Head to head · Crossover SUV (EV)
Mini Aceman vs Smart #3
On the measures that matter most to a used buyer — value retention, reliability, fuel economy and insurance — the Smart #3 comes out ahead of the Mini Aceman, winning 1 of the 1 categories where the two differ.
| Measure | Mini Aceman | Smart #3 |
|---|---|---|
| Est. value, ~3 years old | £23,300 (2024, 15,500 mi) | £22,300 (2024, 15,500 mi) |
| Value kept after 3 years | 50% | 50% |
| Reliability (MOT-derived, /100) | 70 | 74 · wins |
| Average mpg | — | — |
| Insurance group | 20 | 20 |
| Road tax / year | £195 | £195 |
| Typical annual service | £185 | £185 |
Valuations are each model's ~3-year-old example at typical mileage, through the same model behind the profiles. Adjust mileage, trim and condition in the interactive comparison →
Aceman vs #3 — quick answers
Which is more reliable, the Aceman or the #3?
The Smart #3 scores higher on Forecourt's MOT-derived reliability measure — 74 against the Mini Aceman's 70 out of 100.
How much does a used Aceman cost compared with a #3?
A roughly three-year-old Mini Aceman is worth about £23,300 at typical mileage, against about £22,300 for the equivalent Smart #3.