Kia Sportage vs Mitsubishi Outlander Insurance Cost

The Kia Sportage is cheaper to insure by about $60 a year for full coverage by our estimate ($1,615 vs. $1,675), and cheaper in 51 of 51 states.

These are estimates, not quotes. Figures are modeled from public data (NAIC, Census, FEMA, IIHS/HLDI) for comparison only. Your actual premium depends on your insurer, driving history, vehicle and coverage choices. We are not an insurance company or agency. How we estimate

Side-by-side insurance estimate

CoverageKia SportageMitsubishi OutlanderDifference
State minimum$620$655−$35
Standard (100/300/100)$895$950−$55
Full coverage$1,615$1,675−$60

National average base rates, driver in their 30s with a clean record, latest model year of each car. Difference = Sportage minus Outlander.

Why one costs more to insure

FactorKia SportageMitsubishi Outlander
SegmentSmall SUVSmall SUV
PowertrainsGasoline, Hybrid, Plug-in hybridGasoline, Hybrid, Plug-in hybrid
HLDI collision (100 = avg)109116
HLDI comprehensive96103
HLDI property damage liability100107
HLDI bodily injury liability113125
NHTSA overall rating5★5★
NICB most-stolen rankNot in top 10Not in top 10
Recalls (latest 3 model years)22

Collision losses are the biggest swing factor: the Mitsubishi Outlander has 7 points higher relative collision losses, meaning its crash repairs cost insurers more on average.

Sportage vs Outlander insurance by state

By driver profile (full coverage)

DriverSportageOutlander
Teen driver (18, own policy)$4,445$4,605
Young adult (22)$2,585$2,680
Adult in their 30s$1,615$1,675
Adult in their 50s$1,485$1,540
Senior (72)$1,810$1,875
30s, one at-fault accident$2,345$2,430
30s, DUI on record$2,990$3,100

More comparisons

Frequently asked questions

Is the Kia Sportage or the Mitsubishi Outlander cheaper to insure?

By our estimate the Kia Sportage is cheaper, by about $60 a year for full coverage ($1,615 vs. $1,675) for a driver in their 30s with a clean record.

Why does insurance cost differ between the Kia Sportage and Mitsubishi Outlander?

Mostly because of insurance-loss history: HLDI collision indices of 109 vs. 116 and comprehensive indices of 96 vs. 103 (100 = average), plus repair costs, theft rates and segment.

How we estimate this

We start from the state's average liability, collision and comprehensive premiums published by the NAIC, then apply a location factor (population density and commute time from the Census ACS, weather hazard scores from FEMA's National Risk Index), a vehicle factor (HLDI insurance-loss data where available, otherwise vehicle segment), and a driver-profile multiplier. Results are rounded ranges for comparison, not quotes. Read the full methodology.