Suzuki Alto vs Hyundai KONA EV

A proper head-to-head in Kenya — compare price, performance, fuel economy or electric range, safety and the details that shape long-term ownership.

Suzuki Alto in Kenya

Suzuki Alto

ALTOK10 RC GA 5D 998p MT Petrol 5-Speed Manual Current
KES 1,650,000 ex-showroom
⚡ 49 kW 🔧 89 Nm
VS
Hyundai KONA EV in Kenya

Hyundai KONA EV

KONA EV Kenya specification Electric Single-Speed Reduction Gear Current
KES 6,950,000 ex-showroom
⚡ 150 kW 🔧 395 Nm
+ Add a 3rd car

Decision summary

Suzuki Alto vs Hyundai KONA EV: the short answer

KONA EV holds a noticeable catalogue-index lead over Alto.

Alto starts KES 5,300,000 cheaper Alto from KES 1,650,000 · KONA EV from KES 6,950,000

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification Alto KONA EV
Maximum Power Alto49 kW @ 5500 rpm KONA EV150 kW
Maximum Torque Alto89 Nm @ 3500 rpm KONA EV395 Nm
Engine Size Alto998 cc KONA EVNot Applicable
Combined Fuel Economy AltoNot Officially Disclosed KONA EVNot Officially Disclosed
Ground Clearance Alto160 mm KONA EV158 mm

Strongest published figure in that row; no road-test winner is implied.

Evidence for Suzuki Alto ALTOK10 RC GA 5D 998p MT

Source type: Suzuki Kenya

Evidence for Hyundai KONA EV KONA EV Kenya specification

Source type: Hyundai Kenya

What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)

Alto

Strengths
  • Stronger listed safety equipment
Weak Spots
  • Less powerful engine setup
  • Lower fuel efficiency
  • Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to: General Use
Specification evidence leader

KONA EV

Strengths
  • More powerful engine output
  • Better fuel efficiency
  • Stronger published practicality figures
Weak Spots
  • Fewer listed safety features
Best suited to: Published Performance Published Efficiency Published Practicality

Which One's Right for You?

Alto

  • Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment

KONA EV

  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
  • Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures

Full Specs, Side by Side

Spec Alto KONA EV
Model Introduced Year Not Officially Disclosed Not Officially Disclosed
Generation Not Officially Disclosed Not Officially Disclosed
Facelift History Not Officially Disclosed Not Officially Disclosed
Facelift Launched Since Not Officially Disclosed Not Officially Disclosed
Facelift Version Ending Not Officially Disclosed Not Officially Disclosed
Body Style Compacts SUV
Model Year Not Officially Disclosed Not Officially Disclosed
Production Status Active Active
Segment Kenya-market Hatchback Kenya-market SUV
Vehicle Type Hatchback SUV
Spec Alto KONA EV
Length 3530 mm 4205 mm
Width 1490 mm 1800 mm
Height 1520 mm 1570 mm
Wheelbase 2380 mm 2600 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 160 mm 158 mm
Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) 145 mm 143 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity 27 l Not Applicable
Boot/Cargo Space 214 l 332 l
Kerb Weight 747 kg 1685 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 1168 kg 2170 kg
Payload Capacity 421 kg 485 kg
Towing Capacity 400 kg 300 kg
Seating Capacity 5 seats 5 seats
Number of Rows 2 rows 2 rows
Doors 5 doors 5 doors
Minimum Turning Radius 4.5 m 5.3 m
Front Headroom Not Officially Disclosed Not Officially Disclosed
Rear Headroom Not Officially Disclosed Not Officially Disclosed
Front Legroom Not Officially Disclosed Not Officially Disclosed
Rear Legroom Not Officially Disclosed Not Officially Disclosed

In depth: how these cars differ

This Alto and KONA EV comparison uses the exact derivatives selected above for Kenya. The catalogue index covers performance, efficiency, safety equipment, practicality and ownership cover only where comparable source-backed fields are present.

Performance index: Alto 26 vs KONA EV 73.

Efficiency index: Alto 75 vs KONA EV 90.

Safety-equipment index: Alto 83 vs KONA EV 82.

Practicality index: Alto 44 vs KONA EV 49.

Ownership-cover index: Alto not separately scored vs KONA EV not separately scored.

These figures are Hagalu catalogue-comparison indicators, not customer ratings, crash-test scores, resale guarantees or a substitute for a road test. Each page shows its weighted source coverage beside the result.

Specification Evidence Index

A transparent comparison of published catalogue fields. This is not a road-test score, owner rating or editorial review rating, and it appears only when every vehicle clears the same comparable-data threshold.

Evidence / 100
Evidence-index readout

KONA EV leads by 18 points

KONA EV holds a noticeable catalogue-index lead over Alto.

Evidence leader 73 /100
Lead 18 points
Data 56% source coverage
73
#1 Evidence leader

KONA EV

56% source coverage 3 strong categories
Best at Efficiency 90 Check Practicality 49
Performance 73
Efficiency 90
Safety 82
Practicality 49
Leads by 18 points
55
#2

Alto

68% source coverage 2 strong categories
Best at Safety 83 Check Performance 26
Performance 26
Efficiency 75
Safety 83
Practicality 44
Performance 24% Safety 22% Practicality 22% Efficiency 17% Ownership 15%
Category leaders What moves the verdict
Performance KONA EV +47 Efficiency KONA EV +15 Safety Alto +1 Practicality KONA EV +5

Moderate difference in the source-backed catalogue index.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

KONA EV

Performance 73/100
Efficiency 90/100
Safety 82/100
Practicality 49/100

Alto

Performance 26/100
Efficiency 75/100
Safety 83/100
Practicality 44/100

What the evidence means

Evidence index Hyundai KONA EV leads the specification evidence index with 73 pts vs 55 pts for Alto

In Hagalu's specification evidence index, KONA EV leads. However, Alto may suit buyers prioritising different confirmed fields. Ultimately, the right choice depends on your driving priorities in Kenya.

Alto vs KONA EV questions

There is no universal winner. Use the comparison table to match the models and available derivatives in Kenya on price, safety equipment, space, powertrain and ownership cover. The category indicators summarise published catalogue data; they are not a road test or customer rating.

Compare the published consumption or mileage rows for the exact derivatives using the same unit and test basis. A catalogue figure is useful for like-for-like comparison, but traffic, speed, load, weather and driving style can change actual fuel use.

Compare only equipment explicitly listed for each derivative, including airbags, stability control and driver-assistance systems. Confirm the exact trim with the manufacturer, and treat any independent crash-test result separately because equipment and ratings can differ by market.

A reliable five-year total cannot be calculated from catalogue data alone. Add the exact purchase and finance cost, fuel or electricity, insurance quotes, scheduled servicing, tyres and expected resale value. Check whether the selected derivative includes a service or maintenance plan.

Use the seating, boot or load-space, ISOFIX and safety rows as a first check. Then test the exact cars with your child seats, passengers and typical luggage, because published dimensions do not show every access or comfort difference.

Compare the published power, torque and 0–100 km/h rows when they are available for both exact derivatives. Vehicle weight, gearing and power delivery also matter, so catalogue outputs alone do not establish real-world overtaking or response.