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 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 Renault-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 8-valves 60hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 8-valves 50hp engine designed by Škoda.

The fact that the Renault 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. 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, 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, the Spanish car offers a considerable difference of 11% more metal.

Manufacturers have been building their reliability reputation for decades now and, generally speaking, it appears that Renault does have a slight advantage, when all the models are taken into account. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Renault with an average rating of 4.1, and models under the Seat badge with 4.4 out of 5. The same official information place Twingo as average reliability-wise, and Arosa is more or less at the same level.That apart, owners of different cars powered by the same engine as the French car rank it on average as 4.1, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 3.8 out of 5.

Renault is way more agile, reaching 100km/h in 4 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 151 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 5.8 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (49 mpg), in combined cycle.

Renault 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 this case though, it seems that both cars show similar levels of passenger protection all together, so that won't break a tie. But one thing that actually could is the performance, with Renault outracing its opponent in any situation possible, making it better choice for boy racers. Fuel consumption is more or less the same. I believe that, when we take all into account, we have only one winner here - the Renault. 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 thousands of similar, yet so different vehicles.