And now for something a little different. I recently had the chance to spend a week with the 2025 Mazda CX-50 Hybrid and the 2025 Mazda CX-5. If you’re late to the game and curious about what’s going on, Mazda introduced the new CX-50 in 2023, and we all assumed it would replace the CX-5. Mazda was like “nah fam, we’re building both.” If you’re in the market for a compact crossover and wondering which one might be best for you, you’ve come to the right place.
2025 Mazda CX-50 and CX-5 Overview
Mazda’s website may heighten your confusion. They position the CX-5 between the standard gas-powered CX-50 and the CX-50 Hybrid, like our tester. The CX-5 might catch your eye, as it starts at nearly two thousand dollars less than the gas CX-50. Both note that they are rated at up to 28 mpg and can seat five passengers. A closer inspection will show that the CX-50 appears slightly larger than the CX-5. And that’s because it is.
We’ll discuss the details in the comparison below, but the new CX-50 is six inches longer and two inches wider than the CX-5. Currently, the CX-50 Hybrid Premium Plus starts at $40,050, while the CX-5 2.5 Turbo Signature starts at $40,600. The CX-50 also adds $450 for some metallic gray paint, whereas the CX-5 includes an additional $595 for the Soul Red paint option paint. So, out the door they are pretty close in price.
As a reminder, before we continue on into the details of the comparison, here’s a cheat sheet on which is which:
- Exterior: CX-50 is gray, CX-5 is red.
- Interior: CX-50 is red, CX-5 is gray.
Got it? Good.
2025 CX-50 and CX-5: Exterior
The first competition relates to exterior styling, and, well, it’s pretty similar. Looking at each from the side, the CX-50 appears a bit longer, primarily due to the size and angle of the rear window behind the rear doors. As we learned earlier it is longer, so that’s not a trick of the eye.
Other differentiators are subtle; the front end features a similar layout, but the CX-50 includes some duct-like elements on either side. The rear of the CX-50 has a matching set of “ducts” but other than that, the rear end of each looks the same. The CX-50 has a bit of black cladding added, giving it a bit of an off-roady look. More on that in a moment.
I can’t pick one, we’ve had another tie.
Exterior Winner: Draw
2025 CX-50 and CX-5: Interior
OK, that was an anticlimactic beginning. Let’s move on to the interior, where I’m sure we’ll get a clear winner. Oh boy, that’s pretty similar too.
From the dashboard layout, to the steering wheel, to the location of the shifter and various buttons, it’s not all that different. The CX-50 has some cooler-looking vents, but that’s about it. Both have similar infotainment systems and technology, including a 10.25-inch screen.
This hasn’t gone well, my apologies. Please bear with me, and we’ll find a winner.
Interior Winner: Draw
2025 CX-50 and CX-5: Cargo and Practicality
Okay, it’s a draw after two rounds, but I believe we’ll see some differences here. The CX-50 is longer and lower, whereas the CX-5 is a bit taller but not quite as long. That makes it likely that the new CX-50 should have an edge on passenger space.
Oh bollocks, it doesn’t. The CX-50 has 37.8 inches of rear leg room while the CX-5 has 39.6 inches—so nearly two inches of extra space for rear passengers for the CX-5. The CX-5 has more shoulder room (54.8 inches vs. 53.6 inches) and more headroom (39 inches vs. 36.7 inches). From a cargo perspective, the CX-5 has 30.8 cubic feet while the CX-50 has 29.2 cubes. Both have split-folding seats and will generally accommodate the same amount of baggage or gear in the end.
The CX-5 is larger on the inside in nearly every measurable way. But not by much. Sorry, folks!
Cargo and Practicality Winner: Draw
2025 CX-50 and CX-5: On The Road
After evaluating the exterior, interior, and practicality of each vehicle, we found them quite similar. We still have a draw in this Mazda-on-Mazda comparison. So, how do they perform on the road? First, let’s address the off-road angle. Mazda positions the CX-50 as a sort of soft-roader, featuring black cladding and 8.3 inches of ground clearance. That’s a bit better than the 7.9 inches found in the CX-5, except the Hybrid version of the CX-50 only has 7.6 inches. Now, moving on.
The CX-5 features a turbocharged 2.5-liter inline-four engine that produces 256 horsepower and 320 pound-feet of torque. That’s quite impressive, exceeding the CX-50’s 219 horsepower rating from its 2.5-liter gas engine and three electric motors. Fun fact: that’s the same hybrid powertrain in the latest Toyota RAV4 Hybrid. Consider the fact that the CX-5 weighs a bit less (only by 137 pounds, but that’s a human), making it definitely quicker. Car magazines report it at around 6.2 seconds to reach 60 mph, while the hybrid CX-50 takes closer to 7.6 seconds.
OK, you’re saying that the average buyer doesn’t necessarily care about speed. And hoons, I’m sorry to say that you’re right. The turbocharged CX-5 has a combined rating of 24 mpg, while the CX-50 Hybrid in our test is rated much higher. How much higher? Well, it’s 38 mpg combined. Dang, that’s impressive for a smallish family hauler.
If you want speed, go with the CX-5. For improved fuel economy, choose the CX-50. Son of a bitch!
Cargo and Practicality Winner: Draw
Summary
OK, I just did this for fun. Check out the graphic above, the CX-5 and CX-50 both have strictly gas-powered versions, which are more comparable.
When you enter a Mazda dealership to explore compact crossovers, you’ll find both models in the showroom. They are strikingly similar in terms of pricing, appearance, interior features, and space. The only comparison I can make is that this resembles the Ford Escape and Bronco Sport. The differences between the CX-50 and CX-5 do exist, but they are less obvious than the Ford analogy. One of them is sure to catch your interest since both are solid choices.
Since the introduction of the CX-50, sales of the CX-5 have ranged between 134,000 and 151,000 units. Meanwhile, the CX-50 has been steadily increasing, starting with around 21,000 sold in 2002 and reaching over 81,000 last year.
Mazda clearly chose to sell both because they believe they can…sell both.