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. That aside, let's consider some other aspects which affect safety. 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. 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.

Reliability is not the best thing to consider on the make level, but it is worth mentioning that Renault does have a slight advantage, all the models observed together. 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. Independent research findings rank Twingo as average reliability-wise, and Arosa is more or less at the same level.Above it all, drivers of cars with 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. 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™, among more than 12.000 different ones in our database.