Compare the2023 Mazda CX-50VS 2023 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque

For enhanced safety, the front seat shoulder belts of the Mazda CX-50 are height-adjustable to accommodate a wide variety of driver and passenger heights. A better fit can prevent injuries and the increased comfort also encourages passengers to buckle up. The Land Rover Range Rover Evoque doesn’t offer height-adjustable seat belts.

Over 200 people are killed each year when backed over by motor vehicles. The CX-50 Turbo Premium Plus has standard Smart Brake Support-Reverse that use rear sensors to monitor for objects to the rear and automatically apply the brakes to prevent a collision. The Range Rover Evoque doesn’t offer automatic braking for stationary objects directly to the rear.

Both the CX-50 and the Range Rover Evoque have standard driver and passenger frontal airbags, front side-impact airbags, driver and front passenger knee airbags, side-impact head airbags, four-wheel antilock brakes, all wheel drive, traction control, electronic stability systems to prevent skidding, crash mitigating brakes, daytime running lights, lane departure warning systems, blind spot warning systems, rearview cameras, rear cross-path warning, driver alert monitors and available around view monitors.

For its performance in IIHS driver-side and passenger-side small overlap frontal, moderate overlap frontal, updated side impact, headlight, and daytime pedestrian crash prevention testing, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety grants the CX-50 the rating of “Top Safety Pick” for 2023, a rating granted to only 53 vehicles tested by the IIHS. The Range Rover Evoque has not been tested, yet.

Mazda’s powertrain warranty covers the CX-50 1 year and 10,000 miles longer than Land Rover covers the Range Rover Evoque. Any repair needed on the engine, transmission, axles, joints or driveshafts is fully covered for 5 years or 60,000 miles. Coverage on the Range Rover Evoque ends after only 4 years or 50,000 miles.

There are almost 3 times as many Mazda dealers as there are Land Rover dealers, which makes it much easier should you ever need service under the CX-50’s warranty.

A reliable vehicle saves its owner time, money and trouble. Nobody wants to be stranded or have to be without a vehicle while it’s being repaired. Consumer Reports rates the CX-50’s reliability 40 points higher than the Range Rover Evoque.

J.D. Power and Associates’ 2022 Initial Quality Study of new car owners surveyed provide the statistics that show that Mazda vehicles are better in initial quality than Land Rover vehicles. With 13 fewer problems per 100 vehicles, JD Power ranks Mazda higher than Land Rover.

J.D. Power and Associates’ 2022 survey of the owners of three-year-old vehicles provides the long-term dependability statistics that show that Mazda vehicles are more reliable than Land Rover vehicles. J.D. Power ranks Mazda above average in long-term dependability. With 13 more problems per 100 vehicles in the first three years of ownership, Land Rover is rated below average.

The CX-50’s optional 2.5 turbo 4-cylinder produces 25 lbs.-ft. more torque (320 vs. 295) than the Range Rover Evoque HST’s standard 2.0 turbo 4-cylinder.

As tested in Motor Trend the Mazda CX-50 4 cyl. is faster than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2.0:

On the EPA test cycle the CX-50 gets better mileage than the Range Rover Evoque:

An engine control system that can shut down some of the engine’s cylinders helps improve the CX-50 (except Turbo)’s fuel efficiency. The Range Rover Evoque doesn’t offer a system that can shut down part of the engine.

To lower fuel costs and make buying fuel easier, the Mazda CX-50 uses regular unleaded gasoline (premium recommended with the 2.5 turbo 4-cylinder engine for maximum performance). The Range Rover Evoque requires premium, which can cost 20 to 55 cents more per gallon.

The CX-50 stops much shorter than the Range Rover Evoque:

For a smoother ride and more stable handling, the CX-50’s wheelbase is 5.3 inches longer than on the Range Rover Evoque (110.8 inches vs. 105.5 inches).

For better handling and stability, the average track (width between the wheels) on the CX-50 is 1.2 inches wider in the front and 1.1 inches wider in the rear than the track on the Range Rover Evoque.

The CX-50 2.5 Turbo handles at .87 G’s, while the Range Rover Evoque R-Dynamic HST pulls only .83 G’s of cornering force in a Car and Driver skidpad test.

The CX-50 2.5 S executes Motor Trend’s “Figure Eight” maneuver quicker than the Range Rover Evoque SE (28 seconds @ .58 average G’s vs. 28.5 seconds @ .62 average G’s).

For better maneuverability, the CX-50’s turning circle is 2 feet tighter than the Range Rover Evoque’s (36 feet vs. 38 feet).

For greater off-road capability the CX-50 Premium/Turbo has a greater minimum ground clearance than the Range Rover Evoque (8.6 vs. 8.3 inches), allowing the CX-50 to travel over rougher terrain without being stopped or damaged.

The Mazda CX-50 may be more efficient, handle and accelerate better because it weighs about 150 to 250 pounds less than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque.

The CX-50 has .2 inches more front headroom, 1.7 inches more front legroom, .3 inches more rear headroom and 5.8 inches more rear legroom than the Range Rover Evoque.

The CX-50 has a much larger cargo volume with its rear seat up than the Range Rover Evoque with its rear seat up (31.4 vs. 21.6 cubic feet). The CX-50 has a much larger cargo volume with its rear seat folded than the Range Rover Evoque with its rear seat folded (56.3 vs. 50.5 cubic feet).

The CX-50’s cargo area is larger than the Range Rover Evoque’s in almost every dimension:

Pulling a handle automatically lowers the CX-50 Select/Preferred/Premium/Turbo’s rear seats, to make changing between passengers and cargo easier. The Range Rover Evoque doesn’t offer automatic folding seats.

The CX-50 has a standard locking fuel door with a remote release located convenient to the driver. A locking fuel door helps prevent fuel theft and vandalism, such as sugar in the tank. The Range Rover Evoque doesn’t offer a locking fuel door.

Consumer Reports rated the CX-50’s headlight performance “Very Good,” a higher rating than the Range Rover Evoque’s headlights, which were rated “Fair.”

To help drivers see further while navigating curves, the CX-50 Turbo has standard adaptive headlights to illuminate around corners automatically by reading vehicle speed and steering wheel angle. The Range Rover Evoque doesn’t offer cornering lights.

To shield the driver and front passenger’s vision over a larger portion of the windshield and side windows, the CX-50 has standard extendable sun visors. The Range Rover Evoque doesn’t offer extendable visors.

Standard air-conditioned seats in the CX-50 Premium Plus/Turbo Premium keep the driver and front passenger comfortable and take the sting out of hot seats in Summer. The Range Rover Evoque doesn’t offer air-conditioned seats.

Consumer Reports® recommends the Mazda CX-50, based on reliability, safety and performance. The Land Rover Range Rover Evoque isn't recommended.

The Mazda CX-50 outsold the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque by over three to one during 2022.