The Ariya carries 87 kWh usable against the Ioniq 5’s 80, and travels 48 km less far on it. It then takes 48 minutes to recover 10 to 80 percent against the Ioniq 5’s eighteen. That is among the widest charging gaps between any two cars in this database, and on a long journey nothing else on this page competes with it.
What actually differs
- Hyundai Ioniq 5 84 kWh RWD goes 48 km further on the observed real-world figure than the Nissan Ariya e-4ORCE 87 kWh.
- On the EPA highway cycle – the one that decides a long drive – Hyundai Ioniq 5 84 kWh RWD is rated 29 km further than the Nissan Ariya e-4ORCE 87 kWh.
- Hyundai Ioniq 5 84 kWh RWD is 21% more efficient than the Nissan Ariya e-4ORCE 87 kWh, which is what the electricity bill follows.
- Hyundai Ioniq 5 84 kWh RWD charges from 10 to 80 per cent 30 minutes faster than the Nissan Ariya e-4ORCE 87 kWh.
- At home Nissan Ariya e-4ORCE 87 kWh accepts 11 kW more, so it refills faster overnight than the Hyundai Ioniq 5 84 kWh RWD.
- Nissan Ariya e-4ORCE 87 kWh carries 7 kWh more usable battery than the Hyundai Ioniq 5 84 kWh RWD.
- Hyundai Ioniq 5 84 kWh RWD is 199 kg lighter than the Nissan Ariya e-4ORCE 87 kWh.
Every line above is computed from the table below, not written: a difference is only stated where both cars carry that figure from a named source. Not compared, because at least one car has no sourced value: price, battery warranty.
| Specification | Hyundai Ioniq 5 84 kWh RWD Hyundai | Nissan Ariya e-4ORCE 87 kWh Nissan |
|---|---|---|
| Market & identity | ||
| Curb weight | 4,542 lb | 4,980 lb |
| Battery | ||
| Cell chemistry LFP tolerates daily charging to 100% and is the most thermally stable; NMC and NCA pack more energy per kilogram. | NMC | NMC |
| Usable capacity The figure every range and cost calculation on this site is based on. | 80.0 kWh | 87.0 kWh |
| Thermal management Active liquid or direct-refrigerant cooling is the strongest single predictor of slow degradation and repeatable fast charging. | liquid-active | liquid-active |
| Pack voltage 800 V architectures hold high charging power for longer and waste less energy as heat. | 697 V | 355 V |
| Capacity loss per year Rate for this vehicle class from published fleet datasets, not a measurement of this model and not a manufacturer claim. | 2.7% / year est | 2.7% / year est |
| Projected state of health at 8 years Modelled from the observed degradation rate at average annual mileage. An estimate, not a measurement. | 78% est | 78% est |
| Range & efficiency | ||
| EPA range US EPA combined cycle, the most conservative of the three official tests. | 318 mi | 272 mi |
| EPA range, city The city half of the EPA combined rating. Usually the higher of the two for an electric car. | 356 mi | 286 mi |
| EPA range, highway The highway half of the EPA combined rating, and the figure to plan a long drive around. | 272 mi | 254 mi |
| WLTP range European combined cycle, typically 15 to 25 percent more optimistic than EPA for the same car. | 354 mi | 320 mi |
| Observed real-world range Mixed-conditions figure from independent testing. This is the number that matters on a road trip. | 280 mi | 250 mi |
| EPA consumption | 30.0 kWh/100 mi | 36.6 kWh/100 mi |
| Real-world consumption | 286 Wh/mi | 348 Wh/mi |
| Charging | ||
| Peak DC power Held briefly, often only inside a narrow state-of-charge window. | 263 kW | 130 kW |
| 10 to 80 percent DC charge time The honest measure of fast-charging speed. | 18 min | 48 min |
| AC onboard charger Sets how fast the car fills up overnight at home. | 11 kW | 22 kW |
| DC connector (Europe) | CCS2 | CCS2 |
| DC connector (US) The plug fitted to the car as sold in the United States. Blank where we have not sourced it for that market. | NACS | — |
| Performance | ||
| Peak power | 168 kW | 225 kW |
| 0-60 mph | — | — |
| 0-100 km/h | 7.5 s | — |
| Cost of ownership | ||
| Base MSRP (US) | $37,500 | — |
| Base price (EU) | €51,650 | — |
| Est. out-of-warranty pack replacement (US) | — | — |
| Battery warranty | 10 yr | — |
| Est. 5-year residual value | — | — |
| Safety & risk | ||
| NHTSA overall rating | 5/5 | 5/5 |
| Euro NCAP overall rating | 5/5 | 5/5 |
| Battery or high-voltage recalls | 10 | 3 |
| Battery safety score | ||
| Composite score Our own composite of thermal management, cell chemistry, crash rating and recall record. Formula | 6.5 / 10 | 7.2 / 10 |
highlighted marks the better figure for that row. Where a car is not sold in a market, its price and official range for that market are blank rather than converted. est marks a modelled value, explained on the methodology page.
Efficiency is where the range goes
402 km observed for the Ariya against 450 km for the Ioniq 5, from a battery 9 percent larger. The reason is 216 Wh/km against 178 — a 21 percent difference in consumption, the largest gap in this comparison and one of the largest on the site.
Some of that is 2,259 kg of kerb weight and a dual-motor e-4ORCE drivetrain against a single rear motor. Some of it is simply a design that was not optimised around consumption. Either way you pay for it every kilometre, and on the EPA cycle the gap is wider still: 272 miles against 318.
Charging: eighteen minutes against 48
263 kW peak on 800 volts against 130 kW on 400. The Ioniq 5 completes the 10-80 percent window in eighteen minutes; the Ariya needs 48. On a 900 km drive requiring two stops that is roughly an hour of additional standing around.
Compounding it, the Ariya has less range to start with, so it needs those stops sooner. The two disadvantages multiply rather than cancel.
The one place the Ariya wins outright
22 kW AC onboard charging against 11 kW. Where three-phase AC is available — much of continental Europe, and many workplace car parks — the Ariya refills at double the rate on the kind of charger you leave a car plugged into for hours. It is the only car in this database with 22 kW AC.
If your charging is overwhelmingly destination charging rather than motorway rapid charging, that inverts the whole comparison. It is a narrow case, and for the people in it, it is decisive.
The Ariya also makes 601 Nm through both axles against 350 Nm to the rear, which shows in wet-weather traction rather than in any figure this site publishes.
Which one should you buy
Buy the Ioniq 5 for almost every use case: more real range, far quicker rapid charging, lower running cost, and 3.6 kW of vehicle-to-load the Ariya does not offer at all.
Buy the Ariya if you have three-phase AC where you park and rarely rapid charge, or if you want all-wheel drive at this price. Outside that, the charging gap is very hard to argue away.
Frequently asked questions
Why does the Ariya go less far with a bigger battery?
Consumption. The Ariya uses 216 Wh/km against the Ioniq 5’s 178 — about 21 percent more energy per kilometre — which more than cancels its 7 kWh advantage in pack size.
How much slower is the Ariya to rapid charge?
48 minutes from 10 to 80 percent against eighteen — roughly two and a half times as long. The Ariya peaks at 130 kW on a 400-volt architecture; the Ioniq 5 peaks at 263 kW on 800 volts.
Is there anything the Ariya does better?
Yes — 22 kW AC onboard charging, double the Ioniq 5’s 11 kW and the highest in this database. On three-phase AC it refills far faster than its rapid-charge figure suggests. It also has all-wheel drive and 601 Nm.
Where these numbers come from
Sources are credited per figure on the Ioniq 5 and Ariya e-4ORCE pages.