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 suv body style within the same 'SUV' segment, the only major difference here really is their wheel drive configuration (front for the KIA and 4 x 4 in the case of the Škoda). The first one has a Hyundai-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 166hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 160hp engine designed by Volkswagen.

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 suv segment, which is generally a very good thing safety-wise, still it doesn't help us solve our dilemma, does it? On the other hand, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, the Czech car offers a marginal difference of 4% more metal.

Reliability is not the best thing to consider on the make level, but it is worth mentioning that Škoda does have a slight advantage, all the models observed together. These are the official statistics, while our visitors describe reliability of KIA with an average rating of 4.6, and models under the Škoda badge with 4.3 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed Sportage as average reliability-wise, and Yeti is more or less at the same level.We should definitely mention that owners of cars with the same powertrain as the Korean car rank it on average as 3.0, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.2 out of 5.

Škoda is undoubtly more agile, reaching 100km/h in 2 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 200 kilometers per hour, 4km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 7.8 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (36 mpg), in combined cycle.

Škoda 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 Czech car offers slightly better overall protection and takes the lead. It all continues in the same direction, with Škoda being considerably quicker, thus putting more smile on driver's face. Fuel consumption is more or less the same. I believe that, when we take all into account, we have only one winner here - the Škoda. 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. 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™, out of 12.000+ vehicles we currently have in our database.