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 Nissan and front in the case of the Citroen). The first one has a Nissan-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 200hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 117hp engine designed by Mitsubishi.

The fact that the Nissan got tested by the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), while the other contender didn't, puts it sky-high safety-wise, in my eyes at least. 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, when it comes to weight, a factor that most people underestimate, the Japanese car offers a marginal difference of 6% more metal.

Reliability is not the best thing to consider on the make level, but it is worth mentioning that Nissan does have a slight advantage, when all the models are taken into account. These are the results of an independent reasearch, while our visitors describe reliability of Nissan with an average rating of 4.3, and models under the Citroen badge with 4.1 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed Juke as average reliability-wise, and C4 Aircross 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 3.5, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.5 out of 5.

Nissan 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, 17km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy the winner has to be the French car, averaging around 5.9 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (48 mpg), in combined cycle. We can't ignore that 29% difference compared to the Japanese 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 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 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. 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.