Compare the2025 Subaru ForesterVS 2025 Mazda CX-50

Safety
Warranty
Reliability
Engine
Fuel Economy and Range
Environmental Friendliness
Brakes and Stopping
Tires and Wheels
Suspension and Handling
Chassis
Passenger Space
Cargo Capacity
Towing
Servicing Ease
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. SRGB2-WYXKA 2a06:98c0:3600::103 2025/06/18

The Forester has standard Whiplash-Reducing Front Seats, which use a specially designed seat to protect the driver and front passenger from whiplash. During a rear-end collision, the Whiplash-Reducing Front Seats system allows the backrest to travel backwards to cushion the occupants and the headrests move forward to prevent neck and spine injuries. The CX-50 doesn’t offer a whiplash protection system.

In a Vehicle-to-Vehicle Frontal Crash Prevention 2.0 test conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the Subaru Forester achieved a “Good” rating - the highest possible - in forward collision warning and automatic braking systems, outperforming the Mazda CX-50 which scored only an “Acceptable” in these critical safety features.

When descending a steep, off-road slope, the Forester Premium/Sport/Wilderness/Limited/Touring’s standard Hill Descent Control allows you to creep down safely. The CX-50 doesn’t offer Hill Descent Control.

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

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

	Forester	CX-50
	Driver
STARS	5 Stars	5 Stars
	Passenger
STARS	5 Stars	5 Stars
HIC	211	211
Chest Compression	.6 inches	.6 inches
Neck Compression	53 lbs.	74 lbs.
Leg Forces (l/r)	236/225 lbs.	264/347 lbs.

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

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 Subaru Forester is safer than the Mazda CX-50:

	Forester	CX-50
	Front Seat
STARS	5 Stars	5 Stars
Chest Movement	.4 inches	.7 inches
Abdominal Force	84 lbs.	144 lbs.
	Into Pole
STARS	5 Stars	5 Stars
HIC	167	214

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

Side impacts caused 23% of all road fatalities in 2018, down from 29% in 2003, when the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety introduced its side barrier test. In order to continue improving vehicle safety, the IIHS has started using a more severe side impact test: 37 MPH (up from 31 MPH), with a 4180-pound barrier (up from 3300 pounds). The results of this newly developed test demonstrates that the Subaru Forester is safer than the CX-50:

	Forester	CX-50
Overall Evaluation	GOOD	GOOD
	Driver Injury Measures
Head/Neck	GOOD	GOOD
Head Injury Criterion	103	114
Neck Tension	201 lbs.	268 lbs.
Torso	GOOD	ACCEPTABLE
Shoulder Deflection	.87 in	1.34 in
Shoulder Force	201 lbs.	357 lbs.
Torso Max Deflection	1.02 in	1.61 in
Torso Deflection Rate	6 MPH	10 MPH
Pelvis	GOOD	ACCEPTABLE
Pelvis Force	892 lbs.	982 lbs.
Head Protection	GOOD	GOOD
	Passenger Injury Measures
Head/Neck	GOOD	GOOD
Torso	GOOD	GOOD
Torso Deflection Rate	5 MPH	8 MPH
Pelvis	GOOD	GOOD
Head Protection	GOOD	GOOD

Warranty

There are over 18 percent more Subaru dealers than there are Mazda dealers, which makes it easier should you ever need service under the Forester’s warranty.

Reliability

To reliably power the ignition and other systems and to recharge the battery, the Forester has a 130-amp alternator. The CX-50’s standard 100-amp alternator isn’t as powerful.

A reliable vehicle saves its owner time, money and trouble. Nobody wants to be stranded or have to be without a vehicle while it’s being repaired. Consumer Reports rates the Forester’s reliability 51 points higher than the CX-50.

J.D. Power and Associates’ 2024 Initial Quality Study of new car owners surveyed provide the statistics that show that Subaru vehicles are better in initial quality than Mazda vehicles. J.D. Power ranks Subaru above average in initial quality. With 49 more problems per 100 vehicles, Mazda is rated below average.

From surveys of all its subscribers, Consumer Reports’ March 2025 Auto Issue reports that Subaru vehicles are more reliable than Mazda vehicles. Consumer Reports ranks Subaru first in overall reliability. Mazda is ranked 6th.

Engine

As tested in Consumer Reports the Subaru Forester 4 cyl. is faster than the Mazda CX-50 4 cyl.:

	Forester	CX-50
Zero to 60 MPH	8.6 sec	9.3 sec
Quarter Mile	16.8 sec	17.2 sec
Speed in 1/4 Mile	88 MPH	84 MPH

The flat cylinder configuration of the boxer engine in the Forester lowers its center of gravity, enhancing handling stability without compromising ground clearance. The CX-50 doesn’t offer a boxer engine configuration.

Fuel Economy and Range

On the EPA test cycle the Forester gets better mileage than the CX-50:

			MPG
Forester
	AWD	2.5 flat-4 Hybrid	35 city/34 hwy
		2.5 DOHC flat-4	26 city/33 hwy
		Sport/Touring 2.5 DOHC flat-4	25 city/32 hwy
		2.5 DOHC flat-4	25 city/28 hwy
CX-50
	AWD	2.5 DOHC 4-cyl.	25 city/31 hwy
		2.5 turbo 4-cyl.	23 city/29 hwy

Regardless of its engine, the Forester’s engine automatically turns off when the vehicle is stopped, saving fuel and reducing pollution. If the conditions warrant or the driver wishes, the system can be manually disabled at any time for the duration of a trip. Mazda only offers an automatic engine start/stop system on the CX-50 Turbo/Hybrid.

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

The Forester has 2.1 gallons more fuel capacity than the CX-50 Hybrid’s standard fuel tank (16.6 vs. 14.5 gallons), for longer range between fill-ups.

Environmental Friendliness

In its Green Vehicle Guide, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rates the Subaru Forester higher (6 out of 10) than the Mazda CX-50 (4 to 6). This means the Forester produces up to 12.1 pounds less smog-producing pollutants than the CX-50 every 15,000 miles.

Brakes and Stopping

The Forester’s standard front and rear disc brakes are vented to help dissipate heat for shorter stops with less fading. The rear discs on the CX-50 are solid, not vented.

The Forester stops much shorter than the CX-50:

	Forester	CX-50
70 to 0 MPH	170 feet	183 feet	Car and Driver
60 to 0 MPH	127 feet	131 feet	Consumer Reports
60 to 0 MPH (Wet)	138 feet	142 feet	Consumer Reports

Tires and Wheels

The Forester’s standard tires provide better handling because they have a lower 60 series profile (height to width ratio) that provides a stiffer sidewall than the CX-50’s standard 65 series tires.

Suspension and Handling

For superior ride and handling, the Subaru Forester has fully independent front and rear suspensions. An independent suspension allows the wheels to follow the road at the best angle for gripping the pavement, without compromising ride comfort. The Mazda CX-50 has a rear torsion beam axle, with a semi-independent rear suspension.

The Forester has standard front and rear stabilizer bars, which help keep the Forester flat and controlled during cornering. The CX-50’s suspension doesn’t offer a rear stabilizer bar.

The Forester’s front to rear weight distribution is more even (57% to 43%) than the CX-50’s (58.9% to 41.1%). This gives the Forester more stable handling and braking.

The Forester Sport handles at .82 G’s, while the CX-50 Hybrid Premium Plus pulls only .80 G’s of cornering force in a Motor Trend skidpad test.

The Forester Sport executes Motor Trend’s “Figure Eight” maneuver quicker than the CX-50 (27.3 seconds @ .62 average G’s vs. 28 seconds @ .58 average G’s).

For better maneuverability, the Forester Premium/Limited Hybrid’s turning circle is .3 feet tighter than the CX-50 Hybrid’s (35.1 feet vs. 35.4 feet). The Forester’s turning circle is .6 feet tighter than the CX-50’s (35.4 feet vs. 36 feet).

For greater off-road capability the Forester has a 1.1 inches greater minimum ground clearance than the CX-50 Hybrid Preferred (8.7 vs. 7.6 inches), allowing the Forester to travel over rougher terrain without being stopped or damaged. The Forester Wilderness’ minimum ground clearance is .6 inch higher than on the CX-50 2.5 S Premium Plus (9.2 vs. 8.6 inches).

Chassis

The Subaru Forester may be more efficient, handle and accelerate better because it weighs about 50 to 250 pounds less than the Mazda CX-50.

The Forester is 3.1 inches shorter than the CX-50, making the Forester easier to handle, maneuver and park in tight spaces.

The front grille of the Forester uses electronically controlled shutters to close off airflow and reduce drag when less engine cooling is needed. This helps improve highway fuel economy. The CX-50 doesn’t offer active grille shutters.

Passenger Space

The Forester has 10.5 cubic feet more passenger volume than the CX-50 (110.8 vs. 100.3).

The Forester has 2.1 inches more front headroom, 1.6 inches more front legroom, 1.1 inches more front hip room, 1.8 inches more front shoulder room, 1 inch more rear headroom, 1.6 inches more rear hip room and 3.1 inches more rear shoulder room than the CX-50.

For enhanced passenger comfort on long trips the Forester Premium/Sport/Wilderness/Limited/Touring’s rear seats recline. The CX-50’s rear seats don’t recline.

Cargo Capacity

The Forester has a larger cargo volume with its rear seat folded than the CX-50 with its rear seat folded (74.4 vs. 56.3 cubic feet).

To make loading groceries and cargo easier when your hands are full, the Forester’s liftgate can be opened and closed just by kicking your foot under the back bumper, leaving your hands completely free. The CX-50 doesn’t offer a hands-free gesture to open its liftgate, forcing you to put cargo down if your hands are full.

Towing

Standard Trailer Stability Assist on the Forester uses the Vehicle Dynamics Control sensors to detect trailer sway, then uses individual brakes to counteract any swaying and help keep the tow vehicle and trailer steady. The CX-50 doesn’t offer electronic trailer sway control.

Servicing Ease

The engine in the Forester is mounted longitudinally (North-South), instead of sideways, as in the CX-50. This makes it easier to service and maintain, because the accessory belts are in front.

J.D. Power and Associates surveys of service recipients show that Subaru service is better than Mazda. J.D. Power ranks Subaru third in service department satisfaction. With a 20% lower rating, Mazda is ranked 10th.

Ergonomics

The Forester Touring’s standard easy entry system glides the driver’s seat back when the door is unlocked or the ignition is switched off, making it easier for the driver to get in and out. The CX-50 doesn’t offer an easy entry system.

Manual rear side window sunshades are available in the Forester to help block heat and glare for the rear passengers. The CX-50 doesn’t offer rear side window sunshades.

Compared to traditional radio, the Subaru Forester’s standard SiriusXM satellite radio provides an unmatched listening experience. Its extensive coverage guarantees consistent, crystal-clear reception across the continental U.S., and access to over 100 channels dedicated to a multitude of genres, including music, news, sports, talk shows, and comedy, many with only limited commercial breaks. Satellite radio is only offered on the CX-50 Premium/Turbo.

Recommendations

Both are recommended, but Consumer Reports® chose the Subaru Forester as its “Top Pick,” the highest scoring vehicle in its category, based on reliability, safety and performance.

The Subaru Forester outsold the Mazda CX-50 by over two to one during 2024.

See Available Inventory