Well, these are two pretty similar cars we have here! It's only details that could potentially make the difference. Considering they both belong to the suv segment and utilize the same 5-door suv body style and the 4 x 4 wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific diesel engine choice they offer. The first one has a Volvo-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 5-cylinder, 20-valves 163hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 116hp engine designed by BMW.

The fact that the Land Rover got tested by the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), while the other contender didn't, isn't really an advantage, taken the poor 3-star rating it received. That aside, let's consider some other aspects which affect safety. Both vehicles belong to the suv segment, which is generally a very good thing safety-wise, still it doesn't help us solve our dilemma, does it? Furthermore, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, the Swedish car offers a marginal difference of 6% more metal.

Manufacturers have been building their reliability reputation for decades now and, generally speaking, it appears that Volvo as a brand displays somewhat better results, all the models observed together. These are the results of an independent reasearch, while our visitors describe reliability of Volvo with an average rating of 4.6, and models under the Land Rover badge with 3.8 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed XC70 as average reliability-wise, and Freelander is more or less at the same level.We should definitely mention that owners of cars with the same powertrain as the Swedish car rank it on average as 5.0, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.1 out of 5.

Volvo is way more agile, reaching 100km/h in 3.9 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 200 kilometers per hour, 36km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 7.6 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (37 mpg), in combined cycle.

Volvo appears just a bit more reliable, although the difference is truly marginal. The most important thing when deciding between any two vehicles should always be safety, both passive and active. In my opinion, everything taken into account, the British car offers slightly better overall protection and takes the lead. From there things take a different direction, with Volvo outracing its opponent in any situation possible, making it better choice for boy racers. Fuel consumption is more or less the same. It's not difficult to say then that if I'd need to make a choice, it would definitely be the Volvo. Anyway, that's the most objective conclusion I could've came up with and it's based solely on the information found on this website. Aspects such as design, practicality, brand value and driving experience are there for you to measure them out. I suggest you spend two more minutes in order to find out which car, based on your needs and budget, would be picked by the virtual adviser™, among thousands of similar, yet so different vehicles.