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 suv segment and utilize the same 5-door suv body style and the 4 x 4 wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific diesel engine choice they offer. The first one has a Volkswagen-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 150hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 150hp engine designed by Honda.

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 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, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, the Japanese car offers a marginal difference of 5% more metal.

Reliability is not the best thing to consider on the make level, but it is worth mentioning that Honda is significantly less fault-prone, all the models observed together. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Audi with an average rating of 4.2, and models under the Honda badge with 4.7 out of 5. The same official information place Q3 as average reliability-wise, and CR-V is more or less at the same level.That apart, owners of different cars powered by the same engine as the German car rank it on average as 4.6, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.9 out of 5.

Audi is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.4 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 204 kilometers per hour, 14km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 5.3 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (53 mpg), in combined cycle.

Honda 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 Japanese car offers slightly better overall protection and takes the lead. From there things take a different direction, with Audi 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 Audi. Anyway, that's the most objective conclusion I could've came up with and it's based solely on the information found on this website. Aspects such as design, practicality, brand value and driving experience are there for you to measure them out. 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 more than 12.000 different ones in our database.