I would get the Mazda. 

The Mazda CX-50 (naturally aspirated only - Mazda turbo SkyActive engines are a mess) and the CR-V are both new complex cars - I’d wait at least 2 years to see what issues they have.

but between the two, I definitely think the Mazda has the edge - even if it’s slightly underpowered and has questionable transmission shift logic, the powertrain is just not as refined as a RAV4.

Speaking of which, the RAV4 is a beast on all of its configurations - and in the last few years the new generation has proven to be durable and reliable.

(with the main issue being a cable corroding on the hybrid variant - but there are ways to avoid encountering that issue, and some transmission defects affecting the petrol variant - usually they pop up at low millage and result in whining, so far Toyota has been replacing affected trannies with new good ones)

Honda has ironed out the oil dilution problems with the 1.5-liter turbos for the past four years now and the CVTs in the CR-Vs are very reliable. It all boils down to how much you want to spend. A CR-V EX costs $34K whereas a CX-50 Premium Plus costs $4K more. I would get the Honda out of those two, but it is ultimately your decision and your money.

I like them both. If you asked me this a year ago, I’d say Mazda CX50. But Honda upped their game, inside and out, with the latest CRV. So it makes it a tough choice. 

All non-turbo Mazda cx-50 have cylinder deactivation, and so far there is no way to disable it. If you plan on keeping the car for 100k+ miles I would stay away from any car with cylinder deactivation.