Honda Accord vs Honda Civic?

It's more economical.

Part of the low rating for the Accord may be the result of the horrific problems Honda had with 6 cylinder automatic transmissions in the early 200s. The Great Honda Automatic Transmission Debacle left millions of dead transmissions from 1998 to the 2004 or early 2005 model years. The first source has details and a plausible explanation for it. Why Honda let it drag on for 6 years is anybody's guess. I was active in Honda forums during that period and the anguish of owners was terrible. One had the transmission replaced twice under warranty by Honda and the third replacement was his expense... and the Accord was barely over 100K miles. The Accord also was hard hit by Honda's brake problems in 2008, when rear brakes were lasting less than 10K miles.

The Civic had problems of its own. Although it was hit by the worst of the transmission problems earlier than the Accord, in 2006 Honda got a batch of bad (porous) engine blocks for the Civic.

Both models have done well in the last few years.

More economical

Less problems

Less maintenance

Cheaper to insure

The new Accord usually comes with a V-6 and is not very economical and has many problems and even recalls in the first 5 years. The Civic usually comes with the Honda's 2.0 which has been around for decades, runs great, has good power, no problems and has much less depreciation. Both cars new, the Civic will be thousands of dollars cheaper. 10 years from now, they will be about the same price. Conclusion, those thousands extra you spent on the Accord, are for your prestige only, those thousands are going up in flames within 10 years.

It is more fuel efficient.