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 micro car segment and utilize the same 5-door hatchback body style and the front wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific petrol engine choice they offer. Both the engines are Suzuki-engineered . The first one has a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 86hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 94hp one.

The fact that the Suzuki got tested by the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), while the other contender didn't, offers a slight advantage, as the 4-star rating is better than none. Moving further on, let's take a closer look at some additional safety-related facts. Both vehicles belong to the micro car segment, which is generally a misfortune safety-wise, but it doesn't do much to help us decide between the two. Furthermore, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, the Japanese car offers a marginal difference of 1% more metal.

Manufacturers have been building their reliability reputation for decades now and, generally speaking, it appears that Suzuki as a brand displays somewhat better results, when all the models are taken into account. These are the official statistics, while our visitors describe reliability of Opel with an average rating of 4.2, and models under the Suzuki badge with 4.5 out of 5. The same official information place Agila as average reliability-wise, and Splash is more or less at the same level.We should definitely mention that owners of cars with the same powertrain as the German car rank it on average as 4.0, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 5.0 out of 5.

Suzuki is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.2 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 175 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 5.3 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (54 mpg), in combined cycle.

Suzuki 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 Suzuki 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 Suzuki. 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. I suggest you spend two more minutes in order to find out which car, based on your needs and budget, would be picked by the virtual adviser™, out of 12.000+ vehicles we currently have in our database.