Falken Azenis FK520 vs Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
The headline tension is this: the PS72 is usually the quicker, more confidence-inspiring tire in objective and subjective handling (dry and often wet), and it's frequently the better value buy. The FK520, however, can be a “specialist”-notably strong in certain braking and aquaplaning measures depending on the test, while also being consistently quieter and lower in rolling resistance, with better wear in the Autobild dataset.
Test Results
Independent comparison tire tests are the best source of data to get tire information from, and the good news is there have been four tests which compare both tires directly!
| Tire | Test Wins | Performance |
|---|---|---|
| Falken Azenis FK520 | one | |
| Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 | three |
While it might look like the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 is better than the Falken Azenis FK520 purely based on the higher number of test wins, tires are very complicated objects which means where one tire is better than the other can be more important in real world use.
Let's look at how the two tires compare across multiple tire test categories.
Key Strengths
- NVH/comfort advantage: consistently lower external noise (e.g., 72.0 vs 74.1 dB in Autobild; 71.3 vs 72.9 dB in the SUV test)
- Efficiency advantage: lower rolling resistance across shared tests (7.35 vs 7.62 kg/t in SUV; 7.71 vs 8.15 kg/t in Autobild)
- Stronger wear/longevity indicators in Autobild (52,080 km vs 48,230 km; lower abrasion 1305 g vs 1605 g)
- Can deliver standout straight-line safety in specific tests: best-in-test dry braking in the SUV test (32.5 m) and better wet braking there (51.3 m)
- More consistent overall competitiveness and higher placements (e.g., 6/20 Autobild; 4/50 braking test; 6/9 SUV test)
- Stronger handling performance and driver confidence signals (faster dry handling in multiple tests; much higher subjective dry handling in Autobild: 8.0 vs 5.3 points)
- Better combined braking performance in the 245/45 R19 datasets (34.4 vs 35.3 m dry; 27.1 vs 27.8 m wet in the braking super test)
- Value edge: among the cheapest in tests and wins Autobild value metric (12.44 vs 12.86 price/1000)
Dry Braking
Looking at data from three tire tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during one dry braking tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 stopped the vehicle in 0.09% less distance than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Dry Braking: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Dry Braking winner was calculated >>
Dry Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from two tire tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during two dry handling [km/h] tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was 1.81% faster around a lap than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Dry Handling [Km/H]: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Subj. Dry Handling
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one subj. dry handling tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 scored 33.75% more points than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Subj. Dry Handling: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Subj. Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Braking
Looking at data from three tire tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during one wet braking tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 stopped the vehicle in 1.14% less distance than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Wet Braking: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Wet Braking winner was calculated >>
Wet Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from two tire tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during two wet handling [km/h] tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was 0.83% faster around a wet lap than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Wet Handling [Km/H]: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Subj. Wet Handling
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one subj. wet handling tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 scored 16.09% more points than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Subj. Wet Handling: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Subj. Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Circle
Looking at data from two tire tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one wet circle tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was 0.84% faster around a wet circle than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Wet Circle: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Wet Circle winner was calculated >>
Straight Aqua
Looking at data from two tire tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one straight aqua tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 floated at a 0.62% higher speed than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Straight Aqua: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Straight Aqua winner was calculated >>
Curved Aquaplaning
Looking at data from two tire tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during two curved aquaplaning tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 slipped out at a 6.16% higher speed than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Curved Aquaplaning: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Curved Aquaplaning winner was calculated >>
Gravel Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one gravel handling [km/h] tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was 0.94% faster around a lap than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Gravel Handling [Km/H]: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Gravel Handling winner was calculated >>
Gravel Traction
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one gravel traction tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 had 8.09% better traction on gravel than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Gravel Traction: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Gravel Traction winner was calculated >>
Sand Traction
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during one sand traction tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 had 6.52% better traction in sand than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Sand Traction: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Sand Traction winner was calculated >>
Grass Traction
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during one grass traction tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 had 2.78% better traction on grass than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Grass Traction: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Grass Traction winner was calculated >>
Subj. Comfort
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 and Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 performed equally well in subj. comfort tests.
Best In Subj. Comfort: Both tires performed equally well
See how the Subj. Comfort winner was calculated >>
Noise
Looking at data from two tire tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during two noise tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 measured 2.52% quieter than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Noise: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Noise winner was calculated >>
Wear
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during one wear tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 is predicted to cover 7.39% miles before reaching 1.6mm than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Wear: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Wear winner was calculated >>
Value
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one value tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 proved to have a 3.27% better value based on price/1000km than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Value: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Value winner was calculated >>
Rolling Resistance
Looking at data from two tire tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during two rolling resistance tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 had a 4.56% lower rolling resistance than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Rolling Resistance: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Rolling Resistance winner was calculated >>
Abrasion
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during one abrasion tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 lost 18.69% less particle wear matter than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Abrasion: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Abrasion winner was calculated >>
Real World Driver Reviews
Falken Azenis FK520 Driver Reviews
Drivers report the Falken Azenis FK520 delivers excellent dry grip, very strong wet braking/traction, and predictable, progressive handling, while remaining comfortable and relatively quiet. Value for money is a standout, with several users comparing its performance favorably to premium brands, and wear generally viewed as good for a UHP tire. A minority note that steering precision/feedback isn't as sharp as top-tier UUHP options, and it's not the best choice for track days or prolonged hard driving due to some heat fade. Overall sentiment is strongly positive given the performance-to-price ratio.
Based on 38 reviews with an average rating of 83%
Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 Driver Reviews
Drivers generally report the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 as a highly grippy, confidence-inspiring tire with strong wet and dry performance, good braking and stable, predictable handling at speed. Many also highlight excellent value versus premium rivals, often describing performance close to top-tier tires for much less money. The main recurring complaint is highway-speed vibration (often linked to balancing or possible out-of-round tires), with a smaller set noting it can be a bit noisier or firmer than some competitors.
Based on 24 reviews with an average rating of 84%
They are not loud, but wouldn't they are necessarily quiet. You can hear them a bit depending on the road surface and speed.
Didn’t drive them too much in the rain, but seem to hold pretty well in wet conditions.
Mounted them in march this year and after 10-15k km I don’t see any major wear, but I would have to abstain on this one until I get them properly... Continue reading this review using the link below
Conclusion
The Falken Azenis FK520's case is more nuanced: it can be very strong under braking in certain conditions (shortest dry braking in the SUV test at 32.5 m; also better wet braking there at 51.3 vs 54.4 m), and it brings tangible ownership benefits-lower noise (71.3 vs 72.9 dB in the SUV test; 72.0 vs 74.1 dB in Autobild), lower rolling resistance (7.35 vs 7.62 kg/t in SUV; 7.71 vs 8.15 kg/t in Autobild), and better projected wear (52,080 vs 48,230 km in Autobild). But its recurring critique is dynamic precision: multiple reports mention vague/delayed turn-in and weaker side guidance, and the ACE test notes wet-circuit insecurity (under/oversteer, reduced lateral grip) despite impressive curve aquaplaning capability.
Practical takeaway: choose the PS72 if you want the more “sport tire” feel and a stronger chance of top-half test results at a keen price. Choose the FK520 if you prioritize quieter cruising, efficiency and mileage, and you're comfortable trading away some steering sharpness-while noting that wet-cornering confidence can be more variable than its best individual metrics suggest.
Key Differences
- Handling character: PS72 is repeatedly faster and better-rated for steering/handling (e.g., 104.6 vs 102.4 km/h dry handling in SUV; subjective dry 8.0 vs 5.3 in Autobild), while FK520 is often described as vague/delayed on turn-in with weaker side guidance
- Braking story depends on test context: FK520 wins decisively in the SUV test braking (32.5 vs 34.4 m dry; 51.3 vs 54.4 m wet), but PS72 is better in the 245/45 R19 braking datasets (34.4 vs 35.3 m dry; 27.1 vs 27.8 m wet)
- Wet cornering confidence: PS72 tends to edge objective wet handling (82.6 vs 81.3 km/h Autobild; 86.5 vs 86.4 km/h SUV), while FK520's ACE report highlights insecurity on the wet circuit despite strong aquaplaning metrics
- Aquaplaning balance: PS72 leads curved aquaplaning in the SUV test (2.40 vs 2.18 m/s²), while FK520's best single highlight is ACE curve aquaplaning threshold (10/10; 71.5 km/h, highest in that test)
- Ownership/comfort economics: FK520 is quieter and more efficient (lower dB and rolling resistance in both shared datasets), and shows longer wear in Autobild-benefits that show up in daily running costs
- Price/value positioning: PS72 is consistently framed as a budget-friendly performance option (cheapest in the SUV test; second-cheapest in ACE; wins Autobild value), whereas FK520 sits more mid-pack on value despite good mileage
Overall Winner: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
Based on the tire test data and user reviews we have in our database, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 has demonstrated better overall performance in this comparison. However, as you can see from the spider diagram above, each tire has its own strengths which should be considered in your final tire buying choice.Similar Comparisons
Looking for more tire comparisons? Here are other direct comparisons involving these tires:
Falken Azenis FK520 Top Comparisons
No other comparisons available for this tire.
Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 Top Comparisons
No other comparisons available for this tire.
Footnote
This page has been developed using tire industry testing best practices. This means we are only comparing tests which have had both tires in the same test.
Why is this important? Tire testing is heavily affected by things like surface grip levels and surface temperature, which means you can only compare values from the same day. During a tire test external condition changes are calculated into the overall results, but it is not possible to calculate this between tire tests performed on different days or at different locations.
As a result you will see other tests on Tire Reviews which feature both the %s and %s, but as they weren't conducted on the same day, the results are not comparable.
Lots of other websites do this sort of tire comparison, Tire Reviews doesn't.