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 Mitsubishi and 4 x 4 in the case of the Honda). The first one has a Mitsubishi-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 147hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 150hp engine designed by Honda.

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 same number of safety stars gained in the process. Moving further on, let's take a closer look at some additional safety-related facts. Both vehicles belong to the suv segment, which is generally a very good thing safety-wise, still it doesn't help us solve our dilemma, does it? On the other hand, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, CR-V offers a marginal difference of 2% more metal.

I don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that Honda as a brand displays somewhat better results, all the models observed together. These are the official statistics, while our visitors describe reliability of Mitsubishi with an average rating of 4.6, and models under the Honda badge with 4.7 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed Outlander as average reliability-wise, and CR-V is more or less at the same level.Above it all, drivers of cars with the same engine as Outlander rank it on average as 3.0, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.5 out of 5.

Honda is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.6 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 190 kilometers per hour, 6km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy the winner has to be Outlander, averaging around 7.5 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (38 mpg), in combined cycle. We can't ignore that 9% difference compared to CR-V.

Honda is apparently more reliable, not too much, but just enough. 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, CR-V offers slightly better overall protection and takes the lead. It all continues in the same direction, with Honda offering somewhat better performance, just enough to call it quicker. It does come at a cost though, and that's the fuel consumption... At the end, as much as I'd like to give you a winner here, it's simply a pure tie if you ask me. Nevertheless, let's not forget that people have different preferences and needs, so what really counts is your personal feel. I'm only here to help. 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.