Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 vs Nokian Powerproof 2
- TR Score
- 9.2/10
- Owners say
- 84% · 41
- TR Score
- 8.8/10
- Owners say
- 95% · 1
In the 3 independent tests that ran both tires, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 finished ahead 2 times and the Powerproof 2 once. The Ecsta Sport PS72 stopped 3.6% shorter in the wet.
Data updated
Which should you buy?
Pick the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 if you prioritize wet safety margin (braking, wet handling, aquaplaning resistance) and strong value for money-especially in rain-prone regions or for confident fast-road driving. Pick the Nokian Powerproof 2 if your priorities are lower noise and better efficiency/rolling resistance with decent overall performance, and you mainly drive in lighter rain or place more weight on refinement and fuel/EV range than ultimate wet security in standing water.
Where the Ecsta Sport PS72 is stronger
- Stronger wet braking across shared tests (e.g., 42.4 m vs 44.0 m in Autobild; 27.1 m vs 28.1 m in the 50-tire braking test)
- More convincing wet handling and subjective wet control (82.6 vs 81.7 km/h; 8.7 vs 7.3 subjective points in Autobild)
- Better aquaplaning resistance in Autobild (91.0 vs 89.7 km/h straight; 3.43 vs 3.10 m/sec² curved)
Where the Powerproof 2 is stronger
- Lower external noise in Autobild (71.7 dB vs 74.1 dB), improving day-to-day refinement
- Better rolling resistance/efficiency in Autobild (7.48 vs 8.15 kg/t) and strong economy scoring noted by ACE
- Slightly better measured wear indicators (50,080 vs 48,230 km; lower abrasion 1386 g vs 1605 g in Autobild)
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.
Ecsta Sport PS72 vs Powerproof 2 at a glance
| Category | Ecsta Sport PS72 | Gap | Powerproof 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shared tests won3 shared tests | 2 | 1 | |
| Dry4 measurements | 0 | 1 | |
| Wet7 measurements | 7 | The Ecsta Sport PS72 stopped 3.6% shorter in the wet (2 tests) | 0 |
| Comfort2 measurements | 0 | 1 | |
| Value3 measurements | 0 | 3 | |
| Tire Reviews Scoreevery test and review we hold | 9.2/10 | The Ecsta Sport PS72 by 0.4 | 8.8/10 |
| Owner rating41 and 1 reviews | 84% | The Powerproof 2 by 11 points | 95% |
| Sizes madeEU label registrations | 86 | 50 sizes made in both | 77 |
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 3 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 | Ecsta Sport PS72 | Field | Powerproof 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 Autobild Summer Tire Test | P6 of 20 | P11 of 20 | |
| 2026 Summer Braking Super Tire Test - How do 52 Tires Perform in Wet and Dry Braking? | P4 of 50 | P10 of 50 | |
| 2026 ACE Summer Tire Test | P7 of 10 | P6 of 10 |
Performance profile
14 measurements from the 3 shared tests, each tire shown as its share of the better figure in every test.
Where each is furthest ahead
Ecsta Sport PS72
Powerproof 2
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.
Where each scores higher
Ecsta Sport PS72
Powerproof 2
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.
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 | Ecsta Sport PS72 | Gap | Powerproof 2 | Wins | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 113 | = | 113 | 0-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 62.1 | 0.1% | 62.2 | 0-1 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| scored | = | scored | 0-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 114 | 3.6% | 118 | 2-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 51.3 | 1.1% | 50.8 | 1-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| scored | 19.2% | scored | 1-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 14.6 | 2% | 14.9 | 1-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 56.5 | 1.4% | 55.7 | 1-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 11.3 | 10.6% | 10.2 | 1-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| scored | = | scored | 0-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 74.1 | 2.4 dB | 71.7 | 0-1 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 29,969 | 3.8% | 31,118 | 0-1 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 8.15 | 8.2% | 7.48 | 0-1 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 1,605 | 13.6% | 1,386 | 0-1 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
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 Ecsta Sport PS72 scores 9.2 and the Powerproof 2 8.8 out of 10.
| Ecsta Sport PS72 | Category | Powerproof 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 92 | Dry | 90 | ||
| 88 | Wet | 67 | ||
| 35 | Comfort | 24 | ||
| 49 | Value | 55 | ||
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
| Ecsta Sport PS72 | Category | Powerproof 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | Dry Grip | 10 | ||
| 8.8 | Wet Grip | 10 | ||
| 8.6 | Road Feedback | 9 | ||
| 8.6 | Handling | 9 | ||
| 8.3 | Wear | - | ||
| 7.7 | Comfort | 9 | ||
Owners rate the Ecsta Sport PS72 84% from 41 reviews and the Powerproof 2 95% from 1. Reviews are vetted by hand before publication; ownership is not verified.
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.
Nokian Powerproof 2
- 95%from 1 reviews
- 1,500 milesdriven by reviewers
All 1 Powerproof 2 reviewsThe initial impression is excellent, both in wet and dry conditions. For me, it's the ideal combination of feedback, directness (despite the high cross-section! - thanks to aramid-reinforced sidewalls), strong grip, and high comfort.
I was already quite satisfied with the Powerproof SUV. In between, I briefly used the Wetproof 1: the grip was also very good, but in direct comparison, it had significantly less direct steering.
Sizes, EU label and lineage
From the EU label registrations for each tire: 86 sizes of the Ecsta Sport PS72 and 77 of the Powerproof 2, 50 of them made in both.
| Category | Ecsta Sport PS72 | Powerproof 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Season | Summer | Summer |
| Sizes made | 86 sizes, 17 to 21 inch | 77 sizes, 16 to 21 inch |
| Made in both | 50 sizes 205/45 R17205/50 R17215/45 R17215/50 R17215/55 R17225/45 R17225/50 R17225/55 R17235/45 R17235/55 R17235/65 R17245/45 R17and 38 more | |
| EU label wet grip | A95%B5% | A100% |
| EU label rolling resistance | C77%B10%A8%D5% | B70%C30% |
| EU label noise | 70-74 dB B100% | 69-73 dB B66%A34% |
| On the market since | - | 2025 |
| Replaced | Kumho Ecsta PS91 | - |
| Awards | Winner: Summer Value Performer (17in and above) (WhatTire, 2026/27) | - |
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.
This matchup pits two modern, sporty summer tires aimed at fast road driving in common performance sizes: the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 (marketed as a max-performance option) versus the Nokian Powerproof 2 (ultra-high-performance positioning). Across three shared 2026 group tests, they repeatedly land in the upper mid-pack rather than the outright premium-leader tier, but they get there in very different ways.
The consistent theme is that the Kumho builds its result on wet-surface confidence and strong cost-per-performance, while the Nokian leans on refinement and efficiency (noise and rolling resistance) plus solid braking. If you drive in frequent rain, the data shows clearer separation than it does in the dry, where the two are often very close on outright stopping distances.
Conclusion
Across the shared tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 is the more convincing “all-weather summer” performer, especially in the wet. In Autobild's 245/45 R19 test it decisively outperformed the Nokian in key wet metrics: wet braking (42.4 m vs 44.0 m), wet handling (82.6 vs 81.7 km/h), and aquaplaning resistance (91.0 vs 89.7 km/h straight aquaplaning; 3.43 vs 3.10 m/sec² curved). That wet advantage is reinforced by the large subjective wet-handling gap (8.7 vs 7.3 points). It also repeats a wet-braking win in the 50-tire braking-only test (27.1 m vs 28.1 m). Put simply: when conditions are slippery, the Kumho gives you more margin.
The Nokian Powerproof 2's case is strongest if your priorities are lower noise, better efficiency, and respectable durability. It's quieter in Autobild (71.7 dB vs 74.1 dB), rolls easier (7.48 vs 8.15 kg/t), and shows slightly better wear/mileage (50,080 vs 48,230 km) with lower measured abrasion. However, its performance profile is spikier: ACE highlighted excellent wet handling/traction for its class, but also the earliest straight-line aquaplaning onset in that test (80.1 km/h) and the only explicit criticism for rear-axle support in a lane-change stability assessment-practical drawbacks if you drive briskly in heavy rain or encounter standing water.
Value also tilts the decision. The Kumho's Autobild cost-per-distance metric is meaningfully better (12.44 vs 15.18 price/1000), and it still matches the Nokian on dry braking in the shared data (both at 34.4 m in the 245/45 R19 tests). The takeaway: choose Kumho for wet safety headroom and price/performance; choose Nokian if you want a quieter, more efficient tire and can accept more conditional wet/aquaplaning confidence depending on circumstances and size.
Ecsta Sport PS72 vs Powerproof 2: your questions
Is the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 or the Nokian Powerproof 2 the better tire?
In the 3 independent tests that ran both tires, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 finished ahead 2 times and the Powerproof 2 once. On the Tire Reviews Score, which weighs every test and review we hold, the Ecsta Sport PS72 scores 9.2 and the Powerproof 2 8.8 out of 10.
Which is better in the wet, the Ecsta Sport PS72 or the Powerproof 2?
The Ecsta Sport PS72 led 7 of the 7 wet measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it stopped 3.6% shorter in the wet across 2 tests.
Which is better in the dry?
The Powerproof 2 led 1 of the 4 dry measurements the shared tests recorded.
Which is quieter and more comfortable?
Owners rate comfort 7.7/10 for the Ecsta Sport PS72 and 9/10 for the Powerproof 2.
What do owners say?
Owners rate the Ecsta Sport PS72 84% from 41 reviews and the Powerproof 2 95% from 1.
Are they available in the same sizes?
The Ecsta Sport PS72 is made in 86 sizes (17 to 21 inch) and the Powerproof 2 in 77 (16 to 21 inch). 50 sizes are available in both. On the EU label the Ecsta Sport PS72 is graded A for wet grip and C for rolling resistance in most sizes; the Powerproof 2 A and B.
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
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 Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
1-3 in 4 shared tests
vs 
Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 vs Yokohama Advan Sport V107
3-0 in 3 shared tests
vs 
Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 vs Toyo Proxes Sport 2
2-0 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