Compare the2025 Mazda CX-5VS 2024 Jeep Compass

Safety
Reliability
Engine
Fuel Economy and Range
Brakes and Stopping
Tires and Wheels
Suspension and Handling
Passenger Space
Cargo Capacity
Towing
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

Over 200 people are killed each year when backed over by motor vehicles. The CX-5 Turbo Signature has standard Smart Brake Support-Rear 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-5 and the Compass have standard driver and passenger frontal airbags, front side-impact airbags, side-impact head airbags, front seatbelt pretensioners, 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, available around view monitors and driver alert 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-5 is safer than the Jeep Compass:

	CX-5	Compass
OVERALL STARS	5 Stars	4 Stars
	Driver
STARS	5 Stars	4 Stars
HIC	82	196
Neck Injury Risk	23%	41%
Neck Stress	274 lbs.	445 lbs.
Neck Compression	23 lbs.	38 lbs.
Leg Forces (l/r)	160/307 lbs.	326/489 lbs.
	Passenger
STARS	5 Stars	4 Stars
HIC	156	172
Chest Compression	.5 inches	.8 inches
Neck Stress	205 lbs.	235 lbs.
Neck Compression	86 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-5 is safer than the Jeep Compass:

	CX-5	Compass
	Front Seat
STARS	5 Stars	5 Stars
HIC	81	102
Chest Movement	.5 inches	.8 inches
Abdominal Force	126 lbs.	134 lbs.
Hip Force	189 lbs.	335 lbs.
	Rear Seat
STARS	5 Stars	5 Stars
Hip Force	524 lbs.	928 lbs.
	Into Pole
STARS	5 Stars	5 Stars
Spine Acceleration	32 G’s	39 G’s
Hip Force	435 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-5 is much safer than the Compass:

	CX-5	Compass
Overall Evaluation	GOOD	MARGINAL
Structure	GOOD	MARGINAL
	Driver Injury Measures
Head/Neck	GOOD	GOOD
Head Injury Criterion	155	189
Neck Tension	223 lbs.	268 lbs.
Torso	ACCEPTABLE	ACCEPTABLE
Shoulder Deflection	.51 in	1.02 in
Shoulder Force	201 lbs.	245 lbs.
Torso Deflection Rate	6 MPH	9 MPH
Pelvis	GOOD	POOR
Pelvis Force	848 lbs.	1517 lbs.
Head Protection	GOOD	GOOD
	Passenger Injury Measures
Head/Neck	GOOD	GOOD
Torso	GOOD	ACCEPTABLE
Shoulder Deflection	1.42 in	2.13 in
Shoulder Force	424 lbs.	491 lbs.
Torso Max Deflection	1.26 in	1.77 in
Torso Deflection Rate	9 MPH	14 MPH
Pelvis	GOOD	ACCEPTABLE
Pelvis Force	602 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-5, with its four-star roll-over rating, is 3% to 3.5% less likely to roll over than the Compass, which received a three-star rating.

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-5’s reliability 20 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-5’s optional 2.5 turbo 4-cylinder produces 56 more horsepower (256 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-5 turbo 4 cyl. is faster than the Jeep Compass:

	CX-5	Compass
Zero to 60 MPH	6.4 sec	8.1 sec
Quarter Mile	14.9 sec	16.2 sec
Speed in 1/4 Mile	93.6 MPH	87.5 MPH

Fuel Economy and Range

An engine control system that can shut down some of the engine’s cylinders helps improve the CX-5 (except Turbo)’s fuel efficiency. The Compass doesn’t offer a system that can shut down part of the engine.

The CX-5 has 1.8 gallons more fuel capacity than the Compass (15.3 vs. 13.5 gallons), for longer range between fill-ups.

The CX-5 has a standard locking fuel door. 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

For better stopping power the CX-5 Turbo’s brake rotors are larger than those on the Compass:

	CX-5 Turbo	Compass
Front Rotors	12.6 inches	12 inches
Rear Rotors	11.9 inches	10.95 inches

The CX-5 stops much shorter than the Compass:

	CX-5	Compass
70 to 0 MPH	167 feet	195 feet	Car and Driver
60 to 0 MPH	123 feet	144 feet	Motor Trend
60 to 0 MPH (Wet)	144 feet	151 feet	Consumer Reports

Tires and Wheels

For better traction, the CX-5 has larger tires than the Compass (225/65R17 vs. 215/65R17).

Suspension and Handling

For a smoother ride and more stable handling, the CX-5’s wheelbase is 2.4 inches longer than on the Compass (106.2 inches vs. 103.8 inches).

For better handling and stability, the track (width between the wheels) on the CX-5 is 2.1 inches wider in the front and 2.5 inches wider in the rear than on the Compass.

The CX-5 handles at .82 G’s, while the Compass Sport pulls only .81 G’s of cornering force in a Car and Driver skidpad test.

The CX-5 Carbon Turbo executes Motor Trend’s “Figure Eight” maneuver 1.9 seconds quicker than the Compass Trailhawk (27.7 seconds @ .61 average G’s vs. 29.6 seconds @ .53 average G’s).

Passenger Space

The CX-5 has 4 cubic feet more passenger volume than the Compass (103.6 vs. 99.6).

The CX-5 has .5 inches more front headroom, 1.1 inches more front hip room, .4 inches more front shoulder room, .5 inches more rear headroom, 1.3 inches more rear legroom and 6.1 inches more rear hip room than the Compass.

For enhanced passenger comfort on long trips the CX-5’s rear seats recline. The Compass’ rear seats don’t recline.

The front step up height for the CX-5 is 1.8 inches lower than the Compass (17.6” vs. 19.4”). The CX-5’s rear step up height is 2.5 inches lower than the Compass’ (18.2” vs. 20.7”).

Cargo Capacity

The CX-5 has a much larger cargo volume than the Compass with its rear seat up (29.1 vs. 27.2 cubic feet).

A low lift-over cargo hatch design makes loading and unloading the CX-5 easier. The CX-5’s cargo hatch lift-over height is 29.4 inches, while the Compass’ liftover is 31.1 inches.

The CX-5’s cargo area is larger than the Compass’ in every dimension:

	CX-5	Compass
Length to seat (2nd/1st)	38”	32.4”/65.7”
Max Width	57”	53.8”
Min Width	41.3”	38.1”
Height	32.4”	29.6”

Pulling a handle automatically lowers the CX-5’s rear seats, to make changing between passengers and cargo easier. The Compass doesn’t offer automatic folding seats.

Towing

The CX-5’s standard towing capacity is much higher than the Compass’ (2000 vs. 0 pounds).

Ergonomics

The CX-5 Premium Plus/Turbo 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-5’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 CX-5’s rain-sensitive wipers adjust their speed and turn on and off automatically based on the amount of rainfall on the windshield. This allows the driver to concentrate on driving without constantly adjusting the wipers. The Compass’ standard manually variable intermittent wipers have to be constantly adjusted.

Consumer Reports rated the CX-5’s headlight performance “Very Good,” a higher rating than the Compass’ headlights, which were rated “Good.”

The Compass Latitude/Trailhawk/Limited’s cornering lamps activate a lamp on the front corner when the turn signal is activated. The CX-5 Premium/Turbo’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.

Economic Advantages

Insurance will cost less for the CX-5 owner. The Complete Car Cost Guide estimates that insurance for the CX-5 will cost $415 less than the Compass over a five-year period.

According to The Car Book by Jack Gillis, the CX-5 is less expensive to operate than the Compass because typical repairs cost less on the CX-5 than the Compass, including $101 less for a water pump, $17 less for front brake pads, $117 less for a fuel pump, $134 less for front struts and $108 less for a timing belt/chain.

Recommendations

Consumer Reports® recommends the Mazda CX-5, based on reliability, safety and performance. The Jeep Compass isn't recommended.

The Mazda CX-5 outsold the Jeep Compass by 60% during 2023.

See Available Inventory