Two significantly similar cars, no doubt about that. Still, each one has something different to offer. Having both cars powered by petrol engines and utilizing the 5-door suv body style within the same 'SUV' segment, the only major difference here really is their wheel drive configuration (front for the Dacia and 4 x 4 in the case of the Škoda). The first one has a Renault-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 107hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 160hp engine designed by Volkswagen.

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 Škoda displaying significantly better structural stability. 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 that fact doesn't break the tie between the two cars. On the other hand, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, the Czech car offers a considerable difference of 24% more metal.

Manufacturers have been building their reliability reputation for decades now and, generally speaking, it appears that Škoda does have a slight advantage, all the models observed together. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Dacia with an average rating of 4.1, and models under the Škoda badge with 4.4 out of 5. Independent research findings rank Duster as average reliability-wise, and Yeti 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 3.7, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.2 out of 5.

Škoda is way more agile, reaching 100km/h in 3.1 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 200 kilometers per hour, 35km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy the winner has to be the Romanian car, averaging around 7.1 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (40 mpg), in combined cycle. We can't ignore that 13% difference compared to the Czech car.

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 Czech car beats the other contender by far, making it the best choice without even considering other things. It all continues in the same direction, with Škoda 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... All together, there's not much more to say, in this case I wouldn't even consider anything but 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. In case you have two minutes to spare I invite you to define your needs, desires and budget and see which car would be chosen by the virtual adviser™, among thousands of similar, yet so different vehicles.