Honda Accord vs Mazda CX-3

Price and cost per week

Safety Rundown

We hold no ANCAP data for the Honda Accord. ANCAP's published record does not give the Mazda CX-3 a rating. With no pair of ratings to compare, the active-safety features in the spec table above are the fairer comparison.

Recalls on our record

A recall covers the builds its notice lists, not every car of a model. Check your VIN at vehiclerecalls.gov.au.

Feature Showdown

The Honda Accord features a 12.3-inch touchscreen paired with a 10.2-inch digital dash, while the Mazda CX-3 gets a 8-inch display. Apple CarPlay and Android Auto are standard across both.

The Honda Accord stands out with wireless charging, power tailgate, Bose audio and ambient lighting — features our data doesn't list for the Mazda CX-3. The Mazda CX-3 counters with head-up display. Which feature set matters more depends on your daily routine and priorities.

Interior trim differs: the Honda Accord gets leather upholstery while the Mazda CX-3 offers black cloth. Climate control is 2-zone in the Honda Accord and 1-zone in the Mazda CX-3.

Drivetrain

The Honda Accord uses a Hybrid producing 135kW and 335Nm of torque, sent through a automatic to a FWD layout. It covers the 0-100km/h sprint in 7.8 seconds.

The Mazda CX-3 responds with a 2.0 litre in-line 4 cylinder 16 valve DOHC S-VT petrol (Skyactiv-G) with i-stop making 110kW and 195Nm, paired to a 6-speed automatic (skyactiv-drive) driving the front wheels. It gets to 100km/h in 10.9 seconds.

The Honda Accord has the clear power advantage at 135kW vs 110kW. In the 0-100 sprint (manufacturer-claimed), the Honda Accord is 3.1s quicker. For most buyers, the way each car feels day-to-day matters more than outright acceleration.

Space & Comfort

The Honda Accord measures 4,975mm long on a 2,830mm wheelbase, 700mm longer than the Mazda CX-3 at 4,275mm (2,570mm wheelbase). The longer wheelbase on the Honda Accord generally means more rear legroom.

Boot space is 570L in the Honda Accord and 264L in the Mazda CX-3, giving the Honda Accord a 306L advantage.

For towing, the Mazda CX-3 leads with a 1,200kg braked capacity vs 1,000kg. That 200kg difference matters if you regularly hitch up.

Neither U-turns in one sweep on a 7 m local street (both need a three-point turn); the Mazda CX-3's turning circle is 0.8 m tighter, 10.6 m against 11.4 m kerb to kerb. The street estimate is indicative, worked from the published turning circles.

Cost to own

At 15,000 km a year, fuel for the Honda Accord costs about $1,226 a year (4.3 L/100km) and fuel for the Mazda CX-3 about $1,796 a year (6.3 L/100km), at $1.90 a litre and 32c a kWh. That is $570 a year less for the Honda Accord.

Warranty: 5 years / Unlimited (Honda Accord) and 5 years / Unlimited (Mazda CX-3). Capped-price servicing: 5 years (Honda Accord), no data (Mazda CX-3).

Where each one leads

The Honda Accord: more power (135kW against 110kW), the bigger boot with the seats up (570L against 264L) and lower fuel or energy costs on our assumptions ($1,226 a year against $1,796).

The Mazda CX-3: the higher braked towing limit (1,200kg against 1,000kg).

The Verdict

Honda Accord scores higher, 75 vs 66

The Honda Accord scores 75 to the Mazda CX-3's 66 on the CarSorted Score, and leads 4 of the 5 spec rows that separate them. The biggest gaps: technology (Honda Accord ahead by 35 points), performance (Honda Accord ahead by 19 points), fuel economy (Honda Accord ahead by 18 points). At 15,000 km a year, fuel for the Honda Accord costs about $570 less (4.3 L/100km against 6.3 L/100km, at $1.90 a litre). Boot space with the seats up: 570L in the Honda Accord, 264L in the Mazda CX-3.

Common questions