Honda CR-V vs Mazda CX-5

The price gap here is tight: $39,900 for the CR-V VTi L versus $37,990 for the CX-5 G20 Maxx. That's $1,910 in the Mazda's favour. On-road, the difference is roughly $2,000–$2,200 depending on your state. It's meaningful money, but not the kind of gap that should be the sole deciding factor.

Fuel costs are essentially identical. At 7.0L/100km for the CR-V and 6.9L/100km for the CX-5, you're looking at about $1,995 versus $1,967 per year (at $1.90/L and 15,000km). That's $28 annually — less than a tank of fuel. Over 5 years, the total fuel cost difference is around $140. It's a rounding error.

Both come with 5-year unlimited-kilometre warranties, so you're covered equally. Servicing costs are comparable too. Honda's capped-price servicing runs around $250–$400 per visit. Mazda is similar, typically $300–$400. Parts costs are roughly equivalent for both Japanese manufacturers.

Insurance premiums sit in a similar bracket, though the CR-V can sometimes be $100–$200 more per year due to its slightly higher value. Over a 5-year ownership period, the CX-5 will cost approximately $2,500–$3,000 less in total. Not a massive difference, but the CX-5 has the edge on pure cost.

Resale is interesting. Both hold value well in the Australian market. The CX-5 benefits from massive sales volumes, which creates a deep used market and buyer confidence. The CR-V has Honda's reliability reputation propping up its residuals. Expect roughly similar resale percentages after 5 years.

Both carry 5-star ANCAP safety ratings with full suites of active safety technology. The CR-V VTi L comes with Honda Sensing, which includes autonomous emergency braking with pedestrian and cyclist detection, adaptive cruise control, lane keeping assist, road departure mitigation, and blind spot monitoring. Honda also adds a driver attention monitor and traffic sign recognition.

The CX-5 G20 Maxx gets Mazda's i-Activsense suite with autonomous emergency braking, lane departure warning, lane keeping assist, adaptive cruise control, and rear cross-traffic alert. Blind spot monitoring is included at this trim level, matching the Honda.

The CR-V has a slight edge in passive safety design. Its taller, wider body creates more crumple zone around the cabin, and the 1,623kg kerb weight gives it a small mass advantage in multi-vehicle crashes. The CX-5 at 1,588kg is a little lighter, which helps with handling but is marginally less advantageous in a crash with a heavier vehicle.

For families with young kids, both offer ISOFIX anchor points and top tether points in the rear. Neither has a particular advantage for child seat installation. Both are excellent choices if safety is your primary concern.

The CR-V VTi L sits one trim above Honda's base model, so it comes nicely equipped. You get a 9-inch touchscreen with wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, a reversing camera with guidelines, dual-zone climate control, push-button start, auto LED headlights, and 18-inch alloy wheels. The interior design is clean and modern, with a simple button layout for the climate controls that Honda reintroduced after the touchscreen-everything era. Good call.

The CX-5 G20 Maxx is the entry-level CX-5, but Mazda doesn't skimp on the basics. You get an 8-inch non-touch display controlled by Mazda's rotary dial (which many people prefer to a touchscreen while driving), Apple CarPlay and Android Auto (wired), dual-zone climate control, cloth seats, auto headlights, and 17-inch alloys. The Mazda interior is well designed with a driver-focused cockpit feel.

The CR-V's bigger screen and wireless phone mirroring give it a tech edge. Mazda's wired-only connectivity feels a touch dated in 2026, though the rotary controller is arguably safer to use while driving than a touchscreen. Honda also gives you a wireless phone charger on the VTi L, which the Maxx-trim CX-5 lacks.

Boot space is where the CR-V pulls ahead decisively. At 561L versus 522L, that's 39 litres more — roughly a large gym bag. The CR-V's boot is also wider and squarer, making it easier to load bulky items. Fold the rear seats and the CR-V opens up to a cavern. Honda has always been clever with interior packaging, and it shows here.

The CR-V VTi L uses a 1.5-litre turbocharged four-cylinder producing 140kW and 243Nm of torque. The CX-5 G20 Maxx runs a naturally aspirated 2.0-litre four making 115kW and 200Nm. On paper, the Honda has a clear advantage: 25kW more power and 43Nm more torque from a smaller, turbocharged engine. In practice, the CR-V feels noticeably more energetic, especially when overtaking on country roads or merging onto highways.

The CR-V hits 100km/h in about 9.4 seconds versus roughly 10.1 for the CX-5. Neither is going to win drag races, but the CR-V's turbo gives it a more relaxed, effortless feel in everyday driving. The Mazda needs to be revved harder to extract its performance, which the 6-speed auto handles well but the engine note becomes noticeable.

The CX-5's 6-speed automatic is one of the highlights of the car. It's responsive, smooth, and always seems to find the right gear. The CR-V's CVT is fine — Honda has done a decent job calibrating it — but CVTs inherently lack the crispness of a traditional torque-converter auto. Under hard acceleration, the CR-V's CVT drones more than the CX-5's auto.

Towing is where the CX-5 strikes back hard. At 2,000kg braked versus 1,500kg for the CR-V, the Mazda can tow 500kg more. That's a significant difference. The CX-5 can handle most single-axle caravans, medium boats, and loaded trailers. The CR-V's 1,500kg limit means you need to be more careful about what you hitch up — a loaded box trailer and camping gear could push you close to the limit. If you tow regularly, the CX-5 is the safer bet.

Both are front-wheel drive in these variants. Honda offers AWD on the CR-V from the VTi LX trim ($49,900). Mazda offers AWD on the CX-5 from the G20 Touring AWD ($41,490), which is considerably cheaper as an AWD entry point.