MY26 · eDrive40
Side by side · MY26 and MY24–MY25
BMW i5vsMercedes-Benz EQE
582 km WLTP · 30 min 10–80%639 km WLTP · 29 min 10–80%
vs
The BMW i5 is rated 582 km on the WLTP cycle, the Mercedes-Benz EQE 639. A 10–80% stop takes 30 minutes in the BMW i5 and 29 in the Mercedes-Benz EQE. Every figure below names the badge it belongs to, and the three tools further down turn the same numbers into a charging race, a road trip and a yearly bill.
At a glance
BMW i5 · eDrive40
582km WLTP
30min 10–80%
A$155,900from
Mercedes-Benz EQE · 300
639km WLTP
29min 10–80%
A$135,200from
The short answer
The Mercedes-Benz EQE turns the same electricity into more kilometres.
1
The Mercedes-Benz EQE is rated 639 km against 582 — 57 km, 10% further. It uses 16.7 kWh to cover 100 km where the Mercedes-Benz EQE needs 14.2.
2
A 10–80% stop takes 29 minutes in the Mercedes-Benz EQE and 30 in the BMW i5. On a 50 kW post it is 71 and 81 minutes, so most of the advantage disappears at a slow site.
3
The BMW i5 makes 250 kW against 180.
Which one, in one line
Pick the Mercedes-Benz EQE ifit wins on range (639 km against 582), running cost (14.2 kWh per 100 km against 16.7), charging (29 minutes against 30).
The priceThe Mercedes-Benz EQE is the cheaper to buy, listed from A$135,200; both are list prices before on-road costs and incentives.
MY24–MY25 · 300
Charging, raced
Two cars, one post, same clock
Charging speed is a station number and a car number, and the smaller one wins. Set the post and both cars fill against the same clock — the interesting part is not who wins, it is how much of the gap a slow post takes away.
Each car is modelled on its own published 10–80% time, which gives an average power over that window: 118 kW for the BMW i5, 139 kW for the Mercedes-Benz EQE. A post above that average changes nothing; a post below it sets the pace.
Mercedes-Benz EQECCS229min
BMW i5CCS230min
At 150 kW, going from 10% to 80% takes 30 min in the BMW i5 and 29 min in the Mercedes-Benz EQE — a gap of 1 minutes. Both cars are limited by their own packs at this post, so a bigger station would change nothing.
Every figure
The numbers, with the badge attached
A tick marks a figure that is simply more useful — more range, less energy per 100 km, a faster stop. Rows without a tick are different, not better: a bigger battery, a taller body and a heavier car are all trades, and this page does not pretend otherwise.
| Measure | BMW i5 | Mercedes-Benz EQE |
|---|---|---|
| Range and efficiency | ||
| WLTP range | 582 kmMY26 eDrive40 | 639 km✓MY24–MY25 300 |
| Efficiency | 5.99 km/kWh | 7.04 km/kWh✓ |
| Energy per 100 km | 16.7 kWh | 14.2 kWh✓ |
| Battery | 84 kWh | 96.1 kWh |
| Charging | ||
| DC peak | 205 kW✓ | 170 kW |
| 10–80% at peak | 30 min | 29 min✓ |
| Average power, 10–80%(derived) | 118 kW | 139 kW✓ |
| AC maximum | 11 kW | 11 kW |
| Fast-charge plug | CCS2 | CCS2 |
| AC plug | Type 2 | Type 2 |
| Size and weight | ||
| Length | 5,060 mm | 4,946 mm |
| Width | 1,900 mm | 1,961 mm |
| Height | 1,505 mm | 1,510 mm |
| Kerb weight | 2,165 kg | 2,310 kg |
| Space and practicality | ||
| Seats | 5 | 5 |
| Boot | 490 L✓ | 430 L |
| Towing, braked | — | 750 kg |
| Performance and warranty | ||
| Power | 250 kW✓ | 180 kW |
| 0–100 km/h | 6.0 s✓ | 7.3 s |
| Drive | RWD | RWD |
| Battery warranty | 5yr unlimited km / 8yr 160,000km | 5yr unlimited km / 8yr 160,000km |
| Price | ||
| Starts at | A$155,900list, before on-road | A$135,200✓list, before on-road |
| Dearest version | A$222,900 | A$214,900✓ |
| Per km of WLTP range | A$267.87/kmcheapest version | A$211.58/km✓cheapest version |
| Drive-away | A$170,000–A$185,000where the feed lists it | A$144,000–A$156,000where the feed lists it |
How to read the mixed rows. Range, efficiency, battery and charging come from one badge — the longest-range version of each car's current model year, not the longest range it has ever been rated at. The catalogue stores one record per badge, so where two figures come from different badges the row names the one it used.
What WLTP is not. It is a laboratory cycle at a fixed temperature, with the air conditioning off and a gentle acceleration profile. It exists so two cars can be compared on the same test, not so a driver can predict a highway run. Expect less on a 110 km/h trip, and less again in winter.
What this page does not claim. No ANCAP crash rating: the catalogue carries none, and a column of dashes would read like a failure rather than a gap. Prices are manufacturer list before on-road costs; the drive-away band appears only where the feed publishes one.
Your numbers
What this pair costs you, on your drive
Two questions decide most purchases: how often you stop, and what the year costs. Both are arithmetic on the figures above, so change the inputs and the answer changes with you.
The drive
Starts full, arrives at 10%, charges back to 80% at each stop, and assumes a highway range of 85% of the WLTP figure.
- BMW i5
- 2
- Mercedes-Benz EQE
- 2
stops · 60 min charging
stops · 58 min charging
The year
Energy at the wheels from the WLTP label, priced at the tariff you pay. Home charging is usually cheaper than the directory's median.
- BMW i5
- A$1,253
- Mercedes-Benz EQE
- A$1,065
A$8 per 100 km
A$7 per 100 km
The trip model ignores charger detours, queueing and the last 10% of the pack, which is slow on both cars. The yearly cost is energy only: no session fees, no idle fees, no home-charger installation, and no petrol car to compare against.
Your priorities
A verdict you can argue with
There is no single winner, only a winner for a set of priorities. Move the sliders and the weighting changes — nothing here is a magazine score, and the page never hides the numbers it is built from.
Weighted result
Mercedes-Benz EQE
wins 5 of 6 measures on these weights
BMW i518%
Mercedes-Benz EQE82%
Each measure is scaled between the two cars, so a weight of 5 means “this is the thing I care about” and 0 means “I do not care at all”. The scores are relative, not a rating out of ten.
Questions
Short answers, then the reasoning
Every figure here comes from the same data as the rest of the page. Where the data cannot answer, the page says so instead of guessing.
Still unsure about a term? The connector guide covers the plugs, and the vehicle guide the rest.
Which has more range, the BMW i5 or the Mercedes-Benz EQE?
The Mercedes-Benz EQE. The BMW i5 is rated 582 km and the Mercedes-Benz EQE 639, each on the longest-range badge of its current model year — MY26 eDrive40 and MY24–MY25 300 respectively. WLTP is a laboratory cycle run at a fixed temperature with the air conditioning off, so treat the figure as a way to compare one car with another rather than a prediction for a highway run in summer.
Which charges faster?
The Mercedes-Benz EQE. Going from 10% to 80% takes 30 minutes in the BMW i5 (205 kW peak) and 29 in the Mercedes-Benz EQE (170 kW peak). At a slow post the station becomes the limit and the gap narrows, because the slower car is short of power rather than short of time.
Do they use the same plug?
Yes. Both list CCS2 for DC fast charging, so either car can use the same sites without an adapter. An adapter still cannot raise the power a car will accept.
Which is cheaper to run?
The Mercedes-Benz EQE, by about A$187.50 a year at 15,000 km and A$0.50 per kWh. It uses 14.2 kWh per 100 km against 16.7. That is energy only, at the wheels: session fees, idle fees and home-charger installation are not in it.
Which has more space?
The BMW i5: 490 L of luggage space against 430 L. Makers measure boot volume by different conventions — some to the window line, some under the parcel shelf — so read the direction as reliable and the size of the gap as indicative.
Which is cheaper to buy?
The Mercedes-Benz EQE is the cheaper of the two, listed from A$135,200 against A$155,900 for the BMW i5 — A$20,700 between the two starting prices. Both are manufacturer list prices before on-road costs, options and any incentive, so a dealer's drive-away number will differ.
Other comparisons
All comparisonsEvery figure on this page comes from the same records the BMW i5 and Mercedes-Benz EQE pages use. How the sources are chosen, and what a figure here never claims, is on the methodology page.