It goes without saying: hatchbacks look sportier and more youthful than their four-door counterparts. The same can be said about the City RS Hatchback. The five-door’s long hood and short deck give it a sort of BMW vibe that a handful of memes have come up pointing that out.

With the City Hatchback not getting a roof spoiler, some say that the implementation of the RS package is more subdued here compared to the sedan, and they’re right. The high-gloss black elements remain, but they seem to blend in, especially since the 16-inch wheels were changed from a two-tone machine-polished type to a painted black one.

Compared to its spiritual predecessor, the Jazz, the City Hatchback’s roofline is more pronouncedly sloped to make it look sleeker. It does, however, come at a price. The roofline, together with the required mounting hardware for the ULTR equates to a lower rear headroom. Even at my modest 170 cm height, my hair is already started brushing against the headliner.

Unsurprisingly, Honda’s decision to go form over function also leads to a smaller cargo space. Even without a measuring tape, the difference is noticeable. Whipping out the spec sheet tells the whole story. The sedan boasts of 519 liters of trunk space, a number which goes down to just 289 liters in the City Hatchback with the rear seats up.

By comparison, it’s even smaller than the outgoing Jazz’s 384 liters. Drop the bench though and it climbs up to 841 liters—a great number, but it still trails its predecessor by a whopping 40 liters. Despite losing out in terms of cargo, the City Hatchback still keeps its trademark Utility Long Tall Refresh (ULTR) seats.

Like its sedan sibling, this sub-compact hatchback also boasts of interior space already very close to a compact car. And while headroom is a bit of a problem (my preferred driving position is with the seat height set at its lowest position), there are no qualms when it comes to leg- and shoulder room. Ergonomics are flawless, but the seating, particularly the front, feels awkward. Blame that on the centrally-mounted fuel tank.

The City sedan and hatchback share the same basic chassis components, but surprisingly, it behaves slightly different on the road.

Honda says they’ve changed the tuning in the City Hatchback to give it a younger, sportier feel. Being north of 40, I can honestly say I don’t know where this younger and sportier feel comes is, but I can tell you that the five-door does feel more front-heavy than the sedan. This is evident when you take sweeping curves, where the Hatchback tends to understeer more. It also has less torsional rigidity than the sedan too, but at least this hasn’t affected the overall comfort and ride. The brakes bite well, though they feel more like an on/off switch thanks to the rear drums.

The City Hatchback shares the sedan’s 1.5-liter 4-cylinder engine. The new double overhead cam improves mid-range torque delivery, and while the difference isn’t night and day, it makes for decent progress in the city. Even with sensible throttle inputs, it doesn’t need that much revs to get it going. However, the heavier body does penalize its urban fuel economy with its figure dropping to 9.5 km/L compared to the sedan’s 10.4 km/L.

The City is a great sub-compact car—it’s perhaps the most well-rounded one being offered in the market currently. However, if I were to go into detail, the City works least in this five-door form. It still drives reasonably well and all that, but in the end, it makes far too many compromises for the sake of making itself look more youthful and attractive.

Honda does have a point that people who’ll go for a hatchback will be drawn to it primarily for its looks. But for buyers looking for something much more sensible, it’s best to leave the City Hatchback to the Gen Zs and millennials of the world as the City RS sedan is actually the more well-rounded choice.