Puma vs Juke
| Ford Puma<br>2024 | Nissan Juke<br>2024 | |
|---|---|---|
| Price from | £25,980 | £21,495 |
| Body type | SUV | SUV |
| Fuel | Petrol | Hybrid |
| Engine | 1.0 EcoBoost mild hybrid | 1.6-litre 4-cyl petrol hybrid |
| Power | 125PS | 143 PS |
| 0-60 mph | 9.8 seconds | 10.1 seconds |
| Top speed | 119 mph | 103 mph |
| Fuel economy | 50.4 mpg (WLTP combined) | 57.6 mpg (WLTP combined) |
| CO2 | 127 g/km | 112 g/km |
| Boot space | 456 litres | 354 litres |
| Length | 4,186 mm | 4,210 mm |
| Transmission | 6-speed manual | Multi-mode automatic |
| Drive | Front-wheel drive | Front-wheel drive |
| Owner rating | — | — |
The small SUV is the car Britain actually buys now — not the hatchback, not the saloon, but the jacked-up crossover with a big boot and a high driving position. Two of the defining names in that boom face off here: the Ford Puma 2024 at £25,980 and the Nissan Juke 2024 hybrid at £21,495. The Juke invented the segment; the Puma perfected the formula. And this time, the numbers tell a story that might surprise Ford loyalists.
Start with the headline: the Juke is £4,485 cheaper to buy. In a segment where buyers count every pound of their deposit, that is a serious advantage. It is also the more economical car — a hybrid returning 57.6 mpg against the petrol Puma's 50.4 mpg, which means £916 a year in fuel for 8,000 miles versus £1,046. The Juke's hybrid system produces 143 PS, more than the Puma's 125 PS, though the Puma is a touch quicker to 60 mph (9.8 seconds versus 10.1) thanks to lower weight and snappier responses. So the Ford has the edge in outright zip; the Nissan has the edge in everything involving your wallet.
The running-cost comparison is one-sided. Insurance is £608 for the Puma and £572 for the Juke; maintenance £454 versus £436. Over five years the true cost is £27,857 for the Puma against £24,112 for the Juke — a £3,745 gap that the Puma never closes. Monthly that is £464 versus £402; on 48-month finance, £591.91 versus £489.72, more than £100 a month apart. The Puma's charms would need to be extraordinary to justify that, and while it is a lovely thing to drive, extraordinary is a stretch.
Buyer profiles: the Juke suits the value-conscious family buyer who wants hybrid economy, low bills, and distinctive styling at the lowest price in the class — arguably the rational pick of the entire segment. The Puma suits the Ford devotee who loves the brand's chassis tuning (it really is the best small SUV to drive) and is willing to pay for it, or the buyer who simply prefers its subtler looks. The third profile, the company-car chooser, should run both through the tax calculator — the hybrid Juke often wins there too.
Our pick is the Nissan Juke. Cheaper by £4,485, more economical by 7 mpg, more powerful, and £3,745 cheaper over five years — it wins on every financial measure while giving up only three-tenths of a second to 60. The Puma remains the enthusiast's choice for driving fun, but fun is not worth nearly four grand. Buy the Juke with confidence.
Ford Puma review → Nissan Juke review →