Mazda CX-3 vs Mazda CX-30

On our scoring the CX-30 edges ahead overall. That said, the right choice depends on what you actually use the car for — the breakdown above shows exactly where each one wins and loses.

Efficiency scores: CX-3 61 vs CX-30 59. In the real world, diesel variants of either car will beat the claimed figure on long highways and fall short in Joburg traffic.

Safety scores: CX-3 61, CX-30 83. Check each model page for NCAP ratings and which trim levels include AEB and blind-spot monitoring — those features aren't always standard.

Long-term ownership scores: CX-3 47, CX-30 55. Service intervals, parts availability in SA, and whether a service plan is bundled all factor in — check the individual variant specs for that detail.

Practicality scores: CX-3 48, CX-30 55. This covers boot space, seat flexibility, and day-to-day usability — not just interior dimensions on paper.

Performance scores: CX-3 47, CX-30 49. This looks at real-world pace — 0–100 kph, highway flexibility, and how either car feels when you actually need to overtake on an N-road.

Resale varies with colour, spec, and market timing, but Japanese brands — and Toyota specifically — have a strong track record in SA. Check current used prices for both on AutoTrader to see the real gap right now.

Ground clearance and 4WD availability are what matter most here. Scroll to the spec table above to compare both side by side — if either model offers a 4WD variant, that's the version worth comparing.

Fuel, insurance, and service costs are the big three. Diesel variants of both models typically save R800–R1,500/month in fuel at current SA pump prices. The CX-30 edges the overall ownership score, but check whether either variant includes a service plan — that changes the monthly maths significantly.

The CX-30 scores better overall, but neither car is a bad buy here. It comes down to what features matter to you — check the full spec table above to see exactly what you gain and lose at each price point.