The Tesla Model Y has been unveiled, and it will likely prove to be one of the electric car maker’s best-selling vehicles. Equipped with a robust set of features and offered at a reasonable price, the Model Y has the potential to disrupt the highly lucrative crossover SUV market the same way that its sibling, the Model 3, disrupted the passenger sedan segment in the US last year.
As the market prepares for the arrival of the Model Y, it becomes pertinent to compare it to other all-electric SUVs in the market. So far, there are two that are pretty close to the Model Y in size: the Audi e-tron and the Jaguar I-PACE. Faced with this competition, how does the Model Y stack up?
Tesla Model Y
The Model Y could be described as a larger, bulkier version of the Model 3. Similar to the electric sedan, the Tesla Model Y is offered in either RWD or AWD options. The vehicle starts at a $39,000 for the Standard Range version and goes all the way to $60,000 for the Performance variant. Just like Tesla’s other vehicles, the all-electric SUV is designed to go the distance, with the Standard version having 230 miles of range, the Long Range having 300 miles of range, and the Dual Motor AWD and Performance version having 280 miles of range per charge.
The Model Y is no slouch, as even the Standard version can sprint from 0-60 mph in 5.9 seconds. The range-topping Model Y Performance, with its dual motors, hits 60 in 3.5 seconds all the way to a top speed of 150 mph. Being based on the Model 3, the Model Y features a hyper-minimalistic interior, capped off by a stunning panoramic glass roof. A fully-loaded red multicoat red Model Y with Autopilot, Full Self-Driving, and the optional third-row seats (which would boost the car’s seating capacity to seven passengers), would set back buyers around $73,500.
A key advantage of the Model Y is its access to Tesla’s expansive and ever-growing Supercharger Network, allowing owners of the newly-released SUV to go on long road trips without any range anxiety. Being a derivative of the Model 3, the Model Y is also compatible with Tesla’s Supercharger V3 network, which has a maximum power output of 250 kW, or 1,000 miles per hour. Tesla estimates that Supercharger V3’s charging times will average around 15 minutes per vehicle.
Audi e-tron
The Audi e-tron debuted last year, at a time when the Model X was the only SUV in Tesla’s lineup. The size of the e-tron is more comparable with that of the Model Y though, making a comparison between the two vehicles a bit more appropriate. Price-wise, the e-tron is priced higher than the Model Y, costing just under $76,000 for the basic Premium Plus package, while the higher-end Prestige option starts at $81,800. With all the major upgrade boxes ticked on the Premium Plus offering, the e-tron would cost around $88,000.
Performance-wise, the e-tron falls behind the Model Y, with its 0-60 mph time of around 5 seconds and its top speed of 124 mph. Audi has been pretty secretive about the e-tron’s range, though the vehicle’s 95 kWh battery pack suggests that the SUV should have more than 200 miles of range per charge. Inside the vehicle, the e-tron is classic Audi, with multiple configurable screens and several creature comforts.
The Audi e-tron has some tricks up its sleeve when it comes to charging. The SUV could plug into a variety of chargers, including a 150 kW setup that is expected to charge the vehicle’s battery to 80% in just ~30 minutes. Such charging speeds are quite comparable to those of Tesla’s Supercharger V2 stations, which, as the Tesla community has proven over the years, is more than adequate for long trips.
Jaguar I-PACE
The I-PACE is priced at a premium compared to the recently unveiled Model Y, starting at around $70,000 for the S model all the way to the $86,000 HSE or “First Edition” trim. With all options checked, the I-PACE could breach the $100,000 barrier, thanks to rather expensive items like $500 floormats.
Just like the e-tron, the I-PACE falls a bit short of the Model Y’s specs, with its 0-60 mph time of 4.5 seconds, its top speed of t 124 mph, and its range of 234 miles per charge. The I-PACE has one edge over the Model Y though, in the form of its plush interior, which would delight car buyers looking for a more traditional vehicle with more conventional creature comforts and accents. The I-PACE is also available now, unlike the e-tron and the Model Y, which are yet to start rolling out to customers.
The Jaguar I-PACE actually falls behind the Model Y and the Audi e-tron in terms of its charging systems, as it is capable of charging up to 100 kW. This means that charging the vehicle’s 90 kWh battery to 80% (provided that a 100 kW fast charger is available) would take about 40 minutes.
Conclusion
Overall, each vehicle would likely be perfect for specific car buyers. Those looking for an electric SUV that is familiar and conventional would best pick up an I-PACE or an e-tron. Nevertheless, when it comes to bang-for-your-buck value and sheer performance specs, it is difficult to argue against the Model Y.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
