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 3-door hatchback body style within the same 'Micro car' segment, the only major difference here really is their wheel drive configuration (front for the Toyota and rear in the case of the Smart). The first one has a Toyota-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 98hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 3-cylinder, 12-valves 102hp engine designed by Mitsubishi.

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 Toyota being a slightly better choice apparently. That aside, let's consider some other aspects which affect safety. Both vehicles belong to the micro car segment, which is generally a misfortune safety-wise, but it doesn't do much to help us decide between the two. Furthermore, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, the Japanese car offers a considerable difference of 16% more metal.

I don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that both brands display similar results in faults and breakdowns, at least on all of the models level. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Toyota with an average rating of 4.6, and models under the Smart badge with 4.3 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed IQ as average reliability-wise, and ForTwo 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 4.6, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 3.0 out of 5.

Smart is undoubtly more agile, reaching 100km/h in 2.9 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 155 kilometers per hour, 15km/h less than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 5 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (57 mpg), in combined cycle.

Toyota is apparently more reliable, not too much, but just enough. 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 Japanese car beats the other contender by far, making it the best choice without even considering other things. When it comes to performance, both vehicles provide similar experience, so I wouldn't point any of them out. the Japanese car still consumps less fuel, which needs to be taken into consideration. All together, there's not much more to say, in this case I wouldn't even consider anything but Toyota. Nevertheless, let's not forget that people have different preferences and needs, so what really counts is your personal feel. I'm only here to help. 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™, among more than 12.000 different ones in our database.