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 5-door wagon body style within the same 'Large family car' segment, the only major difference here really is their wheel drive configuration (4 x 4 for the Škoda and front in the case of the Renault). The first one has a Volkswagen-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 8-valves 105hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 150hp engine designed by Renault.

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 Renault 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 large family car segment, which is generally a good thing safety-wise, but it doesn't do much to help us decide between the two. On the other hand, when it comes to weight, a factor that most people underestimate, the French car offers a marginal difference of 2% 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 official statistics, while our visitors describe reliability of Škoda with an average rating of 4.4, and models under the Renault badge with 4.2 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed Octavia as average reliability-wise, and Laguna is more or less at the same level.Above it all, drivers of cars with the same engine as the Czech car rank it on average as 4.4, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.6 out of 5.

Renault 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 205 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 5.3 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (53 mpg), in combined cycle.

Renault 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 French car offers much better overall protection, which launches it ahead of the other contender. It all continues in the same direction, with Renault outracing its opponent in any situation possible, making it better choice for boy racers. To make things even better, it consumps less fuel! All together, there's not much more to say, in this case I wouldn't even consider anything but Renault. In any case that's my personal view, built upon all the data available to me. What should decide here though is the way you feel about the two vehicles, and I hope you'll find my guidelines useful in the process. 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.