In our Sofia to Stockholm EV duel, the Audi A6 Sportback e-tron performance beats the Audi A6 Avant e-tron performance by 2 minutes, completing the 2654km route in 29h 44min. The key advantage? 1 fewer charging stop. Route calculated on July 20, 2026 using real-time charging station data.
The Audi A6 Sportback e-tron performance needs only 8 charging stops compared to 9 for the slowest vehicle, saving valuable time.
Winner
Audi A6 Sportback e-tron performance
- Total time: 29h 44min (2 min faster)
- Charging stops: 8
- Charging time: 1h 35min
- Energy: ~413 kWh
- Distance: 2654km
Quick Comparison
| Metric |
Audi A6 Avant e-tron performance |
Audi A6 Sportback e-tron performance |
| Travel time |
29h 46min |
29h 44min |
| Charging time: |
1h 34min |
1h 35min |
| Charging stops: |
9 |
8 |
| Energy used |
~478 kWh |
~477 kWh |
Charging Strategy Breakdown
Audi A6 Avant e-tron performance Route
- Start: Sofia (100% charge)
-
Stop 1:
OMV Zemun Park (10 min, 25% → 63%)
-
Stop 2:
IONITY Csalánosi Csárda (10 min, 12% → 56%)
-
Stop 3:
IONITY Győr (11 min, 16% → 65%)
-
Stop 4:
ČEZ Mikulášov sever (10 min, 10% → 56%)
-
Stop 5:
Esso Tankstelle (12 min, 10% → 64%)
-
Stop 6:
Shell Recharge Autohof Herzsprung (10 min, 10% → 55%)
-
Stop 7:
Burger King (11 min, 13% → 63%)
-
Stop 8:
Circle K Ljungby Nyponvägen Trucks (10 min, 10% → 55%)
-
Stop 9:
Tesla Supercharger (10 min, 22% → 62%)
- Arrival: Stockholm
Audi A6 Sportback e-tron performance Route
- Start: Sofia (100% charge)
-
Stop 1:
OMV Zemun Park (10 min, 29% → 66%)
-
Stop 2:
IONITY Csalánosi Csárda (10 min, 18% → 60%)
-
Stop 3:
IONITY Győr (10 min, 23% → 63%)
-
Stop 4:
ČEZ Mikulášov sever (10 min, 11% → 55%)
-
Stop 5:
Esso Tankstelle (11 min, 11% → 61%)
-
Stop 6:
Supercharger Autohof Herzsprung (10 min, 10% → 53%)
-
Stop 7:
Væggerløsevej (14 min, 18% → 71%)
-
Stop 8:
IONITY Burger King (20 min, 10% → 79%)
- Arrival: Stockholm
Why the Audi A6 Sportback e-tron performance Won
The Audi A6 Sportback e-tron performance achieved a 2-minute advantage over Audi A6 Avant e-tron performance on this 2654km route. Key factors:
- Fewer charging stops: 8 stops vs 9 for the slowest vehicle means less time spent finding and connecting to chargers.
- Better efficiency: Lower energy consumption (~413 kWh vs ~433 kWh) means less time spent charging.
Related Comparisons