These two weigh the same to within 3 kg and cost the same to within £730 in the UK, and the Tesla goes 85 km further on a charge from a smaller battery. That is the whole story of electric-car efficiency in one pairing: 60 kWh at 133 Wh/km beats 65 kWh at 178. What the Volvo offers instead is a crossover body, a quicker 0-100 and a US price list the rear-drive Model 3 does not have.
What actually differs
- Tesla Model 3 RWD goes 85 km further on the observed real-world figure than the Volvo EX30 Single Motor Extended Range.
- Tesla Model 3 RWD is 34% more efficient than the Volvo EX30 Single Motor Extended Range, which is what the electricity bill follows.
- Tesla Model 3 RWD charges from 10 to 80 per cent 4 minutes faster than the Volvo EX30 Single Motor Extended Range.
- Volvo EX30 Single Motor Extended Range carries 5 kWh more usable battery than the Tesla Model 3 RWD.
- Volvo EX30 Single Motor Extended Range is 1 seconds quicker to 100 km/h than the Tesla Model 3 RWD.
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.
| Specification | Volvo EX30 Single Motor Extended Range Volvo | Tesla Model 3 RWD Tesla |
|---|---|---|
| Market & identity | ||
| Curb weight | 1,850 kg | 1,847 kg |
| Battery | ||
| Cell chemistry LFP tolerates daily charging to 100% and is the most thermally stable; NMC and NCA pack more energy per kilogram. | NMC | LFP |
| Usable capacity The figure every range and cost calculation on this site is based on. | 65.0 kWh | 60.0 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. | 392 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 | 2.0% / 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 | 84% est |
| Range & efficiency | ||
| EPA range US EPA combined cycle, the most conservative of the three official tests. | 420 km | — |
| EPA range, city The city half of the EPA combined rating. Usually the higher of the two for an electric car. | 457 km | — |
| EPA range, highway The highway half of the EPA combined rating, and the figure to plan a long drive around. | 375 km | — |
| WLTP range European combined cycle, typically 15 to 25 percent more optimistic than EPA for the same car. | 476 km | 534 km |
| Observed real-world range Mixed-conditions figure from independent testing. This is the number that matters on a road trip. | 365 km | 450 km |
| EPA consumption | 18.1 kWh/100 km | — |
| Real-world consumption | 178 Wh/km | 133 Wh/km |
| Charging | ||
| Peak DC power Held briefly, often only inside a narrow state-of-charge window. | 158 kW | 175 kW |
| 10 to 80 percent DC charge time The honest measure of fast-charging speed. | 28 min | 24 min |
| AC onboard charger Sets how fast the car fills up overnight at home. | 11 kW | 11 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. | CCS1 | — |
| Performance | ||
| Peak power | 200 kW | 208 kW |
| 0-60 mph | — | — |
| 0-100 km/h | 5.3 s | 6.2 s |
| Cost of ownership | ||
| Base MSRP (US) | — | — |
| Base price (EU) | €44,990 | €37,970 |
| Est. out-of-warranty pack replacement (US) | $10,700 est | — |
| Battery warranty | 8 yr | 8 yr |
| Est. 5-year residual value | — | — |
| Safety & risk | ||
| NHTSA overall rating | — | — |
| Euro NCAP overall rating | 5/5 | 5/5 |
| Battery or high-voltage recalls | 2 | — |
| Battery safety score | ||
| Composite score Our own composite of thermal management, cell chemistry, crash rating and recall record. Formula | 7.8 / 10 | 10 / 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.
85 km, from five fewer kilowatt-hours
450 km observed for the Model 3 RWD, 365 for the EX30 Single Motor Extended Range; 534 against 476 on the WLTP cycle. The Tesla carries less battery — 60 kWh usable against 65 — and uses far less of it per kilometre: 133 Wh/km against 178, the lowest and one of the higher figures in this database. A low saloon against a tall, short crossover is most of the explanation, and the most efficient electric cars ranking shows how much of a car’s range that shape decides.
Two chemistries, two charging habits
The Model 3 RWD’s pack is lithium iron phosphate, which Tesla asks you to charge to 100 per cent at least weekly; the EX30’s is nickel-based and meant to live between about 20 and 80 for daily use. Follow both instructions and the everyday gap widens further: the Tesla owner uses all 60 kWh, the Volvo owner about 39 of the 65. The trade — LFP loses more range in cold weather and charges more slowly when cold — is set out on the LFP page, and every LFP car we track is on electric cars with LFP batteries.
On DC the Tesla is quicker too: 24 minutes from 10 to 80 per cent at a 175 kW peak against 28 minutes at 158 kW. Both are 400-volt cars that reach their own limit on a 150 kW station. At home both take 11 kW and fill from empty in a little under six hours (Tesla) and about six and a half (Volvo).
What the Volvo has that the Tesla does not
A crossover body and a tailgate, 5.3 seconds to 100 km/h against 6.2, 3 kW of vehicle-to-load, and a US price list: the EX30 is sold in the United States with a 261-mile EPA rating, while the rear-drive LFP Model 3 compared here is the European car — for 2026 Tesla’s US “Standard” trim is a different, larger-pack vehicle, so we hold no EPA figure for this one. Both are five-star Euro NCAP cars, the Volvo tested in 2023 and the Tesla in 2025.
Price
In the UK the two are almost identical: £37,260 for the EX30 against £37,990 for the Model 3 RWD. In Germany the gap opens the other way — €44,990 against €37,970 — which makes the Tesla the clearly cheaper car there and the Volvo’s case harder to make.
Which one should you buy
Buy the Model 3 RWD for range and running cost — 85 km more per charge, a quarter less energy per kilometre, four minutes sooner off the charger, and a pack you can fill to the top every night. In Germany it is also €7,000 cheaper.
Buy the EX30 if you want the crossover shape and the higher seat, the quicker sprint, or you are buying in the United States, where the Tesla in this comparison is not sold. Budget 365 km rather than 450 between charges and keep the pack under 80 per cent day to day.
Frequently asked questions
Which goes further, the Volvo EX30 or the Tesla Model 3 RWD?
The Tesla: 450 km observed against 365, and 534 against 476 km WLTP. It does that from a smaller battery — 60 kWh against 65 — because it uses 133 Wh/km against the Volvo’s 178.
Which charges faster?
The Model 3 RWD, by four minutes: 24 from 10 to 80 per cent against 28. At home both take 11 kW; the Tesla fills in a little under six hours, the Volvo in about six and a half.
Is the EX30 cheaper than the Model 3?
In the UK by £730 — £37,260 against £37,990. In Germany the Tesla is €7,000 cheaper, at €37,970 against €44,990.
Can I buy the Tesla Model 3 RWD in the United States?
Not this car. The 60 kWh LFP rear-drive Model 3 compared here is the European specification; for 2026 Tesla sells a different “Standard” rear-drive Model 3 in the US. The EX30 is sold in both markets, rated at 261 miles by the EPA.
Where these numbers come from
Every figure is credited on the EX30 and Model 3 RWD pages, with its source, its market and the date it was read.