Mazda 3 vs Toyota Corolla vs Kia Cerato 2019 comparison review

The collective opinion of our team of journalists was that the Corolla had the best balance of curves and lines, while the Mazda had the most aggressive styling, and the Cerato… well, everyone here preferred the previous-generation model. 

There’s none of the spunk and European-ness that we all appreciated about the old Cerato. Mercedes-Benz clearly liked it, virtually copying elements for its new-gen A-Class hatch. But in this generation, it looks awkward - part of that comes down to the fact the Cerato seemingly doesn’t know if it’s a hatch or a wagon, and the rest of it comes down to the fact the bumpers are all wrong for a base-model car. Having piano-black highlights front and rear, not to mention a rally-spec air diffuser, just doesn’t work - especially with steel wheels and plastic wheel covers.

The Mazda3’s thick C-pillar and tiny glasshouse lend it a coupe-ish profile, a bit like the Alfa Romeo Brera. Lots of people love it, but those who don’t, really don’t. The blacked-out mask-style grille and slinky headlights give it a caped-crusader vibe, but the front-end design is let down by halogen daytime running lights, which anchor the design in reality. The Mazda may have more street appeal to the majority of people, but the oversized C-pillar and non-convex driver’s side mirror make visibility for the driver poor by comparison.

The Toyota’s sculpted rear and sharp front end work really well in combination, and the Corolla’s standard LED headlights and DRLs mean it looks of its time - and the fact it’s the oldest design of these three - having gone on sale in 2018, where the other two launched in 2019 - is testament to the fact this look will hold up well.

The interior design of each of these cars is vastly different, too. That’s partly down to the sizes and shapes used for the metalwork, and also to the materials used.

The Corolla is the sportiest - more aggressive lines and angles inside the cabin, nice materials that aren’t luxurious but don’t come across as budget either, and the most comfortable and sculpted seats up front and in the rear.

The Mazda’s cabin is gorgeous. The materials look plush and high-end, and friends and family might be convinced you’re driving something considerably more expensive. If you like getting into a car that feels more pricey than it is, it could be enough to get you across the line. Just be aware that it feels very dark inside.

The Kia has lots of plastics that are difficult to come to terms with (a bit like the exterior!), including extensive hard plastic on the doors and materials that tell you you’re in a budget hatchback. That said, the dashboard looks great, and the ergonomics are all spot-on. 

The prices of these three models aren’t as close as you might think, considering all three represent the entry points to their respective ranges. You can get manual versions of each of these cars if you so choose (and you’ll save between $1000 and $2000 if you do), but we’ve gone with the automatic models, because that’s what more than 95 per cent of buyers go for.

The Kia is the most affordable, with the Cerato S auto starting at $21,990 drive-away. Kia doesn’t offer a list price before on-road costs for this model. Our car is the version with the safety pack, which has a listed drive-away price of $23,490, and it had optional Horizon Blue premium paint, which costs $520. So it’s drive-away price, based on the 2000 postcode, is $24,010.

Next up, based on manufacturer’s list pricing is the Toyota Corolla Ascent Sport, at $24,370 before on-road costs. Our test vehicle had the optional convenience pack with sat nav, DAB digital radio and tinted rear windows (which really should be standard at this price point, not an extra $1000) and that pushed its drive-away price to $29,535. 

The Mazda3 G20 Pure is the most expensive model, both on list price and drive-away. The list price for this model is $25,990 plus on-roads, and if you go by the same criteria as the above, the Mazda site throws up a drive-away price of $29,659. Remember, this is a base-model hatch!

Now, we think you’ll get better deals than what you’re seeing here if you shop around. Browse stock on Autotrader, and when it comes to the crunch, don’t be afraid to visit to a few showrooms to get the best deal. 

Paying almost 30 grand for a base-model hatch is hard to fathom - and just goes to show why Kia is having such success in this part of the market.

But it’s not just aggressive pricing that has seen Kia succeed here - despite costing less, it’s standard equipment list is pretty impressive. Sure it misses out on alloy wheels and has 1990s-tech headlights, but if you can look beyond that, you’ll see it stacks up well, considering its effective buy-in price is about five-grand less than its rivals. That’s about 20 per cent cheaper!

You can see the media screen specs and details for each of these cars in the practicality section above.

Unsurprisingly, then, the Kia wins this section of the test. The other two have their highs and lows, so we’ve ranked them evenly.

There’s a good chance you expect decent fuel consumption from a compact hatchback like these cars - indeed, Mazda and Toyota have a bit of history here, and there’s even a hybrid version of the Corolla if that floats your boat (for what it’s worth, we reckon it’s the best Corolla you can get).

Even so, the figures you see below indicate what each company claims its car should consume, what we saw displayed on each car’s dashboard, and what it actually used based on our own fuel-pump figures. Plus, just for fun, we’ve thrown in the percentage the car was over its claimed fuel use.

The outcome of this test indicated that it was pretty darn close between the Mazda and Corolla in the real world - so much so that we declared them equal on balance. The Kia was thirsty, so it placed last.

Note - all three can run on 91RON regular unleaded.

The data you see below is for the Cerato S with the safety pack fitted because that’s the model we tested in this comparison review. 

To make it clear what you get for your $1500, we’ve put an asterisk next to the inclusions you will see added if you spend the extra on the safety pack - but arguably the most important change is a step up from a four-star ANCAP rating for the non-safety pack version to a five-star score for the model we drove.

It’s worth noting just how much the game has moved on in the small-car market in terms of safety gear - a year ago, Toyota’s Corolla Ascent Sport was leading the way. It isn’t any more, and indeed looks a little underdone in comparison to the other models tested (but note, you can get the extra gear if you upgrade to the next model up the Corolla range). 

Mazda has comprehensively kitted out the 3 G20 Pure with immense safety tech as standard - its extensive safety equipment list is very impressive, and the only thing that stops it getting full marks in this part of the criteria is that it misses out on front parking sensors as standard.

The Cerato S gets a good deal of gear if you spend the extra on the safety pack. It’s worth it, because it offers vulnerable road-users protection by way of the addition of AEB with pedestrian and cyclist detection. If you don’t option the safety pack, you just get a basic, low-speed AEB. 

We literally spent hours trying to separate these three impressive small hatchbacks in order to come up with a winner. 

And it’s clear these three could very well cater to different buyers - each excels in different areas: the Kia for practicality, the Mazda for safety and the Toyota for its driving experience. 

But against our review criteria, here’s how it ended up.

We spent hours trying to separate these three impressive cars in order to come up with a winner.

The Kia Cerato S - especially when fitted with the optional safety pack - is a value-packed hatch that’s big on space and spec. But it couldn’t match the others driving around town and was worst for fuel use. 

The Mazda3 G20 Pure is a safety-tech benchmark, and arguably a style standout, too. In isolation, it’s a truly impressive thing, but in this comparison test, it couldn’t quite cut it for comfort, and it’s also pretty pricey. 

The Toyota Corolla Ascent Sport is also on the expensive side for this type of car, but for your money you’re rewarded with a lovely car to drive no matter the road, and even though it has a smaller boot and back seat, the reality is that it’s not as high a priority for many hatchback buyers in this SUV-mad world. 

So it’s our winner - only just - in this comparison test.