CS
CarSorted
HomeComparisonsVolkswagen T-Roc vs Mazda CX-5
Spec Battle Updated 20 April 2026 5 min read

Volkswagen T-Roc vs Mazda CX-5

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.

SpecVolkswagenMazda
Price (RRP)$41,990$39,990
Fuel typePetrolPetrol
Power110kW132kW
0-100 km/h8.7s8.7s
Fuel Economy6.3 L/100km7.4 L/100km
Boot Space445L466L
Towing1,500kg1,800kg
Warranty5yr / Unlimited5yr / Unlimited
ANCAP SafetyNo data5 Stars

Track the Volkswagen T-Roc & Mazda CX-5

Get price-drop alerts on these models plus our free weekly new-car rundown. Unsubscribe anytime.

Price Breakdown

The Volkswagen T-Roc starts from $41,990 before on-road costs, while the Mazda CX-5 opens at $39,990. That makes the Mazda CX-5 the more affordable entry point by $2,000.

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 $46,189 and $43,989 respectively.

Over 5 years, the running costs favour the Volkswagen T-Roc by roughly $1,565 in fuel alone.

Safety Rundown

ANCAP safety ratings have not been published for both models yet. We will update this section when crash test results are available.

Feature Showdown

The Volkswagen T-Roc features a 8-inch touchscreen paired with a 10.3-inch digital dash, while the Mazda CX-5 gets a 12.9-inch display and 10.3-inch instruments. Apple CarPlay and Android Auto are standard across both.

The Volkswagen T-Roc stands out with wireless Apple CarPlay/Android Auto and wireless charging that you will not find on the Mazda CX-5. The Mazda CX-5 counters with Apple CarPlay. Which feature set matters more depends on your daily routine and priorities.

Drivetrain

The Volkswagen T-Roc uses a Petrol producing 110kW and 250Nm of torque, sent through a auto to a FWD layout. It covers the 0-100km/h sprint in 8.7 seconds.

The Mazda CX-5 responds with a Petrol making 132kW and 242Nm, paired to a automatic driving all four wheels. It gets to 100km/h in 8.7 seconds.

The Mazda CX-5 has the clear power advantage at 132kW vs 110kW. For most buyers, the way each car feels day-to-day matters more than outright acceleration.

Space & Comfort

The Volkswagen T-Roc measures 4,251mm long on a 2,603mm wheelbase, 439mm shorter than the Mazda CX-5 at 4,690mm (2,815mm wheelbase). The longer wheelbase on the Mazda CX-5 generally means more rear legroom.

Boot space is 445L in the Volkswagen T-Roc and 466L in the Mazda CX-5, giving the Mazda CX-5 a 21L advantage. Fold the rears and you get 1290L vs 1594L.

For towing, the Mazda CX-5 leads with a 1,800kg braked capacity vs 1,500kg. That 300kg difference matters if you regularly hitch up.

Turning Circle

Kerb-to-kerb diameter. Smaller turns easier in tight carparks and U-turns.

11.1m to 11.2m

TightestVolkswagen T-Roc Style 110TSITightest turn at 11.1m, easiest U-turns and carparks
Volkswagen T-Roc Style 110TSI
11.1mTighter
Best
Mazda CX-5 G25 Pure AWD
11.2m
Worst
Volkswagen T-Roc Style 110TSI
11.1m · Average

Based on 11.1m turning circle:

  • U-turn on standard street (7m+ wide)
  • Standard parking bay
  • Tight carparks
  • Narrow laneways
Mazda CX-5 G25 Pure AWD
11.2m · Average

Based on 11.2m turning circle:

  • U-turn on standard street (7m+ wide)
  • Standard parking bay
  • Tight carparks
  • Narrow laneways

Turning circle ratings

Under 10m, Excellent
10 to 11m, Good
11 to 12m, Average
Over 12m, Large
Compare U-turns side by side

Turning Circle · U-turn compare

kerb-to-kerb, 2 cars
Tap to add/remove
TightestVolkswagen T-RocTightest turn at 11.1m, needs the least road to swing around
Volkswagen T-RocTightest11.1 m
Average△ 3-point
Mazda CX-511.2 m
Average△ 3-point
Scrub the turn

0 of 2 clear a 7.0 m street in one sweep

Green cars complete the U-turn; amber need a 3-point turn. Drag the slider to test tighter streets.

Under 10 m · Excellent 10–11 m · Good 11–12 m · Average Over 12 m · Large

Standard widths: AU local streets ~5.5–7 m; main roads ~9–12 m.

True Cost to Own

Based on 15,000km of annual driving, fuel costs roughly $1,796/year for the Volkswagen T-Roc and $2,109/year for the Mazda CX-5. That is a $313 annual difference in favour of the Volkswagen T-Roc.

Estimated annual total: $1,796 (Volkswagen T-Roc) vs $2,109 (Mazda CX-5). The Volkswagen T-Roc saves you roughly $313 per year in total ownership costs. Use our Fuel Cost Calculator to estimate based on your driving.

Warranty: 5 years / 999,999km (Volkswagen T-Roc) vs 5 years / 999,999km (Mazda CX-5). Both match on warranty length.

Who Should Buy Which?

Buy the Volkswagen T-Roc if: You want lower running costs, or prefer Volkswagen's approach to design and ownership experience.

Buy the Mazda CX-5 if: You want the lower entry price, prioritise performance, need more boot space, need stronger towing, or prefer Mazda's approach to design and ownership experience.

The Verdict

The Mazda CX-5 takes 4 of 5 key spec categories and comes in at a lower price. The Volkswagen T-Roc will save you roughly $313 a year in fuel. The best pick depends on what you value most. Explore the full specs for each model below.

Common questions

Which is cheapest, Volkswagen T-Roc and Mazda CX-5?

The Mazda CX-5 is the cheapest at $39,990 before on-road costs. That undercuts the Volkswagen T-Roc by $2,000.

Which is the most fuel-efficient?

The Volkswagen T-Roc uses the least fuel at 6.3L/100km on the combined cycle.

Which is safest?

They are evenly matched — Mazda CX-5 all hold a 5-star ANCAP rating. Compare the active-safety features above to separate them.

Which has the most boot space?

The Mazda CX-5 has the largest boot at 466L.

Which can tow the most?

The Mazda CX-5 has the highest braked towing capacity at 1,800kg.

Which is the most powerful?

The Mazda CX-5 makes the most power at 132kW.

Free alerts

Track the cars you're comparing

Get price-drop and spec-change alerts on the models in this comparison, plus our weekly new-car rundown of launches, deals and reviews.

  • Price-drop alerts on these models
  • Spec-change alerts
  • Weekly new-car rundown

No spam, unsubscribe anytime. By subscribing you agree to receive marketing emails.

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.

Auto-generated from CarSorted's specification data · 20 April 2026

Comments (0)

Sign in to join the conversation

No comments yet. Be the first!

More head-to-heads

Other matchups worth a look

Same segment, similar money. Tap any pair for the full side-by-side spec sheet.

All comparisons

Images are representative. Actual variant trim, colour and equipment may differ.

Browse all cars · All SUVs · Best mid-size SUVs