Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 vs Kumho Winter Craft WP52
In the 6 independent tests that ran both tires, the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 finished ahead 5 times and the Winter Craft WP52 once. The Blizzak LM005 was stronger in wet and snow, the Winter Craft WP52 in ice.
Performance profile
13 measurements from the 6 shared tests, each tire shown as its share of the better figure in every test.
Where each is furthest ahead
Blizzak LM005
Winter Craft WP52
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 90%: a point further in sits on the hub's edge, hollow. 12 measurements recorded in only one shared test are left off; every measurement is in the table further down.
Where each scores higher
Blizzak LM005
Winter Craft WP52
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
Blizzak LM005
Winter Craft WP52
Point at or tap any spoke for both tires' figures.
Owners rate the Blizzak LM005 73% from 115 reviews and the Winter Craft WP52 68% from 9. 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. Wins count the tests in which each tire did better.
| Measurement | Blizzak LM005 | Gap | Winter Craft WP52 | Wins |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Level | ||||
| Dry Braking ft | 145 | 2.4% | 142 | 1-3 |
| Dry Handling (s) | 71.91 | 0.6% | 71.45 | 0-1 |
| Dry Handling (mph) | 70.5 | 0.5% | 70.2 | 2-0 |
| Subj. Dry Handling pts | scored | 3.2% | scored | 1-0 |
| Wet Blizzak LM005 ahead | ||||
| Wet Braking ft | 124 | 8.9% | 135 | 6-0 |
| Wet Handling (s) | 56.33 | 6.4% | 60.19 | 1-0 |
| Wet Handling (mph) | 48.3 | 4.4% | 46.3 | 2-0 |
| Subj. Wet Handling pts | scored | 2% | scored | 1-0 |
| Wet Circle s | 12.02 | 5.9% | 12.77 | 1-0 |
| Straight Aqua mph | 54 | 3.7% | 52.1 | 4-0 |
| Curved Aquaplaning ft/s² | 9.5 | 15.9% | 8.3 | 2-1 |
| Snow Blizzak LM005 ahead | ||||
| Snow Braking ft | 77 | 3.8% | 80 | 6-0 |
| Snow Traction s | 5.76 | 3.7% | 5.98 | 1-0 |
| Snow Traction (lbf) | 370 | 1.7% | 358 | 2-1 |
| Snow Handling s | 86.63 | 0.2% | 86.79 | 1-0 |
| Snow Handling (mph) | 33.8 | 0.8% | 33.5 | 1-1 |
| Subj. Snow Handling pts | scored | = | scored | 0-0 |
| Snow Slalom ft/s² | 11.7 | 0.7% | 11.8 | 1-1 |
| Ice Winter Craft WP52 ahead | ||||
| Ice Braking ft | 73 | 10.9% | 65 | 0-1 |
| Comfort Level | ||||
| Subj. Comfort pts | scored | 11.1% | scored | 1-0 |
| Noise dB | 72.17 | 0.2 dB | 71.93 | 1-2 |
| Value Level | ||||
| Wear miles | 20,974 | 55% | 32,844 | 0-2 |
| Rolling Resistance kg / t | 8.3 | 7.4% | 8.95 | 3-0 |
| Fuel Consumption l/100km | 5.7 | = | 5.7 | 0-0 |
| Abrasion mg/km/t | 98.5 | 40.3% | 58.8 | 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.
Head to head in 6 tests, 2022 to 2023
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 | Blizzak LM005 | Field | Winter Craft WP52 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 Sports Cars Winter Tire Test | P5 of 11 | P7 of 11 | |
| 2023 Winter Tire Test 54 Set Braking Test | P1 of 54 | P25 of 54 | |
| 2023 Tire Reviews Winter Tire Test | P1 of 11 | P9 of 11 | |
| 2023 ADAC 17 inch Winter Tire Test | P15 of 15 | P9 of 15 | |
| 2022 Auto Bild Winter Tire Test | P6 of 20 | P17 of 20 | |
| 2022 Winter Tire Market Overview | P1 of 56 | P19 of 56 |
Blizzak LM005 vs Winter Craft WP52: your questions
Is the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 or the Kumho Winter Craft WP52 the better tire?
In the 6 independent tests that ran both tires, the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 finished ahead 5 times and the Winter Craft WP52 once. On the Tire Reviews Score, which weighs every test and review we hold, the Blizzak LM005 scores 8.9 and the Winter Craft WP52 8.3 out of 10.
Which is better in the wet, the Blizzak LM005 or the Winter Craft WP52?
The Blizzak LM005 led 17 of the 18 wet measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it stopped 8.9% shorter in the wet across 6 tests.
Which is better in the dry?
Across the shared tests the dry measurements are split 4-4 between the Blizzak LM005 and the Winter Craft WP52.
Which is better in snow?
The Blizzak LM005 led 12 of the 16 snow measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it stopped 3.8% shorter on snow across 6 tests.
Which lasts longer and costs less to run?
The Blizzak LM005 had 7.4% lower rolling resistance (3 tests); the Winter Craft WP52 lasted 55% longer in the wear tests (2 tests). Owners rate wear 5.9/10 for the Blizzak LM005 and 6.8/10 for the Winter Craft WP52.
Which is quieter and more comfortable?
Owners rate comfort 7.5/10 for the Blizzak LM005 and 7.3/10 for the Winter Craft WP52.
What do owners say?
Owners rate the Blizzak LM005 73% from 115 reviews and the Winter Craft WP52 68% from 9. 56% of Blizzak LM005 owners would buy it again, against 63% for the Winter Craft WP52.
Which is more expensive?
In the 4 tests that listed prices, the Blizzak LM005 was the dearer tire in 4 of them, by 35.3% on average. Prices are the test's own at the time, in its own market.
Are they available in the same sizes?
The Blizzak LM005 is made in 165 sizes (14 to 22 inch) and the Winter Craft WP52 in 84 (13 to 21 inch). 71 sizes are available in both. On the EU label the Blizzak LM005 is graded A for wet grip and C for rolling resistance in most sizes; the Winter Craft WP52 B and C.
More comparisons with these tires
vs 
Hankook Winter i cept evo3 vs Kumho Winter Craft WP52
5-1 in 6 shared tests
vs 
Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 vs Continental WinterContact TS 870
4-6 in 11 shared tests
vs
Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 vs Hankook Winter i cept evo3
8-5 in 14 shared tests
vs 
Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 vs Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
5-10 in 16 shared tests
vs
Hankook Winter I cept RS3 vs Kumho Winter Craft WP52
4-1 in 5 shared tests
vs 
Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 vs Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3
5-4 in 9 shared tests
vs 
Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 vs Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
8-10 in 18 shared tests
vs
Bridgestone Blizzak 6 vs Kumho Winter Craft WP52
3-1 in 4 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.