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 Subaru). The first one has a Volvo-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 245hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 173hp engine designed by Subaru.

The fact that the Subaru got tested by the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), while the other contender didn't, puts it sky-high safety-wise, in my eyes at least. 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 that fact doesn't break the tie between the two cars. Furthermore, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, the Swedish car offers a marginal difference of 8% more metal.

I don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that both brands display similar results in faults and breakdowns, all the models observed together. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Volvo with an average rating of 4.6, and models under the Subaru badge with 4.2 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed XC70 as average reliability-wise, and Outback is more or less at the same level.Above it all, drivers of cars with the same engine as the Swedish car rank it on average as 4.8, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 3.0 out of 5.

Volvo is way more agile, reaching 100km/h in 3.1 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 210 kilometers per hour, 12km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy the winner has to be the Swedish car, averaging around 6.7 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (42 mpg), in combined cycle. We can't ignore that 13% difference compared to the Japanese car.

Volvo 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 beats the other contender by far, making it the best choice without even considering other things. From there things take a different direction, with Volvo outracing its opponent in any situation possible, making it better choice for boy racers. To make things even better, it consumps less fuel! I believe that, when we take all into account, we have only one winner here - the Volvo. 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. 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.