Two significantly similar cars, no doubt about that. Still, each one has something different to offer. Having both cars powered by hybrid engines and utilizing the 5-door wagon body style within the same 'Luxury car' segment, the only major difference here really is their wheel drive configuration (4 x 4 for the Volvo and front in the case of the Škoda). The first one has a Volvo-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 340hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 218hp 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. Still, apart from the official crash test results there are other things we need to be aware of. Both vehicles belong to the luxury car segment, which is generally a very good thing safety-wise, but it doesn't do much to help us decide between the two. Furthermore, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, the Swedish 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 Škoda does have a slight advantage, when all the models are taken into account. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Volvo with an average rating of 3.2, and models under the Škoda badge with 4.4 out of 5. Unfortunatelly, I don't have enough insight that would allow me to comment in more details on the specific models level. We should definitely mention that owners of cars with the same powertrain as the Swedish car rank it on average as 3.0 out of 5, exactly the same as the other one.

Volvo is undoubtly more agile, reaching 100km/h in 1.9 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 180 kilometers per hour, 44km/h less than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 1.7 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (166 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 Swedish car offers significantly better overall protection, taking the lead here. From there things take a different direction, with Škoda offering somewhat better performance, just enough to call it quicker. To make things even better, it consumps less fuel! No mistake, whatever you decide here, but I'd still go for the 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. 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™, among thousands of similar, yet so different vehicles.