At a glance
Here is how the two models stack up on the specs that matter most.
| Specification | CUx | MQi GT EVO |
|---|---|---|
| Range | 100 km | 90 km |
| Battery | 2.6 kWh | 4.2 kWh |
| Efficiency | 2.6 kWh/100km | 4.7 kWh/100km |
| 0-100 km/h | 0 s | 0 s |
| Fast charge 10-80% | ~0 min | ~0 min |
| Seats | 1 | 1 |
| Price | $3,500 | $4,500 |
| Rating | 4.0/5 | 4.2/5 |
| Estimated running cost / year | $59 | $106 |
The CUx wins 3 of 8 categories, making it our pick in this head-to-head.
Range & efficiency
The CUx is rated for 100 km of range versus 90 km for the MQi GT EVO. That is effectively a tie - neither offers a meaningful range advantage.
The CUx consumes about 2.6 kWh per 100 km versus 4.7 kWh for the MQi GT EVO - so the CUx is the cheaper and greener option per kilometre.
Performance
Acceleration figures vary by trim; check the full spec sheet below for the exact variant tested.
Charging
Charging time depends on the charger and battery temperature; the lower 10-80% figure means shorter stops on long trips.
Space & comfort
The CUx seats 1 and the MQi GT EVO seats 1. Check the full spec sheet for cargo volume.
Price & running costs
The CUx lists at $3,500 and the MQi GT EVO at $4,500. At 15,000 km per year, estimated running costs are about $59/yr versus $106/yr.
Verdict
The CUx is our pick, taking 3 of 8 categories in this head-to-head. It leads on the longer range (100 km vs 90 km), the lower consumption (2.6 kWh/100km vs 4.7 kWh/100km) and the better price ($3,500 vs $4,500). That said, the MQi GT EVO is still the better buy if local incentives, dealer offers or brand preference swing it for you.