the latter between Rs 24.99 lakh and Rs 27.49 lakh. The range-topping dual-motor version (our test vehicle) comes with the larger battery and is priced at Rs 28.99 lakh.

The Mahindra XEV 9e, on the other hand, is available only in a single (rear) motor avatar, but it also gets two battery options – 59kWh and 79kWh. The smaller version is priced between Rs 21.90 lakh and Rs 27.90 lakh, while the larger version’s price range is Rs 26.50 lakh-30.50 lakh. For this test, we’ve picked the absolute top variants of the two.

Explore full specs, features, and a price breakdown in our Harrier EV vs XEV 9e comparison.

Tata Harrier EV vs Mahindra XEV 9e exterior design and engineering

XEV 9e is longer and has a longer wheelbase, but the Harrier EV is wider and taller

The Harrier EV resembles its ICE sibling – well-proportioned, muscular and handsome. But don’t let its familiar persona deceive you. While it does share its ‘top hat’ and some interior bits with the ICE version, beneath the skin, it’s a completely re-engineered product with a new floorpan, suspension and EV-specific hardware. And while the ICE is front-wheel driven, the Harrier EV is primarily rear-wheel driven. Our test vehicle is the dual-motor version, with one motor driving the rear wheels and another driving the front, giving the Harrier EV all-wheel-drive capability. 

The Mahindra XEV 9e, meanwhile, plays a very different game. Where the Tata follows a conventional design language, the XEV’s styling is bold, radical and futuristic, and is bound to turn heads. The XEV 9e is longer than the Tata, and its wheelbase is longer too; however, it is the Harrier EV that’s wider and taller in this company.

Tata Harrier EV vs Mahindra XEV 9e interior space and comfort

Both are feature-rich, but the XEV 9e gets features like reclining rear seats and an HUD 

Step into the Harrier EV, and you’re greeted by a wide, horizontally laid-out dashboard and a crisp 14.5-inch Samsung QLED touchscreen. The user interface is intuitive, the 360-degree camera feed is sharp and lag-free, and there’s also a Land Rover-style digital inner rear-view mirror, which doubles up as a dash camera. The camera feed offers natural depth perception, but the mirror surface does show reflections at times. Further improving the user experience are touch-based shortcut keys, as well as physical switches for temperature and front-seat ventilation.

However, Tata hasn’t fully ironed out some long-standing ergonomic flaws: the wireless phone charger remains fiddly, the wide centre console fouls with taller drivers’ knees, and thigh support is inadequate on the front seats. Rear passengers fare better with a flat floor, generous space and winged headrests, though, again, thigh support is lacking.

The XEV 9e’s cabin immediately grabs your attention thanks to the brighter upholstery and its signature three-screen layout. The front seats are more supportive than the Tata’s, but on the Mahindra, seat ventilation is hidden within touchscreen menus, which is rather inconvenient, especially on the move. In fact, the whole infotainment system is very confusing, and users will need to invest time to get acquainted with it. Also, using the steering wheel’s haptic buttons inadvertently triggers the horn.

In the back, wide-opening doors make ingress easy, and space is generous, although tall passengers may find headroom compromised. What’s nice is that the flat seat base and recline function enhance comfort, and unlike in the Harrier (which gets only two),  all three passengers get individual adjustable head restraints.

As far as storage goes, the Mahindra’s luggage-carrying ability is leagues ahead, with a generous 663-litre boot space, a flat load bay and a surprisingly large 150-litre front-loading area. The Harrier EV, on the other hand, has a smaller 502-litre boot, a raised boot floor and a small 35-litre front-loading area (the 2WD version, though, offers up to 67 litres of space).

Tata Harrier EV vs Mahindra XEV 9e performance 

Harrier EV AWD accelerates quicker, but XEV 9e reaches a higher top speed 

On paper, the Harrier EV is the powerhouse, with its dual motors producing a combined 313hp and 504Nm. Under normal driving conditions, in the interest of efficiency, the Harrier EV is rear-wheel driven for the most part, and only when the system detects slippage or the driver accelerates aggressively does the front motor come to life. Power delivery is very  linear, and on account of its sheer 2.3-tonne weight, the Harrier EV masks its speed, hence acceleration doesn’t ‘feel’ sudden or electrifying. Make no mistake, though, the Harrier EV is rapid – it accelerates from 0-100kph in just 6.74 seconds, 0.71 seconds quicker than the 134kg lighter XEV. While the Harrier is marginally quicker, it tops out at 180kph, whereas the Mahindra maxes out at a little over 200kph. 

Tata Harrier EV vs Mahindra XEV 9e ride comfort and handling

XEV 9e gets a single-pedal drive mode, though both have three levels of brake regen

The Harrier EV also impresses with sharp steering and strong grip, thanks to its all-wheel-drive system and taut chassis that result in confidence-inspiring body control. Low-speed ride quality is exceptionally absorbent; however, it tends to feel floaty, particularly from the rear, as you up the pace on highways.

The XEV 9e’s single rear-mounted motor produces 286hp and 380Nm, which is much lower than the Harrier EV’s. Still, the XEV 9e’s motor performs more aggressively and feels a bit more effortless and lighter on its feet. But what truly elevates the drive experience is its variable gear ratio steering, which is lighter and more precise – paired with a tight 5-metre turning radius, it is astonishingly manoeuvrable for its size. Semi-adaptive dampers linked to drive modes superbly balance ride comfort with handling, and the XEV feels surprisingly nimble and confident for its size.

Both SUVs get drive modes that influence the powertrain and steering. In the XEV 9e, the drive modes also alter its semi-adaptive dampers, which noticeably stiffen in ‘Race’ mode. Furthermore, both cars get terrain modes, which alter throttle response and ESP settings to enhance traction while driving in wet, sandy, muddy or snowy conditions.

As far as regenerative braking goes, both cars get multiple settings, including one to turn it off completely. In our tests, the Harrier EV decelerated from 80-20kph in a shorter distance across the three regen modes than the XEV 9e, showing that it has relatively stronger regen braking. The Mahindra, though, offers a single-pedal mode (a much more aggressive setting), which brings the vehicle to a complete halt.

In our braking test from 80kph, it was the Harrier that stopped in a shorter distance despite its weight; however, as far as brake pedal feel goes, the Tata leaves a lot to be desired.

Tata Harrier EV vs Mahindra XEV 9e range and charging

XEV 9e 79kWh has more real world range than the Harrier EV AWD

To verify whether these cars can match their manufactured claimed range figures of over 600km, we put both cars through our real world range test. Interestingly, the Harrier’s city efficiency of 5.5km/kWh is slightly higher than the XEV’s 5.4km/kWh; however, out on the open road, the Mahindra’s 6.2km/kWh  efficiency is far greater than the Harrier’s 5.2km/kWh. Overall, when extrapolated, it is the XEV 9e that is capable of delivering 456km (average) on a single charge, more than the Harrier EV’s 401km.

As far as DC fast charging goes, the Mahindra’s 409V architecture accepts up to 175kW, while the Harrier’s 377V system maxes out at 107kW. What that means is, on a 120kW or faster charger, the XEV will ideally top up its larger 79kWh battery faster than the Harrier EV. Another point to note is that the Harrier EV only gets a 7.2kW on-board charger, while the Mahindra gets a 11.2kW unit for quicker AC fast charging. Notably, both manufacturers give buyers the option to purchase an AC fast charger at an additional cost – a 7.2kW unit for Rs 49,000 in the Tata, and in the XEV’s case, Rs 50,000 (for 7.2kW) and Rs 75,000 (for 11.2kW).

Tata Harrier EV vs Mahindra XEV 9e price and verdict

It’s remarkable how far both these homegrown brands have come along in the EV space. The Tata Harrier EV looks stylish, has the features you’d expect, rides well and drives in a mature manner. Additionally, it scores strongly on value, with even the AWD version priced lower than the Mahindra. So, it comes across as a sensible, well-rounded choice.

But it’s the Mahindra XEV 9e that feels like the real game-changer. Its futuristic design really grabs attention, it’s feature-loaded, has more comfortable seats, a larger boot, superior range and faster charging – thus making it the more convincing electric SUV. It’s pricier, yes, but for its world-class driving experience and emotional appeal, it feels worth the stretch.

Also see:

Tata Harrier EV vs Mahindra XEV 9e comparison video

Mahindra XEV 9e and BE 6 digital key support extended to Samsung Wallet app

Tata Harrier EV: Mumbai-Pune-Mumbai on one charge?

A Mercedes-Benz vs BMW is always an 'El Clásico'. And it's even more fierce when the rivalry is between their popular SUVs. The GLC has been Merc’s champion seller for long, and it now faces an all-new X3 that is bigger in size and, in typical BMW fashion, unapologetic when it comes to its character. Which one is the better choice? That’s what we will find out.

Explore full specs, features, and a price breakdown in our GLC vs X3 comparison.

Mercedes GLC vs BMW X3 exterior design and engineering

X3 has a stronger road presence due to extra length and height.

The BMW in the all-new avatar is bigger than before. It is longer, wider and taller than the GLC and only falls short on wheelbase. Both get distinct design cues and stick to their roots, with the BMW featuring a moderately sized backlit kidney grille and sleek LED headlamps. Being an M Sport, the X3 also gets angular bumpers, and the overall face is more upright.

Where one flaunts a radical design, the other embraces traditional style.

The GLC, on the other hand, embraces curves and gets a healthy dose of chrome on the grille and pronounced power lines on the bonnet. Over to the side, the extra length, height and ground clearance give the BMW a stronger road presence. The boxy silhouette and upright roofline also give the X3 that prominent SUV look, while the tapering, almost coupé-like roof on the GLC is sleeker in comparison.

Both SUVs feature 19-inch wheels, with the BMW offering a sportier design. At the rear, the Bimmer continues with sharp lines and creases, while the GLC continues to flaunt curves. Both SUVs do style very differently, and it's the same difference when it comes to the interiors as well.

Mercedes GLC vs BMW X3 interior space and features

The GLC comes fitted with a portrait-styled touchscreen.

Inside the all-new X3, minimalism seems to be the theme. The dashboard design is sporty and contemporary, with a whole lot of recycled polyester used on the upper dash. The mesh-like material mimics carbon fibre visually, but the rough texture won’t appeal to everyone. Also, keeping the dust out of the pores will be a challenge, given our conditions.

Open-pore recycled polyester dash upholstery looks sporty but not plush.

Like modern BMWs, the screen is embedded into a single-piece curved display along with the digital instrument cluster. What’s unique are the AC vents at each end that get a haptic touch control for the airflow but manual adjustments for the vent direction. It is complicated and feels over-engineered for something that needs to be easy to use. BMW has also ensured the cabin feels special in the dark, thanks to ambient lighting courtesy of the crystal elements that light up.

Comfort-wise, the front seats offer very good support and are better than the Merc’s. The additional under-thigh extension and side bolster adjustment give the seat an upper hand, along with the soft cushioning that is comfy for long drives.

Coming to the Merc, its interior follows a more traditional approach, which works in its favour as it feels more plush and expensive. The generous use of wood and metal throughout ups the visual as well as the touch and feel quotient, and between the two, the GLC has a more luxe appeal.

Traditional design and blend of wood and metal feel plush.

The 11.9-inch iPad-like screen is crisp and easy to use, and quality levels overall are higher. The seats, however, miss out on the extra support and aren’t as comfy as the X3. That said, you do get heating and ventilation as opposed to just the latter on the Bimmer. 

Narrow footwell in the GLC may be problematic for plus-10 sizers.

There are seat kinetics, too, which might not offer the full massage experience but do a good job of reducing fatigue over long periods. One irritant on the GLC is the snug footwell, more specifically, the short dead pedal. If you have a foot size over UK 10, you will struggle to rest your left foot, which, on a long drive, does get cumbersome.

Both miss out on a reclinable backrest.

The latest-gen X3 has grown in size, but in this comparison, the wheelbase is shorter than the GLC. Still, there is ample kneeroom and width, and the upright roofline also allows for good headroom. The seat base is larger and, as a result, under-thigh support is better. The X3 has the more upright seating, and both SUVs miss out on a reclinable backrest.

One-piece glass roof in the X3 adds drama.

The centre passenger will also have to compromise thanks to a large centre tunnel on both SUVs. The windows are large and also get manual sunblinds, and the huge glass roof adds a tremendous sense of space.

More kneeroom in the back of the GLC, but short seat base robs under-thigh support.

The Mercedes has a longer wheelbase, which means better space in the rear. What also helps are the scooped-out front seats that elevate some more kneeroom. The backrest, while also upright, is slightly better than the X3, but the short seat squabs don’t offer as much under-thigh support. The split-opening panoramic sunroof does not offer an unobstructed view of the sky but does a good job of airing out the cabin. Where the Merc wins is with the high-quality materials all around and a neat blend of wood and metal. The BMW’s textured panels look new-age but lack the plush feel.

Split panoramic sunroof in the GLC can opened halfway for ventilation.

Boot space is also a Mercedes highlight, with 640 litres on offer compared to 570 litres on the X3, and both get a space-saver spare under the floor. Access to the boot, though, is better on the X3 thanks to a wider opening and lower floor.

Key controls baked into the SUVs' central touchscreens.

Both SUVs rely heavily on their touchscreen infotainment for all major functions. Everything from HVAC to the car settings is embedded within the UI, with only a few haptic buttons for ease of use. Right off the bat, the MBUX in the GLC is extremely easy to use in comparison to the X3’s system. Basic functions like HVAC are hard-coded on the screen; the BMW, on the other hand, requires multiple touches, and the font size feels a tad small, so you inevitably end up hitting unnecessary functions while on the move.

Merc's transparent bonnet feature useful for parking, too.

The GLC even gets an off-road mode, which works with the electronics and alters traction as needed, and there is also a transparent bonnet feature that will give you a view of what’s under the front of the car, stitched from the front camera feed. Both SUVs get park assist, but the X3 is a lot easier to use. 

Mercedes GLC vs BMW X3 performance and refinement

GLC is relatively more powerful and faster to hit 100kph from rest.

For a good balance between performance and refinement, the petrol versions of these SUVs are the preferred choice. Both get a 2.0-litre turbo-petrol engine, but where the GLC, in its ‘300’ guise, makes 258hp, the X3 falls short with only 190hp. There is also a 90Nm difference in torque in the GLC’s favour, helping it when it comes to acceleration. The extra power and torque mean the GLC is faster to 100kph by almost 2 seconds. Both SUVs feature all-wheel-drive systems. More importantly, the in-gear timings are also much quicker in the GLC, which means overtaking is a lot more effortless.

2-litre turbo-petrol engines of the GLC (top) and X3 (bottom) push out 258hp and 190hp, respectively.

Both SUVs also get a 48V battery that provides an additional boost under acceleration and Sport modes to amplify powertrain responses, with the X3 getting a ‘Boost’ mode, too, which offers a 10-second acceleration boost while you hold the paddle. 

Boost mode offers 10 secs of rapid acceleration.

There’s also an ‘Individual’ mode, where you can customise the engine response and the steering weight and have the most optimum setting to your liking - a straightforward setup in the Merc, but in the X3, it requires digging into Sport mode and then customising it further. However, the one ace up the X3’s sleeve is the adaptive dampers for the suspension.

Mercedes GLC vs BMW X3 ride comfort and handling

X3's firmer suspension setup lends it a composed ride, especially in corners.

Adaptive dampers result in good ride and flat cornering.

Both SUVs aim for an even balance between performance and comfort, with the latter taking slightly more priority. The GLC gets a passive suspension, which is tuned for a soft setup. As a result, the Merc rides better over bad roads, and there is less movement at low speeds. The X3 is on the firmer side, and even after you switch the mode to comfort, it isn’t as softly sprung as the GLC. Once the pace is upped, though, the X3 comes into its own, with a flat and composed ride that is amplified in the corners.

Not as sharp to handle as the X3 but still holds its own very well.

The GLC is not bad either, but the extra stiffness in Sport mode gives the X3 an edge. Body roll in both SUVs is negligible, but here, too, the X3 shines with its steering setup and adaptive dampers. If you are a keen driver and value handling, the X3 will offer more for you.

Mercedes GLC vs BMW X3 price and verdict

They are just Rs 50,000 apart in price.

Priced at Rs 75.30 lakh, the GLC is marginally cheaper than the Rs 75.80 lakh X3. So, their prices are pretty much identical. The two are also very close in every other aspect. The X3, with its larger proportions and contemporary design, has more presence, but the Merc’s soft-around-the-edges look is also favoured by many. The BMW’s interior looks sporty, but it’s the Merc that edges ahead in our books, with a more opulent feel and a lot of high-quality materials used throughout. The Merc has more space, but in terms of seating comfort, it’s the BMW that has an advantage.

The GLC’s extra horses make it the better-driving of the two.

On the move, the GLC’s softer setup gives it the plusher ride. Handling, though, goes to the BMW, with its sharper manners around bends, but it’s the Merc that is more exciting with the many extra horses. So, with its elegant styling, plusher interior, good ride and a stronger engine, the GLC offers more of what typical buyers look for in this segment, and it takes the win.

Also see:

Skoda Kylaq vs Mahindra XUV 3XO comparison

BYD Sealion 7 vs Hyundai Ioniq 5 vs BMW iX1 LWB comparison

Tata Punch CNG vs Hyundai Exter CNG: Dual duel

Also See:

BYD Sealion 7 vs Hyundai Ioniq 5 vs BMW iX1 LWB comparison

The compact SUV segment continues to grow, and the latest entrant in this tightly contested space is the Skoda Kylaq. It offers everything we liked about the Skoda Kushaq in a smaller and more affordable package, so the question is: how does it stack up against the winner of our last compact SUV comparison, the Mahindra XUV 3XO?

Explore full specs, features, and a price breakdown in our Kylaq vs XUV 3XO comparison.

Skoda Kylaq vs Mahindra XUV 3XO exterior design and engineering

Let’s start with the way they look. Both models measure just under 4m in length, but the Kylaq looks more proportionate. The wide signature front grille, split headlamps and chunky bumper work well to give the Skoda a good presence. Around the side, the 17-inch alloys, chunky cladding and roof rails add some flavour, while the faux scuff plate at the back gives it an outdoorsy look. However, the small square tail-lights make it appear more like a hatchback rather than a crossover.

XUV 3XO styling may not appeal to everyone

In comparison, the 3XO’s tail looks abruptly cut off, as it’s based on the 4m+ Ssangyong Tivoli. Like newer Mahindras, the 3XO has a polarising design, to say the least. Vertically oriented headlights, C-shaped daytime running lamps and a sharply cut bumper lend the 3XO its distinctive face. Like the Skoda, the Mahindra also gets 17-inch rims, body cladding and roof rails to further its SUV look. The rear is characterised by a full-width LED light bar and a chunky bumper.

Overall, the XUV does appear to be the more substantial of the two, given that it’s the widest and has the longest wheelbase in the segment. The XUV also has the advantage of 201mm ground clearance; the Kylaq’s is 189mm. However, the Skoda does have an edge when it comes to boot space, measuring 360 litres up to the parcel shelf, while the Mahindra has a 295-litre capacity. Both can also be expanded further thanks to split-folding rear seats, though the Skoda has a deeper boot.

Skoda Kylaq vs Mahindra XUV 3XO interior space and comfort

Kylaq interior is built tough, but all-black scheme detract from sense of space

These two also take a different approach on the inside. The Kylaq, as expected, closely resembles the Kushaq, with shared elements like the high-quality, 2-spoke steering wheel, digital instrument cluster and touch-based panel for climate control. However, Skoda has added some flash value by giving it olive green inserts on the dashboard, door panels and centre console, along with a light-textured fascia. Overall, the design is clean and uncluttered and has a solid build, which is only furthered by the reassuring ‘thud’ you get when closing the doors.

It has a dual-tone theme, but the black upholstery can make you feel hemmed in, especially when compared to the XUV. It has a practical interior, too, with large doorbins, plenty of cubbies, and some typically Skoda ‘Simply Clever’ touches like the phone slots on the front seatbacks, a ticket holder on the windshield, and more.

The Kylaq’s front seats are better in this company, given that they offer better support and feature electric adjustment and ventilation. But in terms of the backseat, it falls behind the Mahindra. It has an adequate amount of legroom and headroom for average-sized adults, but the narrow cabin and the seat contouring mean it is best suited for two passengers. Rear occupants get their own AC vents, Type-C charging ports, adjustable headrests and a centre armrest with cupholders.

XUV 3XO cabin feels airier and more premium

In comparison, the XUV 3XO’s interior looks and feels more upmarket. The light-coloured upholstery uplifts the space, as does the panoramic sunroof, but the ivory seats will be challenging to keep clean. Top-spec versions get a soft-touch finish on the dash; there’s a generous use of gloss black, and elements like the steering wheel, window switches and light/wiper stalks feel top-notch. It’s also nice that the XUV gets physical buttons and knobs for the dual-zone climate control. Like the Kylaq, the 3XO has plenty of storage spaces in the cabin, with large doorbins, a good-sized cooled glove box, and more.

You’ll appreciate the view you get out of the cabin from the XUV, and the bonnet flares give you the feeling that you’re driving an SUV. The front seats, even though they’re well-cushioned, aren’t as accommodating as the Kylaq’s, and you’ll also miss that you don’t get electric adjustment or ventilation. But it’s at the rear where the Mahindra has the most evident advantage. Owing to its width, three adults can sit comfortably in the XUV, and the long wheelbase means that legroom is plenty, too. If anything, accommodating the mechanism for the sunroof has eaten into headroom, but that’ll only be an issue for those taller than 6 feet. Amenities at the back include AC vents, a centre armrest with cupholders, a 12V port and a USB Type-C charger.

Skoda Kylaq vs Mahindra XUV 3XO features and safety

Speaking of amenities, both models, compared here in their top-spec forms, are very well-equipped. Common features include LED headlamps, 17-inch alloys, a sunroof, a wireless charger, a digital instrument cluster, a touchscreen infotainment system with wireless smartphone integration, leatherette upholstery, auto climate control, six airbags, traction control and ISOFIX child seat mounts. Commendably, both the Kylaq and XUV 3XO have a 5-star BNCAP rating. However, they both have features unique to them as well.

Kylaq one-ups XUV 3XO with powered and ventilated front seats

The Kylaq’s front seats have ventilation and power adjustment, which the XUV lacks, and we found the output from the Skoda’s 4-speaker and 2-tweeter audio system to be more consistent. The Skoda makes do with smaller 10-inch and 8-inch screens for the infotainment and cluster, respectively. However, its screen features a newer UI compared to its stablemates, and on the whole, this system is slick and has good graphics.

XUV 3XO gets Level 2 ADAS, 360-degree camera, rear disc brakes, and more

Coming to the XUV 3XO, the AX7 L featured here gets a larger panoramic sunroof, larger 10.25-inch screens, an electronic parking brake, a 360-degree camera, more connected tech, a 7-speaker Harman Kardon audio system, rear disc brakes, and Level 2 ADAS (blind-spot monitor, autonomous emergency braking, lane-keep assist, and more) over the Kylaq’s range-topping Prestige variant. The ADAS features work well on a clearly marked road and can be switched off completely, too, should you want to. I found the blind-spot monitor, which appears in the instrument cluster, to be particularly useful.

Skoda Kylaq vs Mahindra XUV 3XO performance and refinement

Now, on to the driving bits. Both SUVs are powered by a 3-cylinder, direct-injection, turbo-petrol engine, but they vary in displacement and output. The Kylaq has a smaller 1.0-litre unit that puts out 115hp and 178Nm, while the 3XO’s larger 1.2-litre motor produces 131hp and 230Nm. Both versions tested were paired with the same Aisin-sourced 6-speed torque converter automatic gearbox.

Given the difference in output, the Mahindra is naturally quicker in a sprint to 100kph, completing it in 11.05sec to the Kylaq’s 11.69sec. The Skoda claws back in the 20-80kph run, posting an identical time of 6.38sec, but it is marginally slower in the 40-100kph run.

Skoda 1.0 TSI feels stronger than expected

The Kylaq’s engine is slightly slower to respond at low speeds, and that’s something you’ll have to get used to in city driving. But then on, power delivery becomes smooth and progress easy. The TSI engine punches above its weight and feels significantly stronger than its cubic capacity would have you believe. And that’s most evident in the mid-range. What helps make the most of the mid-range are the paddle shifters, which add to the engagement. And even in fully automatic mode, the gearbox does its job rather smoothly. In isolation, the Kylaq’s engine is refined, but it is the noisier unit in comparison.

XUV 3XO feels punchier at low speeds

The XUV 3XO has a significant power and torque advantage, and you feel as much from the get-go. Drive modes also help fine-tune the experience. Just as you start out, you’ll feel that the XUV 3XO is more responsive at low speeds. However, you have to be mindful – at least in city driving conditions – that it’s better in Zip mode, where power delivery is the smoothest. If you’re in Zap or Zoom mode, you will find that the engine bunches up its power quite early in the rev range. And you don’t want that when you’re in very tight moving conditions.

Of course, when the road opens up, you’d want to switch to Zap or Zoom mode, which will have the engine breathe freer and feel different in its power delivery. While the Kylaq’s engine is the strongest in the mid-range, the XUV’s mill feels strong throughout. So, right from low revs, it’s more alert and responsive, and even in the mid-range, there is a constant and steady stream of power. You don’t have to work the engine to get the best out of it.

The 3XO is quick and fun, but you will miss paddle shifters. Gear shifts via the lever are responsive enough, though. What’s remarkable is the Mahindra engine’s refinement. Even when revved hard, it doesn’t thrum like you’d expect a 3-cylinder unit to.

Skoda Kylaq vs Mahindra XUV 3XO fuel efficiency

XUV 3XO was more frugal in our testing

Coming to the important topic of fuel efficiency, we put the two cars through our test loops in Mumbai city as well as on the highway. And it’s the XUV that delivered a higher figure of 9.9kpl in town. The SUV’s auto stop/start keeps the engine off for longer durations, which could have helped the economy. The Kylaq managed 8.7kpl in the city, but it did edge past on the highway, delivering 13.3kpl to the XUV 3XO’s 13kpl figure.

Skoda Kylaq vs Mahindra XUV 3XO ride comfort and handling

Kylaq corners better, but XUV 3XO feels more stable at high speeds

Around the bends, the Kylaq feels more engaging. The Kylaq doesn’t get steering modes like the XUV 3XO, and in general, it has a lighter steering wheel, but it’s nice and smooth, and you can have great fun in the corners. You also get the feeling that this chassis could actually take on a larger, more powerful engine, maybe the 1.5 TSI for a Kylaq RS? When cruising on the highway, the Kylaq drives like a bigger car, but over undulations, there is more up-and-down movement than you get in the 3XO. And if you talk specifically in comparison to the 3XO’s ride comfort, the Kylaq is more absorbent at lower speeds, and over bumps and potholes, you’ll sense that there’s a bit more wheel travel as well.

The XUV 3XO, too, feels fun to drive on a twisty road. Notably, its drive modes also change steering weight progressively. You get a good feeling of control at the steering wheel, but the standout element is the grip that you experience around corners. So, you can carry a lot of speed with a great deal of confidence. At higher speeds, the 3XO feels poised and composed, and you can attribute that to the relatively flatter ride than the Kylaq. On the flip side, the low-speed ride is a bit firmer than the Skoda, but not to the extent of being a dealbreaker.

Skoda Kylaq vs Mahindra XUV 3XO price and verdict

Both compact SUVs trade blows on the price front

In terms of pricing, the Skoda Kylaq and Mahindra XUV 3XO are about at par for comparable trim levels. The fully loaded XUV 3XO AX7 L featured here is pricey at Rs 15.79 lakh (ex-showroom, Mumbai). But forgo the ADAS, 360-degree camera and electric parking brake, and you can get the AX7, whose Rs 13.99 lakh price tag is identical to that of the top-spec Kylaq Prestige AT. Talking about like-priced variants, there is a bit of give and take in features, but they’re still close.

The duo is also close in terms of driving experience, the 3XO being marginally faster, while the Kylaq is more entertaining in its handling and slightly more absorbent in its ride quality. Where the 3XO moves ahead is in its plusher interior, more refined engine and more room for passengers. The advantage in fuel economy also tips the scales in favour of the Mahindra. Keen drivers will enjoy both models, no doubt, but it’s the XUV 3XO that eventually makes you feel like you’ve got more for your money.

Also see:

BYD Sealion 7 vs Hyundai Ioniq 5 vs BMW iX1 LWB comparison

Tata Punch CNG vs Hyundai Exter CNG: Dual duel

The premium electric vehicles (EV) space has really begun to heat up. While there weren’t any options between the Rs 25 lakh MG ZS EV and the Rs 1 crore Mercedes EQC earlier, now there are as many as six EVs priced around Rs 50 lakh on sale. Of these, the Hyundai Ioniq 5, the recently launched BYD Sealion 7 and the locally made BMW iX1 LWB appear to be the most compelling. We brought the three together and put them through our real-world tests to see which one deserves a spot in your garage.

All three EVs measure over 4.6 metres in length, over 1.8 metres in width and have a 2.8-metre or longer wheelbase. The BYD is the longest and the widest, the BMW is the tallest, and the Hyundai trumps the other two in wheelbase length. As for their underpinnings, the BYD and Hyundai have born-electric platforms, which allow for better packaging and interior space. As such, these two feature a properly usable frunk (front trunk), which the ICE-to-EV converted BMW lacks.

Explore full specs, features, and a price breakdown in our Sealion 7 vs Ioniq 5 vs iX1 LWB comparison.

BYD Sealion 7 vs Hyundai Ioniq 5 vs BMW iX1 LWB exterior design and engineering

Each of these three EVs follows a different form factor. The Ioniq 5 takes the shape of a large hatchback; the iX1 is more like a traditional SUV, while the Sealion 7 looks like a coupé-SUV. It really depends on which style you prefer, but all of them stand out in their own way with distinctive design elements.

The Ioniq 5 has a neo-retro look with sharp cuts and creases and unique multi-spoke, dual-tone alloys, and I particularly like the rectangular lighting elements. In contrast, the Sealion 7 has a more rounded design that goes with BYD’s family look. It does look large and ungainly from the front, but the large alloys and the tapering roofline add some flair. At the rear, there’s a connected lighting element, which has some nice details. The BMW is the most conventional by far and has that upright stance of an SUV. It features BMW’s signature kidney grille, which appears a bit too large, as do the LED headlights. Its side profile does not look the most proportionate, thanks to the longer wheelbase and the smaller 18-inch wheels; the rear is quite similar to the standard X1, with large, L-shaped LED tail-lamps.

BYD Sealion 7 vs Hyundai Ioniq 5 vs BMW iX1 LWB interior space and comfort

All three EVs have distinct identities inside the cabin as well. Starting with the Sealion 7, you’re greeted with a relatively conventional-looking dashboard, which houses the screens for the touchscreen infotainment system and the driver’s display. The 15.6-inch touchscreen, in typical BYD fashion, can change orientation from landscape to portrait, is very slick to operate, has high-res graphics, and even gets an updated UI over its siblings. This screen controls most of the car’s functions, but it’s nice that there are some physical controls in the centre console and a neat trick to adjust the AC without going into the sub-menus. All you have to do is swipe on the screen with three fingers from left to right for fan speed and from top to bottom for the temperature.

The driver’s display, too, is high-res, but it appears very cluttered, and a lot of the important info appears small. But you have to commend BYD for the superb material quality and fit-and-finish, which feel on par with European luxury brands.

In the centre console, you get two wireless charging pads and two cup holders; there’s even some storage space below the console. The front seats feature ventilation, have just the right amount of cushioning and are very comfortable for occupants of all sizes. At the back, too, the seats feel plush and can be reclined; there’s loads of space, particularly legroom. The large windows and the glass roof elevate the sense of space.

BYD has also packed the Sealion 7 with features like wireless smartphone integration, a 12-speaker Dynaudio music system, powered front seats, auto headlamps and wipers, a gesture-controlled and powered tailgate, dynamic ambient lighting, and much more. As for safety, there are 11 airbags, including one between the front seats and two for the rear side bolsters. There’s also Level 2 ADAS, a crisp 360-degree camera, and a driver-attention monitor, which is way too sensitive – even briefly glancing at the touchscreen generates a warning.

As for the new iX1 LWB, it has the same dash design as the ICE-powered X1 and the iX1 xDrive30, with a large, curved display that includes the infotainment touchscreen and the instrument panel. There are large, horizontal AC vents on the passenger side of the dash and under the screen, below which a sizeable wireless charging pad is located. The centre console extends from the centre armrest and houses some of the car’s key functions. The screens, while high in resolution, are too complicated tonavigate initially and on the go. While the fit and finish are great, some materials lower in the cabin are hard and scratchy.

The front seats are supportive, but larger passengers may find them narrow, and they don’t have ventilation, which the other two EVs provide. The cushioning is firmer than the BYD’s. While the seats may not seem as comfortable initially, you’ll feel the cushioning is well-judged the longer you spend time in them. It’s at the rear where you get to experience the benefits of a long wheelbase. Though you are seated quite low and in a bit of a knees-up position because of the underfloor battery, you get acres of legroom; the seat base is longer by 15mm, and the backrest can be reclined up to 28.5 degrees, all of which make it more comfortable than the standard wheelbase version of the iX1. Compared to the BYD, though, the BMW feels narrower inside, and the backrest cushioning is on the firmer side. What also would’ve added to the comfort is rear sun blinds, which are also missing in the BYD.

The BMW is the least feature-rich EV here, but it still gets stuff like a large panoramic glass roof, ambient lighting, auto LED headlamps, connected tech, a smartphone-enabled key, leather upholstery, eight airbags and Level 2 ADAS tech.

Now, let’s come to the Hyundai Ioniq 5. Step inside it, and you get a great sense of space, thanks to the massive glass area, light colours, flat floor and the absence of a traditional centre console. Hyundai has used recycled and sustainable materials inside, and what’s great is that the fit and finish, as well as the touch and feel of bits, are top-notch. However, the white upholstery stains very easily, as you’d typically expect.

Headlining the dash are two 12.3-inch screens – one for the instrument cluster and the other for the infotainment. These displays are crisp and easy to read, and the UI is easier to understand and navigate than that of the other two. The steering is a 2-spoke unit that houses a round drive-mode selector, while the drive-selector stalk is beneath the headlamp stalk. Uniquely, the entire centre console slides front and back to tailor the space and access. There are also plenty of storage spaces, such as a huge drawer in place of the glove box, large door bins and the centre console itself.

The front seats are broad and supremely comfortable, with soft cushioning and plenty of electric adjustments, including extendable leg rests, and they can be configured into a comfy lounger. They also have ventilation and heating. The rear seats, though not as comfy as the ones in front, are easily wide enough for three adults, with the outer two seats featuring heating and electric adjustment. However, you are seated in a knees-up position due to the battery under the floor.

The Ioniq 5 also packs in a panoramic fixed glass roof, an 8-speaker Bose sound system, a 360-degree parking camera, dual-zone climate control, an electric boot, ESP, six airbags and ADAS. Wired smartphone integration is a downer, though.

BYD Sealion 7 vs Hyundai Ioniq 5 vs BMW iX1 LWB features and safety

BYD Sealion 7 vs Hyundai Ioniq 5 vs BMW iX1 LWB performance and refinement

All three EVs featured here have different drive layouts. The Sealion 7 has an all-wheel drive (there is also an RWD version), the Ioniq 5 is rear-wheel drive and, rather unconventionally, it’s the BMW that’s front-wheel drive. The BYD, in this dual-motor Performance guise, also has a clear advantage in terms of output (530hp/690Nm), followed by the Hyundai (217hp/350Nm) and the BMW (204hp/250Nm). And this is reflected in the performance figures. The Sealion 7 Performance makes the 0-100kph sprint in a brisk 4.43 seconds, compared to the Ioniq’s 7.48 seconds and the iX1’s 11.30 seconds. It’s the same story in rolling acceleration, with the BYD comfortably outperforming its rivals.

Before we get into the nitty-gritty of how these feel like to drive, one thing each of them does admirably well is delivering power in a linear manner, unlike EVs of old, which served up all of their performance in one big chunk right from the get-go. All three also get drive modes, which affect throttle sensitivity, power delivery and range.

Let’s start with the BYD, which easily feels the quickest of the lot. What’s nice is that it is able to put its power down in a tidy manner, thanks to the AWD system. On the move, you’ll also appreciate how smooth and progressive the power delivery is. And while the powertrain is silent, you will start to hear more of the outside world as you get closer to triple-digit speeds despite it featuring double-glazed front windows.

Similarly, in the Hyundai, you don’t get that neck-snapping acceleration; the power delivery is nice and smooth. But that’s not to say that you’ll feel a lack of performance, as the Ioniq 5 feels sprightly in the Sport mode. The throttle modulation has also been judged very well, and it feels like a normal ICE car to drive. What’s also nice is that suspension, road and tyre noises barely disrupt the silence of the cabin.

The BMW, by far, feels the most relaxed out of the trio, and while it packs over 200hp, given the weight it has to haul around, it can leave you wanting more, like when you want to make a quick overtake. As it has a front-wheel drive, there’s also some torque steer to contend with when driven flat out. As for sound insulation, it isn’t as quiet on the move as the Ioniq but fares better than the Sealion 7.

BYD Sealion 7 vs Hyundai Ioniq 5 vs BMW iX1 LWB range

Like with the output and performance, there’s the same pecking order when it comes to battery sizes, too. The Sealion 7 has an 82.56kWh unit with BYD’s blade cell LFP battery technology. The Ioniq 5 has the second-largest battery pack at 72.6kWh, and the BMW has the smallest at 66.4kWh; these two use the NMC battery chemistry. However, the Ioniq 5 has the highest claimed range of 631km, followed by the Sealion 7 (542km) and the iX1 (531km).

In our real-world range test, the Ioniq 5 came out on top with a calculated overall range of 457km, significantly higher than the other two. The iX1 LWB had a 398km range, and given the extra power, the BYD delivered the least range of 371km. And, as is the case with most EVs, all three were more efficient in the city cycle, where they can recuperate more energy. 

All three get multiple regen braking modes, but the BMW has an advantage here with four modes; the Hyundai gets three, while the BYD has only two. One must note that the BMW also has an adaptive regen mode, but it’s not very intuitive, and the Hyundai is the only one in which you can turn off regen, allowing for free coasting. However, the BMW’s mode controls are baked into the touchscreen, making it tedious to change them on the move, and it’s also the most aggressive of the lot. On the other hand, the BYD feels the least aggressive, even in its ‘High’ mode. It’s the Hyundai’s regen that is best tuned, with a natural feel in the lower level, and you can even adjust levels or turn it off via paddle shifters. Also, the iX1 and the Ioniq 5 are capable of one-pedal driving.

The Ioniq 5 is the clear winner when it comes to charging speeds, as it is capable of DC fast charging at speeds of up to 350kW, which is enough to take it from 10 to 80 percent in just 18 minutes. The BYD can be charged up to 150kW on a DC fast charger. Both these are also capable of V2V (vehicle-to-vehicle) and V2L (vehicle-to-load) functions, wherein they can charge other EVs and power/charge other devices. The BMW can be fast-charged up to 130kW.

BYD Sealion 7 vs Hyundai Ioniq 5 vs BMW iX1 LWB ride comfort and handling

As for ride and handling, the Sealion 7 has a hint of firmness to its ride, but it manages to deal with road imperfections fairly well. The 20-inch wheels on this AWD version are a fly in the ointment, making it feel crashy over bumps. Given its mass and high centre of gravity, the BYD rolls a fair bit around bends, and its steering feels a little too quick.

The Ioniq 5 feels planted at all speeds, and you’ll like the maturity with which it drives. The steering is direct and has a good heft, but it doesn’t feel sporty to drive, which is fine given its focus on comfort. And despite sitting on those large 20-inch alloys, the ride feels comfy and well-damped, and the Ioniq 5 deals with the rough stuff fairly well. There are some minor vertical movements over expansion joints, but it feels well-controlled.

Meanwhile, the long wheelbase has affected the BMW iX1’s handling just as you’d expect. It doesn’t feel as agile as the regular wheelbase, dual-motor iX1 xDrive30, but it still grips corners admirably well with little body roll to speak of. The ride quality, like in most BMWs lately, is excellent. It feels very absorbent and does a good job of making the iX1 feel composed over most surfaces.

BYD Sealion 7 vs Hyundai Ioniq 5 vs BMW iX1 LWB price and verdict

The iX1, which has BMW’s badge value to bank on, has plenty of space at the back and is very attractively priced at Rs 49 lakh; dynamically, it’s the best here. But it has its shortcomings – it isn’t as equipped as the others; the infotainment system is unnecessarily complex and has swallowed a lot of key functions; the rear-seat backrest cushioning is firm, and certain plastics lower in the cabin feel out of place on a BMW.

Now let’s sum up the Sealion 7. It is BYD’s most rounded offering in India yet and has everything we love about the Seal sedan in a more practical package. The interior quality and fit-and-finish are top-notch; it’s got all the tech and features you need, a comfortable backseat, and the most powerful drivetrain that’s quite smooth. It’s also the only one here with all-wheel drive (Rs 54.90 lakh), though there’s an RWD version with a higher claimed range of 567km but a lower output (310hp, 380Nm) and a price tag of Rs 48.90 lakh, which is still more expensive than the Hyundai and with a lower promised range. The Sealion 7 loses ground in its real-world range, which is the lowest, and it isn’t as well-rounded in many specific matters – the sound levels inside the cabin are high, the ride isn’t as plush, and the driver’s display is cluttered. And then, there’s BYD’s relative lack of an aftersales network.

And this brings us to the winner, the Hyundai Ioniq 5. It standsout as the most approachable and well-rounded package. The cabin is spacious, the seats are very comfy and unique, and the infotainment is easy to navigate. The Ioniq 5 is also the most natural to drive, has the best real-world range and can charge at the fastest pace. To top it off, it’s the most affordable, too, at Rs 46 lakh. It’s no wonder then that the Ioniq 5 won our Car of the Year 2024 award and this comparison, too.

Also see:

BMW iX1 LWB vs Hyundai Ioniq 5 vs BYD Sealion 7 video comparison

BYD Sealion 7 vs Seal: price, range, features and specs compared