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 mpv segment and utilize the same 5-door MPV body style and the front wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific petrol engine choice they offer. The first one has a Volkswagen-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 85hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 112hp engine designed by Renault.

A starting point here would be to take a look at the results from European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) tests which were performed on both of the cars, with the same number of safety stars gained in the process. That aside, let's consider some other aspects which affect safety. Both vehicles belong to the mpv segment, which is generally a good thing safety-wise, still it doesn't help us solve our dilemma, does it? On the other hand, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, the French car offers a considerable difference of 12% more metal.

I don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that Renault does have a slight advantage, when all the models are taken into account. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Seat with an average rating of 4.4, and models under the Renault badge with 4.1 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed Altea as average reliability-wise, and Grand Scenic is more or less at the same level.That apart, owners of different cars powered by the same engine as the Spanish car rank it on average as 3.6, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 3.9 out of 5.

Renault is undoubtly more agile, reaching 100km/h in 1.9 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 185 kilometers per hour, 16km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 7.4 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (38 mpg), in combined cycle.

Renault 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 French car offers significantly better overall protection, taking the lead here. It all continues in the same direction, with Renault being considerably quicker, thus putting more smile on driver's face. 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 Renault. In any case that's my personal view, built upon all the data available to me. What should decide here though is the way you feel about the two vehicles, and I hope you'll find my guidelines useful in the process. 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.