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 small family car segment and utilize the same 5-door wagon 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 Mazda-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 125hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 110hp engine designed by Toyota.

Both vehicles got tested by European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), with the Volvo being a slightly better choice apparently. That aside, let's consider some other aspects which affect safety. Both vehicles belong to the small family car segment, which is generally classifying them somewhere in the middle safety-wise, but that fact doesn't break the tie between the two cars. Furthermore, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, the Swedish car offers a marginal difference of 9% more metal.

I don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that Toyota does have a slight advantage, at least on all of the models level. These are the official statistics, while our visitors describe reliability of Volvo, as well as Toyota, with the same average rating of 4.6 out of 5. The same official information place V50 as average reliability-wise, and Corolla is more or less at the same level.That apart, owners of different cars powered by the same engine as the Swedish car rank it on average as 4.6, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.7 out of 5.

Toyota is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.8 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 190 kilometers per hour, 10km/h less than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 7.3 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (39 mpg), in combined cycle.

Toyota 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 Swedish car offers much better overall protection, which launches it ahead of the other contender. From there things take a different direction, with Toyota offering somewhat better performance, just enough to call it quicker. To make things even better, it consumps less fuel! It's really tough to make a final decision here, but if I'd need to, I'd say Toyota. 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.