Falken Azenis FK520 vs Vredestein Ultrac Pro
- TR Score
- 9.1/10
- Owners say
- 82% · 55
- TR Score
- 9.0/10
- Owners say
- 83% · 7
In the 6 independent tests that ran both tires, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro finished ahead 6 times and the Azenis FK520 not once. The Azenis FK520 lasted 21.1% longer in the wear tests; the Ultrac Pro lapped the wet handling course 2% faster.
Data updated
Which should you buy?
Choose the Vredestein Ultrac Pro if you want the better-rounded max-performance summer tire-particularly for wet-road confidence, predictable handling, lower noise, and strong aquaplaning safety. Choose the Falken Azenis FK520 if your priority is strong braking and best-in-class cost-per-kilometer (higher wear life/value), and you can accept less precise steering/handling feel when driving hard, especially in the wet.
Where the Azenis FK520 is stronger
- Strong braking performance trend (wins 4/6 in dry braking and 4/6 in wet braking; e.g., 27.8 m vs 28.8 m wet braking in the 50-tire test)
- Best-in-comparison wear/value efficiency (e.g., Autobild 52,080 km vs 42,100 km; ADAC 46,700 km vs 40,100 km; value metric wins in every reported test)
- Competitive efficiency metrics in several tests (often low rolling resistance / good fuel consumption, e.g., ADAC 5.6 vs 5.7 l/100 km)
Where the Ultrac Pro is stronger
- More complete, higher-scoring overall performance across shared tests (consistently better overall ranks; especially strong in the 2026 SUV test: 2/9 vs 8/9)
- Stronger handling, especially in the wet (wins wet handling in 4/4 appearances; better subjective wet handling where measured)
- Better refinement: consistently lower noise and often lower rolling resistance (SUV noise: 69.1 dB vs 71.3 dB; SUV rolling resistance: 6.92 vs 7.35 kg/t)
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 Ultrac Pro at a glance
| Category | Azenis FK520 | Gap | Ultrac Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shared tests won6 shared tests | 0 | 6 | |
| Dry12 measurements | 5 | The Ultrac Pro averaged a 1.6% higher speed on the dry handling course (2 tests) | 7 |
| Wet25 measurements | 9 | The Ultrac Pro lapped the wet handling course 2% faster (2 tests) | 16 |
| Off road4 measurements | 2 | Level between the two. | 2 |
| Comfort7 measurements | 2 | The Ultrac Pro was 1 dB quieter (4 tests) | 4 |
| Value11 measurements | 9 | The Azenis FK520 lasted 21.1% longer in the wear tests (3 tests) | 2 |
| Tire Reviews Scoreevery test and review we hold | 9.1/10 | The Azenis FK520 by 0.1 | 9.0/10 |
| Owner rating55 and 7 reviews | 82% | Too close to call | 83% |
| Would buy againshare of owners | 76% | The Azenis FK520 by 5 points | 71% |
| Pricein the 4 tests that listed prices | Cheaper | The Ultrac Pro was dearer in 3 of 4 | +2.1% |
| Sizes madeEU label registrations | 133 | 84 sizes made in both | 98 |
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 6 tests, 2024 to 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 | Ultrac Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 Summer SUV Tire Test | P8 of 9 | P2 of 9 | |
| 2026 Autobild Summer Tire Test | P13 of 20 | P9 of 20 | |
| 2026 Summer Braking Super Tire Test - How do 52 Tires Perform in Wet and Dry Braking? | P14 of 50 | P13 of 50 | |
| 2025 AZ Summer Tire Test | P8 of 10 | P6 of 10 | |
| 2025 ADAC Summer Tire Test | P8 of 18 | P5 of 18 | |
| 2024 EVO Summer Tire Test | P7 of 7 | P5 of 7 |
Performance profile
15 measurements from the 6 shared tests, each tire shown as its share of the better figure in every test.
Where each is furthest ahead
Azenis FK520
Ultrac Pro
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 92%: a point further in sits on the hub's edge, hollow. 10 measurements recorded in only one shared test are left off; every measurement is in the table further down.
Where each scores higher
Azenis FK520
Ultrac Pro
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
Ultrac Pro
Point at or tap any spoke for both tires' figures.
Owners rate the Azenis FK520 82% from 55 reviews and the Ultrac Pro 83% from 7. 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 | Ultrac Pro | Wins | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 113 | 1% | 114 | 4-2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 85.96 | 0.5% | 85.39 | 1-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 62.4 | 1.6% | 63.4 | 0-2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| scored | 38% | scored | 0-2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 129 | 0.5% | 129 | 4-2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 124 | 0.5% | 123 | 0-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 72.64 | 2% | 71.2 | 0-2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 52.1 | 1% | 52.6 | 0-2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| scored | 15.4% | scored | 0-2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 15.74 | = | 15.73 | 2-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 50 | 1.2% | 50.6 | 1-4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 63.7 | 3.7% | 61.4 | 2-2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 39.3 | 0.6% | 39.5 | 0-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2,233 | 0.7% | 2,249 | 0-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2,410 | 5.6% | 2,281 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 598 | 4.3% | 573 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| scored | 7.1% | scored | 1-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| scored | 11.9% | scored | 0-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 71 | 1 dB | 69.98 | 1-3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 28,745 | 21.1% | 23,757 | 3-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8.11 | 0.7% | 8.07 | 2-2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5.6 | 1.8% | 5.7 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 61.9 | 18% | 75.5 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1,305 | 19.3% | 1,617 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 0.1 | 10.9% | 0.11 | 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 Ultrac Pro 9 out of 10.
| Azenis FK520 | Category | Ultrac Pro | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 90 | Dry | 86 | ||
| 83 | Wet | 82 | ||
| 57 | Comfort | 80 | ||
| 54 | Value | 27 | ||
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 | Ultrac Pro | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8.8 | Dry Grip | 9.1 | ||
| 8.3 | Wet Grip | 8.9 | ||
| 7.9 | Road Feedback | 8.3 | ||
| 8.4 | Handling | 9 | ||
| 7.7 | Wear | 6 | ||
| 8.1 | Comfort | 8.1 | ||
Owners rate the Azenis FK520 82% from 55 reviews and the Ultrac Pro 83% from 7. 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.
Vredestein Ultrac Pro
- 83%from 7 reviews
- 71%would buy again
- 34,100 milesdriven by reviewers
Drivers largely praise the Vredestein Ultrac Pro for strong dry and wet grip, confident handling, and notably good ride comfort, with several noting premium feel and value. High-scoring reviews highlight short braking distances, stability, and decent wear for aggressive or heavy vehicles. A minority report concerns include poor performance in very cold (sub-5°C) conditions and one case of premature wear/delamination. Overall, the Ultrac Pro delivers balanced performance with comfort-focused tuning and attractive design.
- dry grip
- wet grip
- handling/steering feel
- ride comfort
- reduced grip in very cold temperatures
Summarised by AI from 6 vetted reviews; the reviews themselves are on the tire page.
All 7 Ultrac Pro reviewsI've had them for two summers and about 10k kms on a Ford Focus ST250. When I was buying them I was looking for good tires at a fair price and these were the newest model available at the time.
Dry: In the dry they have good traction, predictable handlings and good comfort for a UHP tire. Breakaway is communicated well and they don't surprise you out of nowhere. Lift of oversteer is easily achieved and controlled. They do wheelspin a bit in first gear if you are a bit more enthusiastic with the throttle but that's expected on a more powerful fwd car.
Wet: They have good and predictable grip in the wet, good aquaplaning resistance and stop quite well.
Others: Rim guard is somewhere in the middle, not as big as Bridgestone but better than Hankook. Sidewall design is good, comfort and noise are good for a uhp tire. Wear has also been good for me, I expect to change them due to age and not wear but then again I don't do that many miles a year.
It's a tire I like and would recommend. Price to performance is good. Would consider buying. I got their Wintrac Pro Plus to try this winter so I've been satisfied with Vredesteins as a whole.
Sizes, EU label and lineage
From the EU label registrations for each tire: 133 sizes of the Azenis FK520 and 98 of the Ultrac Pro, 84 of them made in both.
| Category | Azenis FK520 | Ultrac Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Season | Summer | Summer |
| Sizes made | 133 sizes, 17 to 22 inch | 98 sizes, 18 to 24 inch |
| Made in both | 84 sizes 205/40 R18215/35 R18225/35 R18225/40 R18225/45 R18235/40 R18235/45 R18245/35 R18245/40 R18245/45 R18255/35 R18255/40 R18and 72 more | |
| EU label wet grip | A95%B5% | A97%B3% |
| EU label rolling resistance | C68%A12%B12%D8% | C73%D18%B6%A3% |
| EU label noise | 68-72 dB B51%A49% | 69-73 dB B97%A3% |
| On the market since | - | 2024 |
| Replaced | Falken Azenis FK510 (2016) | Vredestein Ultrac Vorti+ (2020) |
| Price in the shared tests | The Ultrac Pro was the dearer tire in 3 of the 4 tests that listed prices, by 2.1% 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 Vredestein's Ultrac Pro sit in the same “max-performance summer” space, but the test data shows they go after that brief in very different ways. Across six shared professional tests (spanning 18-19 inch fitments and even an SUV-focused 255/45 R19 test), the Vredestein repeatedly lands higher overall thanks to its more complete handling and refinement package.
The FK520's story is more specialized: it frequently shines in outright stopping power and ownership metrics (wear/value), yet it's repeatedly marked down for steering precision and wet-cornering confidence. If you're choosing between them, the key question is whether you prioritize braking and longevity (Falken) or more rounded dynamic ability with lower noise and strong aquaplaning margins (Vredestein).
Conclusion
Looking at patterns across the tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro is the more consistently “good at everything” tire and the one that more often translates performance into a strong overall ranking (e.g., 2/9 vs 8/9 in the 2026 Summer SUV test; 9/20 vs 13/20 in Autobild; 5/18 vs 8/18 in ADAC; 5/7 vs 7/7 in EVO). Its biggest on-road advantages are repeatable handling performance-especially in the wet-plus refinement. It's repeatedly quieter (e.g., 69.1 dB vs 71.3 dB in the SUV test) and tends to post stronger aquaplaning limits (notably curved aquaplaning in the SUV test: 2.5 vs 2.18 m/s², +14.7% for Vredestein), while also delivering very low rolling resistance in at least one major test (SUV: 6.92 vs 7.35 kg/t).
The Falken Azenis FK520 counters with two practical, consumer-relevant strengths: braking and running costs. It wins dry braking in 4/6 shared tests (including a notable EVO margin: 33.4 m vs 35.1 m) and wet braking in 4/6 (e.g., 27.8 m vs 28.8 m in the 50-tire braking test). It also consistently projects longer life and better value (Autobild wear: 52,080 km vs 42,100 km; ADAC wear: 46,700 km vs 40,100 km; and value metrics favor Falken in all three tests reported). The trade-off is that multiple reports describe vague turn-in/delayed response and weaker side guidance, and the results back that up with the Vredestein's stronger wet handling across the board (FK520 wins 0/4 wet handling categories in the shared summary).
Practical takeaway: if you drive quickly on mixed roads and want the safer, more confidence-inspiring tire when it's wet-plus lower noise-the Ultrac Pro is the better all-round choice. If your priority is shorter braking distances and minimizing cost-per-kilometer (and you can accept less precision at the limit), the FK520 remains a compelling value/performance buy.
Azenis FK520 vs Ultrac Pro: your questions
Is the Falken Azenis FK520 or the Vredestein Ultrac Pro the better tire?
In the 6 independent tests that ran both tires, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro finished ahead 6 times and the Azenis FK520 not once. On the Tire Reviews Score, which weighs every test and review we hold, the Azenis FK520 scores 9.1 and the Ultrac Pro 9 out of 10.
Which is better in the wet, the Azenis FK520 or the Ultrac Pro?
The Ultrac Pro led 16 of the 25 wet measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it lapped the wet handling course 2% faster across 2 tests.
Which is better in the dry?
The Ultrac Pro led 7 of the 12 dry measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it averaged a 1.6% higher speed on the dry handling course across 2 tests.
Which lasts longer and costs less to run?
The Azenis FK520 lasted 21.1% longer in the wear tests (3 tests). Owners rate wear 7.7/10 for the Azenis FK520 and 6/10 for the Ultrac Pro.
Which is quieter and more comfortable?
The Ultrac Pro was 1 dB quieter (4 tests). Owners rate comfort 8.1/10 for the Azenis FK520 and 8.1/10 for the Ultrac Pro.
What do owners say?
Owners rate the Azenis FK520 82% from 55 reviews and the Ultrac Pro 83% from 7. 76% of Azenis FK520 owners would buy it again, against 71% for the Ultrac Pro.
Which is more expensive?
In the 4 tests that listed prices, the Ultrac Pro was the dearer tire in 3 of them, by 2.1% 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 Ultrac Pro in 98 (18 to 24 inch). 84 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 Ultrac Pro A and C.
More comparisons with these tires
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
Continental SportContact 7 vs Vredestein Ultrac Pro
7-0 in 7 shared tests
vs 
Falken Azenis FK520 vs Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
0-4 in 4 shared tests
vs
Bridgestone Turanza 6 vs Falken Azenis FK520
2-2 in 4 shared tests
vs
Continental SportContact 7 vs Falken Azenis FK520
9-0 in 9 shared tests
vs
Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S vs Vredestein Ultrac Pro
4-2 in 6 shared tests
vs 
Falken Azenis FK520 vs Hankook Ventus Evo
0-3 in 3 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