Compare the2025 Mazda CX-50VS 2025 Lexus RX

Safety
Warranty
Engine
Fuel Economy and Range
Brakes and Stopping
Tires and Wheels
Suspension and Handling
Chassis
Passenger Space
Cargo Capacity
Towing
Ergonomics
Recommendations

Safety

© 1999 - 2025Advanta-STAR Automotive Research, all rights reserved. This vehicle comparison and all of the content in it are provided only by license from Advanta-STAR Automotive Research Corporation of America (“Advanta-STAR”). If you are not a legally licensed user of this vehicle comparison, it is against federal law to access it, copy it, forward it, or use it in any manner whatsoever. Any unauthorized use of this vehicle comparison is a violation of U.S. and international law and is punishable criminally and civilly. Removal of this watermark/notification without prior written license and approval received from Advanta-STAR is an agreement, understanding, and/or stipulation by the person(s), entities, agents, attorneys, and any other persons involved in the removal of this watermark/notification (including but not limited to Search Optics, LLC and any and all parent entities, sister entities, and subsidiary entities of Search Optics, LLC and/or any other entity, agent, attorney, and persons related in any manner to Search Optics, LLC) to: 1) an agreed upon amount of liquidated monetary damages of a minimum of $1,250,000.00 US Dollars in favor of Advanta-STAR; 2) the jurisdiction and enforcement of any legal claims associated with this matter asserted by Advanta-STAR in the United States Federal District Court in Portand, Oregon; and 3) service of process of any legal claims asserted by Advanta-STAR associated with this matter may be accomplished by First-Class Postage by the United States Postal Service or comparable service. 6WLNV-H5N7I 2a06:98c0:3600::103 2025/07/15

In a Vehicle-to-Vehicle Frontal Crash Prevention 2.0 test conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the Mazda CX-50 achieved a “Acceptable” rating - the second highest possible - for its performance in forward collision warning and automatic braking systems, demonstrating its excellent capabilities in preventing collisions. The Lexus RX has not been tested.

To provide maximum traction and stability on all roads, All-Wheel Drive is standard on the CX-50. But it costs extra on the RX.

Both the CX-50 and the RX have standard driver and passenger frontal airbags, front side-impact airbags, driver and front passenger knee airbags, side-impact head airbags, front and rear seatbelt pretensioners, height adjustable front shoulder belts, four-wheel antilock brakes, traction control, electronic stability systems to prevent skidding, crash mitigating brakes, post-collision automatic braking systems, daytime running lights, lane departure warning systems, blind spot warning systems, rearview cameras, rear cross-path warning, driver alert monitors and available around view monitors.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does 35 MPH front crash tests on new vehicles. In this test, results indicate that the Mazda CX-50 is safer than the Lexus RX:

	CX-50	RX
OVERALL STARS	5 Stars	4 Stars
	Driver
STARS	5 Stars	4 Stars
HIC	100	165
Neck Injury Risk	23.2%	29.8%
Neck Stress	209 lbs.	301 lbs.
Neck Compression	11 lbs.	17 lbs.
Leg Forces (l/r)	222/219 lbs.	353/469 lbs.
	Passenger
STARS	5 Stars	4 Stars
HIC	211	472
Chest Compression	.6 inches	.6 inches
Neck Injury Risk	22%	30.7%
Neck Stress	106 lbs.	160 lbs.
Neck Compression	74 lbs.	114 lbs.
Leg Forces (l/r)	264/347 lbs.	454/389 lbs.

New test not comparable to pre-2011 test results. More stars = Better. Lower test results = Better.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety does 40 MPH moderate front offset crash tests on new cars. In this updated test, results indicate that the CX-50 is much safer than the RX:

	CX-50	RX
Overall Evaluation	GOOD	POOR
Structure	GOOD	GOOD
	Driver Injury Measures
Head/Neck Rating	GOOD	GOOD
Chest Rating	GOOD	GOOD
Thigh/hip Rating	GOOD	GOOD
Leg/foot Rating	GOOD	GOOD
Restraints	GOOD	GOOD
	Rear Passenger Injury Measures
Head/Neck Rating	GOOD	GOOD
Chest Rating	GOOD	POOR
Thigh Rating	GOOD	GOOD
Restraints	ACCEPTABLE	POOR

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does side impact tests on new vehicles. In this test, which crashes the vehicle into a flat barrier at 38.5 MPH and into a post at 20 MPH, results indicate that the Mazda CX-50 is safer than the Lexus RX:

	CX-50	RX
	Front Seat
STARS	5 Stars	5 Stars
HIC	35	58
Hip Force	114 lbs.	206 lbs.
	Rear Seat
STARS	5 Stars	5 Stars
Spine Acceleration	38 G’s	43 G’s
Hip Force	499 lbs.	640 lbs.
	Into Pole
STARS	5 Stars	5 Stars
Max Damage Depth	13 inches	15 inches
HIC	214	317
Spine Acceleration	28 G’s	47 G’s
Hip Force	521 lbs.	919 lbs.

New test not comparable to pre-2011 test results. More stars = Better. Lower test results = Better.

The Mazda CX-50 has achieved the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s (IIHS) highest rating of “Top Safety Pick Plus” for the 2025 model year. This distinction is based on its exceptional performance in IIHS’ rigorous battery of safety tests. Specifically, it earned a “Good” rating in the latest, more stringent moderate overlap front crash test, a “Good” result in the updated side impact test, and a “Good” score in the revised pedestrian crash prevention test. The RX is not even a standard “Top Safety Pick” for 2025.

Warranty

There are over 2 times as many Mazda dealers as there are Lexus dealers, which makes it much easier should you ever need service under the CX-50’s warranty.

Engine

As tested in Motor Trend the Mazda CX-50 turbo 4 cyl. is faster than the RX 350 2.4 turbo 4-cylinder:

	CX-50	RX
Zero to 60 MPH	7 sec	7.6 sec
Quarter Mile	15.4 sec	15.8 sec

Fuel Economy and Range

On the EPA test cycle the CX-50 gets better mileage than the RX running its gasoline engine:

			MPG
CX-50
	AWD	2.5 4-cyl. Hybrid	39 city/37 hwy
		2.5 DOHC 4-cyl.	25 city/31 hwy
		2.5 turbo 4-cyl.	23 city/29 hwy
RX
	FWD	350 2.4 turbo 4-cyl.	22 city/29 hwy
	AWD	350h 2.5 4-cyl. Hybrid	37 city/34 hwy
		450h+ 2.5 4-cyl. Hybrid	36 city/33 hwy
		500h 2.4 turbo 4-cyl. Hybrid	27 city/28 hwy
		350 2.4 turbo 4-cyl.	21 city/28 hwy

An engine control system that can shut down some of the engine’s cylinders helps improve the CX-50 (except Turbo/Hybrid)’s fuel efficiency. The RX doesn’t offer a system that can shut down part of the engine.

Both the CX-50 Turbo/Hybrid and the RX have a standard automatic start/stop engine feature to stop unnecessary fuel waste and pollution at stoplights and heavy traffic. All CX-50 Turbo/Hybrids have a standard disable switch for the system, so a driver can keep the engine from shutting off when the vehicle stops temporarily. The RX 350h/500h doesn’t offer a way to disable start/stop.

To lower fuel costs and make buying fuel easier, the Mazda CX-50 uses regular unleaded gasoline (premium recommended with the 2.5 turbo 4-cylinder engine for maximum performance). The RX 350 requires premium, which can cost on average about 84.9 cents more per gallon.

Brakes and Stopping

The CX-50 stops much shorter than the RX:

	CX-50	RX
70 to 0 MPH	161 feet	195 feet	Car and Driver
60 to 0 MPH	113 feet	139 feet	Motor Trend
60 to 0 MPH (Wet)	142 feet	149 feet	Consumer Reports

Tires and Wheels

For better traction, the CX-50 Premium Plus/Turbo’s tires are larger than the largest tires available on the RX (245/45R20 vs. 235/60R19).

The CX-50 Premium Plus/Turbo’s tires provide better handling because they have a lower 45 series profile (height to width ratio) that provides a stiffer sidewall than the RX’s optional 50 series tires.

Suspension and Handling

The CX-50 handles at .87 G’s, while the RX 500h F Sport Performance pulls only .80 G’s of cornering force in a Car and Driver skidpad test.

The CX-50 2.5 Turbo Premium Plus executes Motor Trend’s “Figure Eight” maneuver 1.8 seconds quicker than the RX 350h (26.8 seconds @ .63 average G’s vs. 28.6 seconds @ .57 average G’s).

For greater off-road capability the CX-50 2.5 S Premium Plus has a greater minimum ground clearance than the RX 350h (8.6 vs. 8.2 inches), allowing the CX-50 to travel over rougher terrain without being stopped or damaged.

Chassis

The Mazda CX-50 may be more efficient, handle and accelerate better because it weighs about 400 to 800 pounds less than the Lexus RX.

The CX-50 is 6.7 inches shorter than the RX, making the CX-50 easier to handle, maneuver and park in tight spaces.

Passenger Space

The CX-50 has .6 inches more front legroom and 2.4 inches more rear legroom than the RX.

Cargo Capacity

The CX-50 has a much larger cargo volume with its rear seat up than the RX with its rear seat up (31.4 vs. 29.6 cubic feet). The CX-50 has a much larger cargo volume with its rear seat folded than the RX with its rear seat folded (56.3 vs. 46.2 cubic feet).

A low lift-over cargo hatch design makes loading and unloading the CX-50 easier. The CX-50’s cargo hatch lift-over height is 28.4 inches, while the RX’s liftover is 31 inches.

The CX-50’s cargo area is larger than the RX’s in almost every dimension:

	CX-50	RX
Length to seat (2nd/1st)	42.6”/75.4”	40”/76.2”
Max Width	55.6”	55.5”
Min Width	40.2”	42”
Height	30.2”	30”

Towing

The CX-50’s standard towing capacity is much higher than the RX’s (2000 vs. 0 pounds).

Ergonomics

Consumer Reports rated the CX-50’s headlight performance “Very Good,” a higher rating than the RX’s headlights, which were rated “Fair.”

Recommendations

Consumer Reports® recommends both the Mazda CX-50 and the Lexus RX, based on reliability, safety and performance.

See Available Inventory