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 (4 x 4 for the Dacia and front in the case of the Nissan). 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 117hp engine designed by Nissan.

Both vehicles got tested by European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), with the Nissan displaying significantly better structural stability. Still, apart from the official crash test results there are other things we need to be aware of. 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, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, the Japanese car offers a marginal difference of 4% more metal.

I don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that Nissan does have a slight advantage, at least on all of the models level. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Dacia with an average rating of 4.1, and models under the Nissan badge with 4.3 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed Duster as average reliability-wise, and Qashqai is more or less at the same level.That apart, owners of different cars powered by the same engine as the Romanian car rank it on average as 3.7, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.5 out of 5.

Dacia is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.1 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 160 kilometers per hour, 20km/h less than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy the winner has to be the Japanese car, averaging around 6.4 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (44 mpg), in combined cycle. We can't ignore that 25% difference compared to the Romanian car.

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 beats the other contender by far, making it the best choice without even considering other things. It all continues in the same direction, with Nissan offering somewhat better performance, just enough to call it quicker. 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 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. 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 more than 12.000 different ones in our database.