Well, these are two pretty similar cars we have here! It's only details that could potentially make the difference. Considering they both belong to the suv segment and utilize the same 5-door suv body style and the front wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific petrol engine choice they offer. The first one has a Mazda-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 120hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 120hp engine designed by Suzuki.

Both vehicles got tested by European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), with the Suzuki being a slightly better choice apparently. That aside, let's consider some other aspects which affect safety. Both vehicles belong to the suv segment, which is generally a very good thing safety-wise, but that fact doesn't break the tie between the two cars. Furthermore, when it comes to weight, a factor that most people underestimate, CX-3 offers a considerable difference of 16% more metal.

Manufacturers have been building their reliability reputation for decades now and, generally speaking, it appears that Suzuki does have a slight advantage, all the models observed together. These are the official statistics, while our visitors describe reliability of Mazda with an average rating of 4.4, and models under the Suzuki badge with 4.5 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed CX-3 as average reliability-wise, and S-Cross is more or less at the same level.We should definitely mention that owners of cars with the same powertrain as CX-3 rank it on average as 5.0, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.4 out of 5.

Mazda is undoubtly more agile, reaching 100km/h in 2 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 192 kilometers per hour, 12km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 5.7 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (50 mpg), in combined cycle.

Mazda appears just a bit more reliable, although the difference is truly marginal. The most important thing when deciding between any two vehicles should always be safety, both passive and active. In this case though, it seems that both cars show similar levels of passenger protection all together, so that won't break a tie. But one thing that actually could is the performance, with Mazda being considerably quicker, thus putting more smile on driver's face. It does come at a cost though, and that's the fuel consumption... At the end, as much as I'd like to give you a winner here, it's simply a pure tie if you ask me. Anyway, that's the most objective conclusion I could've came up with and it's based solely on the information found on this website. Aspects such as design, practicality, brand value and driving experience are there for you to measure them out. Also, you could use the oportunity to find out which car, everything taken into account, would be the perfect choice for you in the eyes of the virtual adviser™, among more than 12.000 different ones in our database.