πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ This site covers US vehicles data and is intended for US audiences.

Hyundai Tucson vs Subaru Crosstrek

Two compact SUVs compared on the numbers that matter β€” maintenance cost, reliability, and insurance.

Buy the Hyundai Tucson to minimise 5-year ownership cost.
Buy the Subaru Crosstrek if long-term reliability matters most.

Maintenance and ownership cost

Hyundai TucsonSubaru Crosstrek
Annual maintenance$426winner$492
5-year total cost$2,130winner$2,460
Reliability score8 / 109 / 10winner
Major repair risk (5yr)12%7%winner
Cargo space80.3 cu ftwinner54.7 cu ft
Starting price (new)$31,300$27,600winner
Best years to buy20202021

Which is more reliable?

Hyundai TucsonSubaru Crosstrek
RepairPal score8 / 109 / 10winner
NHTSA complaints / 100k297.7β€”
Years to avoid2011, 2012, 20162018, 2019, 2023
Value retained Β· 3 yr76.3%90.5%winner
Value retained Β· 5 yr57.7%71.2%winner
Value retained Β· 7 yr47.3%59.5%winner

What breaks β€” and what it costs

Hyundai TucsonSubaru Crosstrek
Engine38.3%10.7%winner
Electrical6.0%winner10.1%
ADAS10.5%10.4%winner
Brakes8.9%1.6%winner
Suspensionβ€”winner1.0%
Steering0.9%winner3.1%
Fuel system2.8%β€”winner
Tires/Wheels0.8%winner2.2%
Glass/Windows1.4%winner33.0%
Airbags1.4%winner1.4%
Lighting1.0%winner2.5%

One major repair on either model can run $1,500–4,000. A warranty caps your exposure, especially on known problem years.

Which is cheaper to insure?

Hyundai TucsonSubaru Crosstrek
Avg annual premium$1,975$1,968winner

Common questions

The Tucson averages $426/year in maintenance β€” $95 below the compact segment average of $521. Repair frequency of 26% is below the class average of 30%. Major repair probability of 12% is slightly above the 11% segment average. On balance, it's a below-average cost ownership with a near-average repair risk profile.
How we calculated this. Maintenance costs and reliability scores from RepairPal. Complaints and recalls from NHTSA. Fuel economy from the EPA. Insurance averages from CarEdge. Pricing from KBB. Depreciation from iSeeCars. Full methodology β†’