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 micro car segment and utilize the same 3-door hatchback 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 Škoda-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 8-valves 50hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 8-valves 60hp engine designed by Renault.

The fact that the Renault 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. Still, apart from the official crash test results there are other things we need to be aware of. Both vehicles belong to the micro car segment, which is generally a misfortune safety-wise, but that fact doesn't break the tie between the two cars. Furthermore, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, the Spanish car offers a considerable difference of 11% more metal.

Reliability is not the best thing to consider on the make level, but it is worth mentioning that Renault does have a slight advantage, when all the models are taken into account. These are the official statistics, 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. Independent research findings rank Arosa as average reliability-wise, and Twingo is more or less at the same level.We should definitely mention that owners of cars with the same powertrain as the Spanish car rank it on average as 3.8, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.1 out of 5.

Renault is way more agile, reaching 100km/h in 4 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 151 kilometers per hour, exactly the same as the other car does. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 5.8 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (49 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 this case though, it seems that both cars show similar levels of passenger protection all together, so that won't break a tie. But one thing that actually could is the performance, with Renault outracing its opponent in any situation possible, making it better choice for boy racers. Fuel consumption is more or less the same. I believe that, when we take all into account, we have only one winner here - the Renault. 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. In case you have two minutes to spare I invite you to define your needs, desires and budget and see which car would be chosen by the virtual adviser™, out of 12.000+ vehicles we currently have in our database.