Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 vs Kumho Ecsta HS52
- TR Score
- 9.0/10
- Owners say
- 85% · 130
- TR Score
- 9.0/10
- Owners say
- 82% · 30
In the 8 independent tests that ran both tires, the EfficientGrip Performance 2 finished ahead 4 times and the Ecsta HS52 3 times, with one level. The EfficientGrip Performance 2 lasted 36.2% longer in the wear tests; the Ecsta HS52 stopped 3.5% shorter in the wet.
Data updated
Which should you buy?
Choose the Kumho Ecsta HS52 if braking performance is your main priority. Choose the Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 if you place more weight on tread life, efficiency and resistance to aquaplaning in bends.
Where the EfficientGrip Performance 2 is stronger
- Longer predicted life in four of five shared wear tests.
- Better curved-aquaplaning resistance in all six measured tests.
- Lower fuel consumption or rolling resistance wherever measured.
Where the Ecsta HS52 is stronger
- Shorter dry braking in seven of eight shared entries.
- Shorter wet braking in most comparisons, notably Auto Bild's 2024 test.
- Good wet grip and handling in ADAC's 2024 test.
Conclusion
Across the six full tests, neither tire has an unqualified grip advantage. Kumho brakes shorter on dry roads in most comparisons, although the gaps are generally small. It also has the more frequent wet-braking lead: in Auto Bild's 2024 summer test it stops about 11% shorter, while ADAC's 2024 and 2026 tests show notably shorter stops on wet concrete. Goodyear's shorter wet stops in ADAC's 2023 test are an unusual reversal of that pattern. In Tire Reviews' 2023 test, their wet-braking distances are effectively identical, but Goodyear is quicker and rated better in wet handling.
Goodyear has the clearer advantage when water depth and running costs enter the picture. It resists curved aquaplaning better in all six tests that measure it, by about 3% to 14%. Its predicted mileage is substantially higher in four of the five tests that measure wear, and it has lower measured fuel consumption or rolling resistance wherever those figures are available. ADAC's 2024 wear result is the exception: Kumho lasts marginally longer, with less than 1% between them. Goodyear also records lower abrasion in all three ADAC comparisons. Straight-line aquaplaning tends to favor Kumho, though those measured gaps are modest.
The overall placings reflect those different priorities. Goodyear finishes first in ADAC's 2023 and Auto Bild's 2022 summer tests, and third in ADAC's 2026 test, where mileage and efficiency help offset moderate dry-road feedback and some wet-handling weakness. Kumho finishes third in ADAC's 2024 test, where testers praise its secure handling and wet grip, but ninth in 2026, where they find its dry steering less precise and its fuel use and abrasion less favorable. They share fourth place in Auto Bild's full 2024 test. Choose Kumho if short braking distances matter most; choose Goodyear if longer wear, efficiency and curved-aquaplaning resistance carry more weight.
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.
EfficientGrip Performance 2 vs Ecsta HS52 at a glance
| Category | EfficientGrip Performance 2 | Gap | Ecsta HS52 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shared tests won8 shared tests | 4 | 1 level | 3 |
| Dry12 measurements | 2 | The Ecsta HS52 stopped 2% shorter in the dry (8 tests) | 10 |
| Wet30 measurements | 15 | Level between the two. | 15 |
| Comfort7 measurements | 6 | The EfficientGrip Performance 2 was 0.6 dB quieter (5 tests) | 1 |
| Value14 measurements | 13 | The EfficientGrip Performance 2 lasted 36.2% longer in the wear tests (5 tests) | 1 |
| Tire Reviews Scoreevery test and review we hold | 9.0/10 | Level | 9.0/10 |
| Owner rating130 and 30 reviews | 85% | The EfficientGrip Performance 2 by 3 points | 82% |
| Would buy againshare of owners | 81% | The EfficientGrip Performance 2 by 6 points | 75% |
| Pricein the 5 tests that listed prices | +34.1% | The EfficientGrip Performance 2 was dearer in 5 of 5 | Cheaper |
| Sizes madeEU label registrations | 37 | 26 sizes made in both | 54 |
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 8 tests, 2022 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 | EfficientGrip Performance 2 | Field | Ecsta HS52 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 ADAC Summer Tire Test | P3 of 16 | P9 of 16 | |
| 2024 AutoBild Summer Tire Test | P4 of 20 | P4 of 20 | |
| 2024 ADAC Summer Tire Test | P9 of 16 | P3 of 16 | |
| 2024 Summer Tire Market Overview | P13 of 55 | P2 of 55 | |
| 2023 ADAC Summer Tire Test | P1 of 50 | P8 of 50 | |
| Tire Reviews Best Summer Touring Tires | P4 of 13 | P8 of 13 | |
| 2022 Auto Bild Summer Tire Test | P1 of 21 | P6 of 21 | |
| 2022 Summer Tire Market Overview | P16 of 50 | P3 of 50 |
Performance profile
13 measurements from the 8 shared tests, each tire shown as its share of the better figure in every test.
Where each is furthest ahead
EfficientGrip Performance 2
Ecsta HS52
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. 7 measurements recorded in only one shared test are left off; every measurement is in the table further down.
Where each scores higher
EfficientGrip Performance 2
Ecsta HS52
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
EfficientGrip Performance 2
Ecsta HS52
Point at or tap any spoke for both tires' figures.
Owners rate the EfficientGrip Performance 2 85% from 130 reviews and the Ecsta HS52 82% from 30. 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 | EfficientGrip Performance 2 | Gap | Ecsta HS52 | Wins | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 121 | 2% | 118 | 1-7 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 51.85 | 0.5% | 51.58 | 0-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 65.3 | 0.2% | 65.5 | 1-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| scored | 5.6% | scored | 0-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 118 | 3.5% | 114 | 2-6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 123 | 2.7% | 120 | 1-2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 84.81 | 2.5% | 87 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 46.1 | 0.2% | 46.1 | 1-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| scored | 5.6% | scored | 1-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 14 | 0.9% | 13.9 | 1-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11.57 | 0.9% | 11.68 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 48.6 | 1.2% | 49.2 | 1-5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12.3 | 7.3% | 11.4 | 6-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| scored | 5.6% | scored | 1-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 70.7 | 0.6 dB | 71.32 | 4-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 18.3 | 8.8% | 20.1 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 35,902 | 36.2% | 27,662 | 4-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7.41 | 12.6% | 8.48 | 3-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5.67 | 3.4% | 5.87 | 3-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 58.4 | 20.1% | 75.1 | 3-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 EfficientGrip Performance 2 scores 9 and the Ecsta HS52 9 out of 10.
| EfficientGrip Performance 2 | Category | Ecsta HS52 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 75 | Dry | 89 | ||
| 75 | Wet | 85 | ||
| 86 | Comfort | 21 | ||
| 92 | Value | 65 | ||
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
| EfficientGrip Performance 2 | Category | Ecsta HS52 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | Dry Grip | 9.1 | ||
| 8.6 | Wet Grip | 8.1 | ||
| 8 | Road Feedback | 8.6 | ||
| 8.4 | Handling | 8.3 | ||
| 9.1 | Wear | 7.8 | ||
| 8.5 | Comfort | 7.1 | ||
Owners rate the EfficientGrip Performance 2 85% from 130 reviews and the Ecsta HS52 82% from 30. Reviews are vetted by hand before publication; ownership is not verified.
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2
- 85%from 130 reviews
- 81%would buy again
- 1,861,837 milesdriven by reviewers
Owners largely describe the Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 as a quiet, very comfortable touring tire with standout longevity, reflected in the strong average score (81.1%) and the high share of positive reviews (90 of 113). Around four in ten owners specifically praise its tread life, and many also report confident dry and wet grip for everyday road use. The main reservation is that a noticeable minority (around one in five) find the steering feel a bit vague, and a smaller group mention a soft sidewall or occasional stability/feedback issues at speed.
- Low road noise for a touring tire
- Comfortable, supple ride over bumps and poor surfaces
- Excellent tread life and slow wear rate
- Strong dry grip with a safe, dependable feel
- Vague or less direct steering feel
- Soft sidewalls can feel imprecise or allow more movement in corners
- Wet braking can be underwhelming for some drivers
Summarised by AI from 113 vetted reviews; the reviews themselves are on the tire page.
All 130 EfficientGrip Performance 2 reviewsThe Goodyear Efficientgrip Performance 2’s were excellent. I like them so much that I’m onto my third pair across two cars. They improved my fuel efficiency significantly, were stubborn to wear away, all while providing reassuring grip whatever the weather. I’d driven over 40k miles on this set and have only just replaced them due to shoulder wear from needing an alignment. No doubt they’d have lasted over 50k miles otherwise! They’re not a budget tire but you soon recoup the added purchase cost through not having to replace as frequently and saving on fuel.
Kumho Ecsta HS52
- 82%from 30 reviews
- 75%would buy again
- 302,698 milesdriven by reviewers
Most owners rate the Kumho Ecsta HS52 highly, praising its strong dry grip and confident, direct dry handling, and many also feel it represents excellent value for money. Noise levels are often described as low and wet grip is generally considered reassuring, though a small minority report it can feel less secure in the wet at the limit. Longevity feedback is mixed: while many see good mileage, around one in seven owners mention uneven or abnormal wear and a similar share report faster-than-expected wear.
- Strong dry grip with plenty of confidence
- Direct, predictable dry handling
- Excellent value for money for the performance
- Generally low road noise for a touring summer tire
- Reports of uneven or abnormal wear patterns
- Mixed tread life with some owners seeing quicker wear
- Can feel a bit firm over bumps on poorer surfaces
Summarised by AI from 23 vetted reviews; the reviews themselves are on the tire page.
All 30 Ecsta HS52 reviewsIt's a nice a comfortable and quiet tire for road trips, and higway use. But I think lacks the peak grip both in the dry and in the wet. It loses grip quite suddenly. But if your driving far from the edge, its a really nice tire.
Sizes, EU label and lineage
From the EU label registrations for each tire: 37 sizes of the EfficientGrip Performance 2 and 54 of the Ecsta HS52, 26 of them made in both.
| Category | EfficientGrip Performance 2 | Ecsta HS52 |
|---|---|---|
| Season | Summer | Summer |
| Sizes made | 37 sizes, 15 to 21 inch | 54 sizes, 14 to 20 inch |
| Made in both | 26 sizes 185/65 R15195/65 R15185/50 R16195/50 R16195/55 R16195/60 R16205/55 R16205/60 R16215/45 R16215/55 R16215/60 R16205/50 R17and 14 more | |
| EU label wet grip | A88%B12% | A80%B20% |
| EU label rolling resistance | A53%B34%C13% | C58%D16%A14%B12% |
| EU label noise | 67-71 dB B52%A48% | 68-72 dB B97%A3% |
| Replaced | Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance (2021) | Kumho Ecsta HS51 |
| Awards | Highly Recommended: Best Tires for Large Family Cars (DriverReviews, 2026/27) Commended: Best Tires for Family Cars (DriverReviews, 2024/25) Winner: Summer Tire of the Year (WhatTire, 2022) | - |
| Price in the shared tests | The EfficientGrip Performance 2 was the dearer tire in 5 of the 5 tests that listed prices, by 34.1% 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.
Eight shared test entries put the Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 and Kumho Ecsta HS52 side by side: ADAC's 2023, 2024 and 2026 summer tests, Auto Bild's 2022 and 2024 summer tests and their corresponding market overviews, and Tire Reviews' 2023 summer touring test. Goodyear places higher in four entries, Kumho in three, and they tie in Auto Bild's full 2024 test. The two market overviews assess braking rather than the full range of tire performance.
Kumho usually stops sooner, particularly on dry roads, and its wet braking advantage is substantial in Auto Bild's 2024 test. Goodyear is consistently stronger in curved aquaplaning and usually lasts longer while using less fuel or showing lower rolling resistance. The overall rankings vary: Kumho takes third to Goodyear's ninth in ADAC's 2024 test, but Goodyear takes third to Kumho's ninth in ADAC's 2026 test.
EfficientGrip Performance 2 vs Ecsta HS52: your questions
Is the Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 or the Kumho Ecsta HS52 the better tire?
In the 8 independent tests that ran both tires, the Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 finished ahead 4 times and the Ecsta HS52 3 times, with one level. On the Tire Reviews Score, which weighs every test and review we hold, the EfficientGrip Performance 2 scores 9 and the Ecsta HS52 9 out of 10.
Which is better in the wet, the EfficientGrip Performance 2 or the Ecsta HS52?
Across the shared tests the wet measurements are split 15-15 between the EfficientGrip Performance 2 and the Ecsta HS52.
Which is better in the dry?
The Ecsta HS52 led 10 of the 12 dry measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it stopped 2% shorter in the dry across 8 tests.
Which lasts longer and costs less to run?
The EfficientGrip Performance 2 lasted 36.2% longer in the wear tests (5 tests), had 12.6% lower rolling resistance (3 tests), used 3.4% less fuel (3 tests) and shed 20.1% less rubber in the abrasion test (3 tests). Owners rate wear 9.1/10 for the EfficientGrip Performance 2 and 7.8/10 for the Ecsta HS52.
Which is quieter and more comfortable?
The EfficientGrip Performance 2 was 0.6 dB quieter (5 tests). Owners rate comfort 8.5/10 for the EfficientGrip Performance 2 and 7.1/10 for the Ecsta HS52.
What do owners say?
Owners rate the EfficientGrip Performance 2 85% from 130 reviews and the Ecsta HS52 82% from 30. 81% of EfficientGrip Performance 2 owners would buy it again, against 75% for the Ecsta HS52.
Which is more expensive?
In the 5 tests that listed prices, the EfficientGrip Performance 2 was the dearer tire in 5 of them, by 34.1% on average. Prices are the test's own at the time, in its own market.
Are they available in the same sizes?
The EfficientGrip Performance 2 is made in 37 sizes (15 to 21 inch) and the Ecsta HS52 in 54 (14 to 20 inch). 26 sizes are available in both. On the EU label the EfficientGrip Performance 2 is graded A for wet grip and A for rolling resistance in most sizes; the Ecsta HS52 A and C.
More comparisons with these tires
vs
Bridgestone Turanza 6 vs Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2
5-2 in 7 shared tests
vs
Hankook Ventus Prime 4 vs Kumho Ecsta HS52
3-5 in 8 shared tests
vs
Continental PremiumContact 7 vs Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2
9-0 in 9 shared tests
vs
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 vs Hankook Ventus Prime 4
7-4 in 11 shared tests
vs 
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 vs Michelin Primacy 4+
2-5 in 7 shared tests
vs 
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 vs Michelin Primacy 5
2-2 in 4 shared tests
vs 
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 vs Michelin Primacy 4
5-8 in 14 shared tests
vs
Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun vs Kumho Ecsta HS52
3-4 in 7 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.
Review the EfficientGrip Performance 2 Review the Ecsta HS52
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