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 KIA). 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 145hp engine designed by Hyundai.

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. 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 12% more metal.

Manufacturers have been building their reliability reputation for decades now and, generally speaking, it appears 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 Volvo, as well as KIA, with the same average rating of 4.6 out of 5. Independent research findings rank V50 as average reliability-wise, and Ceed 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 3.5, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.7 out of 5.

Volvo is way more agile, reaching 100km/h in 3.5 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 230 kilometers per hour, 25km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy an obvious choice would be the Korean car, averaging around 7.3 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (39 mpg), in combined cycle. That's 32% difference compared to the Swedish car!

KIA 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 significantly better overall protection, taking the lead here. It all continues in the same direction, with Volvo outracing its opponent in any situation possible, making it better choice for boy racers. 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 KIA. 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.