Honda CR-V vs Mazda CX-5

The price gap here is all but gone: $39,900 for the CR-V VTi L versus $39,990 for the CX-5 G25 Pure AWD. That's $90, which is noise. On-road they land within a few hundred dollars of each other depending on your state, so price is not the deciding factor here — what you get for it is.

Fuel now favours the Honda. At 7.0L/100km for the CR-V and 7.4L/100km for the all-wheel-drive CX-5, you're looking at about $1,995 versus $2,109 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.

The CR-V carries a 5-star ANCAP rating. The new-generation CX-5 has not been rated by ANCAP yet, so there is no published score for it, and we won't assume it inherits the superseded model's. Both carry full suites of active safety technology.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 G25 Pure 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 G25 Pure is the entry-level CX-5, and the new generation moves the game on considerably. You get a 15.6-inch touchscreen, a far bigger unit than the outgoing car's rotary-controlled display (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 G25 Pure CX-5 lacks.

Boot space is where the CR-V pulls ahead decisively. At 561L versus 438L, that's 123 litres more — a serious gap, though the CX-5 opens out to 1,594L with the rear seats folded. 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 G25 Pure runs a naturally aspirated 2.5-litre four making 132kW and 242Nm. 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 8.7 for the CX-5, so the Mazda is now the quicker of the two. 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. At 1,800kg braked versus 1,500kg for the CR-V, the Mazda can tow 300kg more. 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.

This is the big change: the CX-5 G25 Pure is all-wheel drive as standard, while the CR-V VTi L is front-wheel drive. Honda charges from $49,900 (VTi LX) for AWD, so the Mazda gives you driven rear wheels roughly $10,000 earlier, which is considerably cheaper as an AWD entry point.