The A390 GTS is slightly more powerful than the Model 3, but the Tesla is quicker from 0-62mph. The Alpine is more practical inside, but the Tesla goes further on a charge. The Model 3 is cheaper to buy with cash, but when it comes to finance and leasing – which is how the vast majority of Brits buy cars – the gap is a lot smaller.
Read on for the full verdict, and watch our video below where Nicola and I put both of these cars head to head to see which one we'd spend our money on.
Alpine A390 GTS
Price from: £69,390
Price as tested: £75,140
Est. monthly PCP: £1,070 (3 years, 10k miles, £5,000 customer deposit)
WLTP range: 312 - 345 miles
Real world range (est): 200 - 280 miles
Max charging: 190kW
Power: 470hp
0–62mph: 3.9secs
Boot capacity: 532 – 1,643 litres (no frunk)
Towing capacity: 1,350kg
Tesla Model 3 Performance
Price from: £59,990
Price as tested: £63,190
Est. monthly PCP: £946 (3 years, 10k miles, £5,000 deposit)
WLTP range: 372 miles
Real world range (est): 290–310 miles
Max charging: 250kW
Power: 460hp
0–60mph: 2.9secs
Boot capacity: 594–977 litres (est.) (88-litre frunk)
Towing capacity: 500kg
Real-world range and charging
This is where the Model 3 takes an immediate advantage – and it's unsurprising really as Tesla has always led from the front in this department.
Its circa-75kWh battery (Tesla never publishes battery sizes) gives a WLTP range of 372 miles, and even in real-world driving and not believing laboratory-created figures, a range of between 270 and 310 miles should easily be achievable.
The Alpine A390 has a much larger 89kWh battery pack, but in GTS spec it only manages to give a WLTP range of between 312- and 345 miles depending on which wheels you go for. In the real world, I reckon the Alpine would manage around 200 to 280 miles.
It's a similar story when it comes to rapid charging. The Model 3 Performance can accept up to 250kW from a suitable DC charger, while the Alpine tops out at 190kW.
The Alpine also offers 11kW AC charging, with 22kW available as an option. That's a useful feature if you regularly use three-phase public AC chargers, as it can make a significant difference to charging times.
But the Tesla has another trick up its sleeve: the Supercharger network. It's not just the number of chargers that's impressive, but how seamlessly everything works. The car plans your charging stops, preconditions the battery and handles payment automatically when you plug in.
It's hard not to be impressed by the Tesla in this regard, and on range and charging alone the Tesla is still the better car despite its advancing years.
Interior and infotainment
These two cars couldn't be more different inside.
The Tesla Model 3 Performance continues with the brand's famously minimalist approach. There's a steering wheel, a large central touchscreen and, well, not an awful lot else. Oh, I forgot, there's an indicator stalk (which has only made a reappearance after owners and people like Electrifying complained at its disappearance for the 2023 Model 3 facelift, and Tesla relented).
Almost everything is controlled through the 15.4-inch display, including the climate controls, navigation and even selecting drive or reverse. On that last point, in the top right of the screen, sliding your finger up or down selects forwards and reverse. It's very in character for Tesla to be quite this avantgarde with its tech focu, but it does take some getting used to for those used to a physical gear selector – or buttons, in the case of the Alpine.
The screen is certainly clean and modern, and Tesla's infotainment system remains one of – if not the slickest – around. The graphics are sharp, the menus respond quickly and the software is packed with features. And of course, there's Tesla's famous party games and features.
In the Performance, there's also an eight-inch touchscreen for rear passengers, which allows them to adjust the climate settings and access entertainment functions.
The Alpine takes a more traditional approach, albeit with a distinctly sporting twist.
There's a proper digital driver's display behind the steering wheel, a large central touchscreen and physical controls for some of the functions you're likely to use regularly. The Google-based infotainment system also works brilliantly.
The steering wheel itself is particularly interesting, with a blue Overtake button that provides a temporary performance boost and a separate control for adjusting regenerative braking. The GTS also gets some rather lovely Sabelt sports seats, trimmed in two-tone Nappa leather, along with an Alcantara headlining and a Devialet XtremeSound audio system.
It's an interior that feels much more focused on the driving experience, rather than simply showcasing technology. But it's a shame that the design of the dashboard is almost identical to what you get in a Renault Scenic. I just think it would have really elevated the A390 if Renault (its parent company) could have found the money to make the interior feel a bit more special and bespoke. It's not a bad interior at all, but I do think at this money it could be a bit better.
Simply put, the Tesla's interior feels like a piece of technology that happens to be a very fast car. The Alpine feels like a performance car that happens to be electric. They're certainly very different characters!
Space and practicality
You might not immediately think of either of these cars as particularly practical, especially given their performance credentials, but both have been designed to work as everyday family cars.
The Tesla Model 3 Performance is the longer car, measuring approximately 4.72 metres from nose to tail, compared with 4.62 metres for the Alpine. It's also lower, and is a proper – old-fashioned dare we say? – four-door saloon car with a boot. The Alpine, meanwhile, has a taller, more crossover-like body, despite its dramatic fastback styling, and has four doors with a large tailgate. It's what we'd call an SUV, but Alpine vehemently calls it a 'sport fastback'.
Tesla quotes 594 litres of luggage space at the back, plus another 88 litres under the bonnet, giving a total of 682 litres. Although not officially quoted, we think there's around 977 litres with the rear seats folded.
The frunk is particularly handy for keeping charging cables out of the way, but better still it can be opened via the car's touchscreen or via the Tesla app – you don't have to fiddle around with a lever under the dashboard.
The Alpine has a smaller 532-litre boot and no front luggage compartment, but you'll still be able to live with this as the family car provided you've not got a pack of dogs or a surf board habit, or anything else that will obviously be better served by a big, hatchback boot.
Having said that, the Model 3 is a saloon, which means you have to load everything through a relatively narrow boot opening, while the Alpine has a proper hatchback tailgate, which should make it considerably easier to load bulky items.
Fold the rear seats down and there's up to 1,643 litres of space, which isn't bad is it? So while the Tesla wins on total quoted luggage capacity, the Alpine could actually be the more useful car if you're regularly carrying bigger stuff. Also, the Alpine is rated to tow a braked trailer weighing up to 1,350kg, while the Model 3 Performance can only manage 500kg.
As for passenger space, both cars have five seats, although the Alpine's sloping roofline and the Tesla's low seating position present different compromises.
Which one is best to drive?
While both cars are incredibly fast, they've been engineered with rather different priorities.
The Model 3 Performance produces 460hp from its two electric motors, with power going to all four wheels. Tesla claims it'll accelerate from 0–60mph in just 2.9 seconds; 'Insane' driving mode opens up this ludicrous acceleration time, and it almost hurts. Almost as amazing is the top speed – Tesla quotes 163mph (the Alpine is out of juice at 136mph).
But the Performance isn't simply a regular Tesla Model 3 with more power. It gets adaptive dampers, upgraded brakes, bespoke 20-inch wheels and a Track Mode that allows drivers to adjust the handling balance, stability control and regenerative braking.
And then there's the weight. At 1,851kg, the Tesla is 270kg lighter than the Alpine, which weighs 2,121kg.
The Alpine, however, has a rather clever answer. Instead of the Tesla's two electric motors, it has three. One drives the front wheels, while two independently power the rear wheels.
Together, they produce 470hp and 824Nm of torque, and that's enough for 0–62mph in 3.9 seconds, which is still seriously quick.
But the clever bit is what those two rear motors can do. Alpine calls it Active Torque Vectoring, and the system can vary the amount of power sent to each rear wheel every 20 milliseconds.
That means it can help the car rotate into a corner, improve traction on the way out and potentially make the A390 feel more agile than its weight might suggest.
It really does work, too. I drove the A390 GTS on a track in Italy, and I was shocked at how agile and precise the car was, despite its large dimensions. The car's drift modes also make you look like a hero, and allow you to pull impressive drifts but in a secured manner.
The Alpine also gets bespoke suspension tuning, hydraulic bump stops and large brakes with six-piston front calipers. The same engineers that created the Alpine A110 sports car have worked on the A390 and you can tell – it's an incredibly good car to drive, and one that doesn't feel like an SUV... Sorry, sport fastback. The only criticism Nicola had in our video was the steering is very reactive. I didn't mind it so much, but I know what she means about it being a bit nervous on the motorway because there's such quick steering response.
The Tesla has the advantage of being lighter and considerably quicker in a straight line. But the Alpine's more sophisticated torque-vectoring arrangement and focus on driver involvement gives it a very different character on a twisty road. It's a proper sports car, while the Tesla feels like an executive saloon with some impressive tricks.
Which one is the best value?
Well, if we're talking about list prices, it's difficult to look past the Tesla.
At £59,990, the Model 3 Performance is £9,400 cheaper than the £69,390 Alpine A390 GTS (although I should mention that you can get the Alpine A390 GT - which is hardly slow, or poorly equipped - for much closer to the Tesla's price).
The Tesla is quicker, lighter, offers more official range and can charge at a higher peak rate, but the Alpine arguably feels more luxurious, especially with its Nappa leather Sabelt sports seats and upgraded sound system.
Things are a lot closer when it comes to finance. We've previously configured both cars on PCP with the same £5,000 customer deposit, 10,000 miles a year and approximately three years of payments.
The Tesla Model 3 Performance came out at £946 a month, with an APR of 1.9%, while the Alpine A390 GTS was £1,070 a month, with an APR of 3.9%. Alpine also included a £1,390 deposit contribution. These numbers change all the time, of course, but it's surprising how close they are given the disparity in list price.
When we checked personal leasing offers, an Alpine A390 GTS was available for around £641 a month, while a Tesla Model 3 Performance was approximately £680 a month. Both were based on four-year contracts, 5,000 miles annually and substantial initial rentals equivalent to roughly 12 monthly payments. Again - not what I'd have expected, but it goes to show how these two can end up compete on costs more closely than you might expect.
Now, leasing prices change regularly, and those figures aren't directly comparable with the PCP deals. You'll also need to consider the total contract cost, upfront payment and mileage allowance.
Which one is better then – the Alpine A390 GTS or the Tesla Model 3 Performance?
It's a very tricky decision, and shows just how much variety there is for those in the market for a fast EV at these sorts of prices.
If you're buying purely on the numbers, the Tesla is an incredibly difficult car to beat. It's quicker, lighter and considerably cheaper to buy outright. It also offers more official range, faster peak charging and the convenience of Tesla's Supercharger network.
And let's not forget that it's a genuinely practical car, with plenty of luggage space and enough performance to embarrass cars costing considerably more.
But I can understand why somebody might prefer the Alpine.
For a start, it's a much more distinctive-looking car. The A390 has a dramatic fastback shape, a more characterful interior and plenty of little details that make it feel special. And there's something appealing about Alpine's approach to performance.
Rather than simply chasing the fastest possible acceleration time, it's put a great deal of effort into the chassis, with those two rear motors and clever torque-vectoring system delivering a properly engaging driving experience.
The Tesla is the obvious winner when it comes to the numbers. It's difficult to argue with a car that costs less, goes further and accelerates faster. But the Alpine is trying to offer something rather different – and that's character and a sense of occasion. The objective winner here has to be the Tesla Model 3, which is a relentlessly great car. But if you ask me which car I want to take home? I'd take the Alpine.
