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 Renault and 4 x 4 in the case of the Mitsubishi). The first one has a Renault-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 129hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 150hp engine designed by Mitsubishi.

Both vehicles got tested by European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), 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 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, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, the Japanese car offers a marginal difference of 4% more metal.

I don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that Renault does have a slight advantage, when all the models are taken into account. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Renault with an average rating of 4.2, and models under the Mitsubishi badge with 4.6 out of 5. Independent research findings rank Kadjar as average reliability-wise, and Outlander is more or less at the same level.We should definitely mention that owners of cars with the same powertrain as the French car rank it on average as 4.6, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.3 out of 5.

Renault is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.3 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 190 kilometers per hour, 10km/h less than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy the winner has to be the French car, averaging around 4.5 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (63 mpg), in combined cycle. We can't ignore that 18% difference compared to the Japanese car.

Renault 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 Japanese car offers slightly better overall protection and takes the lead. It all continues in the same direction, with Mitsubishi 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 Renault. 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. 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.