Mazda CX-30 vs MG MG3

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.

Mazda CX-30 in South Africa

Mazda CX-30

2.0 Individual Edition Auto FWD Petrol 6-Speed Automatic Current
ZAR 651,500 ex-showroom
⚡ 121 kW 🔧 213 Nm ⛽ 15.2 km/l
VS
MG MG3 in South Africa

MG MG3

1.5L Hybrid+ Hybrid 3-Speed Automatic Current
ZAR 469,900 ex-showroom
⚡ 75 kW 🔧 128 Nm ⛽ 23.26 km/l
＋ Add a 3rd car

Decision summary

Mazda CX-30 vs MG MG3: the short answer

CX-30 and MG3 are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.

MG3 starts ZAR 269,900 cheaper CX-30 from ZAR 539,800 · MG3 from ZAR 269,900

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification CX-30 MG3
Maximum Power CX-30121 kW @ 6000 rpm MG375 kW @ 6000 rpm
Maximum Torque CX-30213 Nm @ 4000 rpm MG3128 Nm @ 4500 rpm
Engine Size CX-301998 cc MG31498 cc
Combined Fuel Economy CX-3015.2 km/l MG323.26 km/l
Ground Clearance CX-30175 mm MG3149 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.

Mazda CX-30

2.0 Individual Edition 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

MG MG3

1.5L Hybrid+

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)

CX-30

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
Specification evidence leader

MG3

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?

CX-30

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

MG3

  • Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use

Full Specs, Side by Side

Spec CX-30 MG3
Model Introduced Year 2021 2025
Generation First-generation DM-series Mazda CX-30 using seventh-generation Mazda architecture Current-generation five-door MG3 offered locally with naturally aspirated petrol and self-charging hybrid powertrains.
Facelift History South African editions received a focused technology and equipment update in 2024, including the 10.25-inch display and revised connectivity. South African launch specification introduced in 2025.
Facelift Launched Since 2021 2025
Facelift Version Ending Current Current
Body Style SUV Five-door hatchback
Model Year 2026 2026
Production Status Active active
Segment Compact crossover Compact Hatchback
Tare Mass Kg 1340 kg -
Vehicle Type SUV Hatchback
Spec CX-30 MG3
Length 4395 mm 4113 mm
Width 1795 mm 1797 mm
Height 1540 mm 1502 mm
Wheelbase 2655 mm 2570 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 175 mm 149 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity 51 l 36 l
Boot/Cargo Space 295 l 293 l
Kerb Weight 1340 kg 1308 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 1937 kg 1766 kg
Payload Capacity 597 kg 458 kg
Towing Capacity 1200 kg 500 kg
Seating Capacity 5 seats 5 seats
Doors 5 doors 5 doors
Minimum Turning Radius 5.7 m 5.25 m
Front Legroom 1058 mm Not Officially Disclosed
Rear Legroom 921 mm Not Officially Disclosed
Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) - Not Officially Disclosed
Number of Rows - 2 rows
Front Headroom - Not Officially Disclosed
Rear Headroom - Not Officially Disclosed

In depth: how these cars differ

This CX-30 and MG3 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: CX-30 49 vs MG3 40.

Efficiency index: CX-30 59 vs MG3 90.

Safety-equipment index: CX-30 96 vs MG3 92.

Practicality index: CX-30 55 vs MG3 48.

Ownership-cover index: CX-30 not separately scored vs MG3 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

MG3 leads by 1 points

CX-30 and MG3 are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.

Evidence leader 66 /100
Lead 1 points
Data 82% source coverage
66
#1 Evidence leader

MG3

82% source coverage 2 strong categories
Best at Safety 92 Check Performance 40
Performance 40
Efficiency 90
Safety 92
Practicality 48
Leads by 1 points
65
#2

CX-30

78% source coverage 1 strong categories
Best at Safety 96 Check Performance 49
Performance 49
Efficiency 59
Safety 96
Practicality 55
Performance 24% Safety 22% Practicality 22% Efficiency 17% Ownership 15%
Category leaders What moves the verdict
Performance CX-30 +9 Efficiency MG3 +31 Safety CX-30 +4 Practicality CX-30 +7

Close catalogue match. Buyer priorities should decide the outcome.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

MG3

Performance 40/100
Efficiency 90/100
Safety 92/100
Practicality 48/100

CX-30

Performance 49/100
Efficiency 59/100
Safety 96/100
Practicality 55/100

What the evidence means

Evidence index MG MG3 leads the specification evidence index with 66 pts vs 65 pts for CX-30

In Hagalu's specification evidence index, MG3 leads. However, CX-30 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 Africa models and comparable body styles.

CX-30
CX-30
VS
T-Cross
T-Cross
CX-30 vs T-Cross →
CX-30
CX-30
VS
BOX
BOX
CX-30 vs BOX →
CX-30
CX-30
VS
Jolion
Jolion
CX-30 vs Jolion →
CX-30
CX-30
VS
ZS Pro
ZS Pro
CX-30 vs ZS Pro →
CX-30
CX-30
VS
Jolion Pro
Jolion Pro
CX-30 vs Jolion Pro →
CX-30
CX-30
VS
Seltos
Seltos
CX-30 vs Seltos →
MG3
MG3
VS
T-Cross
T-Cross
MG3 vs T-Cross →
MG3
MG3
VS
BOX
BOX
MG3 vs BOX →

CX-30 vs MG3 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.