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 city car segment and utilize the same 5-door hatchback body style and the front wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific petrol engine choice they offer. The first one has a Nissan-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 3-cylinder, 12-valves 100hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 3-cylinder, 12-valves 111hp engine designed by Suzuki.

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. Moving further on, let's take a closer look at some additional safety-related facts. Both vehicles belong to the city car segment, which is generally not a very good thing safety-wise, but it doesn't do much to help us decide between the two. Furthermore, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, the Romanian car offers a considerable difference of 15% more metal.

I don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that Suzuki as a brand displays somewhat better results, when all the models are taken into account. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Dacia with an average rating of 4.1, and models under the Suzuki badge with 4.5 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed Sandero as average reliability-wise, and Baleno is more or less at the same level.We should definitely mention that owners of cars with the same powertrain as the Romanian car rank it on average as 5.0, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 3.7 out of 5.

Suzuki is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.3 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 200 kilometers per hour, 19km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 4.8 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (59 mpg), in combined cycle.

Suzuki 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 Romanian car offers significantly better overall protection, taking the lead here. From there things take a different direction, with Suzuki offering somewhat better performance, just enough to call it quicker. To make things even better, it consumps less fuel! It's really tough to make a final decision here, but if I'd need to, I'd say Suzuki. 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™, out of 12.000+ vehicles we currently have in our database.