Compare the2024 Mazda CX-50VS 2024 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.

The Mazda CX-50 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 Range Rover Evoque doesn’t offer a front passenger side knee airbag.

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 knee airbags, side-impact head airbags, front seatbelt pretensioners, 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 Mazda CX-50 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 an “Acceptable” score in the revised pedestrian crash prevention test. The Range Rover Evoque has not yet been evaluated by the IIHS for 2024.

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 35 points higher than the Range Rover Evoque.

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 Land Rover 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, Land Rover is rated below average.

The CX-50’s optional 2.5 turbo 4-cylinder produces 10 more horsepower (256 vs. 246) and 51 lbs.-ft. more torque (320 vs. 269) than the Range Rover Evoque’s 2.0 turbo 4-cylinder.

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

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 on average about 84.9 cents more per gallon.

The CX-50 has a standard locking fuel door which locks and unlocks with the power locks. The fuel filler door is not lockable on the Range Rover Evoque. A locking fuel door helps prevent fuel theft and vandalism, such as sugar in the tank.

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 Premium Plus handles at .84 G’s, while the Range Rover Evoque pulls only .77 G’s of cornering force in a Motor Trend skidpad test.

The CX-50 2.5 Turbo Premium Plus executes Motor Trend’s “Figure Eight” maneuver 1.7 seconds quicker than the Range Rover Evoque (26.8 seconds @ .63 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 250 to 400 pounds less than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque.

The CX-50 is 5.7 inches narrower than the Range Rover Evoque, making the CX-50 easier to handle and maneuver in traffic.

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’s rear seats, to make changing between passengers and cargo easier. The Range Rover Evoque doesn’t offer automatic folding seats.

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.

Insurance will cost less for the CX-50 owner. The Complete Car Cost Guide estimates that insurance for the CX-50 will cost $195 to $3460 less than the Range Rover Evoque over a five-year period.

The CX-50 will cost the buyer less in the long run because of its superior resale value. The IntelliChoice estimates that the CX-50 will retain 53.88% to 56.04% of its original price after five years, while the Range Rover Evoque only retains 50.91% to 52.06%.

IntelliChoice estimates that five-year ownership costs (depreciation, financing, insurance, fuel, fees, repairs and maintenance) for the Mazda CX-50 will be $17398 to $22290 less than for the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque.

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 almost 12 to one during 2023.