Ask three different tracking firms how much a Tesla Model X depreciates over five years, and the answers span a 10-point range. iSeeCars puts it at 61.1 percent. CarEdge says 67 percent. Recharged reports 57 percent. All three claim to measure the same thing, using different methodology, sample sizes, and time windows that a reader comparing headline numbers alone would never see.
Why The Same Vehicle Gets Such Different Numbers
iSeeCars’ figures come from a study of more than 800,000 used vehicles sold between March 2024 and February 2025, a large, fixed sample window that produces a single snapshot rather than a continuously updated figure.
CarEdge and Recurrent instead pull from ongoing market listings across platforms like KBB, Edmunds, and CarGurus, meaning their figures shift as current listing prices change, a fundamentally different methodology than a fixed historical study.
What Each Methodology Actually Captures Well
A large, fixed-sample study like iSeeCars’ captures broad, statistically stable trends across an entire vehicle segment, useful for understanding EVs generally but less precise for predicting one specific car’s future value.
A continuously updated market-listing tracker like CarEdge better reflects current, real-time conditions for a specific trim and region, but that same real-time responsiveness means its figures can shift meaningfully month to month.
Technician’s Note: Treat a single depreciation percentage as a range indicator, not a precise prediction. Cross-checking a figure against at least two independent sources reveals whether a specific number sits within normal methodology variance or looks like a genuine outlier.
Why This Matters More For Some Vehicles Than Others
Low-volume vehicles show the widest spread between tracking sources, since a smaller sample size makes each individual sale carry more statistical weight, while high-volume vehicles like the Model 3 or Model Y produce more consistent figures across sources.
A vehicle recently affected by a major price cut, a new-generation redesign, or a fleet sell-off shows particularly unstable depreciation figures across sources, since each tracker’s data window captures that disruption differently.
How To Actually Use Depreciation Data When Shopping
Checking a specific figure’s underlying sample size and time window, information most trackers publish somewhere on their methodology page, reveals whether a headline percentage deserves real confidence or should be treated skeptically.
Requesting a specific vehicle’s own battery state-of-health report ultimately matters more than any general depreciation percentage, since that document reflects the actual car being considered rather than a segment-wide average.
Common Questions About Conflicting EV Depreciation Data
Why do different sources report such different depreciation percentages for the same EV?
Different methodologies produce different numbers. A fixed-sample study like iSeeCars captures a specific historical window, while continuously updated market trackers like CarEdge reflect real-time listing prices, which shift month to month.
Which type of depreciation data source is more reliable?
Neither is inherently more reliable; each serves a different purpose. Fixed-sample studies show broad, stable segment trends, while real-time trackers better reflect current conditions for a specific trim and region right now.
What matters more than a general depreciation percentage when buying a used EV?
A specific vehicle’s own battery state-of-health report. General depreciation percentages describe an entire segment or model, but SOH data reflects the actual condition of the specific car being considered.
