Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 vs Vredestein Ultrac Pro
What makes this head-to-head especially interesting is the variability by test type and fitment: in the 2026 Summer SUV test (255/45 R19) the Ultrac Pro is joint-2nd and impresses as a quiet, low-rolling-resistance all-rounder, yet in the 2025 UHP test (225/40 R18) it finishes last and is criticized for falling behind in key disciplines. The PS72, meanwhile, is consistently competitive and often excellent in wet braking, while also being repeatedly flagged as a price/performance standout.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 | three | |
| Vredestein Ultrac Pro | one |
While it might look like the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 is better than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro 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
- Wet braking performance leadership across the dataset (wins 3/4 tests), including a major advantage in the 2025 UHP test (23.07 m vs 26.82 m)
- Strong value/ownership case where measured: better projected wear (48,230 km vs 42,100 km) and better value metric (12.44 vs 15.2 price/1000) in the 2026 Autobild test; also noted as the cheapest tire in the SUV test
- Competitive dynamics on dry with flashes of strength (wins dry handling in the 2026 SUV test: 104.6 vs 103.1 km/h; praised for dynamic dry handling)
- Good “mixed-surface” capability in the SUV test: top-three gravel traction/handling (10,810 N vs 10,003 N on gravel traction) and strong grass traction
- Lower noise in measured tests, with clear gaps (e.g., 69.1 dB vs 72.9 dB in the SUV test; 71.0 dB vs 74.1 dB in Autobild)
- Lower rolling resistance in most shared tests (e.g., 6.92 vs 7.62 kg/t in the SUV test; 7.65 vs 8.15 kg/t in Autobild), supporting efficiency
- Often marginally better dry braking (wins 3/4 tests, typically by ~0.2 m), and strong dry handling credibility in Autobild (101 vs 100 km/h) with high subjective dry score (8.7 vs 8.0)
- Very strong overall result in the 2026 Summer SUV test (2/9), described as a balanced, safe all-rounder with fair pricing
Dry Braking
Looking at data from four tire tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during three dry braking tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro stopped the vehicle in 0.29% less distance than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Dry Braking: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
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 one dry handling [km/h] tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was 0.24% faster around a lap than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
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 two tire tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one subj. dry handling tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 scored 2.31% more points than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Subj. Dry Handling: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Subj. Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Braking
Looking at data from four tire tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during three wet braking tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 stopped the vehicle in 3.65% less distance than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Wet Braking: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Wet Braking winner was calculated >>
Wet Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from two tire tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during one wet handling [km/h] tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was 0.12% faster around a wet lap than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Wet Handling [Km/H]: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Subj. Wet Handling
Looking at data from two tire tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during two subj. wet handling tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 scored 27.01% more points than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
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 0.28% faster around a wet circle than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Wet Circle: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Wet Circle winner was calculated >>
Straight Aqua
Looking at data from three tire tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during one straight aqua tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro floated at a 0.08% higher speed than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Straight Aqua: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
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 one curved aquaplaning tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 slipped out at a 1.71% higher speed than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
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 0.31% faster around a lap than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
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 7.47% better traction on gravel than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
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 Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during one sand traction tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro had 1.26% better traction in sand than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Sand Traction: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Sand Traction winner was calculated >>
Grass Traction
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one grass traction tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 had 1.39% better traction on grass than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Grass Traction: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Grass Traction winner was calculated >>
Subj. Comfort
Looking at data from two tire tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 and Vredestein Ultrac Pro performed equally well in subj. comfort tests.
Best In Subj. Comfort: Both tires performed equally well
See how the Subj. Comfort winner was calculated >>
Subj. Noise
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 and Vredestein Ultrac Pro performed equally well in subj. noise tests.
Best In Subj. Noise: Both tires performed equally well
See how the Subj. Noise winner was calculated >>
Noise
Looking at data from two tire tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during two noise tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro measured 4.69% quieter than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Noise: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Noise winner was calculated >>
Wear
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one wear tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 is predicted to cover 12.71% miles before reaching 1.6mm than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Wear: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
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 18.16% better value based on price/1000km than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Value: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Value winner was calculated >>
Rolling Resistance
Looking at data from three tire tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during two rolling resistance tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro had a 2.77% lower rolling resistance than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Rolling Resistance: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Rolling Resistance winner was calculated >>
Abrasion
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one abrasion tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 lost 0.74% less particle wear matter than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Abrasion: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Abrasion winner was calculated >>
Real World Driver Reviews
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%
Vredestein Ultrac Pro Driver Reviews
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.
Based on 6 reviews with an average rating of 81%
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 Vredestein Ultrac Pro's strongest argument is refinement and efficiency-especially in larger, SUV-style fitments where it shines overall. It is decisively quieter in the tests that record noise (e.g., 69.1 dB vs 72.9 dB in the SUV test; 71.0 dB vs 74.1 dB in Autobild) and typically has lower rolling resistance (e.g., 6.92 vs 7.62 kg/t in the SUV test). It also tends to edge dry braking in three tests, even if by small margins (typically ~0.2 m). The practical takeaway: choose Ultrac Pro if cabin/drive-by noise and efficiency are top priorities and you're confident the specific size/application aligns with its best showings; otherwise, the PS72 is the safer “high performance per dollar” bet with stronger wet results and better predicted longevity.
Key Differences
- Wet braking trend favors Kumho: it wins 3/4 tests, including large real-world stopping-distance gaps (e.g., 23.07 m vs 26.82 m in 2025 UHP; 27.1 m vs 28.8 m in the 2026 braking test), while Vredestein's best wet-braking win appears in the SUV test (51.9 m vs 54.4 m)
- Refinement strongly favors Vredestein: noise is consistently lower when measured (about 3-4 dB advantage in both 2026 tests that report dB)
- Efficiency favors Vredestein: rolling resistance is lower in 2 of 3 comparable tests (notably 6.92 vs 7.62 kg/t in the SUV test), which can translate to slightly better consumption/EV range
- Cost-per-kilometer favors Kumho: higher projected mileage (48,230 km vs 42,100 km) and better value score (12.44 vs 15.2 price/1000) in the Autobild test underpin a stronger ownership proposition
- Surface/usage split: Kumho is clearly better on loose/off-road-style metrics in the SUV test (gravel traction +8.07%, plus grass traction), while Vredestein's notable weak spot there is limited gravel traction per the test report
- Consistency across test contexts: Kumho ranges from 1st/8 to 6th/20 with strong category wins, while Vredestein swings from 2nd/9 in the SUV test to 8th/8 in the 2025 UHP test-suggesting higher sensitivity to fitment/test emphasis
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:
Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 Top Comparisons
No other comparisons available for this tire.
Vredestein Ultrac Pro 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.