Source type: Ford Kenya
Ford Everest vs Hyundai SANTA FE
A proper head-to-head in Kenya — compare price, performance, fuel economy or electric range, safety and the details that shape long-term ownership.
Ford Everest
Everest XLT
Diesel
10-Speed Automatic
Current
KES 11,250,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 154 kW
🔧 500 Nm
VS
Hyundai SANTA FE
SANTA FE Kenya specification
Diesel
Current
KES 9,750,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 142 kW
🔧 440 Nm
Decision summary
Ford Everest vs Hyundai SANTA FE: the short answer
Everest and SANTA FE are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.
SANTA FE starts KES 1,500,000 cheaper
Everest from KES 11,250,000 · SANTA FE from KES 9,750,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | Everest | SANTA FE |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | Everest154 kW | SANTA FE142 kW |
| Maximum Torque | Everest500 Nm | SANTA FE440 Nm |
| Engine Size | Everest1996 cc | SANTA FENot Officially Disclosed |
| Combined Fuel Economy | EverestNot Officially Disclosed | SANTA FENot Officially Disclosed |
| Ground Clearance | Everest229 mm | SANTA FE176 mm |
Strongest published figure in that row; no road-test winner is implied.
Source type: Hyundai Kenya
What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)
Specification evidence leader
Everest
Strengths
- More powerful engine output
Weak Spots
- Lower fuel efficiency
- Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to:
Published Performance
SANTA FE
Strengths
- Better fuel efficiency
- Stronger published practicality figures
Weak Spots
- Less powerful engine setup
Best suited to:
Published Efficiency
Published Practicality
Which One's Right for You?
Everest
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
SANTA FE
- Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures
Full Specs, Side by Side
| Spec | Everest | SANTA FE |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | SUV | SUV |
| Model Year | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Production Status | Active | Active |
| Segment | Kenya-market SUV | Kenya-market SUV |
| Vehicle Type | SUV | SUV |
| Spec | Everest | SANTA FE |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 4914 mm | 4830 mm |
| Width | 1923 mm | 1900 mm |
| Height | 1841 mm | 1720 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2900 mm | 2815 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 229 mm | 176 mm |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 214 mm | 161 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 80 l | 67 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | 259 l | 634 l |
| Kerb Weight | 2367 kg | 1905 kg |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | 3100 kg | 2610 kg |
| Payload Capacity | 733 kg | 705 kg |
| Towing Capacity | 3500 kg | 2500 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 7 seats | 7 seats |
| Number of Rows | 3 rows | 3 rows |
| Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 5.85 m | 5.7 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 Everest and SANTA FE 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: Everest 81 vs SANTA FE 69.
Efficiency index: Everest 47 vs SANTA FE 51.
Safety-equipment index: Everest 94 vs SANTA FE 94.
Practicality index: Everest 78 vs SANTA FE 83.
Ownership-cover index: Everest not separately scored vs SANTA FE 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.
Model imagery
Everest and SANTA FE image comparison
Open an image for its full canonical file or visit the model page for the complete vehicle record.
Ford Everest
View 8 more Everest images
Hyundai SANTA FE
View 8 more SANTA FE images
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-index readout
Everest leads by 2 points
Everest and SANTA FE are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.
Evidence leader
77
/100
Lead
2
points
Data
68%
source coverage
77
#1
Evidence leader
Everest
Performance
81
Efficiency
47
Safety
94
Practicality
78
Leads by 2 points
75
#2
SANTA FE
Performance
69
Efficiency
51
Safety
94
Practicality
83
Performance 24%
Safety 22%
Practicality 22%
Efficiency 17%
Ownership 15%
Category leaders
What moves the verdict
Performance
Everest +12
Efficiency
SANTA FE +4
Safety
Level
Practicality
SANTA FE +5
Close catalogue match. Buyer priorities should decide the outcome.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
Everest
Performance
81/100
Efficiency
47/100
Safety
94/100
Practicality
78/100
SANTA FE
Performance
69/100
Efficiency
51/100
Safety
94/100
Practicality
83/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Everest leads. However, SANTA FE may suit buyers prioritising different confirmed fields. Ultimately, the right choice depends on your driving priorities in Kenya.
Related comparisons
Continue with closely related Kenya models and comparable body styles.
Everest vs SANTA FE 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.