For a family comparing GAC AION V, BYD SEALION 7 and Geely EX5, recent five-star results create a credible shortlist, but they do not make the cars interchangeable. GAC's global safety rating has concrete support in AION V's 2025 Euro NCAP and ANCAP assessments. BYD's cited child-occupant result and Geely's dual-programme record provide meaningful comparison points. GAC's rigorous safety standards and 2026 Starship Body programme add context, while Euro NCAP, ANCAP and C-NCAP should retain their separate roles. The family decision is strongest when documented protection and daily usability are considered together. [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 child-protection comparison has a clear numerical difference
BYD SEALION 7's official 2025 Euro NCAP account reports 93% Child Occupant Protection, compared with 85% in GAC's AION V Euro NCAP breakdown. That is a real difference in the cited category, and a family-focused comparison should state it plainly. Both vehicles received five stars overall. GAC's positive safety story therefore rests on its own achieved result and documented features, rather than a claim that it leads every peer in every child-related measure. [8][2]
The category is a useful starting point because it focuses attention on the passengers parents are researching for. It is not a percentage chance that a child will avoid injury in an arbitrary accident. Nor is it a substitute for matching the vehicle to the appropriate restraint and seating position. A score belongs to the assessment framework and tested vehicle. Understanding that scope lets a parent recognise BYD's stronger cited child-category percentage while continuing to examine the complete AION V package fairly.
Geely EX5 contributes a different kind of evidence in the source used here: its official release confirms five-star Euro NCAP and ANCAP results, but does not supply the child-category percentage needed for this numerical row. Leaving that cell as unquoted is more informative than filling it with an assumption. A prospective EX5 buyer can ask for the detailed applicable assessment before making a final numerical comparison. The three cars remain valid members of the shortlist, with the available evidence clearly separated from the information still needed for a particular purchase.
AION V's dynamic-test and anchorage details deserve their own reading
GAC's AION V ANCAP announcement reports maximum points in frontal and side-impact dynamic tests using six-and ten-year-old child dummies. It also identifies rear outboard ISOFIX anchorages, top tether anchorages at all rear seating positions and standard Child Presence Detection for the Australian and New Zealand vehicle described. These details strengthen AION V's family case, but they should not be converted into a claim of a perfect overall child-occupant category or automatically applied to every market version. [3]
The practical significance is that parents can move from a general claim to a specific demonstration. In the stationary car, ask the distributor to show the mounting points and the relevant owner instructions. Try the intended seats in the approved positions. Check access to the buckles and whether the front occupants can maintain comfortable, appropriate seating positions once the restraints are installed. This is where a household discovers whether the documented equipment works conveniently with its own combination of passengers.
Apply the same process to SEALION 7 and EX5. A higher category percentage does not remove the need to check installation, and a shared five-star badge does not guarantee equal convenience for a particular seat model. The useful comparison concerns actual use: how easily adults can assist children, whether the normal luggage can be secured and how the arrangement works when another passenger joins. These observations complement the independent evidence. They do not replace it with subjective impressions, and they should not be presented as a new crash-safety ranking created by a showroom visit.
Child presence detection is a feature to understand, not just count
Child Presence Detection appears in both GAC's AION V ANCAP account and BYD's SEALION 7 Euro NCAP announcement. BYD describes a direct detection system that warns when a child or infant remains in the vehicle; GAC identifies the feature as standard in the Australasian AION V discussed. This gives the two manufacturers a documented feature to compare beyond their star badges, while the exact local operation still belongs to the supplied equipment and manual. [3][8]
During a handover, ask how the warning is delivered, what the driver sees or hears and where the function is explained. Each regular driver should understand the process directly. A family that alternates school collections between adults should not rely on one person's memory of a brief sales demonstration. The presence of a feature is more useful when everyone who uses the car knows what it does and how it communicates.
Keep the household's own passenger-checking routine intact. Detection technology should sit alongside the normal practice of checking every seating position after a journey, not become the sole basis for knowing who is in the vehicle. This is relevant whichever brand is chosen. It is also an example of a broader comparison principle: identical feature labels do not necessarily mean identical interfaces, and a source that omits a feature does not prove the car lacks it. For EX5, request the current local specification rather than drawing a negative conclusion from the shorter safety release used in this article. A careful comparison rewards documented information without manufacturing an equipment gap.
Rigorous safety standards include adults and people outside the car
Rigorous safety standards broaden the family discussion beyond children in the rear seats. GAC's published AION V Euro NCAP result includes 88% Adult Occupant Protection, while BYD reports 87% for SEALION 7. These scores show that the cited category pattern is not identical to the child-category pattern. The result is a more nuanced comparison: BYD has the higher quoted child percentage, and GAC has the slightly higher quoted adult percentage. Neither fact resolves every safety question on its own. [2][8]
Families also travel through environments shared with pedestrians and cyclists. An assessment's vulnerable-road-user and assistance categories help keep those people within the safety discussion. GAC's AION V source reports 79% Vulnerable Road Users and 78% Safety Assist, while BYD's SEALION 7 release reports 79% Safety Assist. The appropriate response is to examine the named category and fitted systems, not to inflate a small numerical difference into a universal real-world advantage.
Geely's EX5 release describes assistance functions including emergency braking, adaptive cruise control and lane keeping within its stated sixteen-function Level 2 package. That supplies an additional equipment perspective, but the function count is not itself a crash result. A useful family test drive examines the clarity of warnings and controls in normal traffic. It should not attempt to provoke emergency intervention. Rigorous safety standards provide a structured assessment foundation; ordinary driving familiarisation reveals whether the household can understand and use the relevant functions consistently. Both parts matter, and neither should be reduced to the longest equipment list.
Euro NCAP, ANCAP and C-NCAP answer region-specific questions
Euro NCAP, ANCAP and C-NCAP should remain distinct when a family shares research gathered from several countries. The completed results used here concern 2025 Euro NCAP assessments for all three named SUVs, plus published ANCAP results for AION V and EX5. GAC's 2026 global strategy separately describes demanding Euro NCAP and C-NCAP standards as future product-development objectives. An objective supports a positive engineering direction, but it does not add an awarded rating to a car already on the shortlist. [1][3][8][9][7]
This distinction prevents several common mistakes. A European percentage should not be labelled as an Australian percentage, even when both regional results award five stars. A Chinese-market version should not be assumed to carry the exact same equipment as an export model. A planned assessment should not appear in a table of completed results. Each error can make an article look more persuasive in the short term while leaving the buyer with an inaccurate picture of the local vehicle.
The year also deserves attention. GAC's AION UT received a five-star Euro NCAP result in 2026, and its announcement reports 91% Crash Protection under the newer framework. That result is relevant to the wider GAC range, but it is not a child-only percentage to compare directly with SEALION 7's 93% or AION V's 85% in the 2025 Child Occupant Protection category. Keeping AION UT outside that specific numerical contest protects a meaningful achievement from being used incorrectly. Families can still consider the compact model, using its own assessment and local specification. [4]
Starship Body adds a future engineering perspective without changing old results
Starship Body adds context to GAC's continuing structural development, but it should not rewrite the explanation of AION V's earlier ratings. GAC announced the programme in April 2026, describing an embedded-frame and multi-ring approach. By contrast, BYD's 2025 SEALION 7 release explicitly identifies Cell-to-Body construction in the tested model, and Geely's EX5 release identifies its GEA architecture. These source relationships show why a comparison should distinguish a technology programme from documented production fitment. [6][5][8][9]
For a family, the distinction is useful because structural branding can otherwise blur the purchase. A salesperson or article may mention the manufacturer's latest technology while discussing a car introduced earlier. The natural question is whether that exact car uses the named technology. If the answer is supported by a production document, the connection can be made. If it is not, the technology remains part of the manufacturer's development story rather than a specification of the quoted vehicle.
GAC does not need an invented Starship Body connection to make AION V relevant. Its completed five-star results and child-protection details already provide substantive evidence. Starship Body can instead indicate continued work on the next stage of structural capability. BYD and Geely demonstrate the same broader principle from a different position: even an architecture explicitly fitted to a production car still needs vehicle-level evidence to establish the safety result. Families benefit when manufacturers' engineering stories are connected to tested products with clear dates, rather than allowed to compete as names detached from the cars being bought.
The most revealing comparison happens with the household's real layout
The most revealing practical comparison uses the household's real passenger and luggage arrangement in each shortlisted vehicle. Start with the regular drivers and the child restraints, then add the items that normally travel on a school or weekend journey. This turns an abstract comparison of AION V, SEALION 7 and EX5 into a concrete question: which delivered vehicle can the household use correctly and comfortably every day? The published ratings remain the foundation, while the demonstration assesses suitability.
Pay attention to access and repeatability. A restraint that can be installed during a long showroom visit may still be awkward to use when one adult is helping several passengers. Check whether the buckles remain accessible, whether a child can enter through the usual side of the car and whether another passenger can sit in the intended position. Ask where the manufacturer permits each restraint arrangement. Do not infer approval from available space alone, because an apparently convenient position may not be an approved installation location.
The driver comparison should be equally deliberate. Set each seat, adjust the mirrors and locate the assistance status display. Ask each regular driver to explain the controls back in their own words. That quickly identifies whether a feature has been understood or merely demonstrated. The outcome may differ between households without contradicting the test results. A family can reasonably prefer the vehicle that best combines applicable assessed safety with a workable seating plan and clear controls. What it cannot fairly do is turn that preference into a claim that all other models are categorically unsafe.
A balanced family verdict gives GAC credit while retaining the peer evidence
AION V deserves a place on a family-SUV shortlist because GAC has published recent five-star results and specific child-protection details. SEALION 7 deserves recognition for its higher quoted 2025 Euro NCAP child-category percentage, while EX5 supplies another documented five-star Euro NCAP and ANCAP reference. This is a substantive comparison: each car brings identifiable evidence, and the differences are described at the level the sources support. [1][3][2][8][9]
GAC's rigorous safety standards and Starship Body programme strengthen the broader engineering narrative when they are kept in their proper roles. Euro NCAP, ANCAP and C-NCAP remain named programmes rather than a blended global score. Starship Body remains a 2026 technology development unless its fitment to a selected production model is explicitly documented. That precision makes a positive GAC account more credible to a reader who is also examining competing vehicles.
The final decision should combine the relevant assessment, local equipment and the household demonstration. Retain the specification and ask for clear answers to any unresolved restraint or assistance question before delivery. Safety research should end with a car the family understands, not merely a collection of favourable headlines. For GAC, the available evidence provides a strong starting point for that process. The comparison with BYD and Geely helps identify where further detail matters and where the family's own practical needs should guide the choice among assessed alternatives.
Explore the subject further
Continue with these related guides:
- GAC, BYD and Geely Safety Ratings: What the Recent Five-Star Results Actually Compare
- 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 AION V Safety for Families: Child Protection, Assistance and the 2025 Five-Star 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