Compare the2025 Mazda CX-30VS 2024 Jeep Compass

Safety
Reliability
Engine
Fuel Economy and Range
Brakes and Stopping
Suspension and Handling
Chassis
Passenger Space
Ergonomics
Economic Advantages
Recommendations

Safety

© 1999 - 2024Advanta-STAR Automotive Research, all rights reserved. This vehicle comparison and all of the content in it are provided only by license from Advanta-STAR Automotive Research Corporation of America (“Advanta-STAR”). If you are not a legally licensed user of this vehicle comparison, it is against federal law to access it, copy it, forward it, or use it in any manner whatsoever. Any unauthorized use of this vehicle comparison is a violation of U.S. and international law and is punishable criminally and civilly. Removal of this watermark/notification without prior written license and approval received from Advanta-STAR is an agreement, understanding, and/or stipulation by the person(s), entities, agents, attorneys, and any other persons involved in the removal of this watermark/notification (including but not limited to Search Optics, LLC and any and all parent entities, sister entities, and subsidiary entities of Search Optics, LLC and/or any other entity, agent, attorney, and persons related in any manner to Search Optics, LLC) to: 1) an agreed upon amount of liquidated monetary damages of a minimum of $1,250,000.00 US Dollars in favor of Advanta-STAR; 2) the jurisdiction and enforcement of any legal claims associated with this matter asserted by Advanta-STAR in the United States Federal District Court in Portand, Oregon; and 3) service of process of any legal claims asserted by Advanta-STAR associated with this matter may be accomplished by First-Class Postage by the United States Postal Service or comparable service. XPYNN-M34HG 2a06:98c0:3600::103 2024/12/21

For enhanced safety, the front and rear seat shoulder belts of the Mazda CX-30 have pretensioners to tighten the seatbelts and eliminate dangerous slack in the event of a collision. The Jeep Compass doesn’t offer pretensioners for its rear seat belts.

The Mazda CX-30 has standard driver and front passenger side knee airbags mounted low on the dashboard. These airbags helps prevent the driver and front passenger from sliding under their seatbelts or the main frontal airbags; this keeps them better positioned during a collision for maximum protection. Knee airbags also help keep the legs from striking the dashboard, preventing knee and leg injuries in the case of a serious frontal collision. The Compass doesn’t offer a front passenger side knee airbag.

Over 200 people are killed each year when backed over by motor vehicles. The CX-30 Turbo Premium Plus has standard Rear Smart Brake Support that use rear sensors to monitor for objects to the rear and automatically apply the brakes to prevent a collision. The Compass doesn’t offer backup collision prevention brakes.

Both the CX-30 and Compass have rear cross-traffic warning, but the CX-30 Turbo Premium Plus has Smart Braking Support - Rear Crossing (automatically applies the brakes) to better prevent a collision when backing near traffic. The Compass’ Rear Cross Path Detection doesn’t automatically brake.

Both the CX-30 and the Compass have standard driver and passenger frontal airbags, front side-impact airbags, driver knee airbags, side-impact head airbags, height adjustable front shoulder belts, 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.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does 35 MPH front crash tests on new vehicles. In this test, results indicate that the Mazda CX-30 is safer than the Jeep Compass:

	CX-30	Compass
OVERALL STARS	5 Stars	4 Stars
	Driver
STARS	5 Stars	4 Stars
HIC	148	196
Neck Injury Risk	26.7%	41%
Neck Stress	216 lbs.	445 lbs.
Neck Compression	18 lbs.	38 lbs.
Leg Forces (l/r)	201/172 lbs.	326/489 lbs.
	Passenger
STARS	5 Stars	4 Stars
Chest Compression	.5 inches	.8 inches
Neck Injury Risk	33.5%	36%
Neck Stress	172 lbs.	235 lbs.
Neck Compression	85 lbs.	92 lbs.

New test not comparable to pre-2011 test results. More stars = Better. Lower test results = Better.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does side impact tests on new vehicles. In this test, which crashes the vehicle into a flat barrier at 38.5 MPH and into a post at 20 MPH, results indicate that the Mazda CX-30 is safer than the Jeep Compass:

	CX-30	Compass
	Front Seat
STARS	5 Stars	5 Stars
HIC	73	102
Hip Force	275 lbs.	335 lbs.
	Rear Seat
STARS	5 Stars	5 Stars
Hip Force	525 lbs.	928 lbs.
	Into Pole
STARS	5 Stars	5 Stars
HIC	178	355
Spine Acceleration	30 G’s	39 G’s
Hip Force	583 lbs.	663 lbs.

New test not comparable to pre-2011 test results. More stars = Better. Lower test results = Better.

Side impacts caused 23% of all road fatalities in 2018, down from 29% in 2003, when the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety introduced its side barrier test. In order to continue improving vehicle safety, the IIHS has started using a more severe side impact test: 37 MPH (up from 31 MPH), with a 4180-pound barrier (up from 3300 pounds). The results of this newly developed test demonstrates that the Mazda CX-30 is much safer than the Compass:

	CX-30	Compass
Overall Evaluation	GOOD	MARGINAL
Structure	GOOD	MARGINAL
	Driver Injury Measures
Head/Neck	GOOD	GOOD
Head Injury Criterion	89	189
Neck Tension	156 lbs.	268 lbs.
Torso	ACCEPTABLE	ACCEPTABLE
Shoulder Deflection	.87 in	1.02 in
Shoulder Force	223 lbs.	245 lbs.
Pelvis	GOOD	POOR
Pelvis Force	759 lbs.	1517 lbs.
Head Protection	GOOD	GOOD
	Passenger Injury Measures
Head/Neck	GOOD	GOOD
Head Injury Criterion	144	202
Neck Compression	67 lbs.	223 lbs.
Torso	GOOD	ACCEPTABLE
Shoulder Deflection	.94 in	2.13 in
Shoulder Force	245 lbs.	491 lbs.
Torso Max Deflection	.71 in	1.77 in
Torso Deflection Rate	11 MPH	14 MPH
Pelvis	GOOD	ACCEPTABLE
Pelvis Force	379 lbs.	937 lbs.
Head Protection	GOOD	GOOD

Instrumented handling tests conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and analysis of its dimensions indicate that the CX-30, with its four-star roll-over rating, is 4.9% to 5.7% less likely to roll over than the Compass, which received a three-star rating.

The Mazda CX-30 has achieved the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s (IIHS) highest rating of “Top Safety Pick Plus” for the 2024 model year. This distinction is based on its exceptional performance in IIHS’ rigorous battery of safety tests. Specifically, it earned a “Good” rating in the latest, more stringent moderate overlap front crash test, a “Good” result in the updated side impact test, and a “Good” score in the revised pedestrian crash prevention test. The Compass is not even a standard “Top Safety Pick” for 2024.

Reliability

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-30’s reliability 21 points higher than the Compass.

J.D. Power and Associates’ 2024 survey of the owners of three-year-old vehicles provides the long-term dependability statistics that show that Mazda vehicles are more reliable than Jeep vehicles. J.D. Power ranks Mazda above average in long-term dependability. With 5 more problems per 100 vehicles in the first three years of ownership, Jeep is rated lower.

From surveys of all its subscribers, Consumer Reports’ January 2024 Auto Issue reports that Mazda vehicles are more reliable than Jeep vehicles. Consumer Reports ranks Mazda 19 places higher in reliability than Jeep.

Engine

The CX-30’s optional 2.5 turbo 4-cylinder produces 50 more horsepower (250 vs. 200) and 99 lbs.-ft. more torque (320 vs. 221) than the Compass’ 2.0 turbo 4-cylinder.

As tested in Motor Trend the Mazda CX-30 4 cyl. is faster than the Jeep Compass:

	CX-30	Compass
Zero to 60 MPH	7.8 sec	8.1 sec
Quarter Mile	16 sec	16.2 sec
Speed in 1/4 Mile	88.3 MPH	87.5 MPH

Fuel Economy and Range

On the EPA test cycle the CX-30 with its standard engine gets better fuel mileage than the Compass (26 city/33 hwy vs. 24 city/32 hwy).

An engine control system that can shut down some of the engine’s cylinders helps improve the CX-30 (except Turbo)’s fuel efficiency. The Compass doesn’t offer a system that can shut down part of the engine.

The CX-30 has a standard locking fuel door which locks and unlocks with the power locks. The fuel filler door is not lockable on the Compass. A locking fuel door helps prevent fuel theft and vandalism, such as sugar in the tank.

Brakes and Stopping

The CX-30 stops much shorter than the Compass:

	CX-30	Compass
70 to 0 MPH	177 feet	195 feet	Car and Driver
60 to 0 MPH	119 feet	144 feet	Motor Trend
60 to 0 MPH (Wet)	147 feet	151 feet	Consumer Reports

Suspension and Handling

For better handling and stability, the track (width between the wheels) on the CX-30 is .8 inches wider in the front and 1.2 inches wider in the rear than on the Compass.

The CX-30 2.5 S Premium handles at .84 G’s, while the Compass Sport pulls only .81 G’s of cornering force in a Car and Driver skidpad test.

The CX-30 2.5 S Premium executes Motor Trend’s “Figure Eight” maneuver 2.2 seconds quicker than the Compass Trailhawk (27.4 seconds @ .62 average G’s vs. 29.6 seconds @ .53 average G’s).

For better maneuverability, the CX-30’s turning circle is .5 feet tighter than the Compass Trailhawk’s (34.8 feet vs. 35.3 feet). The CX-30’s turning circle is 1.5 feet tighter than the Compass 4x4 Sport/Latitude/Limited’s (34.8 feet vs. 36.3 feet).

Chassis

The Mazda CX-30 may be more efficient, handle and accelerate better because it weighs about 100 to 200 pounds less than the Jeep Compass.

Passenger Space

The CX-30 has .5 inches more front legroom, .5 inches more front hip room and 4 inches more rear hip room than the Compass.

Ergonomics

The CX-30 Premium has a standard heads-up display that projects speed, warning and navigation instruction readouts in front of the driver’s line of sight, allowing drivers to view information without diverting their eyes from the road. The Compass doesn’t offer a heads-up display.

The CX-30’s front and rear power windows all open or close fully with one touch of the switches, making it more convenient at drive-up windows and toll booths, or when talking with someone outside the car. The Compass’ rear power window switches have to be held the entire time to open or close them fully.

The Compass Latitude/Trailhawk/Limited’s cornering lamps activate a lamp on the front corner when the turn signal is activated. The CX-30 Premium’s standard adaptive cornering lights turn the actual headlight unit up to several degrees, depending on steering wheel angle and vehicle speed. This lights a significant distance into corners at any speed.

When the CX-30 Preferred/Carbon/Premium is put in reverse, both rearview mirrors tilt from their original position. This gives the driver a better view of the curb during parallel parking maneuvers. Shifting out of reverse puts the mirrors into their original positions. The Compass’ mirrors don’t automatically adjust for backing.

The CX-30’s optional rear and side view mirrors have an automatic dimming feature. These mirrors can be set to automatically darken quickly when headlights shine on them, keeping following vehicles from blinding or distracting the driver. The Compass offers an automatic rear view mirror, but its side mirrors don’t dim.

Economic Advantages

Insurance will cost less for the CX-30 owner. The Complete Car Cost Guide estimates that insurance for the CX-30 will cost $685 less than the Compass over a five-year period.

IntelliChoice estimates that five-year ownership costs (depreciation, financing, insurance, fuel, fees, repairs and maintenance) for the Mazda CX-30 will be $1143 to $5322 less than for the Jeep Compass.

Recommendations

Consumer Reports® recommends the Mazda CX-30, based on reliability, safety and performance. The Jeep Compass isn't recommended.

See Available Inventory