Every new electric car price, grouped by range

Prices listed cheapest first inside each range band, so the top of a band is the cheapest way to get that much range and the bottom is the dearest. Every car links to its maker. Grouping by range rather than by price is the point: two cars $20,000 apart are not competitors, but two cars with the same range are, whatever they cost.

No models match that body type. Choose another, or All.

Why the bands are where they are

The cuts are where the buying decisions change rather than where the numbers fall evenly, and each one is arguable:

• Under 260 km is a second car. It works for a commute and a school run and not much else, and it is the cheapest way into an EV by a wide margin. The cut sits at 260 rather than a round 250 so that the 252 km car sits beside the 220 km one — they are the same decision, and separating them by two kilometres of specification hid that.
• 260–349 km is the awkward middle: a real car, but one you plan around on a long trip rather than one you simply drive.
• 350–449 km is where the value arguments are won or lost.
• 450–499, 500–549 and 550–649 km are split because between them they hold most of the market, and one block that size tells you nothing. Where exactly the splits fall is arbitrary; that they fall somewhere is not. A car at 460 km and a car at 640 km are not competitors, and a single heading makes them look like they are.
• 650 km and over is a small, expensive group. Worth knowing it exists, and worth knowing what it costs to join.

Filtering by body type

The filter narrows every band to one body type and recounts the bands as it goes, so the numbers above each table always match the rows beneath them.

Two things to know about it. Body type is my classification, not a specification — the source data has no such field, so I grouped each model by what it is. Most are unarguable. The judgement calls are the Polestar 2 and Polestar 5, which are liftbacks and are grouped as sedans, and the Kia EV6 and Polestar 4, which are crossovers and are grouped as SUVs. If a grouping matters to your shortlist, check the maker’s own description rather than mine.

And the filter is an enhancement, not a requirement. It needs JavaScript. Without it you get every row and no filter buttons, rather than buttons that look live and do nothing.

Read the price column carefully

This is the part most price comparisons get wrong, so it is stated on every page that carries a price on this site:

“Drive-away” and “before on-road costs” are different numbers and they are not comparable. A maker advertising “from $49,990 drive-away” and another advertising “from $44,990 plus on-road costs” are close to the same price in the real world, but they rank $5,000 apart in a sorted list. Everything in the table above is drive-away, which is the only basis on which a ranked list means anything.

And even a drive-away figure is not exactly right for you. A drive-away price bundles the on-road costs — registration, stamp duty, dealer delivery — and those are set by state. A single national drive-away number is therefore an average of eight different answers. South Australians pay their own stamp duty and registration, so treat this list as a ranking and go to the maker’s own configurator for your postcode before you act on any single figure.

The two bases are nearly $3,000 apart on a cheap car. Geely advertises the EX2 from $26,490 before on-road costs. The drive-away figure for the same vehicle in the table above is about $2,900 higher, and the entire difference is what the two numbers choose to include. Put those two figures in one sorted list with no basis column and the EX2 appears to have dropped three thousand dollars overnight.

And list prices move. The cheapest car here has been advertised at its list price, at a campaign price thousands below it, and at an aggregator’s own cost-derived estimate thousands above it — three defensible-looking numbers for one vehicle, all circulating at once. That is why every row starts unverified and earns a price checked marker only when someone has opened the maker’s own page.

The source itself has faults, and I found one. The Hyundai ELEXIO Elite appeared twice in the data, identically. One copy was removed. Nothing about it looked wrong on the page — it took reading the rows rather than trusting them, which is the whole argument for why none of this is marked verified yet.

What is not in this list

The coverage note at the top of the table says exactly which brands the source does and does not carry. It is not the whole market, and the missing brands are named rather than quietly left out.

Two other things are deliberately absent:

• Plug-in hybrids. They have a range figure and a price, and putting them in the same table would compare an electric range with a total range. They belong on their own page.
• Used cars. Different market, different pricing behaviour, and a range figure that has had years taken off it.

How to use this

1. Pick the band that matches how you actually drive, not the one you would like to.
2. Read that band from the bottom if you want the most car for that range, from the top if you want the least spend for it.
3. Click the car you are interested in. The link goes to the maker.
4. Then check the price against the maker’s own page before you do anything else. The list is for shortlisting; the maker’s page is for deciding — and it is also where the prices here stop being unverified.

Where the links go, and why some are badged

Every car links to its maker rather than to the aggregator the figures came from, which is where you would want to end up anyway.

But the links are two grades, and the difference is marked rather than hidden. Most link straight to that model’s own page at its maker. Twenty-four rows carry a range page badge, meaning the maker has no page for that individual model, so the link goes to the brand’s electric range page or its configurator. All BMW rows, the Mercedes-Benz CLA and EQB, all three Minis and all Tesla rows are that grade.

That distinction exists because clicking “BMW i7 M70” and landing on a generic EV configurator is a small betrayal of the click. You should know before you make it.

One source link was removed rather than used. Seven Tesla rows pointed at a personal Tesla referral shortener — an individual’s referral code, not a Tesla page. Publishing it would have funnelled referral credit to a stranger through this site, and it is exactly the kind of undisclosed commercial link the disclosure page says does not exist here. Those rows now point at Tesla’s own Australian site. Worth knowing because it arrived silently inside a dataset and looked entirely harmless.