The $35K Chevy Equinox EV Nails the Basics. Is It Better Than a Loaded Ford Mustang Mach-E?
Yes, how about that Mustang Mach-E. While GM has launched an onslaught of electric SUVs for its Cadillac, Chevy, and GMC brands, Ford quietly refined its lone electric SUV, the Mustang Mach-E, since 2021. Prices for the latter start at about $42,000, but unlike the Equinox, few buy the base versions of the Mach-E. Instead, many shoppers step a trim up to the Mustang Mach-E Premium for its creature comforts, its available dual-motor all-wheel-drive performance, and a 300-mile EPA range rating from Ford's optional extended-range battery.
But is the Mustang Mach-E—or any of the similarly priced SUVs from GM, Tesla, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, or others—worth the price premium over the lowly Equinox EV LT if you have more cash to spend but are reluctant to part with it without good reason? Spec Showdown
With truly 'cheap' EVs from Ford or Slate still some time away, and the Nissan Leaf bound to get a price increase for 2026, the 2025 Chevrolet Equinox EV LT is effectively the entry-level electric car in our market at $34,995.
You get a lot of vehicle for your money. Under the hood, the Equinox EV features a single permanent-magnet motor that produces 220 hp and 243 lb-ft of torque. It's paired with an 85-kWh battery pack good for a peak charge rate of 150 kW on a 350-kW charger (more on that later) and up to 11.5 kW at home. The Feds say the front-wheel-drive Equinox EV LT can clear 319 miles on a full charge (in fact, every Equinox EV is EPA-rated for at least 300 miles of range, even AWD models). Inside, you get room for five, the same fancy-looking 17.7-inch Google OS infotainment system from more expensive Equinoxes, and not much else beyond the essentials like single-zone A/C and the active safety equipment necessary to top industry crash tests. Standout features available on other Equinox EVs, like GM's award-winning Super Cruise hands-free driving aid aren't available on the LT. Neither are Android Auto and Apple CarPlay, which GM doesn't offer on most of its cars.
Many base compact electric SUVs don't stack up particularly well to the Equinox EV LT. The starter Mustang Mach-E Select, for instance, largely matches the Chevy in creature comforts and sports a more powerful but less efficient rear-mounted permanent-magnet motor good for 264 hp and 387 lb-ft of torque. But it uses a smaller 73-kWh battery pack, giving it just 260 miles of EPA-estimated range. Stepping up to the Mustang Mach-E Premium ($44,490 to start) unlocks the ability to upgrade to Ford's larger 88.0-kWh battery pack (a $4,250 extra), giving single-motor Mach-Es up to 320 miles of range. Once you've already justified the range upgrade, it's easy to see how Mustang Mach-E owners might justify spending another $3,250 to add another permanent-magnet motor up front, giving the fastback EV a healthy 365 hp and 500 lb-ft of torque while still clearing 300 miles in EPA testing.
It easily snowballs from there. In addition to the long list of standard features that come on all Mach-E Premiums (exterior and interior trim upgrades, heated and cooled front power seats, heated steering, a B&O audio system, and a phone-mirroring-friendly infotainment system), our Mustang Mach-E test SUV came with Ford's latest BlueCruise 1.5 hands-free Level 2 driver assist system ($2,495) and a handful of style upgrades, bringing its as-tested price to $58,670. Chevy vs. Ford: Range and Charging Results
With range such a primary concern for EV drivers, we'll start our Equinox EV LT and Mustang Mach-E Premium comparison test by answering the big worry on EV shoppers' minds: The Feds say both can clear 300 miles on a charge, but can they really do so when it's time for a road trip? Our 70-mph real-world Road-Trip Range test is designed to answer that question.
We begin with each battery at 100 percent and run them at a steady 70 mph down the highway until we hit 5 percent to see how far we can travel. The 319-mile-rated Equinox EV ended up traveling 262 miles, while the 300-mile rated Mustang Mach-E covered 252 miles, both perfectly average results for the segment.
Our fast-charging test results, on the other hand, are barely average for the segment. Both manufacturers claim an unimpressive 150-kW peak charge rate for their EVs (the Hyundai Ioniq 5, for example, can hit 257 kW), but due to the voltage of the Chevy's battery pack it can only hit that rate when hooked up to a 350-kW charger. Thus, the Equinox adds only 94 miles of range in 15 minutes, 157 miles in 30 minutes, and needs a leisurely 48 minutes to go from 5 to 80 percent charge—the point at which most EV drivers continue with their journeys. The Mustang Mach-E isn't much better, adding 95 miles in 15 minutes, 158 in 30, and needing 43 minutes to reach 80 percent. The Ioniq 5, on the other hand, achieves that threshold in just 24 minutes.
Both vehicles recharge easily overnight from the average household Level 2 charger, and both can recharge from Tesla-style NACS chargers with an adapter.
With neither offering a particularly noteworthy charging experience, the Mustang Mach-E gets the slight edge here by virtue of being able to charge just as quickly on 150-kW chargers as it can on 350-kW (and quicker) chargers, but it is notable that the cheaper Chevy doesn't offer a worse charging experience than the Ford—that certainly wasn't always the case with EVs.
You're correct if you set your eyes on these two vehicles and think the Mustang Mach-E just looks sportier. In nearly every acceleration and handling test we performed (though notably not in our 60–0-mph braking test), the Ford outperformed the Chevy. You can see the full breakdown in the chart below.
The Ford certainly feels sportier in the real world, too. Its dual-motor all-wheel-drive system has enough power to throw you back in your seat and allow the Mach-E to keep up with V-8-powered Mustang GTs (and, more practically, accelerate to pass slower traffic) without hesitation. Its steering is direct and has satisfying weight to it too, which, combined with its firm yet comfortable ride, makes the Mach-E genuinely fun to drive. 'The Mach-E has a ton of character and athleticism, which isn't easy to pull off with EVs,' senior features editor Kristen Lee said. The Mach-E's BlueCruise 1.5 system also works wonderfully; it clearly signals to the driver when you can and can't take your hands off the wheel, can automatically change lanes, and just drives in a predictable, humanlike manner.
That's not to say the Mach-E lacks flaws. Some editors wished for more adjustability from the Mach-E's one-pedal drive mode, and better feel from the mushy brake pedal with the system turned off. We also clocked wind and tire noise in the cabin at freeway speeds—mostly because the Chevrolet is so serenely quiet.
Whereas the Mustang Mach-E has a sporty edge, the Chevrolet Equinox EV drives a lot like the conventional gas-powered compact SUVs you're used to. It accelerates smoothly off the line, though it lacks the Ford's pep. If you get greedy with the gas pedal—like, say, if you're attempting to keep up with someone in a Mach-E—you'll quickly feel the steering wheel tug at you as the Equinox EV's traction control system tries to fight it. This torque-steer tendency somewhat ruins the otherwise relaxed steering feel on windier roads, but more annoying is its tendency to rear its head when making 90-degree left or right turns at intersections. Equinox EV owners will learn to live with this trait, but it makes us question why GM didn't fit the motor in the rear instead.
Aside from torque-steer issues, the Equinox is otherwise perfectly pleasant to drive. Its one-pedal-brake mode has multiple settings allowing owners to fine-tune the system to their liking (we were perfectly happy with the default setup), while those who prefer a more gaslike experience will find natural brake pedal feel with plenty of stopping power. The Chevy's ride is also compliant, soaking up bumps and ruts without transferring the forces of those impacts into the cabin. Chevy's basic lane keep assist and radar cruise control is no match for Ford's BlueCruise system; it's a shame GM's class-leading Super Cruise system isn't available until you step up into the Equinox EV LT2. Cabin Vibes
We're used to the interiors of base-model cars being outfitted with hard plastics, small screens, and button blanks, but the Equinox EV LT's cabin is a refreshing change from the status quo. Sure, its black-on-black interior might look outfitted for a Metallica concert, and yes, the plastic steering wheel feels like it came from an arcade, but the large infotainment system, fancy-looking front HVAC vents, soft-touch door handles, and high-quality switchgear do yeoman's work to add real value to the cabin, ensuring it doesn't feel cheap. Although it doesn't have Apple CarPlay, we found the Google-based infotainment system is pretty easy to use.
Logging into our Google accounts let us sync our Google Maps, and the Equinox had a 'halfway decent solution,' as Buyer's Guide director Zach Gale put it, for reading text messages in the form of a little display that pops up and reads your texts to you. The system, which is canted slightly toward the driver, was notably a bit difficult for passengers to operate, especially if they wanted to adjust the volume knob that's a reach even for the driver in the top-left portion of the center stack.
In back, the rear door openings are on the slightly smaller side, but once you're inside you find plenty of space for adults, bottle holders in the doors, and rear HVAC vents—but little else in the way of creature comforts (to be fair, what more do you need at $34,000?). The cargo space is notably smaller than the Ford's, though it makes up for it with a higher roofline and a large underfloor cargo space. Notably the Chevy doesn't have a front trunk like the Ford.
The Mustang Mach-E's aggressive-looking roofline and raked rear glass might lead you to think it's small inside, but Ford did a great job at making its EV space efficient, with more overall cargo room than the Chevy and a back seat that's friendly to taller adults. While the Ford's rear door openings seem wider than the Chevy's, the push-button electronic door handles are needlessly annoying. Interior space dimensions can be found in the chart below, but both SUVs feel equally roomy.
As you expect given the price gap between the Ford and Chevy, there's a larger emphasis on both interior style and creature comforts in the Mustang Mach-E. The Ford's interior is finished in a lovely mix of materials, with cloth, textured carbon-esque plastics, faux leather, red stitching, and metallic trim. The redesigned-for-2025 center console features more storage options than the Equinox (something we didn't realize we were missing until we got into the Ford), with cubbies and slots for all of life's necessities and wireless phone charging that isn't available on the Chevy unless you step up to the LT2 trim. We generally like Ford's infotainment system and its snappy responses, intuitive layout, and real Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, though some MT editors said they couldn't get used to the way the Mach-E's large central knob also controls HVAC or heated-seat functions if you tap a button to engage those features first. Which Electric SUV Is the Better Value?
The Ford is more fun to drive, has a nicer interior, and charges slightly quicker, but it can't go as far on a charge as the Chevy and costs $23,675 more as equipped (or about $430 more per month over a 60-month loan). The Equinox EV, meanwhile, has a comfortable ride, spacious cabin, and doesn't leave you wanting for much beyond Apple CarPlay, smoother power delivery, and quicker charging from more DC fast chargers.
But is it worth spending extra if you can afford it on a more expensive electric SUV like the 2025 Mustang Mach-E Premium eAWD extended range?
Yes, in our view. Speaking as consumers, we prefer the Ford's more space-efficient interior layout, better infotainment experience, BlueCruise system, and the fact we can pull up to any DC fast-charging tower and consistently get the same charge speed (even though it's slower than many of the Mach-E's and Equinox's competitors). As enthusiasts, we also find the Mustang's extra power, rearward power bias, and better handling to be worth the price difference.
We really like the Chevy Equinox EV LT and won't hesitate to recommend it to price-sensitive buyers because it offers exceptional bang for your buck. But for those who can afford to spend a bit more, it's worth doing so. 2nd Place: 2025 Chevrolet Equinox EV LT Pros So affordable
Easy to drive
Great one-pedal brake mode Cons Lots of torque steer
Fast-charging speeds need improvement
Lacks phone mirroring
Verdict: An absolute bargain that price-conscious shippers shouldn't skip—it really is that good. 1st Place: 2025 Ford Mustang Mach-E Premium eAWD Extended Range Pros Sporty to drive
Lovely interior
More consistent charging performance Cons Fast-charging speeds could also use improvement
Noisier than the Chevy
Not as efficient, either
Verdict: The Mustang Mach-E is more expensive than the Equinox EV, but you certainly get more for your money.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Link Between Hyper-Competition and Freight Fraud
Training gaps and outdated tools have left freight security full of blind spots; competition makes them wider. The trucking industry carries roughly 70% of all goods across the United States, yet it's operating in the middle of a freight recession. Volumes are down, rates are volatile, and with many providers fighting load to load just to stay in operation, competition is at an all-time high. This downturn isn't happening in a vacuum. A slowing economy means both businesses and consumers are purchasing less. Lower demand ripples directly into trucking, driving fierce competition for every shipment. And despite frequent headlines claiming otherwise, this isn't a driver shortage story. Capacity exists; it's freight demand that has shrunk, leaving carriers and brokers battling harder for fewer loads. The people on the front lines of this industry are working harder than ever – balancing coverage speed, customer service, and compliance under extreme pressure. But that same intensity comes with a cost: security practices are being stretched thin at the exact moment fraud is growing more sophisticated. The challenge isn't that companies are careless or unwilling to train their people. It's that many systems in use were built for a different market cycle, and they're showing their age. Paired with the reality of today's fraud schemes, blind spots are inevitable. The Competitive Trap Competition has always been part of freight, but a recession magnifies it. With volumes down and margins razor-thin, providers are under relentless pressure to win business. That pressure reshapes security in three ways: Immediate rewards, delayed risks: Shippers reward speed. A load booked in minutes looks like a win, while fraud may not be uncovered until weeks later. That lag makes it harder for operators under pressure to slow down and double-check. Coverage over caution: When customers are pushing for lower rates and faster turnarounds, pausing to investigate anomalies feels impossible. If one provider hesitates while another jumps, the load is gone. In this climate, every second feels like the difference between keeping and losing business. Tools outpaced by fraud: Many of the systems in use today were designed to catch traditional compliance issues, not the sophisticated identity theft and document fraud that dominate now. Providers may be following the process, but the technology itself can't see what's hiding in plain sight. Fraudsters count on that. This isn't about anyone 'cutting corners.' It's about a market that demands speed at the same time fraud has become more complex. That combination leaves blind spots wide open. The Gaps Technology Doesn't Flag Technology has transformed how freight is booked, tracked, and vetted, but it hasn't eliminated risk. Systems are built to catch what they're programmed to see: safety scores, expired insurance, duplicate MC numbers. But fraud doesn't always follow those patterns. In today's market, the absence of an alert isn't proof of safety. It's just silence. Busy, overworked operators in high-pressure, high-volume roles often have to keep moving if nothing obvious is flagged. That isn't neglect; it's the reality of covering freight in minutes, not hours. The challenge is that fraudsters know how to design their scams to pass as 'normal' inside these systems. Fraudsters count on this. They know how to slip inside the gaps: activating dormant authorities with a few legitimate trucks to appear 'normal,' forging insurance certificates that pass at first glance, or impersonating carriers whose data looks clean on a platform. On the surface, everything checks out. Underneath, the risk is already in motion. It does not help the industry when many so-called fraud prevention experts are exposing 'how' they are catching some of these anomalies. Broadcasting how a scam was detected may generate views, engagement, and impressions, but it is also tipping our hand as to what the bag guys are doing wrong. In the short term, fraudsters may be getting caught in some of these publicly advised traps, but at the end of the day we have only shown the bad guys what exactly they did wrong, and they will change it. This keeps the already battle-weary groups of legitimate carriers and brokers wondering what the next evolution of scam is coming their way. Case Studies: How Blind Spots Become Breaches Case Example 1: The Ghost Carrier with Rented Authority A logistics provider onboarded a carrier whose MC and DOT numbers checked out as valid. Their authority was active, insurance was current, and they even had a couple of trucks on file – enough to pass a surface-level review. On paper, everything looked normal. But behind the scenes, the carrier wasn't hauling most of the freight they booked. Instead, they were renting out their authority to other operators and sub-brokering loads. Because they had a minimal fleet, they could appear legitimate while moving most shipments through unaffiliated drivers. This is a classic example of illegal brokerage. The provider only realized the problem when a shipment failed to deliver and could not be traced to the supposed carrier. The authority holder insisted they hadn't hauled it themselves – and technically, they hadn't. The fraudster had simply leveraged their 'legitimacy' to hide the scheme in plain sight. Case Example 2: The Recycled MC Number A dormant authority suddenly reappeared in FMCSA records as 'active.' To a logistics provider under pressure to cover a load, it looked like a small fleet restarting operations. The system showed it as compliant, so the load was booked. What didn't show: the carrier's authority had been hijacked. The listed address no longer matched the company's history, the phone number was a VoIP line, and the 'carrier' had no verifiable equipment. The freight was immediately re-brokered, and by the time the scam was uncovered, it had vanished. Case Example 3: The Stolen Identity A mid-sized 3PL was stung by a fraud ring that impersonated a well-known regional carrier. The scammers didn't stop at recycling the carrier's MC number – they layered their deception. They created a nearly identical Gmail domain to mimic the company's email addresses, set up a prepaid phone to field calls, and even spoofed phone numbers to appear as if they were calling from the carrier's real office. In some cases, fraudsters go further still by exploiting call forwarding or even SIM hijacking, a tactic where they convince a phone carrier to transfer a number to their own device. When that happens, all calls and texts, even verification codes, are routed to the fraudster. From the outside, it looks like you're speaking to the real carrier. On the surface, everything matched. With freight moving fast, it was almost impossible for busy staff to distinguish the scammer from the legitimate carrier. By the time the deception came to light, the freight – and the money – were long gone. Turning Tools Into Real Protection No technology can replace the discipline of looking past the surface. Fraudsters know how to make their paperwork look clean and their records appear compliant inside the very systems providers trust. That's why technology should be used to support human judgment, not replace it. Compliance platforms like Carrier411, Highway, and Carrier Assure can surface carrier history, safety scores, and operating patterns. Fraud-prevention tools such as FreightValidate add identity verification and facial recognition, while DAT and Truckstop have rolled out stronger anti-fraud features on their load boards. Insurance verification services like RMIS give real-time policy checks. All of these are valuable. But the reality is that fraud doesn't always show up in a system. A COI can still be forged. An reinstated authority can still be hijacked. An email domain can still be off by a single letter. These are the small details that systems miss, and the cracks fraudsters step through. And while time is the scarcest resource in a freight recession, the few extra moments it takes to verify what's behind the data can be the difference between protecting freight or losing it. Why Security Has to Evolve The freight recession has created a paradox: at the very moment providers are working harder than ever to win and protect business, fraud is getting more sophisticated and harder to spot. Competitive pressure demands speed. Systems deliver data. But neither alone is enough to close the gaps that fraudsters exploit. The blind spots aren't the result of neglect. They're the natural outcome of a market moving faster than the tools designed to secure it; of teams asked to do more with less, in an environment where every load feels like survival. Security doesn't have to slow providers down, it simply has to evolve with the market. But the tools have to be matched with training, the process has to adapt to today's fraud schemes, and the industry has to share more openly about what's working and what isn't. Freight isn't failing because people don't care. It's failing where competition collides with outdated tools and limited time. Until that alignment is addressed, fraud will keep finding its way in. For 3PLs, brokers, and providers of every size, the path forward is clear: keep competing on speed and price alone – and risk opening the door to more fraud – or build resilience into security and give customers a reason to stay. The post The Link Between Hyper-Competition and Freight Fraud appeared first on FreightWaves.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rezoning request for Lower Moncure Road draws fire from residents
Lower Moncure Road residents were vocal in their opposition to a rezoning request for the development of a light industrial park in the community. At least 15 residents spoke against the proposed zoning change during a public hearing at Monday's meeting of the Lee County Board of Commissioners. Trustwell Property Group LLC and HV Vector Park LLC have asked to rezone the 430-plus acre tract fronting the west side Lower Moncure Road from Residential Agricultural to Light Industrial. 'Our vision is to create a light industrial business park that furthers the economic growth for Sanford and Lee County,' the applicants wrote as their reason for the rezoning. Ammons Farmland LLC is listed as a co-owner on the application. Jon Keener, managing partner with Trustwell Group and Helix Ventures, said there would be no residential development on the site. Under the Light Industry designation, uses allowed are light manufacturing assembly, packaging or similar uses, he said during the presentation. The project has been in development for about three years, Keener said. The site is conducive for several reasons including a rail track that runs through the property. The community would benefit from an increase in employment and growing the county's tax base, Keener said. There would be no development in the flood plain, buffers would be placed along waterways on the property and up-to-date storm water control practices would be in use. The company is developing the Helix Innovation Park at The Brickyard off U.S. 15-501 in the Deep River community. Kyowa Kirin, a Japanese pharmaceutical manufacturer, is planning to open a facility in the Park. However, residents living in and around the property are firmly against the proposed development. The primary concern was the loss of the rural farmland and a community's way of life. 'I've lived at this address since 1985, 1986 and when I moved here, I realized I'd moved into a very special community,' said Rex Chisholm, who lives on Lower Moncure Road. 'Development is wonderful, but it comes with a price. It changes the way of life for a lot of Lee County residents. Do we really want to be the next Holly Springs or Apex? I implore you to think about this,' Chisholm said. 'This cat must have been a car salesman,' Mark Mansfield, a Lower Moncure Road resident, said of Keener's presentation. Mansfield is the third generation to live on the family property. 'We don't need no light industrial park. It will change the whole way of life down there,' Mansfield said. 'I hope you all really think about it. We need to slow down on the growth. We're growing way too fast. Let's leave some things alone.' Other concerns included the potential contamination of waters that flow into the Cape Fear River, constant noise, light pollution and increased traffic. Micki Hunt lives in Washington, D.C. but owns 285 acres across the road from the property. Her family has owned the property since the 1700s. 'Roberts Creek flows along the boundary on my property. Anything that goes into Roberts Creek ends up in the Cape Fear River,' Hunt said. 'I ask you to consider the traffic and the need for infrastructure that would pose hazards to wildlife. 'I believe it would be unwise … and I ask that you reject it.' However, Jimmy Randolph, CEO of the Sanford Area Growth Alliance, presented another viewpoint. 'SAGA is charged by the community to encourage expansion of existing or attraction of new businesses to Lee County,' he said. With the fierce competition for jobs, ready-to-use industrial sites are vital, according to Randolph. Two of them are the Central Carolina Enterprise Park and the new Brickyard Park. 'Growth is coming to Lee County as long as Americans believe in private property rights. I field phone calls … many are looking on Lower Moncure Road for sites,' Randolph said. 'You're faced with a very challenging decision tonight. Regardless of the decision you make about this site, you'll have to make it again. I'm encouraged by the turnout of the community. We're going to face this as a county for the foreseeable future.' The commissioners will vote on the request at a future meeting. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tecnoglass Responds to Short Seller Report
Company Categorically Rejects All Allegations Which it Believes to be False, Misleading and Malicious Company Reaffirms Recently Increased Full Year 2025 Guidance Miami, FL, Aug. 21, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Tecnoglass, Inc. (NYSE: TGLS) ("Tecnoglass" or the "Company"), a leading producer of high-end aluminum and vinyl windows and architectural glass for the global residential and commercial end markets, today issued the following statement in response claims made in a short seller report: Tecnoglass categorically rejects what it believes are false, misleading, and unsubstantiated allegations contained in the report. Tecnoglass believes the publication is a clear attempt to manipulate the market and harm the Company's shareholders. The report largely focuses on previous claims that were thoroughly reviewed and addressed in 2022 by a Special Committee of the Company's independent Board members, with the support of highly respected external legal and accounting advisors. That review concluded with no evidence of wrongdoing, fraud, or financial misstatement. Tecnoglass remains committed to highest standards of ethical conduct, transparency and sound corporate governance. The Company is reviewing all available options, including potential legal action against parties responsible for disseminating the report, to protect the interests of Company shareholders and the integrity of the market. The Company will continue to cooperate fully with regulators and stakeholders, as it always has, and will not allow unfounded speculation or attempts to manipulate the market to distract from the Company's mission of building long-term value for customers, employees, and shareholders. The Company reaffirmed its recently increased full year 2025 financial guidance announced on August 7, 2025 that reflects the Company's solid performance through the first half of 2025 and the continued strength across the business and belief that the business will achieve another year of strong profitability and cash generation. Reflecting confidence in the strength and long-term prospects of the business, Tecnoglass also notes that its active share repurchase program will be used when appropriate, underscoring management's belief that the Company's fundamentals and growth outlook are not reflected in the current market price. Tecnoglass remains focused on delivering exceptional, best-in-class services and solutions for our residential and commercial customer base, and delivering long-term value for our shareholders. About Tecnoglass Tecnoglass Inc. is a leading producer of high-end aluminum and vinyl windows and architectural glass serving the multi-family, single-family, and commercial end markets. Tecnoglass is the second largest glass fabricator serving the U.S. and the #1 architectural glass transformation company in Latin America. Located in Barranquilla, Colombia, the Company's 5.8 million square foot, vertically integrated, and state-of-the-art manufacturing complex provide efficient access to nearly 1,000 customers in North, Central and South America, with the United States accounting for 95% of total revenues. Tecnoglass' tailored, high-end products are found on some of the world's most distinctive properties, including One Thousand Museum (Miami), Paramount (Miami), Salesforce Tower (San Francisco), Via 57 West (NY), Hub50House (Boston), Aeropuerto Internacional El Dorado (Bogotá), One Plaza (Medellín), Pabellon de Cristal (Barranquilla). For more information, please visit or view our corporate video at Forward Looking Statements This press release includes certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including statements regarding future financial performance, future growth and future acquisitions. These statements are based on Tecnoglass' current expectations or beliefs and are subject to uncertainty and changes in circumstances. Actual results may vary materially from those expressed or implied by the statements herein due to changes in economic, business, competitive and/or regulatory factors, and other risks and uncertainties affecting the operation of Tecnoglass' business. These risks, uncertainties and contingencies are indicated from time to time in Tecnoglass' filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The information set forth herein should be read in light of such risks. Further, investors should keep in mind that Tecnoglass' financial results in any particular period may not be indicative of future results. Tecnoglass is under no obligation to, and expressly disclaims any obligation to, update or alter its forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events and changes in assumptions or otherwise, except as required by law. Investor Relations: Santiago GiraldoCFO305-503-9062investorrelations@ while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
