Vauxhall Combo vs Toyota Aygo: Insurance Risk Comparison
Gera Risk Comparison Delta (GRCD): +31 pts — Vauxhall Combo is riskier by 31 index points. MOT fail-rate difference: +22.8 pp. From 26,016,787 DVSA MOT tests (2016, OGL v3.0).
Which is riskier to insure — the Vauxhall Combo or the Toyota Aygo?
The Vauxhall Combo (GVRI 54/100) is 31 index points riskier than the Toyota Aygo (GVRI 23/100) according to the Gera Risk Comparison Delta — a 22.8 percentage-point difference in MOT fail rates from 2016 DVSA data. UK fleet average GVRI: 37/100. Source: DVSA Anonymised MOT data (2016), OGL v3.0.
Vauxhall Combo vs Toyota Aygo: side-by-side risk data (2016)
| Measure | Vauxhall Combo | Toyota Aygo | Difference (A − B) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gera Vehicle Risk Index (GVRI) | 54/100 | 23/100 | +31 pts |
| Risk band | Moderate Risk | Low Risk | Vauxhall Combo riskier |
| MOT fail rate | 38.1% | 15.3% | +22.8 pp |
| MOT tests in dataset | 118,390 | 111,853 | — |
| Failed tests | 45,074 | 17,110 | — |
| Avg defect severity | 1.05 | 1.05 | 1=std, 3=dangerous |
| vs UK fleet GVRI (37/100) | +17 pts above avg | -14 pts below avg | — |
GRCD = GVRI(A) − GVRI(B). GVRI = 0.6 × MOT_fail_rate + 0.4 × avg_defect_severity_norm, 0–100. Class-4 (car) normal tests only. N ≥ 30. Source: DVSA MOT 2016, OGL v3.0.
Try the live comparison tool
Compare any two UK cars head-to-head by Gera Risk Comparison Delta.
Car A
Car B
Select two cars to compare their Gera Risk Comparison Delta — computed from 26,016,787 real DVSA MOT tests.
Get insurance quotes for the Toyota Aygo — lower-risk by 31 GVRI points
The Toyota Aygo (GVRI 23/100) is 31 index points lower-risk than the Vauxhall Combo from DVSA MOT data. GeraSure is building data-driven insurance comparison using real GVRI data. Join the waitlist to see what that means for your premium.
More Vauxhall Combo comparisons
More Toyota Aygo comparisons
Vauxhall Combo vs Toyota Aygo insurance risk: frequently asked questions
- What is the Gera Risk Comparison Delta for the Vauxhall Combo vs Toyota Aygo?
- The Gera Risk Comparison Delta (GRCD) for the Vauxhall Combo vs Toyota Aygo is +31 index points, computed from GVRI(Vauxhall Combo) = 54/100 and GVRI(Toyota Aygo) = 23/100. The Vauxhall Combo is the higher-risk model by 31 GVRI points based on DVSA MOT 2016 data (OGL v3.0).
- What is the Vauxhall Combo GVRI?
- The Vauxhall Combo Gera Vehicle Risk Index (GVRI) is 54/100 (Moderate Risk), with a MOT fail rate of 38.1% from 118,390 class-4 DVSA MOT tests in 2016. The UK fleet average GVRI is 37/100.
- What is the Toyota Aygo GVRI?
- The Toyota Aygo Gera Vehicle Risk Index (GVRI) is 23/100 (Low Risk), with a MOT fail rate of 15.3% from 111,853 class-4 DVSA MOT tests in 2016. The UK fleet average GVRI is 37/100.
- Which is cheaper to insure, the Vauxhall Combo or Toyota Aygo?
- Based on DVSA MOT data, the Toyota Aygo (GVRI 23/100, Low Risk) has a lower modelled insurance risk than the Vauxhall Combo (GVRI 54/100) by 31 index points — a 22.8 percentage-point MOT fail-rate difference. However, actual premiums also depend on driver age, no-claims bonus, postcode, annual mileage and policy type.
- How is the GRCD calculated?
- GRCD = GVRI(Car A) − GVRI(Car B). GVRI = 0.6 × MOT_fail_rate + 0.4 × avg_defect_severity_norm, min-max scaled 0–100. All inputs are from the DVSA Anonymised MOT Test Results dataset (2016, OGL v3.0). Only make+model combinations with N ≥ 30 tests are included. Full methodology is on the Gera Risk Comparison Delta methodology page.
Methodology
The Gera Risk Comparison Delta for Vauxhall Combo vs Toyota Aygo is the difference between their GVRI scores: GRCD = GVRI(Vauxhall Combo) − GVRI(Toyota Aygo) = 54 − 23 = +31 pts. GVRI = 0.6 × MOT_fail_rate + 0.4 × avg_defect_severity_norm, min-max scaled 0–100, from DVSA Anonymised MOT Tests (class-4, 2016, OGL v3.0). Full formula and verification steps on the methodology page.
Contains public sector information published by Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) and licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Source: DVSA Anonymised MOT Test Results — DfT (2016, published 2016).