Well, these are two pretty similar cars we have here! It's only details that could potentially make the difference. Considering they both belong to the small family car segment and utilize the same 5-door hatchback body style and the front wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific diesel engine choice they offer. Both the engines are Volkswagen-engineered . The first one has a 3-cylinder, 12-valves 90hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 105hp one.

Eventhough they might appear to be different models, both cars are actually structurally the same, so none of the two gets an advantage over the other when it comes to safety.

Reliability is not the best thing to consider on the make level, but it is worth mentioning that Škoda does have a slight advantage, all the models observed together. These are the results of an independent reasearch, while our visitors describe reliability of Škoda with an average rating of 4.3, and models under the Seat badge with 4.4 out of 5. The same official information place Rapid as average reliability-wise, and Toledo is more or less at the same level.We should definitely mention that owners of cars with the same powertrain as the Czech car rank it on average as 4.3, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.5 out of 5.

Seat is undoubtly more agile, reaching 100km/h in 1.3 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 190 kilometers per hour, 5km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 4 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (71 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 this case though, it seems that both cars show similar levels of passenger protection all together, so that won't break a tie. But one thing that actually could is the performance, with Seat 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 Seat. 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 thousands of similar, yet so different vehicles.