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 5-door suv body style within the same 'SUV' segment, the only major difference here really is their wheel drive configuration (4 x 4 for the Suzuki and front in the case of the Škoda). The first one has a Suzuki-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 3-cylinder, 12-valves 111hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 3-cylinder, 12-valves 115hp engine designed by Volkswagen.

The first thing to look into here would be the results from European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) tests performed on the two cars. Good thing is that both vehicles got tested, 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 it doesn't do much to help us decide between the two. On the other hand, when it comes to weight, a factor that most people underestimate, the Czech car offers a considerable difference of 10% more metal.

I don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that Suzuki does have a slight advantage, all the models observed together. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Suzuki with an average rating of 4.5, and models under the Škoda badge with 4.3 out of 5. The same official information place Vitara as average reliability-wise, and Karoq is more or less at the same level.Above it all, drivers of cars with the same engine as the Japanese car rank it on average as 3.7, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.7 out of 5.

Škoda is undoubtly more agile, reaching 100km/h in 1.4 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 187 kilometers per hour, 7km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 5.5 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (51 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 significantly better overall protection, taking the lead here. It all continues in the same direction, with Škoda being considerably quicker, thus putting more smile on driver's face. To make things even better, it consumps less fuel! All together, there's not much more to say, in this case I wouldn't even consider anything but Škoda. 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.