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 city car segment and utilize the same 3-door hatchback body style and the front wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific petrol engine choice they offer. The first one has a Mitsubishi-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 95hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 90hp engine designed by Peugeot.

Both vehicles got tested by European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), with the Peugeot 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 city car segment, which is generally not a very good thing safety-wise, still it doesn't help us solve our dilemma, does it? On the other hand, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, the French car offers a considerable difference of 20% more metal.

Manufacturers have been building their reliability reputation for decades now and, generally speaking, it appears that Peugeot does have a slight advantage, when all the models are taken into account. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Mitsubishi with an average rating of 4.6, and models under the Peugeot badge with 4.3 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed Colt as average reliability-wise, and 207 is more or less at the same level.We should definitely mention that owners of cars with the same powertrain as the Japanese car rank it on average as 4.8, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 3.9 out of 5.

Mitsubishi is undoubtly more agile, reaching 100km/h in 1.7 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 180 kilometers per hour, exactly the same as the other car does. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 6.2 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (46 mpg), in combined cycle.

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 French 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 Mitsubishi being considerably quicker, thus putting more smile on driver's face. To make things even better, it consumps less fuel! It's really tough to make a final decision here, but if I'd need to, I'd say Mitsubishi. 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™, out of 12.000+ vehicles we currently have in our database.