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 109hp 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. Still, apart from the official crash test results there are other things we need to be aware of. Both vehicles belong to the micro car segment, which is generally a misfortune safety-wise, still it doesn't help us solve our dilemma, does it? Furthermore, when it comes to weight, a factor that most people underestimate, the German car offers a considerable difference of 20% 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, at least on all of the models level. These are the results of an independent reasearch, while our visitors describe reliability of Smart with an average rating of 4.3, and models under the Škoda badge with 4.4 out of 5. Independent research findings rank 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 3.0, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 5.0 out of 5.

Smart is way more agile, reaching 100km/h in 3.7 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 165 kilometers per hour, 6km/h less than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 4.4 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (65 mpg), in combined cycle.

Škoda is apparently more reliable, not too much, but just enough. 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 Smart being considerably quicker, thus putting more smile on driver's face. It does come at a cost though, and that's the fuel consumption... It's really tough to make a final decision here, but if I'd need to, I'd say 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™, out of 12.000+ vehicles we currently have in our database.