Two significantly similar cars, no doubt about that. Still, each one has something different to offer. Having both cars powered by diesel engines and utilizing the 4-door truck body style within the same 'SUV' segment, the only major difference here really is their wheel drive configuration (rear for the Volkswagen and 4 x 4 in the case of the Mitsubishi). The first one has a Volkswagen-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 122hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 136hp engine designed by Mitsubishi.

Both vehicles got tested by European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), 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, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, the Japanese car offers a marginal difference of 5% more metal.

Reliability is not the best thing to consider on the make level, but it is worth mentioning that both brands display similar results in faults and breakdowns, all the models observed together. These are the results of an independent reasearch, while our visitors describe reliability of Volkswagen with an average rating of 4.2, and models under the Mitsubishi badge with 4.6 out of 5. The same official information place Amarok as average reliability-wise, and L200 is more or less at the same level.Above it all, drivers of cars with the same engine as the German car rank it on average as 3.0, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 3.3 out of 5.

Volkswagen is undoubtly more agile, reaching 100km/h in 1.5 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 163 kilometers per hour, 4km/h less than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy the winner has to be the German car, averaging around 6.9 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (41 mpg), in combined cycle. We can't ignore that 20% difference compared to the Japanese car.

Mitsubishi 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 slightly better overall protection and takes the lead. From there things take a different direction, with Volkswagen offering somewhat better performance, just enough to call it quicker. To make things even better, it consumps less fuel! It's not difficult to say then that if I'd need to make a choice, it would definitely be the Volkswagen. 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.