Performance, power and 0-100 km/h
2025 Citroën C5 Aircross PHEV 225 has the quicker recorded 0-100 km/h time at 7.5 seconds, compared with 7.9 seconds for 2025 Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV SEL S-AWC. 2025 Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV SEL S-AWC has the higher listed output at 248 hp; 2025 Citroën C5 Aircross PHEV 225 is rated at 225 hp, a difference of 23 hp. The torque figures follow 2025 Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV SEL S-AWC at 450 Nm and 2025 Citroën C5 Aircross PHEV 225 at 360 Nm. These figures describe straight-line potential only; they do not establish braking performance, ride quality, steering response or durability under repeated hard use.
Range, battery, charging and efficiency
2025 Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV SEL S-AWC carries the longer listed range at 64 km, against 55 km for 2025 Citroën C5 Aircross PHEV 225. 2025 Citroën C5 Aircross PHEV 225 has the lower recorded consumption at 1.5 L/100km; 2025 Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV SEL S-AWC is listed at 2.0 L/100km. 2025 Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV SEL S-AWC has the higher listed DC charging ceiling at 50 kW, compared with 24 kW. Test cycle, temperature, wheel size and charging conditions can materially affect these results, so only figures measured on the same basis should be treated as directly comparable.
Dimensions, cargo space and towing
2025 Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV SEL S-AWC provides the larger quoted cargo volume: 464 litres versus 460 litres, a difference of 4 litres. 2025 Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV SEL S-AWC carries the higher towing rating at 1,588 kg, while 2025 Citroën C5 Aircross PHEV 225 is listed at 1,250 kg. 2025 Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV SEL S-AWC is 210 mm longer overall. Exterior size is not a benefit by itself: a longer body may create useful room, but cargo shape, rear-seat space and ease of parking still require a physical inspection.
Price and overall assessment
2025 Citroën C5 Aircross PHEV 225 has the lower listed starting price at $41,800, compared with $44,790 for 2025 Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV SEL S-AWC. 2025 Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV SEL S-AWC leads in more of the shared headline fields, but that is not a universal verdict: a buyer should weight price, performance, range and utility rather than simply count category wins. The assessment is based on the specifications shown here; it is not presented as a two-car road test.