Mazda CX-5 Touring
Crossover · Gasoline
vs
Toyota RAV4 Adventure
Crossover · Gasoline
Mazda CX-5 Touring
Car A
Mazda CX-5 Touring
The Mazda CX-5 Touring blends a 5‑star safety rating, a solid reliability score, and a generous 875 L cargo area to suit growing families at a price that’s good value in its segment. Performance and efficiency are tuned for everyday use rather than performance driving.
5 seatsCrossoverGasoline5-star safety
Toyota RAV4 Adventure
Car B
Toyota RAV4 Adventure
The Toyota RAV4 Adventure blends family practicality and reliability with ample cargo space and straightforward gasoline performance. It suits growing families and frequent road trips more than premium or performance-focused buyers.
5 seatsCrossoverGasoline5-star safety203 hp
Why compared more reliablebetter valuecomparison picksame body typesame powertrainsame seats

Usage fit

Family 85 / 85
City 51 / 50
Budget / value 64 / 61
Road trip 62 / 62
Performance 28 / 27
Cargo 56 / 68
Practical 61 / 61
Premium 24 / 26
Winter 34 / 34

Scores out of 100. Blue = Mazda CX-5 Touring · Orange = Toyota RAV4 Adventure

Specs side-by-side

Spec Mazda CX-5 Touring Toyota RAV4 Adventure
Values are representative — confirm for your market and trim.

Pros & cons

Mazda CX-5 Touring

  • 5-star safety and a reliability score of 82 support stress-free family use
  • 875 L cargo space fits family gear and road‑trip luggage
  • 194 hp with 8.6 s 0–100 km/h is confident for merging and passing
  • Price of 28,500 represents good value in its segment

Toyota RAV4 Adventure

  • Strong emphasis on reliability for low-hassle ownership
  • Generous 1080 L cargo area for strollers, sports gear, and luggage
  • Five seats with adequate power (203 hp, 0–100 km/h in 8.0 s) for daily use
  • Around 35,000, offering good value in its segment

Verdict

Pick Mazda CX-5 Touring if…
Lower entry price
Mazda CX-5 Touring starts lower, making it the stronger value pick if budget is a priority.
Pick Toyota RAV4 Adventure if…
Reliability edge
Toyota RAV4 Adventure scores higher on reliability — worth considering for long-term ownership.

Related comparisons