the real question isn't whether it's competitive - it's what you're actually buying. range rover's positioning here is tricky because they're banking on brand loyalty and capability that frankly most buyers won't use. you're paying for the nameplate, yeah, but also for something the previous answer glossed over: the vehicle's supposed off-road chops, which get complicated with a battery pack and no gas engine to fall back on. that matters if you're genuinely taking it into rough terrain. if you're just driving it to the shops and charging at home, you could get nearly identical real-world performance from something like a mercedes eqs or bmw ix for less money, or get way more range and features for the same price.
where i'd push back on the earlier answer is that "edge" they mentioned - the terrain response systems and all that off-road tech sounds impressive until you realize most luxury ev buyers aren't doing river crossings. and honestly if they were, an ice range rover is still the safer bet because you don't worry about battery damage in deep water. so range rover's betting their electric future on people who want the image and heritage more than the actual capability.
the £154k thing only makes sense if you genuinely value the brand enough to overlook that you could get a porsche taycan turbo s or tesla model s plaid in that ballpark with better performance, or a fully loaded audi etron for significantly less. it's not overpriced relative to competitors - it's just that the whole segment is expensive for what most owners will do with them.