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 wagon body style within the same 'Small family car' segment, the only major difference here really is their wheel drive configuration (4 x 4 for the Volvo and front in the case of the Toyota). The first one has a Volvo-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 5-cylinder, 20-valves 220hp 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. Still, apart from the official crash test results there are other things we need to be aware of. Both vehicles belong to the small family car segment, which is generally classifying them somewhere in the middle 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 Swedish car offers a considerable difference of 23% more metal.

I don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that Toyota does have a slight advantage, all the models observed together. These are the results of an independent reasearch, 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.We should definitely mention that owners of cars with the same powertrain as the Swedish car rank it on average as 3.5, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.7 out of 5.

Volvo is undoubtly more agile, reaching 100km/h in 3 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 230 kilometers per hour, 40km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy an obvious choice would be the Japanese car, averaging around 7.2 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (39 mpg), in combined cycle. That's 33% difference compared to the Swedish car!

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 beats the other contender by far, making it the best choice without even considering other things. It all continues in the same direction, with Volvo being considerably quicker, thus putting more smile on driver's face. It does come at a cost though, and that's the fuel consumption... It's really tough to make a final decision here, but if I'd need to, I'd say 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. 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.