At a glance
Here is how the two models stack up on the specs that matter most.
| Specification | CUx | NQi GT |
|---|---|---|
| Range | 100 km | 100 km |
| Battery | 2.6 kWh | 3.4 kWh |
| Efficiency | 2.6 kWh/100km | 3.4 kWh/100km |
| 0-100 km/h | 0 s | 0 s |
| Fast charge 10-80% | ~0 min | ~0 min |
| Seats | 1 | 1 |
| Price | $3,500 | $3,999 |
| Rating | 4.0/5 | 4.1/5 |
| Estimated running cost / year | $59 | $77 |
Both models win 2 of 8 categories - the decision comes down to your priorities.
Range & efficiency
The CUx is rated for 100 km of range versus 100 km for the NQi GT. That is effectively a tie - neither offers a meaningful range advantage.
The CUx consumes about 2.6 kWh per 100 km versus 3.4 kWh for the NQi GT - 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 NQi GT seats 1. Check the full spec sheet for cargo volume.
Price & running costs
The CUx lists at $3,500 and the NQi GT at $3,999. At 15,000 km per year, estimated running costs are about $59/yr versus $77/yr.
Verdict
It is genuinely close - both models win 2 of 8 categories each. Pick the CUx if you value better efficiency (2.6 kWh/100km). Pick the NQi GT if you value its overall balance of specs. Either way, you are getting one of the best options in its class.