If the ID.3 has a similar charge curve as the Audi E-Tron, then I would really prefer this to the short peak of a Tesla.
The Audi does 150kW until 80%, 50kW all the way to 100% which is pretty good.
View attachment 405900
View attachment 405902
Except 100% is really 80%, which explains most of the difference. I'd really hate it if VW decide to treat the drivers like children just like on an E-tron, by not allowing them to charge slowly at home but to 100% on the odd occasion when you're planning a trip. Especially on smaller batteries, that's often one more stop at a charger.
I expect that when the firmware that supports Supercharger v3 arrives, the Model 3 will handily beat an E-tron on energy (which is the integral of power) transferred to battery vs. time even on a FastNed charger, in all scenarios (i.e. energy added and SoC at start of charge).
Because I don't care whether the charging curve is flat, really, but that my time to get X energy in the battery is minimized. Wel, I *do* care about battery longevity too, but there Tesla is a known quantity and Audi is not (which probably explains the very conservative charging strategy).
And that's talking in kW, not even in range, where the e-tron's dismal efficiency compared to a Model 3 or S shows (but then, luckily, the ID.3 should be more efficient).
Mind you, I'm not saying that the charging curve of an E-tron is bad. No, it's good, but it's not really an advantage unless you apply a lot of marketroid sauce.