Two significantly similar cars, no doubt about that. Still, each one has something different to offer. Having both cars powered by petrol engines and utilizing the 5-door hatchback body style within the same 'Small family car' segment, the only major difference here really is their wheel drive configuration (4 x 4 for the Suzuki and front in the case of the KIA). The first one has a Suzuki-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 103hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 105hp engine designed by Hyundai.

The fact that the KIA 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. Moving further on, let's take a closer look at some additional safety-related facts. Both vehicles belong to the small family car segment, which is generally classifying them somewhere in the middle safety-wise, still it doesn't help us solve our dilemma, does it? Furthermore, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, the Japanese car offers a marginal difference of 9% more metal.

Reliability is not the best thing to consider on the make level, but it is worth mentioning that Suzuki as a brand displays somewhat better results, when all the models are taken into account. These are the results of an independent reasearch, while our visitors describe reliability of Suzuki with an average rating of 4.5, and models under the KIA badge with 4.6 out of 5. Independent research findings rank Liana as average reliability-wise, and Cerato is more or less at the same level.Above it all, drivers of cars with the same engine as the Japanese car rank it on average as 4.0, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.6 out of 5.

KIA is undoubtly more agile, reaching 100km/h in 1 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 186 kilometers per hour, 26km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 7.2 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (39 mpg), in combined cycle.

Suzuki 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 Korean car offers slightly better overall protection and takes the lead. It all continues in the same direction, with KIA being considerably quicker, thus putting more smile on driver's face. To make things even better, it consumps less fuel! It's not difficult to say then that if I'd need to make a choice, it would definitely be the KIA. 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. Also, you could use the oportunity to find out which car, everything taken into account, would be the perfect choice for you in the eyes of the virtual adviser™, among thousands of similar, yet so different vehicles.