As a long time owner of a CX-5 I tend to agree with yrwei.
The CX-5 was definitely not the most reliable vehicle I owned, though not terrible. While, unlike yrwei I don't cringe at the introduction of cylinder deactivation as an engineering mistake, I do see multiple reasons why I would be considering other vehicles, if I would to buy now.
Keeping in mind that C&D tend to prefer more power when possible, but since many would not be buying the 2.5T, it would be more interesting to compare naturally aspirated engines from both. It also sounds like C&D liked the interior refinement of the CX-5, most of which is available only on higher trims only. For people like me, which do not care too much about the latter but would prefer better fuel economy and better handling, the RAV-4 (and CR-V) are a better choice. In fact, I was surprised how much better the RAV-4 has become (finally!).
At the time I purchased the CX-5, I also test drove the RAV-4. At the time, the CX-5 was clearly better in handling, weight, fuel-economy and the RAV-4 was just good enough.
Now, the CX-5 still has the same fuel-economy, more weight and the RAV-4 has surpassed it in almost everything, except engine noise and wind noise. Similarly, the CR-V.
You may claim the 1.5T has oil dilution issue, but it is likely resolved by now and it only affected small number of all CR-Vs anyway. It does have a CVT, so may be a deterrent for some, but Honda makes the best CVTs in the business and does provide MPG advantage. Get a RAV-4 with traditional 8 speed, if its critical for you.
Bottom line, the competition has improved significantly while the CX-5 improved only in interior refinement and availability of an engine which is N/A for many.
For many, it will not be a good enough reason to get a CX-5.