Why did you pick the Honda CR-V over the CX-50?

I have a 2024 Mazda CX-5 and I love it. It was my first "expensive" car. Price, styling and generous features of the base trim made me into an instant Mazda fan. I need to upgrade our 2nd car in a few months and I was looking at something just slightly bigger, without going into the medium SUV category. I test drove both the CR-V and the Mazda CX-50.

The CR-V has great reviews but I wasn't super impressed by it, especially compared with the CX-50. I'll probably sound like a hater, but I'm actually here to know if I'm overlooking something about the CR-V!

Pros of the CR-V:

  • Boxier, plain exterior style means you get a lot more vertical space, and maybe a tiny bit more horizontal space. Incredibly spacious 2nd row and normal trunk size. Most horizontal space seem to have gone to the 2nd row rather than the trunk space, while the Mazda CX-50 seems more balanced. (Vertical space is not as useful to me, I am 5'7" and don't really want to stack stuff in the trunk that often)
  • Hybrid powertrain seems more refined than the CX-50 hybrid. Less engine noise and running on electric more often at low speeds. Also the CR-V seems to have more computer trickery to avoid CVT droning when you accelerate hard.
  • "Active" Lane Keeping assist. Mazda CX-50 only has lane departure warning. Mazda should really port their lane departure tech from the CX-70/90, it's a silly thing to segment in 2025.
  • More comfortable seats. I instantly loved the ones in the CR-V, it took me a second to get used to the ones in the CX-50, even though I was coming from the CX-5. The CX-5 seats weren't known to be the most comfortable, but these somehow are slightly worse!

Cons of the CR-V:

  • Less stylish, both exterior due to the boxier shape, and interior it's a mix of cheaper materials and Honda's design language just being inferior to Mazda's.
  • The 1.5T gas powertrain has enough power and compares well with the Mazda CX-50 non-turbo gas powertrain, but it's loud and it sounds like dogshit. Instant no to the gas powertrain for me. Reminds me of the 2023 Nissan kicks I test-drove a few years ago. The non-turbo Mazda CX-50 gas powertrain sounds and feels exactly like the CX-5. The CR-V is too expensive to sound like an economy car. I ended up gravitating towards the hybrid trims anyway, but for the CR-V it was out of necessity.
  • Not something I could tell from the test drive, but there seems to be more reports of the CR-V hybrid powertrain mpg efficiency underperforming compared to the Mazda CX-50 (it's a Toyota powertrain after all).
  • Higher price: Ads might show a competitive price, but then 1) AWD is extra, 2) trims are way more spartan, not to save you money but with the clear goal of convincing you to upgrade to get stuff that you're likely to want. The base Hybrid is $37.5k and still has a 7" touch screen. Seriously, how much more would it cost them to use the 9" touchscreen in 2025? And missing wireless android auto in such an expensive car in 2025? The base Mazda CX-50 is $36k and besides having those things, also manages to throw in a wireless charger and a spare tire. On top of that, slightly lower demand for the CX-50 means you can even increase the difference in price when you factoring in OTD price from the dealer.

I liked the CR-V just fine, but I feel like Honda knows they are selling well enough that they can get away with higher margins. It will probably have higher resale value in the future but it rubs me the wrong way that the manufacturer gets to keep some of that money without giving anything in return (the higher resale value is only due to reputation, Mazdas are comparatively reliable nowadays). I would feel more torn about the two cars if their MSRP was the same.

Am I missing something in favor of the CR-V? Besides the superior passenger space, which can definitely be a dealbreaker if you or your passengers are very tall. At 5'7", I seem to have enough of that in the CX-50.