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 Seat). The first one has a Mitsubishi-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 3-cylinder, 12-valves 71hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 3-cylinder, 12-valves 75hp engine designed by Volkswagen.

Both vehicles got tested by European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), with the Seat being a slightly better choice apparently. Moving further on, let's take a closer look at some additional safety-related facts. Both vehicles belong to the micro car segment, which is generally a misfortune safety-wise, but that fact doesn't break the tie between the two cars. On the other hand, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, the Spanish car offers a considerable difference of 12% more metal.

Reliability is not the best thing to consider on the make level, but it is worth mentioning that Smart does have a slight advantage, at least on all of the models level. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Smart with an average rating of 3.9, and models under the Seat badge with 4.4 out of 5. Unfortunatelly, I don't have enough insight that would allow me to comment in more details on the specific models level. We should definitely mention that owners of cars with the same powertrain as the German car rank it on average as 3.7, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 5.0 out of 5.

Seat is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.5 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 172 kilometers per hour, 27km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 4.2 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (67 mpg), in combined cycle.

Seat 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 Spanish car beats the other contender by far, making it the best choice without even considering other things. It all continues in the same direction, with Seat offering somewhat better performance, just enough to call it quicker. Fuel consumption is more or less the same. All together, there's not much more to say, in this case I wouldn't even consider anything but Seat. Nevertheless, let's not forget that people have different preferences and needs, so what really counts is your personal feel. I'm only here to help. 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™, out of 12.000+ vehicles we currently have in our database.