Falken Azenis FK520 vs Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
- TR Score
- 9.1/10
- Owners say
- 82% · 55
- TR Score
- 9.2/10
- Owners say
- 84% · 41
In the 4 independent tests that ran both tires, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 finished ahead 3 times and the Azenis FK520 once. The Azenis FK520 had 4.5% lower rolling resistance; the Ecsta Sport PS72 held 7% more grip in curved aquaplaning.
Data updated
Which should you buy?
Pick the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 if you want the sharper, more dynamically convincing max-performance summer tire with strong overall test results and standout value. Pick the Falken Azenis FK520 if your priorities are lower noise, lower rolling resistance, and better wear-while accepting that steering precision and wet-cornering confidence can be its limiting factors compared with the Kumho.
Where the Azenis FK520 is stronger
- 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)
Where the Ecsta Sport PS72 is stronger
- 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)
The bullet points are analysis of the shared tests and of owner reviews; the measured wins in each discipline are in the tables below. Where the two disagree, the figures are right.
Azenis FK520 vs Ecsta Sport PS72 at a glance
| Category | Azenis FK520 | Gap | Ecsta Sport PS72 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shared tests won4 shared tests | 1 | 3 | |
| Dry6 measurements | 1 | The Ecsta Sport PS72 averaged a 1.8% higher speed on the dry handling course (2 tests) | 5 |
| Wet12 measurements | 3 | The Ecsta Sport PS72 held 7% more grip in curved aquaplaning (2 tests) | 9 |
| Off road4 measurements | 2 | Level between the two. | 2 |
| Comfort3 measurements | 2 | The Azenis FK520 was 1.9 dB quieter (2 tests) | 0 |
| Value4 measurements | 4 | The Azenis FK520 had 4.5% lower rolling resistance (2 tests) | 0 |
| Tire Reviews Scoreevery test and review we hold | 9.1/10 | The Ecsta Sport PS72 by 0.1 | 9.2/10 |
| Owner rating55 and 41 reviews | 82% | The Ecsta Sport PS72 by 2 points | 84% |
| Would buy againshare of owners | 76% | The Ecsta Sport PS72 by 6 points | 82% |
| Pricein the 2 tests that listed prices | +10.8% | The Azenis FK520 was dearer in 2 of 2 | Cheaper |
| Sizes madeEU label registrations | 133 | 73 sizes made in both | 86 |
Wins count every measurement the shared tests recorded for both tires; a tick marks the tire ahead on that line. Subjective driver scores count as wins but are never averaged, because each test uses its own scale.
Head to head in 4 tests in 2026
Each row is one published test in which both tires ran on the same car, in the same size, on the same day. The line is the whole field, winner on the left.
| Test | Azenis FK520 | Field | Ecsta Sport PS72 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 Summer SUV Tire Test | P8 of 9 | P6 of 9 | |
| 2026 Autobild Summer Tire Test | P13 of 20 | P6 of 20 | |
| 2026 Summer Braking Super Tire Test - How do 52 Tires Perform in Wet and Dry Braking? | P14 of 50 | P4 of 50 | |
| 2026 ACE Summer Tire Test | P4 of 10 | P7 of 10 |
Performance profile
9 measurements from the 4 shared tests, each tire shown as its share of the better figure in every test.
Where each is furthest ahead
Azenis FK520
Ecsta Sport PS72
Point at or tap any spoke for both tires' figures.
In each test the better of the two figures counts as 100% and the other as its share of it, so a 118 ft stop against 112 ft is 95%; each spoke averages the shared tests that recorded it. The scale stops at 97%: a point further in sits on the hub's edge, hollow. 9 measurements recorded in only one shared test are left off; every measurement is in the table further down.
Where each scores higher
Azenis FK520
Ecsta Sport PS72
Point at or tap any spoke for both tires' figures.
Category scores are percentiles among tires of the same season and class: 90 means this tire out-performs 90% of them, measured across every test we hold, not only the ones it appeared in.
Where owners rate each higher
Azenis FK520
Ecsta Sport PS72
Point at or tap any spoke for both tires' figures.
Owners rate the Azenis FK520 82% from 55 reviews and the Ecsta Sport PS72 84% from 41. Each spoke is one question owners answer out of 10; reviews are vetted by hand before publication.
Every measurement, side by side
Averages of the figures both tires posted in the same tests. The gap is the average of each test's own gap, so figures from different cars and years are never mixed. Open a discipline for its measurements, and a measurement for every test's figure.
| Measurement | Azenis FK520 | Gap | Ecsta Sport PS72 | Wins | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 113 | 0.1% | 113 | 1-2 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 62.4 | 1.8% | 63.6 | 0-2 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| scored | 50.9% | scored | 0-1 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 134 | 0.3% | 135 | 1-2 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 52.1 | 0.9% | 52.5 | 0-2 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| scored | 19.2% | scored | 0-1 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 17.85 | 1.1% | 17.7 | 1-1 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 55 | 0.7% | 55.3 | 1-1 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 9 | 7% | 9.6 | 0-2 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 39.3 | 0.9% | 39.6 | 0-1 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 2,233 | 8.8% | 2,430 | 0-1 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 2,410 | 7% | 2,252 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 598 | 2.9% | 581 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| scored | = | scored | 0-0 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 71.65 | 1.9 dB | 73.5 | 2-0 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 32,361 | 8% | 29,969 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 7.53 | 4.5% | 7.89 | 2-0 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 1,305 | 18.7% | 1,605 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Braking distances and lap times are better when lower; speeds, wear and grip figures when higher. A test's figures are its own: sizes, cars, surfaces and temperatures differ from one to the next, which is why the averages here are only ever of tests the two tires shared. "Scored" rows are subjective driver ratings: each test uses its own scale, so only the wins are counted.
Scores beyond the shared tests
On the Tire Reviews Score, which weighs every test and review we hold, the Azenis FK520 scores 9.1 and the Ecsta Sport PS72 9.2 out of 10.
| Azenis FK520 | Category | Ecsta Sport PS72 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 90 | Dry | 92 | ||
| 83 | Wet | 88 | ||
| 57 | Comfort | 35 | ||
| 54 | Value | 49 | ||
Category scores are percentiles among tires of the same season and class: 90 means this tire out-performs 90% of them, measured across every test we hold, not only the ones it appeared in.
What owners say
| Azenis FK520 | Category | Ecsta Sport PS72 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8.8 | Dry Grip | 9 | ||
| 8.3 | Wet Grip | 8.8 | ||
| 7.9 | Road Feedback | 8.6 | ||
| 8.4 | Handling | 8.6 | ||
| 7.7 | Wear | 8.3 | ||
| 8.1 | Comfort | 7.7 | ||
Owners rate the Azenis FK520 82% from 55 reviews and the Ecsta Sport PS72 84% from 41. Reviews are vetted by hand before publication; ownership is not verified.
Falken Azenis FK520
- 82%from 55 reviews
- 76%would buy again
- 403,489 milesdriven by reviewers
Owners generally rate the Falken Azenis FK520 highly (average 79.6%), most often praising its strong dry grip and capable wet grip for the money. Comfort and refinement also come through well, with many describing it as quiet and compliant for a UHP-style tire, and around one in five explicitly calling it great value. The main recurring drawbacks are mixed steering feel (some find it sharp, others a bit numb) and a smaller but notable group reporting vibration/balance issues; wet handling is also more divided than outright wet grip.
- Strong dry grip, comparable to premium brands
- Reassuring wet grip
- Comfortable ride despite sporty intent
- Low road noise on motorway speeds
- Occasional vibration or balancing issues at speed
- Steering feel can be a bit numb or lacking feedback
- Wet handling feels less confidence-inspiring for some
Summarised by AI from 49 vetted reviews; the reviews themselves are on the tire page.
All 55 Azenis FK520 reviewsFalken Azenis fk520 have been a great tire, noise level is not intrusive and they give a good return on fuel economy. These tires are very progressive and give good feed back. Having watched a back to back comparison with the Michelin PS4, the Falkens are punching way above their price range. If you want near PS4 performance at kumho prices, you won't go far wrong...will definitely try out the latest incarnation, Falken azenis R820 when the fk520's are done.
Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
- 84%from 41 reviews
- 82%would buy again
- 160,312 milesdriven by reviewers
Owners rate the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 highly overall (average 81.6%), most often praising its strong value for money and genuinely impressive dry performance, with confident handling and high-speed stability. Wet grip also comes through as a notable strength for around a third of reviewers, helping it feel safe and predictable in poor weather. Comfort and road noise are generally seen as good for a performance tire, though a smaller but meaningful group find it noisier or less refined than expected. The main recurring downside is vibration or balancing/out-of-round issues mentioned by around one in six owners, with tread life only getting mixed, limited commentary so far.
- Excellent value for money versus premium rivals
- Strong dry grip with lots of confidence
- Sharp, capable dry handling through corners
- Stable and planted at motorway/high speeds
- Vibration/balancing or out-of-round issues at speed
- Can be noisy on some surfaces or at higher speeds
- Tread life concerns from a minority (seems to wear quickly for some)
Summarised by AI from 38 vetted reviews; the reviews themselves are on the tire page.
All 41 Ecsta Sport PS72 reviewsBought them to replace Hankook ventus prime 4 (Touring type of tires), did a bunch of research before buying, they were really cheap ! So i bought them, you notice the difference in handling and cornering immediately, yes they are UHP and they deliver on that, not that the hankook's were inferior but the Kumhos are a different experience during fast cornering. I drive mainly on mountain passes, they stick like glue on the tarmac they hold well on the wet, haven't drove hard yet on really heavy rain but they seem to do great, no aquaplaning as of now. Sidewalls are not hard as a rock but they aren't soft, they don't deform during cornering, riding on them is nice and comfortable. The only negative as a first impression is this, went from a 68db tire to a 71db on the highway noise is significant worse with those Kumho, you can feel and hear every imperfection of the road, if you care about the noise buy the version with the foam inside I think they call it K version or something.
Sizes, EU label and lineage
From the EU label registrations for each tire: 133 sizes of the Azenis FK520 and 86 of the Ecsta Sport PS72, 73 of them made in both.
| Category | Azenis FK520 | Ecsta Sport PS72 |
|---|---|---|
| Season | Summer | Summer |
| Sizes made | 133 sizes, 17 to 22 inch | 86 sizes, 17 to 21 inch |
| Made in both | 73 sizes 205/45 R17205/50 R17215/40 R17215/45 R17225/45 R17225/50 R17225/55 R17235/45 R17235/55 R17235/65 R17245/40 R17245/45 R17and 61 more | |
| EU label wet grip | A95%B5% | A95%B5% |
| EU label rolling resistance | C68%A12%B12%D8% | C77%B10%A8%D5% |
| EU label noise | 68-72 dB B51%A49% | 70-74 dB B100% |
| Replaced | Falken Azenis FK510 (2016) | Kumho Ecsta PS91 |
| Awards | - | Winner: Summer Value Performer (17in and above) (WhatTire, 2026/27) |
| Price in the shared tests | The Azenis FK520 was the dearer tire in 2 of the 2 tests that listed prices, by 10.8% on average. Each test priced the tires in its own market at the time; only the gap is comparable. | |
Label grades are shown as the share of registered sizes carrying each grade, so "B (88%), C (12%)" means most sizes are B. Grades vary by size; check the label for yours.
Reading the results
Written from the test results and owner reviews above. It is analysis, not a measurement: where it and the tables disagree, the tables are right.
Falken's Azenis FK520 and Kumho's Ecsta Sport PS72 sit in the same “max-performance summer” space, but the shared 2026 test data paints two quite different personalities. Across four overlapping tests and multiple sizes (225/40 R18 to 255/45 R19), the Kumho tends to score better overall on balance and lap-time-style handling metrics, while the Falken repeatedly shows strengths in efficiency/comfort metrics and selected safety metrics like outright braking in some scenarios.
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.
Conclusion
Looking across the shared tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 is the more consistently competitive all-round performer in the categories that most drivers feel day-to-day-steering response, dry handling pace, and overall test placement (6/20 in Autobild; 4/50 in the braking-focused test; 6/9 in the SUV test). It also repeatedly leads on dry handling speed (e.g., 104.6 vs 102.4 km/h in the SUV test; 100 vs 98.5 km/h in Autobild) and is markedly stronger in subjective dry handling in Autobild (8.0 vs 5.3 points), supporting the idea that it delivers clearer feedback and more dependable cornering confidence.
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.
Azenis FK520 vs Ecsta Sport PS72: your questions
Is the Falken Azenis FK520 or the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 the better tire?
In the 4 independent tests that ran both tires, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 finished ahead 3 times and the Azenis FK520 once. On the Tire Reviews Score, which weighs every test and review we hold, the Azenis FK520 scores 9.1 and the Ecsta Sport PS72 9.2 out of 10.
Which is better in the wet, the Azenis FK520 or the Ecsta Sport PS72?
The Ecsta Sport PS72 led 9 of the 12 wet measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it held 7% more grip in curved aquaplaning across 2 tests.
Which is better in the dry?
The Ecsta Sport PS72 led 5 of the 6 dry measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it averaged a 1.8% higher speed on the dry handling course across 2 tests.
Which lasts longer and costs less to run?
The Azenis FK520 had 4.5% lower rolling resistance (2 tests). Owners rate wear 7.7/10 for the Azenis FK520 and 8.3/10 for the Ecsta Sport PS72.
Which is quieter and more comfortable?
The Azenis FK520 was 1.9 dB quieter (2 tests). Owners rate comfort 8.1/10 for the Azenis FK520 and 7.7/10 for the Ecsta Sport PS72.
What do owners say?
Owners rate the Azenis FK520 82% from 55 reviews and the Ecsta Sport PS72 84% from 41. 76% of Azenis FK520 owners would buy it again, against 82% for the Ecsta Sport PS72.
Which is more expensive?
In the 2 tests that listed prices, the Azenis FK520 was the dearer tire in 2 of them, by 10.8% on average. Prices are the test's own at the time, in its own market.
Are they available in the same sizes?
The Azenis FK520 is made in 133 sizes (17 to 22 inch) and the Ecsta Sport PS72 in 86 (17 to 21 inch). 73 sizes are available in both. On the EU label the Azenis FK520 is graded A for wet grip and C for rolling resistance in most sizes; the Ecsta Sport PS72 A and C.
More comparisons with these tires
vs
Hankook Ventus Evo vs Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
6-2 in 8 shared tests
vs
Continental SportContact 7 vs Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
1-2 in 3 shared tests
vs 
Falken Azenis FK520 vs Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
0-14 in 14 shared tests
vs 
Falken Azenis FK520 vs Michelin Pilot Sport 5
1-8 in 9 shared tests
vs
Bridgestone Potenza Sport vs Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
1-1 in 2 shared tests
vs
Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 vs Michelin Pilot Sport 5
3-3 in 6 shared tests
vs
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6 vs Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
2-2 in 4 shared tests
vs 
Falken Azenis FK520 vs Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
0-4 in 4 shared tests
Run either of these?
Your review is the part of this page no test can supply: how the tire wore, how it aged, what it was like in the rain in year three. It takes about five minutes.
Where this data comes from
Finishing positions and measurements are transcribed from each published test. A test only counts here when both tires ran in it, so every figure was recorded on the same car, size and day as the one it is compared to.
About the TR Score
The Tire Reviews Score rates each tire out of 10 from every independent test result and vetted owner review we hold, so two tires can be compared even before a test has run them together.
Who does the testing
Every test published as a Tire Reviews test is run by Jonathan Benson, who has been testing tires independently since 2007.
Discussion