Mazda CX-3 vs Kia Stonic
A detailed look at how two of Australia's most popular SUVs compare on price, running costs, safety, and everyday livability.
Specifications and pricing correct at time of publishing. Prices are RRP before on-road costs unless stated otherwise. Always confirm with the manufacturer or dealer before purchasing.
Price Breakdown
The Mazda CX-3 starts from $27,800 before on-road costs, while the Kia Stonic opens at $26,990. That makes the Kia Stonic the more affordable entry point by $810.
Once you factor in stamp duty, registration, CTP insurance, and dealer delivery, expect to add roughly 8-12% on top of the RRP depending on your state. That puts estimated driveaway prices in the ballpark of $30,580 and $29,689 respectively.
Over 5 years, the running costs are nearly identical since both have similar efficiency.
Safety Rundown
Both the Mazda CX-3 and Kia Stonic hold a 5-star ANCAP safety rating.
Where the two diverge is in active safety technology. The Kia Stonic packs more ADAS features with 4 out of 10 key systems fitted, compared to 1 in the Mazda CX-3.
Both include the essentials: autonomous emergency braking, a reversing camera.
Feature Showdown
Both come with modern infotainment systems. Apple CarPlay and Android Auto are standard across both.
Drivetrain
The Mazda CX-3 uses a Petrol producing 110kW and 195Nm of torque, sent through a automatic to a FWD layout. It covers the 0-100km/h sprint in 10.9 seconds.
The Kia Stonic responds with a Petrol making 88kW and 172Nm, paired to a 7-speed dct driving the front wheels. It gets to 100km/h in 11.2 seconds.
The Mazda CX-3 has the clear power advantage at 110kW vs 88kW. In the real-world sprint, the Mazda CX-3 is 0.3s quicker. For most buyers, the way each car feels day-to-day matters more than outright acceleration.
Space & Comfort
The Mazda CX-3 measures 4,275mm long on a 2,570mm wheelbase, 135mm longer than the Kia Stonic at 4,140mm (2,580mm wheelbase). The longer wheelbase on the Kia Stonic generally means more rear legroom.
Boot space is 350L in the Mazda CX-3 and 352L in the Kia Stonic, giving the Kia Stonic a 2L advantage.
Turning Circle
Kerb-to-kerb diameter. Smaller turns easier in tight carparks and U-turns.
10.6m diameter
Good
Based on 10.6m turning circle:
- U-turn on standard street (7m+ wide)
- Standard parking bay
- Tight carparks
- Narrow laneways
Turning circle ratings
True Cost to Own
Based on 15,000km of annual driving, fuel costs roughly $1,710/year for the Mazda CX-3 and $1,625/year for the Kia Stonic. That is a $85 annual difference in favour of the Kia Stonic.
Estimated annual total: $1,710 (Mazda CX-3) vs $1,625 (Kia Stonic). The Kia Stonic saves you roughly $85 per year in total ownership costs. Use our Fuel Cost Calculator to estimate based on your driving.
Warranty: 5 years / 999,999km (Mazda CX-3) vs 7 years / 999,999km (Kia Stonic). The Kia Stonic has longer coverage.
Who Should Buy Which?
Buy the Mazda CX-3 if: You prioritise performance, or prefer Mazda's approach to design and ownership experience.
Buy the Kia Stonic if: You want the lower entry price, need more boot space, want lower running costs, value a longer warranty, or prefer Kia's approach to design and ownership experience.
The Verdict
The Kia Stonic takes 4 of 6 key spec categories and comes in at a lower price. The Kia Stonic will save you roughly $85 a year in fuel. The Kia Stonic adds peace of mind with a longer 7-year warranty. The best pick depends on what you value most. Explore the full specs for each model below.
Disclaimer: All information in this comparison was believed to be correct at the time of publishing (20 April 2026). Prices are manufacturer recommended retail prices (RRP) and may vary by state, dealer, and options. Driveaway costs include estimated on-road costs for Victoria. Fuel economy figures are WLTP/ADR combined cycle. Specifications can change without notice. Always verify with the manufacturer before making a purchase decision. CarSorted does not accept payment for recommendations.
Published by CarSorted Editorial Team · 20 April 2026
Comments (0)
Sign in to join the conversation
No comments yet. Be the first!
