CarComparison home

Compare cars on reliability and running costs, and check any car by its reg

Ford EcoSport vs Ford Puma

Figures updated

The Ford EcoSport and Ford Puma are two of the UK's most popular small SUVs. We compare the B515 (2014–2022) EcoSport and the Mk2 crossover (2019–) Puma on price, size, boot space, performance, safety and running costs, plus how reliable each has been across 145,648 real MOT tests.

Change cars or mileage

The short answer

The Ford Puma comes out ahead, with the bigger boot, the better MOT record and more performance; the Ford EcoSport is close on everything else.

FigureFord EcoSportB515 (2014–2022), 5-door SUVFord PumaMk2 crossover (2019–), 5-door crossover SUV
Price and practicality
Price newUK list prices, across the range–£27,145 to £35,500August 2026 price list
Body5-door SUV5-door crossover SUV
Seats55
BootSeats up / folded356 litres / 1,238456 litres / 1,216 (best)
Length4,096mm4,226mm
WidthWithout mirrors1,765mm–
Height1,653mm1,550mm
Performance
Power100–140 PS125–170 PS (best)
0–62mph10.2–13.6 sec7.4–9.8 sec (best)
Safety
Euro NCAP ratingTests get tougher each year★★★★★ (2013)★★★★★ (2022)
Economy and emissions
Fuel typesDiesel, PetrolHybrid, Petrol
Official economyVersions of this generation43.5–57.6 mpg41.5–54.3 mpg
CO2129–146 g/km119–155 g/km
Running costs at 7,500 miles a year
Petrol or hybrid171.8p a litre, today's UK average£1,223 (47.9 mpg)£1,181 (49.6 mpg) (best)
Diesel198.4p a litre£1,174 (57.6 mpg)–
Cheapest version to fuelWhichever fuel costs least£1,174 (diesel)£1,181 (petrol)
Car tax, registered 2001 to 2017Taxed on CO2; newer cars pay a flat £200––
Reliability from real MOT tests
Reliability score78Well below average147Well above average (best)
Failed MOT first time (ages 3–20)21.9%8.1% (best)
Failed at 3 years old14.2%7.7% (best)
Failed at 5 years old16.6%–
Failed at 10 years old35.3%–
Most common MOT faultStop lamp (5.2% of tests)Condition (1.3% of tests)
Fails more than average onLights and electrics (2.5×), Exhaust and emissions (1.9×)Nothing stands out
MOT tests analysed100,01645,632
About the cars
TypeSmall SUVSmall SUV
Owners' average miles a year6,6007,800
On sale2014–20222019 on

Green marks the better figure where the difference is more than 3%. Reliability figures cover every version of each model tested in the year. Running costs use the typical official economy of recent versions (WLTP where available); real-world economy is usually a little worse for every car.

More comparisons

Frequently asked questions

›Is the Ford EcoSport or the Ford Puma more reliable?

The Ford Puma. Like for like on age and mileage, the Ford EcoSport fails its MOT about 88% more often (reliability scores 147 and 78, where 100 is average). 8.1% of Ford Pumas and 21.9% of Ford EcoSports failed first time in 2024.

›Which is bigger, the Ford EcoSport or the Ford Puma?

The Ford Puma is 130mm longer (4,226mm against 4,096mm). The Ford Puma has the bigger boot: 456 litres against 356.

›Which is cheaper to run, the Ford EcoSport or the Ford Puma?

Comparing petrol versions, fuel costs are within £42 a year of each other at 7,500 miles, using typical official economy and current UK average fuel prices.

›Which is safer, the Ford EcoSport or the Ford Puma?

Euro NCAP gave the Ford EcoSport 4 stars (2013) and the Ford Puma 4 stars (2022). Euro NCAP makes its tests tougher every few years, so ratings from different years aren't directly comparable.

›Should I buy the Ford EcoSport or the Ford Puma?

The Ford Puma comes out ahead, with the bigger boot, the better MOT record and more performance; the Ford EcoSport is close on everything else. The comparison above sets out price, space, performance, safety, running costs and reliability side by side.

Sources: manufacturers' UK specifications and price lists and Euro NCAP (listed on each model's page); DVSA anonymised MOT tests 2024 (Open Government Licence v3.0); Vehicle Certification Agency car fuel data, © Crown copyright, VCA cannot accept liability for its accuracy; fuel prices from the GOV.UK Fuel Finder scheme. Photos from Wikimedia Commons, credited under each picture.