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 3-door hatchback body style within the same 'Small family car' segment, the only major difference here really is their wheel drive configuration (rear for the BMW and front in the case of the Volvo). The first one has a BMW-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 122hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 145hp engine designed by Mazda.

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 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 small family car segment, which is generally classifying them somewhere in the middle safety-wise, but that fact doesn't break the tie between the two cars. On the other hand, when it comes to weight, a factor that most people underestimate, the Swedish car offers a marginal difference of 1% more metal.

Manufacturers have been building their reliability reputation for decades now and, generally speaking, it appears that Volvo does have a slight advantage, at least on all of the models level. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of BMW with an average rating of 4.2, and models under the Volvo badge with 4.6 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed 1 Series as average reliability-wise, and C30 is more or less at the same level.We should definitely mention that owners of cars with the same powertrain as the German car rank it on average as 5.0, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.2 out of 5.

Volvo 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 210 kilometers per hour, 6km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy the winner has to be the German car, averaging around 5.8 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (49 mpg), in combined cycle. We can't ignore that 28% difference compared to the Swedish 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 Swedish car offers slightly better overall protection and takes the lead. It all continues in the same direction, with Volvo offering somewhat better performance, just enough to call it quicker. 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 BMW. 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.