Jeep Compass vs Mazda CX-5: Specs Compared

Running cost over five years: at the EPA's 15,000-mile-a-year assumption the Mazda CX-5 burns about $2,100 of fuel annually against $2,300 for the Jeep Compass. That $200 yearly gap compounds to roughly $1,000 over five years and $1,600 over eight — often more than the price difference between two trims of the same vehicle, and the single largest running-cost line item separating these two.

City and highway economy: the Mazda CX-5 leads in both cycles — 28 mpg city and 34 mpg highway against 24 and 32 mpg — so its fuel-efficiency advantage holds whether you commute in traffic or cover long highway miles.

Powertrain choice: the Jeep Compass is recorded with 3 distinct engine configurations (SIDI, 2.4, 2.0), the Mazda CX-5 with 3 (SIDI, SIDI; with cylinder deactivation, 2.2). Across 45 recorded Jeep Compass configurations and 38 for the Mazda CX-5, the wider the engine spread the more the real-world fuel efficiency depends on which version you actually buy, so check the specific model year and drivetrain rather than the headline number.

Drivetrain and class: the Jeep Compass is offered with All-Wheel Drive, Front-Wheel Drive, 4-Wheel Drive, the Mazda CX-5 with 4-Wheel Drive, Front-Wheel Drive. All-wheel drive typically costs one to two mpg combined against the same vehicle in front- or rear-wheel drive, which is worth remembering when the gap between these two is small. The EPA classes them as Small Sport Utility Vehicle 4WD and Small Sport Utility Vehicle 4WD respectively — the class drives the interior volume, cargo space and passenger space each one is measured against.

Tailpipe emissions: at their cleanest configurations the Mazda CX-5 emits 306 g/mile of CO2 versus 330 g/mile for the Jeep Compass. Emissions track fuel consumption almost exactly, so the cleaner vehicle here is also the cheaper one to fuel.