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 'Micro car' segment, the only major difference here really is their wheel drive configuration (rear for the Smart and front in the case of the Volkswagen). The first one has a Smart-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 3-cylinder, 6-valves 50hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 3-cylinder, 6-valves 55hp engine designed by Volkswagen.

Both vehicles got tested by European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), with the Volkswagen being a slightly better choice apparently. Still, apart from the official crash test results there are other things we need to be aware of. Both vehicles belong to the micro car segment, which is generally a misfortune safety-wise, but it doesn't do much to help us decide between the two. On the other hand, when it comes to weight, a factor that most people underestimate, Fox offers a potentially life-saving difference of 33% more metal.

Manufacturers have been building their reliability reputation for decades now and, generally speaking, it appears that Smart does have a slight advantage, at least on all of the models level. These are the results of an independent reasearch, while our visitors describe reliability of Smart with an average rating of 3.9, and models under the Volkswagen badge with 4.2 out of 5. Independent research findings rank ForTwo as average reliability-wise, and Fox is more or less at the same level.Above it all, drivers of cars with the same engine as ForTwo rank it on average as 3.0, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.1 out of 5.

Volkswagen is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.8 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 148 kilometers per hour, 13km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy the winner has to be ForTwo, averaging around 4.7 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (60 mpg), in combined cycle. We can't ignore that 28% difference compared to Fox.

Volkswagen 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, Fox beats the other contender by far, making it the best choice without even considering other things. It all continues in the same direction, with Volkswagen 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 Volkswagen. 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.