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.
Data checked: specs 29 Aug 2026, price 14 Oct 2026
Driver assistance, as the maker lists it
Swipe across. Tap a feature to see what it does and each car's source.
StandardOptional: printed price, +pack or NCO (no-cost)No, not offeredNo dataCounts beside each car use the same colours; ? is no option data.
From each manufacturer's Australian equipment list. No data means that car's document does not say. The drawings are our own illustrations of how each kind of system works.
$41,990RRP
- with the Mazda CX-5's standard kit: $41,990 (nothing to add; 1 with no data, not charged)
$39,990RRP
- no option data for this car
Printed option prices only. A pack is counted once and makes the figure a floor when it carries no printed price. Nothing is inferred from the other car.
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.
Recalls on our record
Volkswagen T-Roc
- REC-006631 · published 18 Jun 2026Due to a software issue, the Instrument Panel Cluster (IPC) may fail to illuminate the visual vehicle speed, fuel level and other critical safety information.Year range on the notice: 2024 - 2025
- REC-006315 · published 27 Mar 2025Due to a calibration issue, the LED Matrix HD headlights may have been adjusted incorrectly.Year range on the notice: 2024 - 2025
- REC-005418 · published 28 Apr 2022Due to manufacturing issue, the engine compartment cover may become loose.Year range on the notice: 2021 - 2022
Mazda CX-5
- REC-005009 · published 2 Dec 2021The low pressure fuel pump impeller may become deformed and cause the fuel pump to stop working.Year range on the notice: 2017 - 2019
- REC-000898 · published 19 Mar 2020The daytime running lights (DRL) may flicker or fail to illuminate while driving.Year range on the notice: 2015 - 2016
- REC-000894 · published 10 Oct 2019The affected vehicles may accumulate carbon deposits in the intake shutter valve, in addition to premature wear of certain engine components.Year range on the notice: 2012 - 2018
- 2 more on the model page.
A recall covers the builds its notice lists, not every car of a model. Check your VIN at vehiclerecalls.gov.au.
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, wireless charging, power tailgate and ambient lighting — features our data doesn't list for 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
Based on 11.1m turning circle:
- U-turn on standard street (7m+ wide)
- Standard parking bay
- Tight carparks
- Narrow laneways
Based on 11.2m turning circle:
- U-turn on standard street (7m+ wide)
- Standard parking bay
- Tight carparks
- Narrow laneways
Turning circle ratings
Compare U-turns side by side
Turning Circle · U-turn compare
kerb-to-kerb, 2 cars0 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.
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.
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
Mazda CX-5: Top CarSorted Score, 75 vs 70
The Mazda CX-5 comes out ahead on the CarSorted Score (75 vs 70), taking 4 of 5 key spec rows below and coming in at a lower price. The deciding gaps: safety (Mazda CX-5 ahead by 21), fuel economy (Volkswagen T-Roc ahead by 10), performance (Mazda CX-5 ahead by 8). 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.
What are the ANCAP safety ratings?
Mazda CX-5 holds a 5-star ANCAP rating. We have no published ANCAP rating for Volkswagen T-Roc, so there is nothing to compare on crash performance. Compare the active-safety features above instead.
Which has the most boot space?
The Mazda CX-5 has the largest boot at 466L with the seats up (1,594L with the seats folded).
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.
Stay across the market
Get our weekly new-car rundown of launches, price moves, deals and reviews, straight from the data.
- Weekly new-car rundown
- Price cuts and new deals
- New launches and reviews
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!
