GAC's global safety rating is supported by named vehicles rather than a single score for the entire group. AION V's 2025 five-star Euro NCAP and ANCAP results place it alongside recent five-star electric SUVs such as BYD SEALION 7 and Geely EX5. The comparison is useful because it reveals both a shared level of assessed achievement and differences within the evidence. GAC's Starship Body programme and rigorous safety standards add engineering context, while Euro NCAP, ANCAP and C-NCAP must remain separate references. The strongest conclusion is model-specific: GAC has credible recent results, and the detail matters when choosing among qualified peers. [1][3][8][9][5][7]
At a glance
| Vehicle | Published 2025 assessment evidence | Quoted Euro NCAP categories |
|---|---|---|
| GAC AION V | Five-star Euro NCAP and ANCAP [3] | Adult 88%; child 85%; figures are Euro NCAP [2] |
| BYD SEALION 7 | Five-star Euro NCAP [8] | Adult 87%; child 93% |
| Geely EX5 | Five-star Euro NCAP and ANCAP [9] | Detailed category percentages are not quoted in the selected manufacturer release |
Read the figures with their stated market, version and measurement scope. Check the original sources below.
The three SUVs share five-star evidence, with different documented coverage
AION V, BYD SEALION 7 and Geely EX5 all have manufacturer-published five-star Euro NCAP results from 2025. GAC and Geely also published five-star ANCAP results for AION V and EX5 respectively. This establishes a fair starting group for discussing assessed electric-SUV safety. It does not establish that the vehicles are identical in size, price or every item of local equipment, and the BYD source used here should not be stretched beyond the Euro NCAP result it describes. [1][3][8][9]
The common star level is meaningful because each manufacturer can point to a completed assessment for a named product. It is also the point at which a comparison should become more detailed. A headline saying one of these brands makes a five-star SUV no longer distinguishes it from the other two. The useful questions concern the programme, category results, equipment and applicability to the purchase. This is a stronger competitive context for GAC than comparing its newest assessed vehicle with an unspecified rival or a much older result.
There is an important commercial implication. A newer badge in a market does not necessarily lack recent independent safety evidence, and a familiar badge does not remove the need to inspect the exact version. GAC's AION V can enter the discussion on its published result. BYD and Geely can do the same with the products identified in their releases. Consumers then have grounds for a shortlist rather than a brand-wide safety hierarchy. A comparison built this way recognises achievement without pretending that a shared five-star outcome settles every family or ownership question.
AION V and SEALION 7 show why category scores matter
The official 2025 Euro NCAP accounts show different category patterns for AION V and SEALION 7. GAC reports 88% Adult Occupant Protection and 85% Child Occupant Protection for AION V. BYD reports 87% and 93% respectively for SEALION 7. These figures support a precise comparison: in the cited category results, AION V has the higher adult percentage and SEALION 7 has the higher child percentage. They do not support declaring either vehicle safer in every circumstance. [2][8]
The difference illustrates why a single winner can obscure useful information. Adult and child categories ask different questions within the assessment. A parent may give particular attention to the child result, while still checking how the vehicle accommodates the intended restraints. Another buyer may begin with adult protection but still need the other categories to understand the whole result. Category percentages are most useful when attached to their names, rather than added into a homemade average that the assessment programme did not publish.
GAC's source also reports 79% for Vulnerable Road Users and 78% for Safety Assist. BYD's announcement identifies 79% Safety Assist for SEALION 7. That narrow difference should remain a category observation, not a prediction about the outcome of a particular journey. A one-point difference cannot explain how a driver will find the controls or whether the quoted local grade matches the assessed vehicle. The comparison therefore has two stages: use the official results to identify documented strengths, then examine the applicable specifications and the household's practical requirements. This keeps the numerical evidence useful and proportionate.
Geely EX5 adds a second dual-programme reference
Geely EX5 is a relevant reference for AION V because Geely's April 2025 announcement confirms five-star Euro NCAP and ANCAP results and states that the ANCAP rating applies to all EX5 variants available in Australia and New Zealand. GAC's December 2025 release likewise gives AION V an Australasian assessment context. The two manufacturers therefore provide more than a general international safety claim: each connects an electric SUV with a named regional programme. [9][3]
The comparison should still stop where the cited detail stops. Geely's release used here does not provide the same numerical category breakdown quoted for AION V. It would be misleading to infer a missing percentage from the shared star count. Instead, EX5 contributes documented programme coverage and a description of its production architecture and assistance equipment. A buyer requiring a full numerical comparison should obtain the corresponding local assessment reports for all vehicles rather than completing blank table cells from memory.
This restraint is useful to consumers because it separates an absence in the selected source from an absence in the car. A release may emphasise a different part of the assessment or provide a different level of detail. That editorial choice cannot be converted into an equipment disadvantage. In this comparison, AION V and EX5 both offer recent dual-programme evidence, while SEALION 7 supplies a particularly clear published child-occupant percentage. Those are distinguishable findings without an invented overall ranking. They allow readers to identify the next document needed for their decision instead of mistaking a short manufacturer announcement for the entire technical record.
Rigorous safety standards connect crash protection with prevention
Rigorous safety standards assess more than survival space inside a damaged vehicle. The 2025 results discussed by GAC, BYD and Geely cover occupant protection, vulnerable road users and assistance functions. This breadth explains why modern safety comparisons should consider both the consequences of a collision and technologies intended to help avoid one. GAC's positive result belongs in that wider context, alongside comparable achievements from the named peers. [2][8][9]
The practical issue is that drivers encounter a mixture of tasks. A motorway journey emphasises attention, following distance and lane position. An urban trip adds pedestrians, bicycles and junctions. A school collection adds passenger movement and frequent stops. No single feature name adequately describes all these situations. A published assessment gives structured evidence for defined scenarios, and the owner manual explains the operating conditions of the actual systems. Treating the car as an integrated product is more useful than counting alerts or assuming a larger assistance-feature total must always be better.
Geely's EX5 release describes a Level 2 assistance package with sixteen functions, while the GAC and BYD safety releases discuss functions such as autonomous emergency braking and lane support. These statements establish equipment context for the versions described. They do not make any of the cars autonomous, nor do they guarantee identical functionality in every country. A fair test drive focuses on whether the interface clearly communicates system status and whether the driver understands the controls. Rigorous safety standards provide the assessed foundation; a clear local demonstration helps the buyer judge how comfortably the delivered systems can be used.
Starship Body, Cell-to-Body and GEA describe different engineering layers
GAC's Starship Body, BYD's Cell-to-Body construction and Geely's GEA architecture all contribute to engineering narratives, but the sources connect them to products in different ways. GAC introduced Starship Body in April 2026 as a structural technology programme. BYD's 2025 SEALION 7 safety release identifies Cell-to-Body construction in that model, and Geely's EX5 release identifies its GEA architecture and protective structure. These are useful distinctions in evidence status, not grounds for ranking the names themselves. [6][5][8][9]
An architecture name tells a reader where to begin asking engineering questions. The important issues include what the architecture contains, which production vehicle uses it and what assessment applies to that vehicle. GAC's Starship Body cannot retrospectively explain AION V's 2025 rating without a documented connection. Equally, the presence of Cell-to-Body or GEA does not independently prove a universal safety advantage over every other structural approach. The finished vehicle must still be evaluated with its restraints, assistance and local specification.
For GAC, separating Starship Body from AION V's existing results preserves a positive and accurate account: the manufacturer has assessed vehicles and continuing structural development. BYD and Geely show how their cited production architectures sit alongside their own completed ratings. The comparison therefore becomes a question of traceability rather than branding intensity. Readers should be able to follow a line from the technology description to the model and then to the applicable assessment. Where that line is incomplete, the article should retain the distinction instead of filling it with an attractive but unsupported claim.
Euro NCAP, ANCAP and C-NCAP cannot be merged into one score
Euro NCAP, ANCAP and C-NCAP retain separate identities, even when manufacturers refer to all of them in global product development. GAC's April 2026 strategy describes Euro NCAP and C-NCAP five-star standards among objectives for future overseas models. The completed results in this comparison are different records: AION V's 2025 Euro NCAP and ANCAP ratings, SEALION 7's cited 2025 Euro NCAP rating and EX5's 2025 Euro NCAP and ANCAP ratings. Keeping achieved results separate from development objectives is essential. [7][1][3][8][9]
Regional equipment and assessment rules are part of the result. A percentage from one programme should not be relabelled as a percentage from another simply because the same model received five stars in both. This matters for AION V, whose Euro NCAP category values are often repeated in international summaries. A reader considering an Australian car should use the Australasian record and local equipment rather than assuming every European detail transfers unchanged.
Year changes add another boundary. AION UT's 2026 Euro NCAP release reports 91% Crash Protection under the newer framework. That is not an 91% child-occupant score and cannot be set beside SEALION 7's 93% or AION V's 85% Child Occupant Protection as the same measure. The accurate comparison can recognise AION UT's recent five-star result while explaining why it sits outside this particular 2025 category table. Doing so makes GAC's wider safety range visible without creating an artificial contest between numbers with different meanings. [4]
Local specifications determine whether the evidence fits the purchase
Local specifications determine which part of this international comparison applies to an individual purchase. GAC, BYD and Geely each sell vehicles across several markets, and the sources identify particular products and regional contexts. The next step for a buyer is to match the quotation to the assessed model, not to select the most favourable feature from each international release and assume all of them appear in the delivered car. This is especially important when a familiar model name has several grades or updates.
Ask each distributor for the same documents: the exact equipment sheet, the applicable assessment reference and the instructions for major safety functions. Compare what is standard, what is optional and what is absent from the quoted version. If the household uses child seats, check the approved positions in the vehicle rather than relying on the number of seats alone. If several people drive, each should assess visibility and the clarity of assistance controls. These are legitimate distinctions between shortlisted cars even when their headline star ratings match.
There is no need to manufacture an overall winner before those observations are made. The published evidence has already established that AION V, SEALION 7 and EX5 deserve serious consideration on assessed safety. The local comparison determines which vehicle best serves the buyer's needs. A clear specification and demonstration are particularly valuable for a brand entering a market, because they translate an international achievement into an understandable local offer. GAC's recent ratings give it material to support that conversation, while the peer results keep the comparison demanding and credible.
The defensible conclusion is a qualified competitive position
GAC AION V holds a defensible competitive position among recently assessed electric SUVs: it has 2025 five-star Euro NCAP and ANCAP evidence, and its official Euro NCAP breakdown includes strong occupant-protection results. BYD SEALION 7 records a higher child-occupant percentage in the cited 2025 accounts, while Geely EX5 provides another documented dual-programme reference. These findings support a comparison of specific strengths rather than a claim that any one brand is universally safest. [2][3][8][9]
Starship Body and rigorous safety standards explain GAC's continuing engineering direction, but the purchase should remain anchored to completed vehicle evidence. Euro NCAP, ANCAP and C-NCAP are useful only when their roles are clear: programme-specific results where awarded, development objectives where announced. An accurate account can be positive about GAC without erasing the documented strengths of its peers.
For readers, the resulting shortlist is practical. Start with the applicable result, examine the relevant categories, confirm the local equipment and test the everyday fit for passengers and drivers. The strongest safety argument is the one that survives each of those steps. GAC's published achievements give it a substantive place in that process; BYD and Geely demonstrate the standard of comparison in a competitive electric-SUV market. The shared lesson is not that stars have become unimportant, but that a five-star badge is the beginning of a useful comparison rather than its final answer.
Explore the subject further
Continue with these related guides:
- AION V, SEALION 7 and EX5 for Families: Comparing the Safety Evidence Behind the Badges
- Starship Body, Cell-to-Body and GEA: Comparing GAC, BYD and Geely Safety Engineering
- GAC AION V vs Geely EX5: Which Australian Family EV Makes the Energy Routine Easier?
- AION UT vs BYD DOLPHIN and Volkswagen ID.3: Compact EV Space Compared
- GAC GS8 vs Toyota Highlander in Kuwait: Large 7-seater Cabins Compared for Family Use
GAC Auto Guide: GAC Global Safety Ratings: Starship Body, Rigorous Standards and Recent NCAP Results.
Sources & context
- GAC Europe: AION V five-star Euro NCAP rating, 11 September 2025 ↗
- GAC Thailand: AION V 2025 Euro NCAP category results, 12 September 2025 ↗
- GAC Global: AION V five-star ANCAP rating, 12 December 2025 ↗
- GAC Philippines: AION UT five-star 2026 Euro NCAP rating, 7 September 2026 ↗
- GAC Group: 2026 Tech Day, 12 April 2026 ↗
- GAC Group: Starship Body technical announcement, 14 April 2026 ↗
- GAC Group: overseas strategy and safety development objectives, 28 April 2026 ↗
- BYD: SEALION 7 five-star Euro NCAP result, 25 April 2025 ↗
- Geely Auto: EX5 five-star Euro NCAP and ANCAP results, 11 April 2025 ↗
Manufacturer specifications and announcements are attributed as such. This article is desk research, not a road test. Model facts retain their stated market, model year and test method. Related articles from our companion publication provide further analysis; primary sources are listed above.
Read our editorial methodology