Two significantly similar cars, no doubt about that. Still, each one has something different to offer. Having both cars powered by diesel 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 Jeep). The first one has a Volvo-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 5-cylinder, 20-valves 163hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 6-cylinder, 24-valves 190hp engine designed by Mercedes Benz.

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. 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, 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 American car offers a considerable difference of 10% more metal.

Reliability is not the best thing to consider on the make level, but it is worth mentioning that Volvo 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 4.6, and models under the Jeep badge with 4.0 out of 5. The same official information place XC90 as average reliability-wise, and Grand Cherokee 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 5.0, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.4 out of 5.

Jeep is way more agile, reaching 100km/h in 3.6 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 202 kilometers per hour, 12km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 8.3 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (34 mpg), in combined cycle.

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 this case though, it seems that both cars show similar levels of passenger protection all together, so that won't break a tie. But one thing that actually could is the performance, with Jeep 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... At the end, as much as I'd like to give you a winner here, it's simply a pure tie if you ask me. 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.