What's the Best Compact SUV of 2023?

Hardly a day goes by without some type of electric-vehicle-related announcement. There’s such a firehose of news that it can be hard to keep up. But while EVs might be parked in driveways in the future, it’s traditional gasoline-powered compact SUVs that many car buyers are driving home today — so much so that many familiar nameplates are the sales leaders of their respective brands.

It’s a class that continues to evolve, too, with a mix of all-new, redesigned and significantly refreshed models in the last year alone. That made it time to bring some of the most popular models together again to see which one is the top of the class.

2023 Compact SUV Challenge
Results | Winner | How We Tested

For this comparison, we tested six compact SUVs: the refreshed 2023 Ford Escape, the redesigned 2023 Honda CR-V, the 2022 Hyundai Tucson, the redesigned 2023 Kia Sportage, the all-new Mazda CX-50 and the 2023 Nissan Rogue. Though Hyundai was unable to provide a 2023 Tucson in time for our comparison, the 2022 Limited version tested here is largely representative of 2023s now on dealer lots. We also invited Toyota to participate, but the automaker didn’t have a RAV4 to send us that would meet our test requirements: top gas-powered trim levels with all-wheel drive.

Judges for this comparison were Senior Research Editor Damon Bell, Detroit Bureau Chief Aaron Bragman and Road Test Editor Brian Normile. The six SUVs were put through a battery of tests: The judges drove each of them on the same evaluation loop, took them on a 300-plus-mile fuel economy test to determine real-world road-trip fuel economy, measured each one’s cargo area, checked child-safety seat fitment, assessed safety and driver-assist features, and rated their value for the money. Here’s how they finished:

1. 2023 Nissan Rogue Platinum
2. 2023 Kia Sportage X-Pro Prestige
3. 2022 Hyundai Tucson Limited
4. 2023 Honda CR-V EX-L
5. 2023 Mazda CX-50 2.5 Turbo Premium Plus
6. 2023 Ford Escape ST-Line Elite

The below chart shows how the SUVs performed in each category; for more details on where each SUV excelled — and where it came up short — check out the vehicle-specific sections in the rest of this article. All of the categories were worth 30 points, except for driver-assist tech and as-tested value, which were worth 15 and 60 points, respectively.

Related Video:

6. 2023 Ford Escape ST-Line Elite, 482 points (out of a possible 855)

The verdict: Deemed one of two performance-oriented models in this test, the Escape’s powerful (and efficient) turbocharged engine and sporty handling couldn’t overcome its shortcomings in more practical categories.

Our Test Vehicle

• As-tested price: $43,650
• Powertrain: 250-horsepower, turbocharged 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine; eight-speed automatic transmission; AWD
• Observed fuel economy: 31 mpg, 1st place
• Measured cargo space: 15.05 cubic feet, 6th place
• Category wins: Real-world fuel economy, driver-assist tech (tied with four others)  

The Escape was one of the smaller SUVs in this comparison test, and this came through in the scoring results, where it received the lowest or near-lowest scores in things like front- and rear-seat comfort and cargo volume. And despite being the most expensive SUV in this comparison, its interior quality was deemed the worst. All in all, these shortcomings were too much for the Escape’s impressive powertrain and handling to overcome.

The Good

• Powertrain: The Escape’s 250-hp, turbo four-cylinder was one of the most powerful engines in our test, and it showed. “The turbo 2.0-liter EcoBoost is dynamite, with plenty of acceleration on tap at all speeds, and makes the Escape genuinely fun to drive,” Bragman said. “The turbo 2.0-liter engine delivers invigorating power,” Bell added.
• Fuel efficiency: Considering the Escape’s impressive acceleration and highest engine output of the six SUVs in this test, we were a bit surprised by how efficient it was on our real-world fuel economy drive; its 31.1-mpg average topped all the other competitors, with the second-best Rogue averaging 29.3 mpg.
• Handling: The Escape was behind the CX-50 in the handling category, but the judges still had praise for the Ford. “The Escape has some of the sportiest handling, making it especially enjoyable on twisty mountain roads,” Normile said. “The Escape’s slightly more carlike profile pays dividends in its handling,” Bell added. “Save for the CX-50, the Escape was the most nimble of the group, and it didn’t seem to mind being pushed a bit in the twisties.”
• Dashboard touchscreen: Judges were impressed with the quality of the Escape’s newly available 13.2-inch dashboard touchscreen, less so by some of the controls Ford decided to put in it. “Ford’s latest multimedia system is large, easy to use and reconfigurable in useful ways,” Bragman said. “Its position high on the dash makes it easy to see, as well.” Bell agreed: “The feature-rich infotainment system has a generously sized touchscreen, outstanding map graphics and an impressively sharp, clear backup camera and 360-degree camera display.”
• Sliding backseat: We always like to see versatility in SUVs, and the Escape was the only model in this test with a sliding rear seat that could move about 6 inches.

The Bad

• Ride quality: The CX-50 received the lowest ride quality marks from the judges, but the Escape wasn’t much better. “You pay for the sprightly handling with mediocre ride quality,” Bragman said. “It vibrates and giggles over even mildly uneven pavement, and bigger craters are painful to hit.”
• Interior quality: The Escape received the lowest interior quality score from the judges, and it was also the lowest score the Ford got in any of the categories. “Even in ST-Line Elite trim with the upgraded leather upholstery of the $1,910 Premium Technology Package, the Escape’s interior ambiance is disappointing,” Bell said. “Lots of monotone black, and the cargo area in particular shows obvious signs of cost cutting.” Added Normile: “Interior materials quality was among the worst of the bunch, with hard plastic throughout.”
• Seat comfort: Judges weren’t fans of the Ford’s seats, either. “I’m not sure what makes the relationship between my butt and Ford seats such a love-hate one,” Normile said. “But the front ‘sport bucket’ seats and rear seats in this Escape felt rock hard to me, leaving me sitting on them instead of in them.” Front-seat comfort was rated lowest of the group, with rear-seat comfort rated just above the lowest-scored CX-50.
• Controls: The Escape’s updated dashboard sees more controls migrate to the touchscreen, to the detriment of usability. “Too many functions — including some frequently accessed climate controls — are absorbed into the touchscreen, making them tedious to access and use,” Bell said. Normile was more pointed: “The control layout is a mess, with most climate controls within the Sync 4 touch display and a single row of physical buttons encompassing such a wide variety of functions in no logical order.”
• Cargo space: With just 15.05 cubic feet of Cars.com-measured cargo space behind the backseat, the Escape’s cargo area was the smallest of the bunch — around 3 cubic feet smaller than the next-smallest cargo area in the CX-50.
• Low-tech head-up display: A head-up display is a useful feature when done well, but it’s not done well in the Escape. “The folding, old-school head-up display looks cheap and was distracting to use,” Normile said. “After experimenting with it, I preferred leaving it off and out of sight.”

Research the 2023 Ford Escape | Search Inventory | Car Seat Check

5. 2023 Mazda CX-50 2.5 Turbo Premium Plus, 509 points

The verdict: With impressive interior quality, engine performance and handling, the all-new Mazda CX-50 does some things very well, but these are overshadowed by poor executions of its user interface, ride quality and in-cabin storage, to name just a few. As one editor put it, the CX-50 is a real Jekyll-and-Hyde vehicle.

Our Test Vehicle

• As-tested price: $43,170
• Powertrain: 256-hp, turbocharged 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine; six-speed automatic transmission; AWD
• Observed fuel economy: 27 mpg, 4th place
• Measured cargo space: 18.1 cubic feet, 5th place
• Category wins: Interior quality, powertrain, braking, handling, safety features (tied with two others)

Even though Mazda has pitched the all-new 2023 CX-50 as an off-road-ready compact SUV, it really seems designed for on-road performance, which it excelled at in our testing. The CX-50’s many practical shortcomings, however, dragged down its subjective scores, and combined with the lowest overall score in our objective tests, the CX-50 finished just above the Escape.

The Good

• Powertrain: All three judges were impressed with the CX-50’s available turbo 2.5-liter powertrain, which received a rare perfect score. Along with the Escape, “this is the other sports car of the group, with an outstanding powertrain that feels genuinely quick and entertaining,” Bragman said. Normile concurred: “The turbocharged 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine has gobs of power and minimal lagginess, giving the CX-50 a feeling of quickness that exceeds ‘quick for a compact SUV’ and extends into ‘properly quick.’” Bell also praised the CX-50’s exhaust note, saying it “rises to a satisfying, exotic-sounding growl when you dip deeply into the throttle.”
• Handling: Like its powertrain score, the CX-50’s handling score was well above the competition, with judges particularly complimentary of the Mazda’s steering feel. “Mazda continues to nail steering feel here, with direct and communicative steering that works in concert with the CX-50’s excellent handling to make it a true canyon carver,” Normile said. “The CX-50’s handling is at the top of its class,” Bell added. “The steering is especially laudable: quick and communicative, but with a buttery-smooth feel.”
• Interior quality: Not only were judges impressed with the way the CX-50 drove, they also liked the premium feel of its interior. “Interior materials quality is outstanding, with high-quality materials covering nearly every surface and upscale (and physical!) climate and audio controls,” Normile said. “I’m not always sold on Mazda’s efforts to position its vehicles as more premium than mass-market, but the CX-50 is a success.” Bragman agreed, saying “the interior borders on luxury-level quality.”

The Bad

• Ride quality: The trade-off for great handling is oftentimes a less comfortable ride, and that came through in the CX-50’s worst-in-test ride quality score. “For all its handling chops, the CX-50 is the most brutal of this bunch when it comes to daily driving ride quality,” Normile said. “Its 20-inch wheels thwack potholes, seams and the ever-present crack filler found on California roads.”
• Rear-seat comfort: The CX-50’s backseat also scored worst-in-test, just behind the Escape and well behind the other four SUVs in our test. “Backseat legroom and headroom are both subpar, making one wonder how such a big vehicle can have such poor second-row space,” Bragman said. The CX-50 was also the only SUV in the test without a reclining rear backrest.
• User interface: The Mazda’s cabin controls did it no favors, either, with a score that was well below every other SUV. The SUV’s multimedia controls drew the most ire. “Mazda, I am begging you to stop with the terrible central display that only works as a touchscreen in Apple CarPlay and Android Auto — and then only when stopped,” Normile said. “Trying to clumsily navigate the screen with the knob controller while driving always feels fraught and unsafe.” Bragman agreed, saying the multimedia system is “ill-conceived, poorly executed, unnecessarily distracting and difficult to use.”
• Visibility: The CX-50 had worst-in-test outward visibility, too. “The low driving position, high beltline and wide stance make you feel like you’re driving a tank,” Bragman said. Normile added that the “low roof and smaller raked windscreens make it the most difficult to see out of in this test.”
• Driver-assist tech: All of the other high-trim competitors in this test aced our driver-assist tech assessment except the CX-50, which lost points for its lack of high-speed lane-centering steering assistance.
• Child-safety seat fitment: Installing an infant child-safety seat required moving the front passenger seat forward, limiting legroom for taller front passengers. The top tether anchors are also buried in carpet, making them harder to reach.
• Cargo space: With 18.1 cubic feet of cargo room, the CX-50’s cargo area was only bigger than the Escape’s.

Research the 2023 Mazda CX-50 | Search Inventory | Car Seat Check

4. 2023 Honda CR-V EX-L, 575 points

The verdict: Described variously as well rounded and easy to use, the redesigned Honda CR-V’s mostly middle-of-the-road scores weren’t enough to elevate it in this group of six, and its lowest-in-test price didn’t offset its comparative lack of features.

Our Test Vehicle

• As-tested price: $36,900
• Powertrain: 190-hp, turbocharged 1.5-liter four-cylinder engine; continuously variable automatic transmission; AWD
• Observed fuel economy: 28.7 mpg, 3rd place
• Measured cargo space: 23.62 cubic feet, 1st place
• Category wins: Cargo volume, driver-assist tech (tied with four others)

The CR-V performed well in many of our subjective tests and was often competitive even though it didn’t have any outright wins in the categories the judges scored — though it came close. However, Honda’s strategy of reserving the best-equipped trim levels for models with the gas-electric hybrid drivetrain hurt the CR-V in this test of gas-only SUVs; the EX-L trim offers decent equipment, but it lacks some of the safety and convenience technology seen on the other SUVs here.

The Good

• Cargo space: With 23.62 cubic feet of cargo room, the CR-V’s cargo area was the largest in this test — larger by around a couple of cubic feet than the Sportage’s next-biggest cargo area. “The cargo floor is low and wide, with pockets on either side that look perfectly sized for milk jugs,” Bell said.
• Rear-seat comfort: The CR-V’s rear-seat comfort came in just a point behind the category-winning Sportage. “Rear-seat space is among the best in the class, helped by seatbacks that recline far back,” Bell said.
• Fuel efficiency: The CR-V’s observed fuel economy of 28.7 mpg was good enough for third best in this group and was very close — 0.6 mpg — to the second-best Rogue.

The Bad

• User interface: Though it avoided the dismal rating of the CX-50’s multimedia system, the CR-V’s system didn’t exactly win any fans. “It’s kind of amazing that this is still the best multimedia that Honda can manage for this high-volume model,” Bragman said. “It’s barely better than what it’s served up for years now; the screen is too small, and the graphics and functions look two generations behind the Korean brands’ systems.” Normile and Bell both called the system “dated.”
• Safety features: The CR-V was the only SUV in this test without a 360-degree camera system, which was a contributing factor in its safety features score that trailed others.
• Value: You might think that the CR-V’s lowest-in-test price would give it an edge in this category, and though it did get the most points available for the pricing component of the score, its lack of features — no panoramic moonroof, no heated steering wheel, no rear USB ports, no heated rear seats — contributed to a score that was only a point better than the lowest-scoring Escape.

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

3. 2022 Hyundai Tucson Limited, 582 points

The verdict: Though the Tucson didn’t distinguish itself in any of our subjective tests, with scores that were not the best but also not the worst in most cases, it shone in our objective categories thanks to a perfect child-safety seat score and a high level of features for the money.

Our Test Vehicle

• As-tested price: $37,454
• Powertrain: 187-hp, 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine; eight-speed automatic transmission; AWD
• Observed fuel economy: 25.4 mpg, 6th place
• Measured cargo space: 21.5 cubic feet, 3rd place
• Category wins: Value, child-safety seats, driver-assist tech (tied with four others), safety features (tied with two others)  

Hyundai is known for delivering a lot of car — and features — for the money, and the Tucson shows why the brand has this reputation; it offers a distinctive design, impressive tech features and lots of safety equipment. However, the SUV’s powertrain, which was the least efficient in our real-world fuel economy test, is the Tucson’s weakest area.

The Good

• Child-safety seat fitment: A combination of accessible Latch anchors and top tethers, plus good front-passenger legroom with either an infant or rear-facing convertible seat installed, elevated the Tucson’s child-safety seat scores above the other SUVs here.
• Value: The Tucson was one of the less expensive SUVs in this test, but it was still loaded with features — just like the most expensive models. It even had some features some of the others lacked, like ventilated front seats.
• Rear-seat comfort: Our judges deemed the Tucson’s rear-seat comfort only 2 points behind the top-rated Sportage. “Backseat comfort is good, with adequate legroom and headroom, despite the panoramic moonroof,” Bragman said.
• Digital instrument panel: “Hyundai and Kia both do an excellent job of capitalizing on the potential of a digital gauge cluster with thoughtful features like the pop-up wiper-speed indicator and the right- and left-side blind spot camera displays,” Bell said.
• Warranty: Like the Sportage, the Tucson’s bumper-to-bumper warranty coverage of five years/60,000 miles and powertrain coverage of 10 years/100,000 miles is longer on both counts than any of the other SUVs in this test.

The Bad

• Powertrain: Tied with the Sportage for the worst powertrain score, the Tucson’s engine and transmission combination didn’t impress our judges. “The Tucson feels underpowered — this base powertrain doesn’t provide as much grunt as other competitors’,” Bragman said. “Adding to the feeling of inadequate power is a transmission that feels slow to kick down, and then shifts hard when it finally decides to.”
• Fuel efficiency: With an observed fuel economy of 25.4 mpg, the Tucson’s real-world gas mileage was well behind the leading Escape — by nearly 6 mpg — at the end of our drive route.
• User interface: “The insistence on touch-sensitive interior controls, a push-button gear selector that saves no space over a conventional lever, and a number of controls for things like the differential lock and drive mode selection angled away from the driver’s eyes are deeply confusing choices to me,” Normile said. Bragman added that the “lack of a volume knob is a deal killer.”
• Handling: “Impacts are overly harsh, and body movements aren’t well controlled,” Normile said. “Combined with one of the weaker powertrains here, the Tucson struggles to keep up in spirited driving.”
• Sensitive parking sensors: While we like having front and rear parking sensors to supplement camera views, the Hyundai’s were oddly sensitive. “The Tucson’s hair-trigger proximity sensors frequently went off for no reason in city driving, giving false alarms shortly after I came to a stop in traffic,” Bell said.
• No Wireless Apple CarPlay, Android Auto: In a strange twist of features packaging, lower Tucson trim levels with the 8-inch touchscreen multimedia system have wireless smartphone connectivity, but the top Limited trim with the 10.25-inch touchscreen doesn’t, instead getting wired-only CarPlay and Android Auto.

Research the 2022 Hyundai Tucson | Search Inventory | Car Seat Check

2. 2023 Kia Sportage X-Pro Prestige, 616 points

The verdict: Arriving in X-Pro Prestige guise, the redesigned Kia Sportage was the most off-road-oriented SUV in this comparison, which had both pros and cons in our on-road-focused testing. However, its overall comfort, roominess, car-seat accommodations and value helped propel it to a second-place finish.

Our Test Vehicle

• As-tested price: $38,815
• Powertrain: 187-hp, 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine; eight-speed automatic transmission; AWD
• Observed fuel economy: 26.3 mpg, 5th place
• Measured cargo space: 21.9 cubic feet, 2nd place
• Category wins: Front seats, rear seats, vehicle user interface (tied with one other), ride quality, driver-assist tech (tied with four others), safety features (tied with two others)  

From its first and second rows of seats to the way it rides, the Sportage delivers impressive comfort. Our judges were less impressed with other aspects of the driving experience, however, as the Sportage was dinged for its powertrain, braking feel, handling and quietness. But good scores for measured cargo volume, car-seat fitment, and safety and convenience features were enough to overcome its lackluster driving-related scores.

The Good

• Ride quality: The Kia had the smallest wheels and tallest-sidewall tires in the test, a combination that contributed to its best-in-test ride quality. “The Sportage’s 17-inch wheels and large off-road tires make driving over bumps and potholes a breeze,” Normile said.
• Seat comfort: Not only were the Kia’s front seats deemed most comfortable, but so was its rear seat. “I found the Sportage’s seats among the most comfortable in the test, with excellent cushioning and a nice, wide base up front,” Normile said. Added Bell: “The Sportage’s backseat space is among the best of this group; at 6 feet, 6 inches tall, I can sit behind myself in the driver’s seat in relative comfort.”
• User interface: Though not perfect, the Kia’s screens and controls were good enough for a first-place tie with the Rogue. “The Sportage’s dual 12.3-inch displays are among the best in this test, and the graphics and interface excel,” Normile said. “What holds it back from being best in class is Kia’s cost-saving, dual-purpose climate and audio controls that require switching between the two to use the available and welcome physical knobs.”
• Details, details: “I love the thoughtful convenience features in the Sportage’s interior,” Bell said. “The molded-in handles on the leading edge of the front-door armrests are easy for me to grab, the retractable cupholder dividers can be retracted to create an open console bin for other small items, and the backseat USB charge ports are smartly placed on the inboard side of the front seatbacks.”
• Cargo space: The Sportage’s 21.9 cubic feet of cargo volume behind the backseat was second only to the CR-V.
• Warranty: The Sportage’s five-year/60,000-mile bumper-to-bumper and 10-year/100,000-mile powertrain warranty coverage mirrors the Tucson’s and is longer than what the other SUVs in this test offer.

The Bad

• Powertrain: None of the judges were impressed with the Sportage’s powertrain, which was tied with the Tucson’s for worst in the test. “The adequate-at-best powertrain means the Sportage is out of its element when roads curve and elevations change,” Normile said. “Power delivery is linear, but there’s just not a lot there.” Bragman noted “the powertrain is the weakest link — underpowered, overstressed, with a slow-to-kick-down transmission and a decided lack of grunt.”
• Braking confidence: There were also issues with stopping the Sportage. “I think the Sportage also brakes less confidently than the Tucson, likely because of its tires,” Normile said. Bragman added: “Initial brake travel doesn’t do much stopping; you need to put your leg into it to bring the Sportage to a stop, which isn’t very confidence-inspiring.”
• Handling: Fitted with tires featuring a tread pattern meant to handle off-pavement driving, perhaps it’s little surprising that the Sportage had the lowest-rated handling of the group. “The Sportage, like its Tucson cousin, struggles in spirited driving,” Normile said. “The steering feels disconnected, and the tires sometimes struggle for grip on pavement.” Bell added that the “17-inch BFGoodrich Trail Terrain T/A tires cause a bit more road noise and make the Sportage a bit less nimble in fast corners.”
• Quietness: “An unfortunate but not unexpected consequence of the Sportage’s off-road tires is increased road noise,” Normile said. “It’s more prevalent at highway speeds, which makes the prospect of a road trip seem more tiresome than if it had traditional street tires.” The Sportage was tied with the Escape for the lowest score in this category.
• Fuel efficiency: The Sportage’s observed gas mileage bested the Tucson, which has a similar drivetrain, but its 26.3 mpg was still less than all the other SUVs.

Research the 2023 Kia Sportage | Search Inventory | Car Seat Check

1. 2023 Nissan Rogue Platinum, 665 points

The verdict: A winner in a handful of categories, competitive in others and with no outright losses, the Nissan Rogue is a well-rounded SUV that should serve different types of compact SUV shoppers very well.

Our Test Vehicle

• As-tested price: $43,100
• Powertrain: 201-hp, turbocharged 1.5-liter three-cylinder engine; CVT; AWD
• Observed fuel economy: 29.3 mpg, 2nd place
• Measured cargo space: 19.21 cubic feet, 4th place
• Category wins: Vehicle user interface (tied with one other), in-cabin storage, visibility, quietness, driver-assist tech (tied with four others)

The key to the Rogue’s win was consistently strong performance across our various tests, with no serious stumbles to speak of. Regardless of whether it was a judges’ assessment or a features-based score, the Rogue did well.

The Good

• User interface: Judges were impressed with both the 12-inch digital instrument panel and the 9-inch touchscreen multimedia system in the Rogue. “The multimedia system is modern and easy to use, and the gauge cluster exhibits a good bit of the reconfigurability and artistry that Hyundai and Kia seem to have mastered,” Bragman said.
• In-cabin storage: The Rogue “outpaces all the other SUVs here with excellent interior storage, including a front cargo pass-through under the center console,” Normile said.
• Visibility: “The Rogue’s exceptionally airy cabin is a huge plus for me,” Bell said. “I have headroom for days, and the tall windows and thin windshield pillars make for a wonderfully panoramic view from the driver’s seat.”
• Seat comfort: Just behind the Sportage in both front- and rear-seat comfort, the Rogue’s cabin is a comfortable place to be. “Front-seat comfort and visibility are excellent, with a driving position that’s not too high, not too low, and a control layout that keeps things in easy reach,” Bragman said. Bell also noted how the Rogue’s “rear door openings are generously sized, and the doors themselves open a full 90 degrees, which makes it easier to fit kids and car seats.”
• Interior quality: “The interior is very well appointed, with top quality materials, excellent build quality and a welcome lack of touch-sensitive controls,” Bragman said. “Nissan has stuck with buttons, and we salute them for it.” Only the CX-50 was ahead of the Rogue in this category.
• Fuel efficiency: The Rogue was the only SUV with a three-cylinder engine, and it was surprisingly powerful and offered good efficiency — 29.3 mpg — on our real-world fuel economy drive. Only the Escape was more efficient.
• Upscale amenities: The Rogue was one of the more expensive SUVs in this test, but it had rear-seat climate controls and rear sunshades — features the other SUVs didn’t have.

The Bad

• Ride quality: “The ride quality is surprisingly poor,” Bragman said. “It bounces and vibrates almost as badly as the Mazda and Ford despite not having the athletic handling or fancy wheels and tires as an excuse.”
• Handling: “Handling is the Rogue’s worst attribute,” Normile said. “Its comfort-oriented suspension setup is not meant for spirited driving.”
• Electronic gear selector woes: “While not the most frustrating design, the operation of the Rogue’s electronic gear selector feels vague, unsatisfying and cheap,” Normile said.
• Android Auto not wireless: Our Platinum trim had wireless Apple CarPlay, but Android Auto is wired-only.

Research the 2023 Nissan Rogue | 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.