Mazda CX-80 vs Omoda 9

The Mazda CX-80 starts from $64,490 before on-road costs, while the Omoda 9 opens at $61,990. That makes the Omoda 9 the more affordable entry point by $2,500.

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 $70,939 and $68,189 respectively.

The Omoda 9 qualifies for FBT exemption as an electric vehicle, which can dramatically reduce the effective cost for novated lease buyers. The Mazda CX-80, as a petrol model, does not qualify.

Over 5 years, the running costs favour the Omoda 9 by roughly $10,315 in fuel alone.

Both the Mazda CX-80 and Omoda 9 hold a 5-star ANCAP safety rating. Adult occupant protection scored 92% for the Mazda CX-80 and 90% for the Omoda 9.

Where the two diverge is in active safety technology. The Omoda 9 packs more ADAS features with 7 out of 10 key systems fitted, compared to 6 in the Mazda CX-80.

Both include the essentials: autonomous emergency braking, lane keep assist, adaptive cruise control, a reversing camera. Airbag count is 6 in the Mazda CX-80 and 8 in the Omoda 9. The Omoda 9 adds a 360-degree camera that the Mazda CX-80 misses.

How long each takes to charge — from a household power point to ultra-rapid DC — estimated from battery size and max charge rates.

The Mazda CX-80 features a 10.3-inch touchscreen paired with a 7-inch digital dash, while the Omoda 9 gets a 12.3-inch display and 12.3-inch instruments. Apple CarPlay and Android Auto are standard across both.

The Omoda 9 counters with head-up display, wireless charging, panoramic roof, heated front seats, ventilated seats, Sony audio and ambient lighting that the Mazda CX-80 does not offer. Which feature set matters more depends on your daily routine and priorities.

Interior trim differs: the Mazda CX-80 gets cloth upholstery while the Omoda 9 offers leather. Climate control is 3-zone in the Mazda CX-80 and 2-zone in the Omoda 9.

The Mazda CX-80 uses a Petrol producing 209kW and 450Nm of torque, sent through a automatic to a AWD layout. It covers the 0-100km/h sprint in 9 seconds.

The Omoda 9 responds with a Plug-in Hybrid making 395kW and 215Nm, paired to a automatic driving all four wheels. It gets to 100km/h in 4.9 seconds.

The Omoda 9 has the clear power advantage at 395kW vs 209kW. In the real-world sprint, the Omoda 9 is 4.1s quicker. For most buyers, the way each car feels day-to-day matters more than outright acceleration.

The Mazda CX-80 measures 4,990mm long on a 3,120mm wheelbase, 215mm longer than the Omoda 9 at 4,775mm (2,800mm wheelbase). The longer wheelbase on the Mazda CX-80 generally means more rear legroom.

Boot space is 258L in the Mazda CX-80 and 660L in the Omoda 9, giving the Omoda 9 a 402L advantage. The Mazda CX-80 seats 7 vs 5.

For towing, the Mazda CX-80 leads with a 2,500kg braked capacity vs 1,500kg. That 1,000kg difference matters if you regularly hitch up.

Based on 15,000km of annual driving, fuel costs roughly $2,394/year for the Mazda CX-80 and $331/year for the Omoda 9. That is a $2,063 annual difference in favour of the Omoda 9.

Estimated annual total: $2,394 (Mazda CX-80) vs $331 (Omoda 9). The Omoda 9 saves you roughly $2,063 per year in total ownership costs. Use our Fuel Cost Calculator to estimate based on your driving.

Warranty: 5 years / 999,999km (Mazda CX-80) vs 8 years / 999,999km (Omoda 9). The Omoda 9 has longer coverage.