Used comparison · 2025 DVSA data

Mazda CX-5 vs Toyota RAV4

Two Japanese family SUVs bought by people who plan to keep them.

Across 174,328 initial MOT tests in 2025, the Toyota RAV4 passed 85.16% against 83.22% for the Mazda CX-5. That is close enough that the specific car matters far more than the badge.

Already found one of them?

Enter its registration to see finance, write-off, stolen, mileage and keeper history before you decide.

One full report is £15. Instant results, no account needed.

Head to head on the MOT record

Measure Mazda CX-5 Toyota RAV4
First-time MOT pass rate 83.22% 85.16%
Tests in 2025 69,486 104,842
Average mileage at test 63,968 70,466
Average age at test 7.6 years 9.6 years
Most common fuel Diesel Hybrid electric
Diesel share of tests 52.65% 23.49%

The UK average across all cars in this data is 77.3%. The Mazda CX-5 sits above it by 5.9 points, and the Toyota RAV4 sits above it by 7.9 points. The Toyota RAV4 also arrives at test with roughly 6,498 more miles on average, which usually says more about who buys it and what they use it for than about how long it lasts.

Which one holds up better as it ages

This is the part that matters when you are buying used. A headline pass rate mixes three-year-old cars in with fifteen-year-old ones. Split by age, you can see what each model actually does over time.

Age at test Mazda CX-5 Toyota RAV4
3 to 5 years 92.34% 94.99%
6 to 10 years 83.72% 87.73%
11 years and over 70.33% 72.24%

Both models age at much the same rate, losing around 22.4 percentage points between the youngest and oldest brackets. Neither has an advantage worth paying for on this measure.

What each one fails on

These are the areas testers recorded most often across every failed 2025 test for each model. Read them as a viewing checklist for that model, not as a fault list for any particular car.

Mazda CX-5

  • Suspension 27.87%
  • Brakes 19.93%
  • Tyres 16.34%
  • Steering 11.93%
  • Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 7.89%

Share of all recorded failure items.

Full Mazda CX-5 failure detail

Toyota RAV4

  • Suspension 27.18%
  • Brakes 17.62%
  • Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment 16.65%
  • Tyres 14.2%
  • Visibility 7.15%

Share of all recorded failure items.

Full Toyota RAV4 failure detail

Both models fail most often on suspension, which is normal for cars of this age and tells you what to look at on either. The difference between them is in what comes next on each list.

The specific items testers wrote down

One level deeper than the category. These are the individual defects recorded most often on each model.

Mazda CX-5

  • Brake pads less than 1.5 mm thick
  • Track rod end ball joint has excessive play
  • Coil spring fractured or broken

Toyota RAV4

  • Pins and bushes pin or bush excessively worn
  • Wipers does not clear the windscreen effectively
  • Condition has a cut in excess of the requirements deep enough to reach the ply or cords

What this comparison cannot tell you

Everything above describes two models across the whole UK fleet. It says nothing about the one car in the advert you are looking at. Two CX-5s of the same year and mileage can be worth thousands apart because of things that never appear in MOT data:

  • Outstanding finance. If a lender still has an agreement recorded against the car, that claim does not disappear because you paid the seller.
  • Insurance write-off history. A Cat S or Cat N marker is permanent, changes what the car is worth, and does not appear on the V5C.
  • Stolen markers. A car recorded as stolen can be seized even from a buyer who bought it honestly.
  • Mileage history. The readings taken at every MOT are the clearest way to spot a clocked odometer.
  • Previous keepers. An unusual number of keepers for the age of the car is worth asking about.

A Carpeep car history check reports all of those against the registration, plus tax status, import and export markers, scrapped status and the recorded vehicle identity, in one £15 report.

Check the car you are about to buy

One registration, one report. Finance, write-off, stolen, mileage, keepers, MOT and tax.

£15 for a full report, backed by a £30,000 data guarantee.

Read more on each car

Other comparisons with these cars

Mazda CX-5 vs Toyota RAV4 FAQs

Is the Mazda CX-5 or the Toyota RAV4 more likely to pass its MOT?

The Toyota RAV4 passed 85.16% of its initial MOT tests in the DVSA 2025 data against 83.22% for the Mazda CX-5, a gap of 1.9 percentage points. That is a fleet-wide average, not a prediction about the specific car you are looking at.

Does a higher MOT pass rate mean a more reliable car?

No. An MOT records whether a vehicle met the roadworthiness standard on the day it was tested. It does not test the engine, clutch or gearbox, and it does not measure how often a car breaks down. Pass rates are useful for comparing how two models are holding up across the whole UK fleet, and nothing more than that.

Which is cheaper to keep on the road, the Mazda CX-5 or the Toyota RAV4?

This data does not price servicing or repairs, so it cannot answer that directly. What it does show is what each model most often fails on, which is a fair guide to where the money goes. The Mazda CX-5 fails most often on suspension. The Toyota RAV4 fails most often on suspension.

How do I check the actual Toyota RAV4 I have found?

Enter its registration. A Carpeep car history check reports outstanding finance, insurance write-off markers, stolen markers, the mileage recorded at every MOT, previous keepers, tax and MOT status, import and export markers and scrapped status in one £15 report. None of that appears in model-level MOT statistics.

Which one has covered more miles by MOT time?

The average Toyota RAV4 arrived at its 2025 MOT on 70,466 miles, against 63,968 for the Mazda CX-5. That usually reflects who buys each car and what they use it for rather than how long it will last.

MOT figures aggregated from the DVSA MOT Anonymised data set for 2025 (class 4 initial tests, retests excluded), licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. MOT results describe roadworthiness at test, not mechanical reliability.