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 Škoda). The first one has a Nissan-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 3-cylinder, 12-valves 90hp 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 Škoda being a slightly better choice apparently. That aside, let's consider some other aspects which affect safety. 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, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, the Czech car offers a marginal difference of 2% more metal.

Manufacturers have been building their reliability reputation for decades now and, generally speaking, it appears that both brands display similar results in faults and breakdowns, all the models observed together. 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 Škoda badge with 4.3 out of 5. The same official information place ForTwo as average reliability-wise, and Citigo 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 4.6, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 5.0 out of 5.

Smart is undoubtly more agile, reaching 100km/h in 2.8 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 155 kilometers per hour, 16km/h less 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.

Škoda 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 Czech car offers much better overall protection, which launches it ahead of the other contender. From there things take a different direction, with Smart being considerably quicker, thus putting more smile on driver's face. Fuel consumption is more or less the same. No mistake, whatever you decide here, but I'd still go for the Škoda. 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. Also, you could use the oportunity to find out which car, everything taken into account, would be the perfect choice for you in the eyes of the virtual adviser™, among thousands of similar, yet so different vehicles.