Falken Azenis FK520 vs Vredestein Ultrac
- TR Score
- 9.1/10
- Owners say
- 82% · 55
- TR Score
- 8.7/10
- Owners say
- 78% · 24
In the 2 independent tests that ran both tires, the Vredestein Ultrac finished ahead 1 times and the Azenis FK520 not once, with one level. The Azenis FK520 stopped 3.9% shorter in the dry; the Ultrac held 10.6% more grip in curved aquaplaning.
Data updated
Which should you buy?
Choose the Vredestein Ultrac for aquaplaning security, quieter running and the better result at Auto Motor und Sport; choose the Falken Azenis FK520 if dry braking is the priority, where it holds a 6.5 percent advantage.
Where the Azenis FK520 is stronger
- Shorter dry braking in both tests, 33.2m against 35.5m in 2025
- Shorter wet braking in the 2025 off road test, 48.4m against 50.8m
- Faster dry handling at Auto Motor und Sport and lower rolling resistance in 2025
Where the Ultrac is stronger
- Better curved aquaplaning in both tests, by 18.1 percent in 2025
- 3rd of 8 at Auto Motor und Sport against the Falken's 7th, with shorter wet braking there
- Quieter in both tests and better traction on sand, grass and gravel
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 at a glance
| Category | Azenis FK520 | Gap | Ultrac |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shared tests won2 shared tests | 0 | 1 level | 1 |
| Dry4 measurements | 4 | The Azenis FK520 stopped 3.9% shorter in the dry (2 tests) | 0 |
| Wet10 measurements | 4 | The Ultrac held 10.6% more grip in curved aquaplaning (2 tests) | 5 |
| Off road4 measurements | 1 | 3 | |
| Comfort2 measurements | 0 | The Ultrac was 0.9 dB quieter (2 tests) | 2 |
| Value2 measurements | 1 | Level between the two. | 1 |
| Tire Reviews Scoreevery test and review we hold | 9.1/10 | The Azenis FK520 by 0.4 | 8.7/10 |
| Owner rating55 and 24 reviews | 82% | The Azenis FK520 by 4 points | 78% |
| Would buy againshare of owners | 76% | The Ultrac by 7 points | 83% |
| Sizes madeEU label registrations | 133 | 24 sizes made in both | 65 |
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 2 tests, 2024 to 2025
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 Autobild SUV Off-Road Summer Tire Test | P2 of 10 | P2 of 10 | |
| 2024 AMS Summer SUV Tire Test | P7 of 8 | P3 of 8 |
Performance profile
8 measurements from the 2 shared tests, each tire shown as its share of the better figure in every test.
Where each is furthest ahead
Azenis FK520
Ultrac
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. 6 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
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
Not ahead in any category
Point at or tap any spoke for both tires' figures.
Owners rate the Azenis FK520 82% from 55 reviews and the Ultrac 78% from 24. 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 | Wins | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 112 | 3.9% | 117 | 2-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 62.6 | 1.3% | 61.8 | 2-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 129 | = | 130 | 1-1 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 49.8 | 0.5% | 50 | 1-1 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 18.8 | = | 18.8 | 0-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 20.18 | 0.2% | 20.22 | 1-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 49.9 | 1.8% | 50.9 | 1-1 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 17.5 | 10.6% | 18.6 | 0-2 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 37.8 | 0.7% | 37.5 | 1-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 2,367 | 0.9% | 2,390 | 0-1 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 2,259 | 2.3% | 2,311 | 0-1 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 1.75 | 1.7% | 1.72 | 0-1 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 67.4 | 0.9 dB | 66.5 | 0-2 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 7.33 | 0.7% | 7.28 | 1-1 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
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 8.7 out of 10.
| Azenis FK520 | Category | Ultrac | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 90 | Dry | 75 | ||
| 83 | Wet | 89 | ||
| 57 | Comfort | 52 | ||
| 54 | Value | 18 | ||
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 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8.8 | Dry Grip | 8.3 | ||
| 8.3 | Wet Grip | 8.1 | ||
| 7.9 | Road Feedback | 7.5 | ||
| 8.4 | Handling | 7.6 | ||
| 7.7 | Wear | 6.4 | ||
| 8.1 | Comfort | 8 | ||
Owners rate the Azenis FK520 82% from 55 reviews and the Ultrac 78% from 24. 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
- 78%from 24 reviews
- 83%would buy again
- 311,516 milesdriven by reviewers
Most drivers rate the Vredestein Ultrac highly, praising its confident wet grip (including aquaplaning resistance), solid dry performance, and comfortable, quiet ride. Handling is described as predictable and safe, with several noting good value versus premium rivals. A minority report faster-than-expected tread wear, and a few mention noise or steering feel, but these are less common. Overall sentiment skews positive given the high number of strong reviews.
- wet grip and aquaplaning resistance
- comfortable ride
- dry grip
- predictable handling/steering
- faster tread wear for some users
Summarised by AI from 20 vetted reviews; the reviews themselves are on the tire page.
All 24 Ultrac reviewsThese tires came as stock on my Audi A1. After 40,000 miles and 2 years I have replaced 3 corners with what was my preferred tire, but the rear drivers side still has 4mm of tread left, whereas the rear passenger (this tire) has 3mm left after 1 year and 18k. I would definitely buy these again
Sizes, EU label and lineage
From the EU label registrations for each tire: 133 sizes of the Azenis FK520 and 65 of the Ultrac, 24 of them made in both.
| Category | Azenis FK520 | Ultrac |
|---|---|---|
| Season | Summer | Summer |
| Sizes made | 133 sizes, 17 to 22 inch | 65 sizes, 15 to 21 inch |
| Made in both | 24 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 12 more | |
| EU label wet grip | A95%B5% | A85%B15% |
| EU label rolling resistance | C68%A12%B12%D8% | C46%A26%B26%D2% |
| EU label noise | 68-72 dB B51%A49% | 69-71 dB B89%A11% |
| On the market since | - | 2020 |
| Replaced | Falken Azenis FK510 (2016) | - |
| Replaced by | - | Vredestein Ultrac Cento |
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.
Only two shared tests here, both on SUVs, so read this as a sketch rather than a full picture. They finished level in Auto Bild Allrad's 2025 off road summer test, both 2nd of 10, and the Vredestein Ultrac was clearly ahead in Auto Motor und Sport's 2024 SUV test, 3rd of 8 against the Falken Azenis FK520 in 7th.
The Falken is the braking tire in the dry. It stopped in 33.2m against 35.5m in the 2025 test, a 6.5 percent advantage, and it was shorter again in 2024, if only by 1.4 percent. It also led dry handling at Auto Motor und Sport and rolled with less resistance in the 2025 test.
The Vredestein takes the water. It resisted curved aquaplaning better in both tests, by 18.1 percent in 2025, took straight aquaplaning by 4.1 percent there, and it was the quieter tire in both. In 2024 it also braked 1.4m shorter in the wet and lapped the wet handling course faster.
Conclusion
The Vredestein Ultrac is the more complete tire on this evidence. Its aquaplaning advantage is the clearest single thing either tire owns: 2.74 against 2.32 m/sec2 in curved aquaplaning in 2025, an 18.1 percent margin, and 86.2km/h against 82.8km/h in the straight lane. Auto Motor und Sport's 2024 test then found it 1.4m shorter in wet braking, 28.7m against 30.1m, quicker in wet handling and lower on rolling resistance, and placed it 3rd of 8 with the Falken 7th. It was also the quieter tire in both tests, and it pulled ahead on the loose stuff, taking sand, grass and gravel traction in the 2025 off road test.
The Falken Azenis FK520 has the dry braking, and in the 2025 test it is a real gap: 33.2m against 35.5m, with the Falken also stopping shorter in the wet there, 48.4m against 50.8m. It led dry handling at Auto Motor und Sport, 93.7km/h against 92.6km/h, and rolled easier in the 2025 test, 7.15 against 7.45 kg/t. The two finished level in that test, both runners up of ten, so on an SUV driven mostly on dry roads there is little to separate them.
Two tests is a thin basis for a verdict, and note that wet braking swaps sides between them: the Falken by 4.7 percent in 2025 and the Vredestein by 4.7 percent in 2024. Neither wear nor cost per 1000km was measured in either test, so nothing can be said about running costs. Choose the Falken for dry braking, the Vredestein for aquaplaning security and quieter running.
Azenis FK520 vs Ultrac: your questions
Is the Falken Azenis FK520 or the Vredestein Ultrac the better tire?
In the 2 independent tests that ran both tires, the Vredestein Ultrac finished ahead 1 times and the Azenis FK520 not once, with one level. On the Tire Reviews Score, which weighs every test and review we hold, the Azenis FK520 scores 9.1 and the Ultrac 8.7 out of 10.
Which is better in the wet, the Azenis FK520 or the Ultrac?
The Ultrac led 5 of the 10 wet measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it held 10.6% more grip in curved aquaplaning across 2 tests.
Which is better in the dry?
The Azenis FK520 led 4 of the 4 dry measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it stopped 3.9% shorter in the dry across 2 tests.
Which is quieter and more comfortable?
The Ultrac was 0.9 dB quieter (2 tests). Owners rate comfort 8.1/10 for the Azenis FK520 and 8/10 for the Ultrac.
What do owners say?
Owners rate the Azenis FK520 82% from 55 reviews and the Ultrac 78% from 24. 76% of Azenis FK520 owners would buy it again, against 83% for the Ultrac.
Are they available in the same sizes?
The Azenis FK520 is made in 133 sizes (17 to 22 inch) and the Ultrac in 65 (15 to 21 inch). 24 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 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 PremiumContact 7 vs Vredestein Ultrac
10-1 in 11 shared tests
vs
Bridgestone Turanza 6 vs Vredestein Ultrac
3-4 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 
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