We are here considering two somewhat similar cars, but we can't deny some of the obvious differences. For a start, they are not even classified under the same segment, with the Citroen being a suv and the Nissan representing small family car vehicle class. The first one has a Peugeot-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 3-cylinder, 12-valves 82hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 115hp engine designed by Nissan.

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 Nissan being a slightly better choice apparently. That aside, let's consider some other aspects which affect safety. The first vehicle is a suv which already provides a serious advantage over the small family car competitor, at least that's what statistics show. On the other hand, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, the Japanese car offers a considerable difference of 21% more metal.

Reliability is not the best thing to consider on the make level, but it is worth mentioning that Nissan does have a slight advantage, when all the models are taken into account. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Citroen with an average rating of 4.0, and models under the Nissan badge with 4.3 out of 5. The same official information place C4 Cactus as average reliability-wise, and Pulsar is more or less at the same level.Above it all, drivers of cars with the same engine as the French car rank it on average as 4.3, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.4 out of 5.

Nissan is undoubtly more agile, reaching 100km/h in 2.2 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 190 kilometers per hour, 23km/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.

Nissan 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 Japanese car offers significantly better overall protection, taking the lead here. It all continues in the same direction, with Nissan outracing its opponent in any situation possible, making it better choice for boy racers. It does come at a cost though, and that's the fuel consumption... It's not difficult to say then that if I'd need to make a choice, it would definitely be the Nissan. 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.