Suzuki Baleno vs Mazda CX-3

A proper head-to-head in South Africa — compare price, performance, fuel economy or electric range, safety and the details that shape long-term ownership.

Suzuki Baleno in South Africa

Suzuki Baleno

1.5 GLX AT Petrol 4-Speed Automatic Current
ZAR 341,900 ex-showroom
⚡ 77 kW 🔧 138 Nm ⛽ 16.1 km/l
VS
Mazda CX-3 in South Africa

Mazda CX-3

2.0 Individual Auto FWD Petrol 6-Speed Automatic Current
ZAR 551,600 ex-showroom
⚡ 115 kW 🔧 206 Nm ⛽ 15.9 km/l
+ Add a 3rd car

Decision summary

Suzuki Baleno vs Mazda CX-3: the short answer

Baleno and CX-3 are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.

Baleno starts ZAR 170,100 cheaper Baleno from ZAR 269,900 · CX-3 from ZAR 440,000

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification Baleno CX-3
Maximum Power Baleno77 kW CX-3115 kW @ 6000 rpm
Maximum Torque Baleno138 Nm CX-3206 Nm @ 2800 rpm
Engine Size Baleno1462 cc CX-31998 cc
Combined Fuel Economy Baleno16.1 km/l CX-315.9 km/l
Ground Clearance Baleno0 mm CX-3155 mm

Strongest published figure in that row; no road-test winner is implied.

Independent editorial assessment

Hagalu editorial ratings

When a variant is selected, its rating out of five applies only to that exact derivative; a model-range review is not inherited. Editorial ratings are separate from the Specification Evidence Index out of 100 and are not customer ratings.

Suzuki Baleno

1.5 GLX AT

Hagalu editorial rating Not yet rated

No complete editorial rating is published for this exact variant. This is not a zero score.

How Hagalu rates cars

Mazda CX-3

2.0 Individual Auto FWD

Hagalu editorial rating Not yet rated

No complete editorial rating is published for this exact variant. This is not a zero score.

How Hagalu rates cars

Not yet rated means a complete review is not published; it does not mean the vehicle scored zero. Read the rating methodology.

What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)

Baleno

Strengths
  • Better fuel efficiency
  • Stronger listed safety equipment
  • Stronger published practicality figures
Weak Spots
  • Less powerful engine setup
Best suited to: Published Efficiency Published Practicality
Specification evidence leader

CX-3

Strengths
  • More powerful engine output
Weak Spots
  • Lower fuel efficiency
  • Fewer listed safety features
  • Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to: Published Performance

Which One's Right for You?

Baleno

  • Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
  • Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment
  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures

CX-3

  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures

Full Specs, Side by Side

Spec Baleno CX-3
Model Introduced Year 2026 2015
Generation Current market generation Current first-generation DK-series Mazda CX-3
Facelift History Current market specification The CX-3 has received successive equipment and design updates since its 2015 debut; Carbon and Individual now sit together at the top of the South African range.
Facelift Launched Since 2026 2015
Facelift Version Ending Current Current
Body Style Hatchback SUV
Model Year 2026 2026
Production Status active Active
Segment Hatchback Compact crossover
Vehicle Type Hatchback SUV
Tare Mass Kg - 1270 kg
Spec Baleno CX-3
Length 3990 mm 4275 mm
Width 1745 mm 1765 mm
Height 1500 mm 1542 mm
Wheelbase 2520 mm 2570 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 0 mm 155 mm
Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) 150 mm -
Fuel Tank Capacity 37 l 48 l
Boot/Cargo Space 318 l 230 l
Kerb Weight 940 kg 1270 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 1700 kg 1735 kg
Payload Capacity 760 kg 465 kg
Towing Capacity 500 kg 850 kg
Seating Capacity 5 seats 5 seats
Number of Rows 2 rows -
Doors 5 doors 5 doors
Minimum Turning Radius 5.2 m 5.7 m
Front Headroom 1000 mm -
Rear Headroom 950 mm -
Front Legroom 1050 mm 1058 mm
Rear Legroom 900 mm 888 mm

In depth: how these cars differ

This Baleno and CX-3 comparison uses the exact derivatives selected above for South Africa. The catalogue index covers performance, efficiency, safety equipment, practicality and ownership cover only where comparable source-backed fields are present.

Performance index: Baleno 34 vs CX-3 47.

Efficiency index: Baleno 62 vs CX-3 61.

Safety-equipment index: Baleno 87 vs CX-3 84.

Practicality index: Baleno 50 vs CX-3 48.

Ownership-cover index: Baleno not separately scored vs CX-3 not separately scored.

These figures are Hagalu catalogue-comparison indicators, not customer ratings, crash-test scores, resale guarantees or a substitute for a road test. Each page shows its weighted source coverage beside the result.

Specification Evidence Index

A transparent comparison of published catalogue fields. This is not a road-test score, owner rating or editorial review rating, and it appears only when every vehicle clears the same comparable-data threshold.

Evidence / 100
Evidence-index readout

CX-3 leads by 3 points

Baleno and CX-3 are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.

Evidence leader 60 /100
Lead 3 points
Data 71% source coverage
60
#1 Evidence leader

CX-3

71% source coverage 1 strong categories
Best at Safety 84 Check Performance 47
Performance 47
Efficiency 61
Safety 84
Practicality 48
Leads by 3 points
57
#2

Baleno

74% source coverage 1 strong categories
Best at Safety 87 Check Performance 34
Performance 34
Efficiency 62
Safety 87
Practicality 50
Performance 24% Safety 22% Practicality 22% Efficiency 17% Ownership 15%
Category leaders What moves the verdict
Performance CX-3 +13 Efficiency Baleno +1 Safety Baleno +3 Practicality Baleno +2

Close catalogue match. Buyer priorities should decide the outcome.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

CX-3

Performance 47/100
Efficiency 61/100
Safety 84/100
Practicality 48/100

Baleno

Performance 34/100
Efficiency 62/100
Safety 87/100
Practicality 50/100

What the evidence means

Evidence index Mazda CX-3 leads the specification evidence index with 60 pts vs 57 pts for Baleno

In Hagalu's specification evidence index, CX-3 leads. However, Baleno may suit buyers prioritising different confirmed fields. Ultimately, the right choice depends on your driving priorities in South Africa.

Baleno vs CX-3 questions

There is no universal winner. Use the comparison table to match the models and available derivatives in South Africa on price, safety equipment, space, powertrain and ownership cover. The category indicators summarise published catalogue data; they are not a road test or customer rating.

Compare the published consumption or mileage rows for the exact derivatives using the same unit and test basis. A catalogue figure is useful for like-for-like comparison, but traffic, speed, load, weather and driving style can change actual fuel use.

Compare only equipment explicitly listed for each derivative, including airbags, stability control and driver-assistance systems. Confirm the exact trim with the manufacturer, and treat any independent crash-test result separately because equipment and ratings can differ by market.

A reliable five-year total cannot be calculated from catalogue data alone. Add the exact purchase and finance cost, fuel or electricity, insurance quotes, scheduled servicing, tyres and expected resale value. Check whether the selected derivative includes a service or maintenance plan.

Use the seating, boot or load-space, ISOFIX and safety rows as a first check. Then test the exact cars with your child seats, passengers and typical luggage, because published dimensions do not show every access or comfort difference.

Compare the published power, torque and 0–100 km/h rows when they are available for both exact derivatives. Vehicle weight, gearing and power delivery also matter, so catalogue outputs alone do not establish real-world overtaking or response.