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 suv segment and utilize the same 5-door suv body style and the front wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific petrol engine choice they offer. Both the engines are Volkswagen-engineered . The first one has a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 150hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 150hp one.

A starting point here would be to take a look at the results from European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) tests which were performed on both of the cars, with the same number of safety stars gained in the process. That aside, let's consider some other aspects which affect safety. Both vehicles belong to the suv segment, which is generally a very good thing safety-wise, but that fact doesn't break the tie between the two cars. Furthermore, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, 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 Škoda does have a slight advantage, when all the models are taken into account. 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. Some independent research have also placed Karoq as average reliability-wise, and Ateca is more or less at the same level.That apart, owners of different cars powered by the same engine as the Czech car rank it on average as 4.5, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.0 out of 5.

Škoda is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.6 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 204 kilometers per hour, 3km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 5.4 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (52 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 slightly better overall protection and takes the lead. It all continues in the same direction, with Škoda offering somewhat better performance, just enough to call it quicker. 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. 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.