Well, these are two pretty similar cars we have here! It's only details that could potentially make the difference. Considering they both belong to the suv segment and utilize the same 5-door suv body style and the 4 x 4 wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific petrol engine choice they offer. The first one has a Rover-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 6-cylinder, 24-valves 177hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 150hp engine designed by Toyota.

The fact that the Land Rover got tested by the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), while the other contender didn't, isn't really an advantage, taken the poor 3-star rating it received. 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. Furthermore, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, the British 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 Toyota is significantly less fault-prone, when all the models are taken into account. These are the results of an independent reasearch, while our visitors describe reliability of Land Rover with an average rating of 3.8, and models under the Toyota badge with 4.6 out of 5. The same official information place Freelander as average reliability-wise, and RAV4 is more or less at the same level.Above it all, drivers of cars with the same engine as the British car rank it on average as 5.0, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.6 out of 5.

Toyota is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.5 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 185 kilometers per hour, 3km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy an obvious choice would be the Japanese car, averaging around 8.8 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (32 mpg), in combined cycle. That's 41% difference compared to the British car!

Toyota 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 British car beats the other contender by far, making it the best choice without even considering other things. From there things take a different direction, with Toyota offering somewhat better performance, just enough to call it quicker. To make things even better, it consumps less fuel! I believe that, when we take all into account, we have only one winner here - the Toyota. 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.