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 suv body style within the same 'SUV' segment, the only major difference here really is their wheel drive configuration (front for the Volvo and 4 x 4 in the case of the Mazda). Both the engines are Mazda-engineered . The first one has a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 203hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 260hp one.

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 Volvo being a slightly better choice apparently. Moving further on, let's take a closer look at some additional safety-related facts. Both vehicles belong to the suv segment, which is generally a very good thing safety-wise, but it doesn't do much to help us decide between the two. On the other hand, when it comes to weight, a factor that most people underestimate, the Japanese car offers a marginal difference of 7% more metal.

I don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that Mazda does have a slight advantage, when all the models are taken into account. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Volvo with an average rating of 3.2, and models under the Mazda badge with 4.4 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed XC60 as average reliability-wise, and CX-7 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 3.6, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.7 out of 5.

Mazda is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.7 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 211 kilometers per hour, 6km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy the winner has to be the Swedish car, averaging around 8.5 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (33 mpg), in combined cycle. We can't ignore that 22% difference compared to the Japanese car.

Mazda 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 slightly better overall protection and takes the lead. From there things take a different direction, with Mazda being considerably quicker, thus putting more smile on driver's face. It does come at a cost though, and that's the fuel consumption... No mistake, whatever you decide here, but I'd still go for the Volvo. 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. 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.