Omoda C5-X vs Mazda CX-3

A proper head-to-head in South Africa — we cover price, performance, petrol economy, safety and what it'll actually cost you to own each one long term.

Omoda C5-X in South Africa

Omoda C5-X

Style X Petrol 6-Speed DCT Current
ZAR 374,900 ex-showroom
⚡ 115 kW 🔧 230 Nm ⛽ 14.5 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

Omoda C5-X vs Mazda CX-3: the short answer

C5-X and CX-3 are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.

C5-X starts ZAR 65,100 cheaper C5-X from ZAR 374,900 · CX-3 from ZAR 440,000

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification C5-X CX-3
Maximum Power C5-X115 kW @ 5500 rpm CX-3115 kW @ 6000 rpm
Maximum Torque C5-X230 Nm CX-3206 Nm @ 2800 rpm
Engine Size C5-X1500 cc CX-31998 cc
Combined Fuel Economy C5-X14.5 km/l CX-315.9 km/l
Ground Clearance C5-X169 mm CX-3155 mm

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

What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)

Specification evidence leader

C5-X

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

CX-3

Strengths
  • Better fuel efficiency
Weak Spots
  • Less powerful engine setup
  • Fewer listed safety features
  • Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to: Published Efficiency

Which One's Right for You?

C5-X

  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
  • Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment
  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures

CX-3

  • Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use

Full Specs, Side by Side

Spec C5-X CX-3
Model Introduced Year 2025 2015
Generation Current South Africa C5-X range Current first-generation DK-series Mazda CX-3
Facelift History Current South Africa version listed by official source 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 2025 2015
Facelift Version Ending Current Current
Body Style SUV SUV
Model Year 2026 2026
Production Status active Active
Segment SUV Compact crossover
Tare Mass Kg 1434 kg 1270 kg
Vehicle Type SUV SUV
Spec C5-X CX-3
Length 4400 mm 4275 mm
Width 1830 mm 1765 mm
Height 1590 mm 1542 mm
Wheelbase 2630 mm 2570 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 169 mm 155 mm
Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) 169 mm -
Fuel Tank Capacity 51 l 48 l
Boot/Cargo Space 442 l 230 l
Kerb Weight 1434 kg 1270 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 1875 kg 1735 kg
Payload Capacity 441 kg 465 kg
Towing Capacity 750 kg 850 kg
Seating Capacity 5 seats 5 seats
Number of Rows 2 rows -
Doors 5 doors 5 doors
Minimum Turning Radius 5.5 m 5.7 m
Front Headroom 950 mm -
Rear Headroom 940 mm -
Front Legroom 1060 mm 1058 mm
Rear Legroom 650 mm 888 mm

In depth: how these cars differ

This C5-X and CX-3 comparison uses the exact South African derivatives selected above. The catalogue index covers performance, efficiency, safety equipment, practicality and ownership cover only where comparable source-backed fields are present.

Performance index: C5-X 51 vs CX-3 47.

Efficiency index: C5-X 56 vs CX-3 61.

Safety-equipment index: C5-X 91 vs CX-3 84.

Practicality index: C5-X 56 vs CX-3 48.

Ownership-cover index: C5-X 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

C5-X leads by 4 points

C5-X and CX-3 are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.

Evidence leader 64 /100
Lead 4 points
Data 69% source coverage
64
#1 Evidence leader

C5-X

69% source coverage 1 strong categories
Best at Safety 91 Check Performance 51
Performance 51
Efficiency 56
Safety 91
Practicality 56
Leads by 4 points
60
#2

CX-3

71% source coverage 1 strong categories
Best at Safety 84 Check Performance 47
Performance 47
Efficiency 61
Safety 84
Practicality 48
Performance 24% Safety 22% Practicality 22% Efficiency 17% Ownership 15%
Category leaders What moves the verdict
Performance C5-X +4 Efficiency CX-3 +5 Safety C5-X +7 Practicality C5-X +8

Close catalogue match. Buyer priorities should decide the outcome.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

C5-X

Performance 51/100
Efficiency 56/100
Safety 91/100
Practicality 56/100

CX-3

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

What the evidence means

Evidence index Omoda C5-X leads the specification evidence index with 64 pts vs 60 pts for CX-3

In Hagalu's specification evidence index, C5-X leads. However, CX-3 may suit buyers prioritising different confirmed fields. Ultimately, the right choice depends on your driving priorities in South Africa.

Related comparisons

Continue with closely related South African models and comparable body styles.

C5-X
C5-X
VS
Jolion
Jolion
C5-X vs Jolion →
C5-X
C5-X
VS
T-Cross
T-Cross
C5-X vs T-Cross →
C5-X
C5-X
VS
ZS Pro
ZS Pro
C5-X vs ZS Pro →
C5-X
C5-X
VS
Jolion Pro
Jolion Pro
C5-X vs Jolion Pro →
C5-X
C5-X
VS
Corolla Cross
Corolla Cross
C5-X vs Corolla Cross →
C5-X
C5-X
VS
Seltos
Seltos
C5-X vs Seltos →
CX-3
CX-3
VS
Jolion
Jolion
CX-3 vs Jolion →
CX-3
CX-3
VS
T-Cross
T-Cross
CX-3 vs T-Cross →

C5-X vs CX-3 questions

There is no universal winner. Use the comparison table to match the exact South African derivatives 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.