• Both have generally good results, with some blemishes

• RAV4 crash-test scores are slightly better overall

• Both are 2024 IIHS Top Safety Picks

• Blind-spot monitors are included in all CR-Vs but optional on RAV4

The Toyota RAV4 and Honda CR-V both offer up good safety ratings and results, but with plenty of room for improvement. The RAV4’s results include five stars overall from the less-challenging NHTSA NCAP program. It misses the Top Safety Pick+ bow from the IIHS and earns Top Safety Pick instead as its updated side-impact test results were only “Acceptable.” 

The Honda CR-V doesn’t do any better—and it actually fares a step worse in IIHS testing, with a “Poor” rating in the updated moderate overlap frontal test, even though it gets a “Good” result in the updated side-impact test. Just like the RAV4, the CR-V family earns a five-star NHTSA rating from a mix of four- and five-star scores. 

Both of these models include automatic emergency braking, adaptive cruise control, and active lane control, with headlights that have tested well. Blind-spot monitors aren’t standard on base versions of either, but tricky rearward vision and the lack of a surround-view camera system ultimately place the CR-V a notch behind. 

Advantage: Toyota RAV4. 

Honda CR-V vs Toyota RAV4 performance

• Non-hybrids: CR-V has a 1.5-liter turbo-4 and a CVT, RAV4 has a 2.5-liter inline-4 and 8-speed automatic

• RAV4s can handle quite differently depending on the version

• All CR-V versions have far superior ride and handling

The Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4 roughly compare in power and performance, but from their non-hybrid versions to their hybrid versions, they have very different powertrains and they  get the power to the pavement (or slippery stuff) differently. 

The 1.5-liter turbo-4 in the CR-V makes 190 hp and 179 lb-ft of torque, and with the continuously variable automatic transmission (CVT) it’s never downright quick in its responses but smooth and quick enough for everyday driving or most highway passes. Honda has made gains in the drivability of this combination, with some “steps” to simulate gearshifts added to the transmission’, and if you tend not to be in a big hurry, it’s satisfyingly smooth and muted. 

Base RAV4 models, on the other hand, come with a 2.5-liter inline-4 making 203 hp and 184 lb-ft. Here the 8-speed automatic responds well, but the powertrain as a whole lacks polish and tends to be coarse and loud and ultimately not meaningfully quicker than the Honda in terms of 0-60 mph times (around eight seconds at best for each). 

Both the RAV4 and CR-V are at their best in hybrid form. It’s where, for modestly more money up front, you’ll get better performance along with more refinement and of course much better fuel economy. Toyota’s hybrid system here includes a separate motor for the rear wheels, makes a combined 219 hp, and makes the SUV much quicker than the modest power boost over the base engine might suggest. Honda’s system uses a pair of electric motors—one of them directly driving the wheels the majority of the time. It delivers 204 hp and 247 lb-ft in an electric-vehicle-like manner, although the engine can be strident on long hills. 

Between the two, the Honda CR-V is above and beyond the better handler, with a better ride and a quieter cabin to boot. 

Advantage: Honda CR-V, for its handling.

Toyota RAV4 vs Honda CR-V fuel economy

• Non-hybrid CR-V models stand at 29 or 30 mpg combined, while non-hybrid RAV4s span from 28-30 mpg combined

• RAV4 Hybrid gets 40 mpg combined for most versions; CR-V matches that with front-wheel drive but drops to 37 with AWD

• RAV4 Plug-in Hybrid gets 38 mpg combined but can go 42 miles all-electric on a plug-in charge

The Honda CR-V, in non-hybrid form with its turbo-4 and CVT, earns impressive ratings of 28 mpg city, 34 highway, and 30 overall with front-wheel drive. Add all-wheel drive and the overall rating drops just 1 mpg. 

Base-level RAV4s with front-wheel drive get 27 mpg city, 35 highway, and 30 combined, according to the EPA. AWD versions can bring that down to 29 mpg combined, or 28 mpg for the two off-road-focused trims. Hybrid versions, which don’t cost that much more, lead in efficiency, returning 41 mpg city 38 highway, 40 combined for most combinations, with 37 combined for the trail-oriented Hybrid Woodland Edition. 

The RAV4 Plug-in Hybrid, which goes 42 electric miles on a charge, is rated at 38 mpg combined once the charge is used up, and returns a combined driving range of 600 miles.

Advantage: Toyota RAV4—in hybrid form, of course

Honda CR-V vs Toyota RAV4 interior, infotainment, and tech

• RAV4 gets a larger base touchscreen and an even larger 10.5-inch one in some versions

• Apple CarPlay and Android Auto are wired in base Hondas, wireless with 9.0-inch screen and in all RAV4s

• Satellite radio is limited to top options of the CR-V but widely available on RAV4

Both of these are modern crossovers with all that you’ll need to interface well with your smartphone, via Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, but keep in mind that the 7.0-inch touchscreen infotainment system in the Honda CR-V requires a wired connection, while both the 9.0-inch system in higher trims of the CR-V as well as the 8.0-inch system in all RAV4s include wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. 

That said, we like the layout and menu structure of either of these Honda systems much better than the latest Toyota system, which adds Google point-of-interest functionality but simply doesn’t make good use of screen space and has done away with many of the peripheral buttons.

TRD Off-Road, Hybrid XSE, Plug-in Hybrid XSE, and all Limited models come with a 10.5-inch system. Limited models also include a 12.3-inch reconfigurable gauge display. 

Amenities-wise, these two models are on about equal ground. Breaking into the middle trims, both models can be had with a power liftgate, wireless device charging, heated rear outboard seats, and large sunroof layouts. The RAV4 offers a head-up display in top-spec versions. One odd omission on the CR-V is satellite radio, which is missing on all but EX-L and Sport Touring versions.

Base RAV4 LE versions feel engineered to a cost point not unlike the Corolla, and that’s evident in trims and surfaces. There’s a huge difference in up-close trims and general cabin ambience stepping up to the XLE Premium, which gets faux-leather upholstery, a leather-wrapped wheel, and rear-seat vents, as well as available 11-speaker JBL sound. 

While the RAV4 does dress it up in its most expensive trims, the Honda CR-V feels more upscale even in its budget-minded form, with better upholstery and a more refined look and feel throughout that extends to touch points, trims, and switchgear. 

Advantage: The Honda CR-V wins for ambience.

Which is better: CR-V or RAV4?

The Toyota RAV4 earns a TCC Rating of 6.5 out of 10, while the Honda CR-V earns a 7.0, buoyed by performance and comfort. (Read more about how we rate cars.) The Toyota RAV4 is offered in a wider range of specialized trims and missions (and including the sought-after, more expensive Plug-in Hybrid), and its hybrid system better suits its mission with all-wheel drive built into it. But the refinement, comfort, and poise of the CR-V win out and it simply feels like more vehicle for the money.

Winner: The Honda CR-V.