What’s the Best Affordable SUV of 2023?

If you’ve been shopping for a new SUV lately, you may be experiencing sticker shock. But don’t worry, it’s not you, it’s the car market: The average price of a new SUV listed on Cars.com was $48,818 in September 2023. That’s a lot of coin for most car shoppers to work into their budget, and it’s also 4.5% higher than it was the same time a year previously.

2023 Affordable SUV Challenge
Results | Winner

With prices also higher for other daily essentials like food and housing, it’s no wonder many families are keeping a close eye on their bottom line. If you’re shopping for a new car and are interested in an SUV, there are a number of smaller alternatives for around $30,000 you may want to consider to help keep a lid on your transportation expenses.

For this comparison test, we gathered six affordable SUVs, many of which are all-new or recently redesigned. Most of them were priced around $30,000, with one around $3,000 less than that mark and another around $3,000 more. Two had front-wheel drive (one of which is front-drive only), while the rest had all-wheel drive. We also had one gas-electric hybrid in a field otherwise filled with gas-only models.

Judges for this comparison were Managing Editor Joe Bruzek, Road Test Editor Brian Normile and News Editor Jennifer Geiger. To test these SUVs, our judges drove each of them back to back on the same drive loop and assessed overall driving performance, comfort, usability, interior quality and more. We also took the SUVs on a 200-mile drive route to measure real-world gas mileage and, separately, timed their acceleration (our goal in testing acceleration was not to find the sportiest SUV, but to quantify the huge spread in acceleration times between the quickest and slowest because the slow SUVs in this test were notably poky). We also measured each one’s cargo area, rated child-safety seat fitment, and scored safety features and value. Here’s how they finished after all the categories were added together:

1. 2024 Kia Seltos SX Turbo
2. 2024 Subaru Crosstrek Premium
3. 2024 Chevrolet Trax Activ
4. 2023 Honda HR-V EX-L
5. 2023 Volkswagen Taos SE
6. 2023 Toyota Corolla Cross Hybrid S

The following chart shows how the SUVs finished in the judged categories; for more details on each SUV’s standout qualities — as well as its shortcomings — check out the vehicle-specific sections below to see how they performed in the areas that matter most to you.

All of the categories were worth 30 points, except for driver-assist tech (15 points), real-world fuel economy (120) and value (180), with the latter two significantly higher in recognition of their importance to shoppers concerned with affordability both today and during their ownership of a vehicle. Each SUV’s subjective scores were also doubled to give greater weight in the overall tally to our judges’ impressions.

Related Video:

6. 2023 Toyota Corolla Cross Hybrid S, 585 points (out of a possible 1,095)

The verdict: Impressive gas mileage and quickness are the Corolla Cross Hybrid’s calling cards, but it feels like most of the money was spent on the drivetrain — to the detriment of other areas like ride comfort, seating comfort and cabin niceness.

Our Test Vehicle

• As-tested price: $29,305
• Powertrain: 196-horsepower gas-electric hybrid; continuously variable automatic transmission; AWD
• Observed fuel economy: 47.4 mpg
• Measured cargo space: 14.85 cubic feet
• 0-60 mph: 7.83 seconds
• Category wins: Real-world fuel economy, measured acceleration, driver-assist tech (tie)

Featuring a new gas-electric hybrid drivetrain with more power and significantly better gas mileage than the gas-only Corolla Cross, the Corolla Cross Hybrid excelled in both of these testing areas; its 47.4-mpg rating was far and away the best (it was the only hybrid in this test), and its performance in our 0-30 and 0-60 mph testing gave it the most points in our measured acceleration category. That was enough to give it the highest overall score in our objective tests, but it got the lowest score in our subjective tests, with our judges scoring it worst in seven of 11 categories.

The Good

• Fuel efficiency: Our observed fuel efficiency of 47.4 mpg was nearly 13 mpg better than the next-best Taos. This, along with the extra weighting we gave the real-world fuel economy category to better recognize the impact of gas mileage on ongoing affordability, resulted in one of the most significant point spreads we’ve seen in this category.
• Powertrain: Judges had a lot of praise for the Corolla Cross Hybrid’s drivetrain. “The Corolla Cross Hybrid was just as quick as the turbocharged Seltos, but with considerably better fuel economy,” Bruzek said. “There’s great responsiveness in power and passing at all speeds, with little to no acceleration delay.”
• Seating position: The Corolla Cross Hybrid is unapologetically an SUV, and that look gives it the type of view from the driver’s seat that some shoppers want. “Its upright, tall seating position is far more SUV-like than the more hatchback-like Trax and Crosstrek,” Bruzek said.

The Bad

• Ride quality: Even the base S trim level gets a sport-tuned suspension, but our judges weren’t thrilled with the resulting ride quality. “Its road manners need work,” Geiger said. “It has poor bump absorption and a jittery ride quality.” Normile described the ride as “incredibly busy.”
• Interior noise: Besides not riding well, it was also noisy inside. “It didn’t seem that the Corolla Cross Hybrid S had much in the way of sound-deadening material, and it was far and away the noisiest when driving,” Normile said.
• Brake pedal feel: While the hybrid drivetrain helped the Toyota’s efficiency and performance, it hurt it in other ways. “I’m used to hybrids having a vague and mushy brake pedal feel, but that doesn’t make it any less frustrating here,” Normile said.
• Materials quality: The Corolla Cross Hybrid’s interior quality was also deemed worst in the test. “With a bland design and cheap-feeling materials, especially the seat upholstery, it’s among the most low-rent of the bunch,” Geiger said. Normile had a similar take: “Please, Toyota: Have a little fun with your interiors. This one is rental-car basic and almost entirely boring black plastic.”
• Backseat space: Despite its upright shape, the design doesn’t benefit the backseat, as the Corolla Cross Hybrid’s score was significantly behind the others. “I had far less backseat room in the Toyota than in any other competitor, which was strange because all of the others do so much with so little,” Bruzek said. “This is the only vehicle here where I would make a mental note to either drive or call ‘shotgun,’” Normile said.
• Car-seat fitment: The small backseat had consequences for car-seat fitment, as the Toyota was in a last-place tie with the Trax and HR-V. “I was not able to comfortably (and safely) install a rear-facing car seat in the back and still have enough room for a front passenger,” Geiger said. “My knees were jammed into the glove box, which is both a comfort and safety issue.”
• Minimal cabin storage: A lack of storage space in the Corolla Cross Hybrid’s cabin had our judges stashing stuff wherever they could. “The lack of convenient in-cabin storage relative to others in this test led to a lot of emergency duty from the front cupholders and a lot of moving small items around whenever a beverage was added to the mix.” Normile said. Bruzek noted that “the storage cubby ahead of the gear selector isn’t big enough to fit a normal-sized iPhone in a case.”

Research the 2023 Toyota Corolla Cross | Search Inventory | Car Seat Check

5. 2023 Volkswagen Taos SE, 676 points

The verdict: The Taos’ spacious interior offers room for occupants and cargo alike, and its turbocharged drivetrain does an admirable job delivering both power and efficiency. The rest of the driving experience, however, is less praiseworthy.

Our Test Vehicle

• As-tested price: $30,220
• Powertrain: 158-hp, turbocharged 1.5-liter four-cylinder engine; eight-speed automatic transmission; FWD
• Observed fuel economy: 34.7 mpg
• Measured cargo space: 17.51 cubic feet
• 0-60 mph: 8.51 seconds
• Category wins: Rear-seat comfort, cargo volume (tie), driver-assist tech (tie)

The Volkswagen Taos’ fifth-place finish warrants additional explanation, as our fifth-, fourth- and third-place finishers were separated by just 6 points after all the scores were tallied, so with 1,095 total points possible, the Taos was just 7 points away from third place. While it notched a single win in the judges’ categories for its rear-seat comfort and tied with the Seltos for the highest cargo score, it was middle-of-the-road in most of the other categories.

The Good

• Backseat space, versatility: The Taos’ spacious interior was a highlight for our judges — particularly its backseat. “The backseat is comfortable, one of the larger ones in the class, and has features such as air vents and a USB-C outlet,” Bruzek said. Geiger praised the seat’s versatility, courtesy of its “flip-down center armrest that doubles as a cargo pass-through for transporting long, narrow items.”
• Cargo space: The interior space story continues behind the backseat; with 17.51 cubic feet of measured cargo space, the Taos had the most of any of the SUVs in this test, though the Seltos (17.44 cubic feet) was a close second.
• Balanced efficiency and performance: The Taos was the most efficient of the gas-only SUVs in the test with observed fuel economy of 34.7 mpg, but you don’t pay much of a performance penalty for this efficiency. “The Taos is on the quicker side of the test group, with a welcome responsiveness that’s lacking in many others, both off the line and midrange,” Geiger said.
• Multilevel heated steering wheel: In a comparison where heated steering wheels were rare (the Trax was the only other vehicle that had one), the Taos not only has one, but it also includes adjustable temperature settings.

The Bad

• Infotainment system: The VW’s infotainment system was knocked not just for dated graphics, but also for some odd usability issues. “The infotainment system has a tuning knob, but it only tunes for the AM/FM radio and is useless for satellite radio tuning,” Geiger said. “The graphics look dated and low-quality, and there was noticeable lag,” Normile said.
• Ride firmness: The Taos’ ride quality wasn’t the worst in the test, but it was near the bottom. “The Taos had a busy and overly firm ride quality,” Normile said. Bruzek, meanwhile, said “it was really busy, with frequent and harsh impacts.”
• Front storage: The Taos also doesn’t have a lot of space for stuff in the first row, and its score for in-cabin storage was only ahead of the lowest-rated Corolla Cross Hybrid. “The center console storage is very small, almost unusable,” Bruzek said.
• Manual climate control: Despite the aforementioned multilevel heated steering wheel, not all of the VW’s features are premium. The Taos was the only SUV in this test with manual climate control — all of the others had some type of automatic climate control.
• Highway tracking: The Taos’ handling performance was mid-pack, but one of our judges noted some odd behavior at highway speeds. “This FWD version tracked very strangely, almost wandering down the road, even with correct tire pressure,” Bruzek said.

Research the 2023 Volkswagen Taos | Search Inventory | Car Seat Check

4. 2023 Honda HR-V EX-L, 681 points

The verdict: The redesigned Honda HR-V’s interior quality and clever storage solutions impress, as do some of its driving-related qualities (such as steering and braking), but its powertrain has the dubious distinction of delivering the slowest acceleration in our test along with the second-worst fuel economy.

Our Test Vehicle

• As-tested price: $30,590
• Powertrain: 158-hp, 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine; CVT; AWD
• Observed fuel economy: 31.6 mpg
• Measured cargo space: 15.48 cubic feet
• 0-60 mph: 10.88 seconds
• Category wins: In-cabin storage, safety features (tie), driver-assist tech (tie)

The HR-V has been an innovative subcompact SUV thanks to its versatile second-row Magic Seat that offered a number of configurations, but it’s never been a particularly powerful SUV. The redesigned 2023 model isn’t particularly powerful, either, and it unfortunately loses the Magic Seat, instead getting a traditional second-row folding design. We were, however, impressed with the new HR-V’s in-cabin storage areas, and its overall score was just a point behind our third-place finisher, the Chevrolet Trax.

The Good

• Clever cabin storage: It’s not every day you see a console storage area like the HR-V offers, and the smart use of space earned the HR-V its lone category win from our judges. “The HR-V excelled with a nifty storage area underneath the gear selector, as well as the larger cubby under the climate controls that’s a little bigger than others,” Bruzek said.
• Steering feel: The HR-V’s steering was a highlight, with Normile praising the SUV’s “communicative steering and excellent body control.” The Honda’s handling score was a close second to that of the Seltos.
• Brake pedal feel: It was a similar story with the HR-V’s brakes, which earned praise but finished just a point behind the Crosstrek’s braking score. “The brakes on the HR-V are also excellent, with good pedal feel and linearity,” Normile said.
• Interior quality: Is there a theme here? Indeed, the HR-V’s cabin materials were lauded by our judges, but it came in a close second to the Seltos in this category, too. “There are soft-touch materials and good-looking trim and stitching,” Bruzek said. “This looks like a car that could easily be $10,000 more expensive than it is.” Geiger said the HR-V’s “honeycomb-mesh trim looks stylish and feels high-quality — not a combination you usually get from a budget SUV.”
• Visibility: The HR-V scored very well in terms of outward visibility and was also just 1 point behind the Crosstrek in this category. “Pushing back and thinning the A-pillars gives the HR-V excellent forward visibility,” Normile said. “And rear visibility was also excellent despite the ceiling-mounted middle seat belt.”
• Parking sensors: The HR-V was the only SUV in our test with parking sensors of any kind, featuring both rear and front sensors.

The Bad

• Weak powertrain: With a 10.88-second 0-60 time, the HR-V was the slowest SUV in our acceleration testing, and the sluggish performance was a clear pain point for our judges. “The HR-V is slower than an eighth grader walking to school, and it complains just as loudly,” Geiger said. Normile commented that “the CVT screams all the way to the redline when you really step on it,” while Bruzek deemed it “concerningly slow when trying to merge with traffic or pass on the highway.”
• Firm ride: It wasn’t rated the worst, but judges did call out the HR-V’s ride quality. “In regular driving, I found the HR-V’s ride unnecessarily firm,” Normile said. Bruzek called the Honda’s ride “brittle.”
• The Magic is gone: We’ve long been fans of the first-generation HR-V’s second-row Magic Seat, which offers a number of folding configurations to carry different types of cargo in the cabin, but this unique feature has been dropped.
• Touchscreen graphics: “The HR-V’s graphics look very dated, and there’s three different control types for the small screen, which looks busy,” Geiger said. Only the Taos’ screen and controls were judged worse.

Research the 2023 Honda HR-V | Search Inventory | Car Seat Check

3. 2024 Chevrolet Trax Activ, 682 points

The verdict: The redesigned 2024 Chevrolet Trax is bigger and more stylish than its predecessor, and it’s also packed with impressive screen technology. Its low as-tested price also made it one of the value leaders in this test.

Our Test Vehicle

• As-tested price: $26,540
• Powertrain: 137-hp, turbocharged 1.2-liter three-cylinder engine; six-speed automatic transmission; FWD
• Observed fuel economy:  34.1 mpg
• Measured cargo space:  13.58 cubic feet
• 0-60 mph:  9.51 seconds
• Category wins: Vehicle user interface, value (tie)

Chevrolet took a different approach with the redesign of its Trax small SUV, putting an emphasis on sleek exterior styling and upscale interior tech. It also didn’t see the need to offer AWD, as all Trax models have FWD. That might make some shoppers look elsewhere, but it does help the Trax have a low price; even in its uplevel Activ trim, the Trax was the least expensive vehicle in our test — and by a wide margin.

The Good

• Screen quality: All three of our judges praised the Trax’s screen technology, which consists of an 8-inch digital instrument panel and 11-inch touchscreen infotainment system. “The Trax has a lovely pair of screens with the most modern and crisp graphics in this test,” Normile said.
• Controls usability: What’s not part of the touchscreen can be as important as what is, and that was evident in the Trax in regard to its climate controls. “The clearly marked climate knobs and buttons keep things simple,” Geiger said.
• Interior storage areas: The Trax was second only to the HR-V in terms of in-cabin storage. Bruzek appreciated the large center console storage area while Geiger noted that “several handy cubbies are peppered throughout the front and backseats for stashing smaller stuff.”
• Value: A combination of a lowest-in-test price and a competitive set of comfort and convenience features helped make up for the Trax’s lack of AWD, resulting in a shared value win with the Seltos.

The Bad

• Visibility: The Trax’s sporty exterior styling has consequences when it comes to visibility, which was deemed worst of the six vehicles in this test. “The chopped roofline cuts down visibility and is more coupelike in how hard it is to see outward,” Bruzek said.
• Handling composure: The Trax’s handling didn’t match its sporty styling, with Geiger commenting on its “heavy, numb-feeling steering,” Normile noting that it “struggled for grip in more spirited driving,” and Bruzek calling out its “bland handling and unsettledness in corners.”
• Interior quality: There are elements of the Trax’s interior that look and feel upscale from the driver’s seat, but other areas of the interior don’t measure up as well, with Bruzek critical of the “hard plastics and drab textures and designs.”
• Driver-assist tech: A lack of lane-centering steering — a feature all other SUVs in this test had — was the reason the Trax had the lowest score for driver-assist tech.

Research the 2024 Chevrolet Trax | Search Inventory | Car Seat Check

2. 2024 Subaru Crosstrek Premium, 714 points

The verdict: The redesigned Subaru Crosstrek coddles occupants with its cushy ride and comfortable front seats. It’s also good for the smallest passengers, as it was the lone SUV in this test to earn a perfect score in our Car Seat Check.

Our Test Vehicle

• As-tested price: $29,685
• Powertrain: 152-hp, 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine; CVT; AWD
• Observed fuel economy: 33.6 mpg
• Measured cargo space: 12.69 cubic feet
• 0-60 mph: 10.5 seconds
• Category wins: Front-seat comfort, visibility, braking, ride quality, Car Seat Check, driver-assist tech (tie)

Earlier versions of the Crosstrek have done well in our previous Challenges, and so it has this time around. It follows a similar formula as its immediate predecessor, with standard AWD and familiar styling. It’s also just as practical as ever thanks to good comfort, visibility and safety features.

The Good

• Ride comfort: In a test where ride quality was more frequently a negative than a positive, the Crosstrek’s cushy ride stood out; the next-best-scored Seltos was significantly behind it. “The Crosstrek was by far the most adept at soaking up highway miles with a gentle ride quality that not only rode softly, but bumps were absorbed by the suspension versus being transmitted to the cabin,” Bruzek said.
• Front-seat comfort: The Crosstrek’s front seats also contributed to the comfort-focused experience and were scored the best by our judges. “The Crosstrek’s front seats are lovely and by far the comfiest of the bunch; they’re cushy and supportive, and I could be happy in them all day,” Geiger said.
• Visibility: The Crosstrek’s silhouette is similar to the Trax’s, but the Subaru has much better visibility despite its sleek lines. “Great outward visibility makes the Crosstrek an excellent choice for both trail and city driving,” Normile said.
• Backseat space: The Crosstrek’s score for rear-seat comfort was a bit behind the top-rated Taos, but it still earned praise. “The backseat is extremely generous for this class,” Bruzek said. “I could sit behind myself perfectly fine with plenty of headroom.”
• Car-seat accommodations: The Crosstrek was the only SUV in our test to get a perfect score in this category, making it worth a look for shoppers who have small children in tow. The Subaru aced our Car Seat Check thanks to easy-access Latch anchors and ample legroom for two car seats — even space-hogging rear-facing ones.
• Adaptive headlights: Adaptive headlights can better illuminate the road by swiveling side to side as the steering wheel turns, and the Crosstrek was the only SUV here with this safety feature.

The Bad

• Poky acceleration: The Crosstrek wasn’t quite as slow as the HR-V, but with a 10.5-second 0-60 time, it wasn’t much better than it. “The entry-level 2.0-liter’s poky acceleration requires being mindful of how fast cars are approaching because they’re often rapidly closing the gap the Crosstrek can fit into,” Bruzek said. A more powerful engine is available, but only on more expensive Sport, Limited and Wilderness trim levels.
• Handling: Handling can suffer in vehicles with cushy suspensions, and that was evident in the Crosstrek, which scored only slightly better than the worst-rated Trax for handing. “A comfortable ride also means sloppy handling when things get twisty, with lots of body roll and minimal steering communication,” Normile said.
• Interior noise: Judges also faulted the Crosstrek for its noisiness, particularly calling out its powertrain, wind and tire noise.
• Sensitive safety features: The Subaru’s level of safety and driver-assist features is competitive, but when these systems are too nagging, they can leave the driver looking for the off switch. “The lane departure steering assist system seemed too sensitive during my test, and turning it off required a deep dive into the screen’s menus,” Geiger said.
• Sunglasses concerns: While the Crosstrek’s vertically oriented 11.6-inch touchscreen infotainment system drew praise for its responsiveness, it was dinged for its viewability. “Some of the screen wasn’t visible while wearing polarized sunglasses,” Bruzek said. “Be sure to bring your shades on a test drive to see if your glasses are also an issue.”
• Small backup camera view: Despite the large infotainment screen, the backup camera view doesn’t benefit, with Geiger calling it “comically tiny.”

Research the 2024 Subaru Crosstrek | Search Inventory | Car Seat Check

1. 2024 Kia Seltos SX Turbo, 781 points

The verdict: With impressive performance from its turbocharged engine, a spacious cargo area and a premium interior, the refreshed 2024 Seltos is a well-rounded subcompact SUV with few shortcomings.

Our Test Vehicle

• As-tested price: $33,085
• Powertrain: 195-hp, turbocharged 1.6-liter four-cylinder engine; eight-speed automatic transmission; AWD
• Observed fuel economy: 28.4 mpg
• Measured cargo space: 17.44 cubic feet
• 0-60 mph: 7.82 seconds
• Category wins: Powertrain, handling, interior quality, quietness, value (tie), cargo volume (tie), driver-assist tech (tie), safety features (tie)

In addition to its upscale interior, the Seltos had a number of comfort and convenience features that weren’t present in any of the other SUVs we tested, including ventilated front seats, a reclining rear seatback and a hands-free power liftgate. The Seltos was the most expensive SUV here, but its features for the money balanced out its as-tested price in our scoring formula, resulting in a tie with the Trax in our value assessment.

The Good

• Powertrain performance, refinement: Not only is the Seltos quick, with the lowest 0-60 time, but its engine and transmission work well together. “The turbocharged engine is among the quickest here, and the eight-speed automatic shifts confidently and competently,” Normile said.
• Interior ambiance and materials: You pay more for the Seltos, but one of the tangible benefits is its upscale interior. “For this class, the interior is jaw-droppingly beautiful,” Bruzek said. “Especially the color combination in our test car with its brown interior color package.”
• Interior quietness: “It manages wind and road noise considerably better than others in the test,” Bruzek said.
• Screen technology: “The Seltos’ screens aren’t quite as nice as the Chevy’s but are still among the best executed, especially in this segment,” Normile said. Only the Trax scored higher for screens and controls.
• Value: The Seltos’ tie with the Trax for value might seem strange given their significant price differences, but our value score takes into account both pricing and features, and the Seltos is packed with features. It also has the most generous warranty of the SUVs here with five-year/60,000-mile bumper-to-bumper and 10-year/100,000-mile powertrain coverage.

The Bad

• Gas mileage: The penalty for the Seltos’ power comes at the pump; we observed 28.4 mpg during our real-world fuel economy test. While this is better than the SUV’s EPA estimate of 26 mpg combined, it made the Kia the least fuel-efficient SUV in our test and more than 3 mpg less efficient than the next worst HR-V. The Seltos’ SX trim only comes with the turbocharged engine, while a more efficient naturally aspirated engine comes on LX, S and EX versions.
• No wireless Apple CarPlay, Android Auto: For all its upscale convenience features, our Seltos was still missing wireless CarPlay and Android Auto — connectivity that was in all the other SUVs in this test.
• Car-seat challenges: The Kia lost points on its Car Seat Check for a few reasons. “The Seltos earned lower grades than some others due to Latch anchors that are not exposed and a lack of legroom for rear-facing car seats,” Geiger said.

Research the 2024 Kia Seltos | Search Inventory | Car Seat Check

Cars.com’s Editorial department is your source for automotive news and reviews. In line with Cars.com’s long-standing ethics policy, editors and reviewers don’t accept gifts or free trips from automakers. The Editorial department is independent of Cars.com’s advertising, sales and sponsored content departments.