In regards to the Edmunds comparo, the way they handled this review makes it look like they don't know what they are talking about or they have a hidden agenda (read make Toyota a winner regardless).
One example is the Features ranking. They give RAV4 the edge because it had a "Lockable 4WD". Obviously, they don't know how the 4WD system works in the RAV4 which is similar to theOutlander. The Lock button on the RAV4 does the same as the Lock position on the Outlander's ****. However, the Outlander in fact would have the advantage as the "Lock" does not disengage automatically above 25 mph like in the RAV4. It's true, the torque sent to the rear decreases with the speed, but it's not canceled.
Because of the LOCK button and "HillAssist" the RAV4 is considered the "off-roader" of the group. LOL!!!
They fail to consider that the Outlander has one more inch of ground clearance, the underbody is nice and clean (the RAV4's exhaust pipe is hangingover the rear suspension) and it has the ASC OFF option which RAV4 doesn't (people overat rav4world.com were complaining about getting stuck in few inches of snow because of that).
Also, if you compare the track numbers in this comproto their own numbers in the Outlander's Full Test, you will notice thedifferences. In this comparo they clock 0-60 mph to 9.0 sec. which is the worst time published by any review. The difference from 8.1-8.3 sec for 0-60 mph posted by any other magazine (Edmunds included) to 9.0 sec. is too fishy.... Same goes for the braking distance, slalom speed and lateral acceleration.
They don't even mention the upscale features we all know that are not available in the other vehicles, never mind the RAV4 which suffers from the lack of features. Plus, a base XLS with S&Sis enough to better the RAV4 V6 4WD Ltd in terms of features for thousands less.
My conclusion: Edmunds comparo stinks.

 

But oh, least we should forget, the third row seat is not so comfy, and the rear looks "busy", so that makes the Outlander last in the comparo.

Again, never bite the hand that feeds you. Toyota RAV-4 wins, but if the enthusiasts were to be asked, they liked the Outlander.

 

To the point: it looks like Nissan spent more money than Honda. I was expecting this comparo to conclude Rav4, CRV, Rogue and Outlander, but the Rogue is a new model and must have a bigger budget for its launch.

 

Toyota's only real advantage in my eyes is the nearly 50 extra horses while still pulling out a couple more MPGs.

Other than that, I think they're ugly, and the interior feels cheap (I never understood why Toyota gets mentioned for interior quality)

 

I would like to see an outlander and rav4 run heads up in the 1/4. To get a real life result not some test guys results.I think with the 3.0 V6 with the 6speed behind it, that it could take the lighterRav4 with 50 more HP. Hp isn't always whatmatters in a drag race. Plus the test that they show have the outlander spinning or chirping big time off the line. Doesn't anyone know how to put it in awd to launch and then throw it in 2 wheel drive line a sky line?

 

I'm pretty sure any way you cut it, a V6 rav 4 will be faster in a straight line. Their 3.5l is a nice engine and very strong. That is not to say it is in any way more fun to drive. Toyota and "sporty" don't really go hand-in-hand. Smooth and quiet, toyota does well, sporty-not so much. The outlander is a very well put together package and is being sold at MSRP around here. The Rav4 in 4cyl trim comes closer in price and that one is a lot slower. It also has far fewer features for the money. CRV is underpowered and funny looking. I wouldn't consider a chrysler if they paid me.