The entry-level SUV segment includes a wide variety of vehicles. Recent buying trends have moved away from rugged truck-like styling and handling in favor of a more comfortable ride and better fuel economy. While some crossover competitors are designed with truck-like features, the styling of the 2013 CR-V is more akin to midsize luxury SUV’s.

2013 Honda CR-V vs 2012 Toyota Rav4

• - Safer: The CR-V received a 5-Star Overall Vehicle Safety Score from the NHTSA, while the Rav4 receved 4-stars.
• - The CR-V tops the Rav4 in ALG residual values.  
• - Standard features: the CR-V offers Hill Satart assist and daytime running lights on all models, while those features are optional or part of a regional package on the Rav4.
• - There’s more shoulder room and hiproom in both rows on the CR-V.
• - More power and efficiency: The CR-V has more horsepower than the Rav4′s 4-cylinder (185 hp vs 179 hp) and better fuel economy in every category.

2013 Honda CR-V vs 2012 Nissan Rogue

• - Roomier:  the CR-V offers more front shoulder room and hiproom than the Rogue, and more room in every dimension in back.
• - Cargo Space: the CR-V has much more maximum cargo volume than Rogue: 70.9 cu ft vs. 57.9 cu ft.
• - More standard features: the standard hill start assist and daytime running lights on the CR-V are not available or offered on the Rogue.
• - The CR-V tends to be much less expensive when comparably equipped but retains much more of its value, according to ALG.
• - Better capacity: the CR-V 2WD models have a higher towing capacity (1,500 lbs vs. 1,000 lbs).

2013 Honda CR-V vs 2012 Hyundai Tucson

• - Safer: the CR-V received a 5-Star Overall Vehicle Safety Score from the NHTSA vs 4 stars for the Tucson.
• - CR-V’s ALG residual values are higher
• - Multi-angle rearview camera is standard on all CR-V trims, but is only available as an option on Tucson.
• - More power: CR-V has more horsepower than Tucson, 185 vs. 176.
• - Roomier: the CR-V has more front headroom, legroom and shoulder room, and more 2nd-row shoulder room. The CR-V also offers much greater room behind the 2nd-row seats (37.2 cu ft vs. 25.7 cu ft) as well as much greater maximum cargo volume (70.9 cu ft vs. 55.8 cu ft).
• - Better capacity: CR-V’s standard towing capacity handily exceeds Tucson’s, 1,500 lbs vs. 1,000 lbs.

2013 Honda CR-V vs 2013 Ford Escape

• - More fuel efficient: Even the most fuel-efficient Escape — the S with the 2.5-liter engine — gets lower EPA ratings than the front-wheel-drive CR-V models in the city and combined categories.
• - More room: the CR-V has more rear legroom and hiproom, and more shoulder room in both rows. The CR-V also has more cargo volume with the rear seats up (37.2 cu ft vs. 34.3 cu ft) and the rear seats down (70.9 cu ft vs. 68.1 cu ft).
• - Historically, the CR-V has retained considerably more value than the Escape, according to ALG.
• - Less expensive: Comparably equipped, the Escape tends to be quite a bit more expensive than its CR-V counterpart.
• - More power: the CR-V has 17 more peak horsepower than the Escape S (185 hp vs. 168 hp).

2013 Honda CR-V vs 2012 Subaru Forester

• - Motortrend.com calls Forester’s 4-speed automatic “an obvious anachronism”; the CR-V, of course, comes with a smooth-shifting 5-speed automatic
• - The CR-V received a 5-Star Overall Vehicle Safety Score from the NHTSA  vs. 4 stars for Forester.
• - Less expensive: the CR-V is much less expensive than Forester when comparably equipped.
• - More cargo room: the CR-V’s cargo volume behind the second row tops the Forester’s by 6.4 cu ft, and the CR-V’s maximum cargo volume is 7.9 cu ft greater.
• - More passenger room: the CR-V provides more front shoulder room and hiproom, as well as more room in every second-row dimension.
• - Forester drivers don’t get the benefits of a telescopic steering column or a maintenance minder system as the CR-V provides.
• - More fuel efficient: the Forester’s normally aspirated models fall short of CR-V AWD’s by an EPA estimated rating of 1 mpg city and 3 mpg highway.