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. 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, still it doesn't help us solve our dilemma, does it? 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, when all the models are taken into account. 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. Independent research findings rank IQ as average reliability-wise, and ForTwo is more or less at the same level.That apart, owners of different cars powered by 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. 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™, among thousands of similar, yet so different vehicles.