VS

Mazda CX-30 vs VW T-Roc comparison

Compare performance (186 HP vs 150 HP), boot space and price (25,700 £ vs 26,400 £ ) at a glance. Find out which car is the better choice for you – Mazda CX-30 or VW T-Roc?

Mazda CX-30 vs VW T-Roc: Key differences

Mazda CX-30

4.5 (9 Reviews)
rate
  • barely cheaper
  • somewhat more power
  • marginally quicker 0–100 km/h
  • very slightly lighter
details

VW T-Roc

4.8 (6 Reviews)
rate
  • marginally more efficient
  • barely more trunk space
details

All details on performance, efficiency, range and trunk space can be found in the technical comparison below – including user reviews for both models.

By Achim Sedelmaier

CX-30

Overview: Mazda CX-30 VS VW T-Roc — which compact SUV fits your life?

Mazda CX-30 and VW T-Roc sit on the same small-SUV podium but aim at different customer instincts: the Mazda courts drivers who care about material quality and engagement, the VW prioritises usable space and relaxed day-to-day manners. The CX-30 reads closer to a premium compact with tactile surfaces and a cockpit that invites you to concentrate on the road, while the T‑Roc presents a more conventional, roomy cabin that makes everyday chores simpler. That split — feel and involvement versus practicality and forgiving comfort — is the through-line of this comparison. Read on to see which trade-offs matter most to your commute, weekend trips and family life.

T-Roc

Cabin feel and perceived quality: intimate premium versus practical solidity

The Mazda CX-30 leans into a near-premium atmosphere: soft-touch surfaces, clean detailing and a compact cockpit that feels deliberately composed around the driver. The VW T‑Roc has closed the gap with softer trims and a more open, airy cabin that feels classically Volkswagen — less intimate but more spacious and immediately familiar. Both cars are quiet at speed, yet the Mazda’s interior feels quieter and more insulated in a way that rewards long motorway runs, while the T‑Roc’s cabin prioritises usable space and straightforward ergonomics. If you want tactile luxury in a smaller package, the CX‑30 delivers; if you want a roomier, no-nonsense interior that won’t feel fussy, the T‑Roc is the smarter pick.

CX-30

Driving character and ride comfort: engaged and taut versus composed and forgiving

The Mazda CX-30 is the driver's choice in this duel — precise steering, crisp responses and an option set that keeps the driver involved; its ride, however, can feel firm around town and on sharp bumps. The VW T‑Roc trades a touch of that immediacy for a more composed demeanor: suspension tuning and optional damping systems smooth out long-distance cruising and ease urban ripples. In traffic the T‑Roc’s automatic transmission behavior and softer setup make daily commuting less wearing, whereas the CX‑30 rewards active drivers on twisty roads and long motorway stints with better wind and engine silence. Pick the CX‑30 if you value engagement and highway serenity; pick the T‑Roc if you prefer a gentler, more adaptable ride in mixed use.

T-Roc

Practicality and family usability: tight elegance versus everyday cargo sense

Practicality separates these two clearly: the Mazda CX‑30’s neat exterior hides a cabin that’s more compact in the rear and a boot that demands careful loading, which can frustrate families with bulky kit. The VW T‑Roc, by contrast, stretches rear legroom and gives you a more flexible luggage area with fold options and a lower loading feel that eases daily errands and weekend trips. Both cars will carry a child seat, but the T‑Roc’s rear space and seat-split logic make life with growing kids noticeably easier. If cargo volume and rear passenger comfort are priorities, the T‑Roc is the practical choice; if you accept compromises for a cosseting interior and driver focus, the CX‑30 still has strong appeal.

CX-30

Technology and everyday ergonomics: low-distraction controls versus feature-rich touchscreens

Mazda’s control philosophy keeps interaction tactile and simple — a rotary controller and clear menus that reduce distraction, plus driver-focused items like a standard head‑up display that keep essential data in view. VW’s T‑Roc pushes a bigger, faster infotainment experience with more on-screen features and a modern layout, but touch sliders and some menu logic can feel less intuitive while you’re learning them. Both cars offer a full suite of driver aids and safety tech, yet the Mazda’s approach favours predictable physical controls while the T‑Roc bets on digital speed and configurability. Choose the CX‑30 if you want fuss-free, low-distraction operation; opt for the T‑Roc if you prioritise a more cutting-edge, flexible tech stack despite a slightly steeper learning curve.

T-Roc

Buyer fit: who should test drive which — and why the technical specs matter next

If your priorities are premium tactile quality, an involving drive and calm motorway manners, the Mazda CX‑30 will feel like the more satisfying daily companion; it suits singles or couples who value driving feel over maximum utility. If you need rear-seat room, easier loading, and a more forgiving city-to-highway experience for family duties, the VW T‑Roc maps to that checklist and scales more comfortably as a practical crossover. Both cars make different compromises on ride, space and tech, so the right choice comes down to whether you put driver engagement or everyday versatility first. The technical comparison that follows will break down engines, fuel behaviour, boot usability and option costs so you can match those everyday impressions to concrete numbers before you sign on the dotted line.

Frequently compared as well

Skoda Kamiq
VW T-Roc
VS
Choosing between the Skoda Kamiq and the VW T‑Roc comes down to whether you prioritise everyday practicality and value or a bolder, slightly sportier compact SUV. Both share similar underpinnings, but the Kamiq excels in interior space and efficiency while the T‑Roc offers sharper styling and a …
VW Golf
VW T-Roc
VS
Deciding between the VW Golf and the VW T‑Roc is about choosing whether you prefer a classic, driver-focused hatchback or a compact SUV with higher ride height and added practicality. The Golf delivers sharper handling and refined efficiency, while the T‑Roc brings more interior space and a more …

Here’s where it gets real: The technical differences in detail

CX-30

Costs and Efficiency:

Price and efficiency are often the first things buyers look at. Here it becomes clear which model has the long-term edge – whether at the pump, the plug, or in purchase price.

Mazda CX-30 is barely cheaper – starting at 25,700 £ , while the VW T-Roc costs 26,400 £ . That’s a price difference of around 733 £.

Fuel consumption also shows a difference: the VW T-Roc uses 5.5 L/100km and is marginally more efficient than the Mazda CX-30 with 5.7 L/100km. The difference is about 0.2 L/100km.

T-Roc

Engine and Performance:

Power, torque and acceleration say a lot about how a car feels on the road. This is where you see which model delivers more driving dynamics.

When it comes to engine power, the Mazda CX-30 offers somewhat more power – delivering 186 HP compared to 150 HP. That’s roughly 36 HP more horsepower.

When accelerating from 0 to 100 km/h, the Mazda CX-30 is marginally quicker – completing the sprint in 8.3 s, while the VW T-Roc takes 8.9 s. That’s about 0.6 s quicker.

There’s also a difference in torque: the VW T-Roc delivers barely more torque with 250 Nm compared to 240 Nm. That’s about 10 Nm more.

CX-30

Space and Everyday Use:

Beyond pure performance, interior space and usability matter most in daily life. This is where you see which car is more practical and versatile.

Both vehicles offer seating for 5 people.

In terms of curb weight, Mazda CX-30 is very slightly lighter – 1,455 kg compared to 1,465 kg. The difference is around 10 kg.

Looking at boot space, the VW T-Roc offers barely more boot space – 475 L compared to 430 L. That’s a difference of about 45 L.

When it comes to payload, the VW T-Roc carries only slightly more – 515 kg compared to 496 kg. That’s a difference of about 19 kg.

Who wins the race in the data check?

The Mazda CX-30 stands well ahead of its rival in the objective data comparison.
This result only shows which model scores more points on paper – not which of the two cars feels right for you.

from £25,700
CX-30

Mazda CX-30

  • Engine Type Petrol MHEV
  • Transmission Manuel, Automatic
  • Drive Type Front-Wheel Drive, All-Wheel Drive
  • Power HP 140 - 186 HP
  • Consumption L/100km 5.7 - 6.6 L/100km
details
Mazda CX-30
VW T-Roc

Costs and Consumption
View detailed analysis

Engine and Performance
View detailed analysis

Dimensions and Body
View detailed analysis

Mazda CX-30

The Mazda CX-30 blends Mazda’s upscale styling with a compact crossover body, offering a refined interior and engaging driving dynamics. It’s a practical choice for buyers who want a premium feel and agile handling in a city-friendly package.

details
2022_mazda_cx-30_src_spain_act_44
2022_mazda_cx-30_src_spain_act_42
2022_mazda_cx-30_src_spain_act_27
2022_mazda_cx-30_src_spain_int_3

Reviews Mazda CX-30

4.5 (9 Reviews)
rate
Jarek
4 Jun 2026, 09:16:53

The pleasure of driving and everything we call premium sensations.

How do you mainly use this car? (optional): Long-distance driver
Efficiency / Consumption & Range
Comfort & Interior
Driving Fun / Performance
Technology & Infotainment
Safety
Practicality / Trunk & Everyday Use
Value for Money
Danny
31 May 2026, 17:14:00

Nice luxury car, although I'm not sure I find the oversized rims that attractive. On the other hand, I like the Mazda 3 better.

How do you mainly use this car? (optional): Leisure / Weekend driver
Efficiency / Consumption & Range
Comfort & Interior
Driving Fun / Performance
Technology & Infotainment
Practicality / Trunk & Everyday Use
Value for Money
Paul
27 May 2026, 05:17:55

Better soundproofed, more powerful, and feels more like a continuation of my hands and feet when driving — in other words, you feel like a single unit during the driving experience — but cramped for me at 6 ft 1 in to get in and out…

How do you mainly use this car? (optional): Commuter (short/medium distance)
Efficiency / Consumption & Range
Comfort & Interior
Driving Fun / Performance
Technology & Infotainment
Safety
Practicality / Trunk & Everyday Use
Value for Money
Michele
8 May 2026, 17:46:44

Quiet; well finished, predominantly analog dashboard; excellent value for money

How do you mainly use this car? (optional): Family car
Efficiency / Consumption & Range
Comfort & Interior
Driving Fun / Performance
Technology & Infotainment
Safety
Practicality / Trunk & Everyday Use
Value for Money
Rafa
25 Apr 2026, 12:50:49

I wouldn't pay more than 40,000 for a 1.5 L engine — that's excessive.

VW T-Roc

The Volkswagen T‑Roc is a stylish, well-proportioned crossover that blends hatchback agility with SUV presence. It delivers a comfortable cabin, user-friendly tech and a composed ride, making it a sensible choice for buyers who want practicality with a bit of character.

details
DB2025AU01832_medium
DB2025AU01833_medium
DB2025AU01840_medium
DB2025AU01844_medium
DB2025AU01835_medium
DB2025AU01866_medium
DB2025AU01834_medium
DB2025AU01852_medium

Reviews VW T-Roc

4.8 (6 Reviews)
rate
Ester
17 Sept 2025, 14:29:41

I've been driving the VW T‑Roc for a few months now and I'm totally satisfied. 🚗 The higher seating position gives me a great feeling of security and the visibility in city traffic is excellent. I especially like the modern infotainment system — everything works intuitively and quickly. On the motorway it feels very calm and stable, even at higher speeds. Overall a great car that's a lot of fun and still economical.

Frequently compared as well

Nissan Qashqai
VW T-Roc
VS
The Nissan Qashqai is the sensible, family-friendly compact SUV — roomy, quietly comfortable and packed with practical tech for long motorway miles. The VW T-Roc swaps a little rear-seat space for cheeky styling and sharper handling, so if you want personality and a bit more driver engagement it’s …
SEAT Ateca
VW T-Roc
VS
The SEAT Ateca and the VW T‑Roc are two closely related compact crossover SUVs from the Volkswagen Group, each offering a blend of practicality, comfort and engaging driving manners. This comparison will highlight where the Ateca’s straightforward value and roomy practicality differ from the …
Lexus LBX
VW T-Roc
VS
The Lexus LBX feels like a posh city cocoon — whisper-quiet, well-stitched and leaning into hybrid efficiency and premium touches — while the VW T‑Roc is a cheeky, practical all-rounder that drives with more snap, offers more space and gives better value for the money. Choose the LBX if you want …
Audi A3 Sportback
VW T-Roc
VS
The Audi A3 Sportback and the VW T‑Roc share many Volkswagen Group underpinnings but target different buyers: the A3 Sportback focuses on refined driving dynamics and premium cabin quality, while the VW T‑Roc offers a taller, more practical crossover package at a more value-driven price. This …
Ford Kuga
VW T-Roc
VS
In the compact-SUV ring, the Ford Kuga and the VW T‑Roc step up: one leans on family-friendly practicality and hybrid efficiency, the other on sharp styling and city-ready agility. We’ll compare space, economy, driving feel and value so you can choose whether you want sensible muscle or fashionable …
SEAT Arona
VW T-Roc
VS
Sibling rivalry in compact-SUV clothing: the SEAT Arona and VW T‑Roc go head-to-head — one brings Spanish spice and value, the other German polish and refinement. We’ll compare driving feel, practicality, tech and running costs so you can pick the compact crossover that deserves a spot in your …
Skoda Karoq
VW T-Roc
VS
The Skoda Karoq is the sensible family hero — roomy boot, comfortable seats and clever practicality — while the VW T‑Roc swaps some of that pragmatism for sharper styling and a livelier, more involving drive. Choose the Karoq for space and value, the T‑Roc if you want personality and a bit more fun …
CUPRA Formentor
VW T-Roc
VS
The Cupra Formentor and the VW T‑Roc are compact crossovers that balance everyday practicality with distinct personalities—one leaning sporty and style‑focused, the other aiming for broad appeal and comfort. This quick comparison highlights how the Formentor’s sharper driving character and design …
Mazda CX-30
VW T-Roc

Costs and Consumption
Price
25,700 - 37,200 £
Price
26,400 - 38,600 £
Consumption L/100km
5.7 - 6.6 L/100km
Consumption L/100km
5.5 - 6.3 L/100km
Consumption kWh/100km
-
Consumption kWh/100km
-
Electric Range
-
Electric Range
-
Battery Capacity
-
Battery Capacity
-
co2
129 - 148 g/km
co2
126 - 143 g/km
Fuel tank capacity
-
Fuel tank capacity
-

Dimensions and Body
Body Type
SUV
Body Type
SUV
Seats
5
Seats
4 - 5
Doors
-
Doors
-
Curb weight
1,455 - 1,587 kg
Curb weight
1,465 - 1,539 kg
Trunk capacity
422 - 430 L
Trunk capacity
284 - 475 L
Length
-
Length
-
Width
1,795 mm
Width
1,811 - 1,828 mm
Height
-
Height
-
Max trunk capacity
-
Max trunk capacity
-
Payload
458 - 496 kg
Payload
368 - 515 kg

Engine and Performance
Engine Type
Petrol MHEV
Engine Type
Petrol, Petrol MHEV
Transmission
Manuel, Automatic
Transmission
Manuel, Automatic
Transmission Detail
Manual Gearbox, Automatic Gearbox
Transmission Detail
Manual Gearbox, Dual-Clutch Automatic
Drive Type
Front-Wheel Drive, All-Wheel Drive
Drive Type
Front-Wheel Drive
Power HP
140 - 186 HP
Power HP
115 - 150 HP
Acceleration 0-100km/h
8.3 - 10.3 s
Acceleration 0-100km/h
8.9 - 12.3 s
Max Speed
-
Max Speed
-
Torque
238 - 240 Nm
Torque
200 - 250 Nm
Number of Cylinders
4
Number of Cylinders
3 - 4
Power kW
103 - 137 kW
Power kW
85 - 110 kW
Engine capacity
1,998 - 2,488 cm3
Engine capacity
999 - 1,498 cm3

General
Model Year
2025
Model Year
2,024 - 2,025
CO2 Efficiency Class
D, E
CO2 Efficiency Class
E, D
Brand
Mazda
Brand
VW
What drive types are available for the Mazda CX-30?

Available configurations include Front-Wheel Drive or All-Wheel Drive.

DriveDuel uses data analysis and artificial intelligence to evaluate vehicle data and create content. Content is regularly reviewed and improved. The displayed prices are estimates based on German list prices, adjusted to the respective country’s VAT. Country-specific registration taxes are not included. This information is not legally binding.