Mazda CX-3 vs Suzuki Fronx
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 Suzuki Fronx opens at $28,490. That makes the Mazda CX-3 the more affordable entry point by $690.
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 $31,339 respectively.
Over 5 years, the running costs are nearly identical since both have similar efficiency.
Safety Rundown
Both the Mazda CX-3 and Suzuki Fronx hold a 5-star ANCAP safety rating.
Where the two diverge is in active safety technology. The Suzuki Fronx packs more ADAS features with 5 out of 10 key systems fitted, compared to 1 in the Mazda CX-3.
Both include the essentials: autonomous emergency braking, a reversing camera. Airbag count is 6 in the Mazda CX-3 and 6 in the Suzuki Fronx.
Feature Showdown
The Mazda CX-3 features a 8-inch touchscreen, while the Suzuki Fronx gets a 7-inch display. Apple CarPlay and Android Auto are standard across both.
Drivetrain
The Mazda CX-3 lines up 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 Suzuki Fronx lines up making 74kW and 147Nm, paired to a automatic driving the front wheels. It gets to 100km/h in 11.5 seconds.
The Mazda CX-3 has the clear power advantage at 110kW vs 74kW. In the real-world sprint, the Mazda CX-3 is 0.6s 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, 280mm longer than the Suzuki Fronx at 3,995mm (2,520mm wheelbase). The longer wheelbase on the Mazda CX-3 generally means more rear legroom.
Boot space is 350L in the Mazda CX-3 and 308L in the Suzuki Fronx, giving the Mazda CX-3 a 42L advantage.
0True Cost to Own
Based on 15,000km of annual driving, fuel costs roughly $1,710/year for the Mazda CX-3 and $1,682/year for the Suzuki Fronx. That is a $28 annual difference in favour of the Suzuki Fronx.
Estimated annual total: $1,710 (Mazda CX-3) vs $1,682 (Suzuki Fronx). The Suzuki Fronx saves you roughly $28 per year in total ownership costs. Use our Fuel Cost Calculator to estimate based on your driving.
Warranty: 5 years (Mazda CX-3) vs 3 years / 100,000km (Suzuki Fronx). The Mazda CX-3 has longer coverage.
Who Should Buy Which?
Buy the Mazda CX-3 if: You want the lower entry price, prioritise performance, need more boot space, value a longer warranty, or prefer Mazda's approach to design and ownership experience.
Buy the Suzuki Fronx if: You want lower running costs, or prefer Suzuki's approach to design and ownership experience.
The Verdict
The Mazda CX-3 takes 6 of 7 key spec categories and comes in at a lower price. The Suzuki Fronx will save you roughly $28 a year in fuel. If boot space matters, the Mazda CX-3 has a clear edge. The Mazda CX-3 adds peace of mind with a longer 5-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 (18 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 · 18 April 2026
Comments (0)
Sign in to join the conversation
No comments yet. Be the first!