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 240hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 260hp one.

The first thing to look into here would be the results from European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) tests performed on the two cars. Good thing is that both vehicles got tested, 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 suv segment, which is generally a very good thing safety-wise, still it doesn't help us solve our dilemma, does it? On the other hand, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, the Japanese car offers a marginal difference of 6% more metal.

Manufacturers have been building their reliability reputation for decades now and, generally speaking, it appears that Mazda does have a slight advantage, all the models observed together. 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.That apart, owners of different cars powered by the same engine 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.

Volvo is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.1 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 210 kilometers per hour, 1km/h less 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. When it comes to performance, both vehicles provide similar experience, so I wouldn't point any of them out. the Swedish car , on the other hand, consumps significantly less fuel, and that's a big plus. It's not difficult to say then that if I'd need to make a choice, it would definitely be the Volvo. 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™, out of 12.000+ vehicles we currently have in our database.