Continental IceContact 3 vs Kumho WinterCraft Ice Wi32
In the 3 independent tests that ran both tires, the Continental IceContact 3 finished ahead 3 times and the WinterCraft Ice Wi32 not once. The IceContact 3 was stronger in dry, wet, snow, comfort and value, the WinterCraft Ice Wi32 in ice.
Performance profile
9 measurements from the 3 shared tests, each tire shown as its share of the better figure in every test.
Where each is furthest ahead
IceContact 3
WinterCraft Ice Wi32
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 85%: a point further in sits on the hub's edge, hollow. 8 measurements recorded in only one shared test are left off; every measurement is in the table further down.
Where each scores higher
IceContact 3
WinterCraft Ice Wi32
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. Wins count the tests in which each tire did better.
| Measurement | IceContact 3 | Gap | WinterCraft Ice Wi32 | Wins |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dry IceContact 3 ahead | ||||
| Dry Braking ft | 103 | 2.9% | 106 | 2-0 |
| Subj. Dry Handling pts | scored | 14.3% | scored | 1-0 |
| Wet IceContact 3 ahead | ||||
| Wet Braking ft | 114 | 11.3% | 128 | 2-0 |
| Wet Handling s | 37.65 | 4.2% | 39.3 | 2-0 |
| Subj. Wet Handling pts | scored | 26.7% | scored | 2-0 |
| Straight Aqua mph | 39.3 | 9.7% | 35.8 | 1-0 |
| Snow IceContact 3 ahead | ||||
| Snow Braking ft | 166 | 1.8% | 169 | 2-0 |
| Snow Traction s | 5.85 | 1.7% | 5.95 | 2-0 |
| Snow Handling s | 53.5 | 0.2% | 53.4 | 0-1 |
| Subj. Snow Handling pts | scored | 12.5% | scored | 1-0 |
| Ice WinterCraft Ice Wi32 ahead | ||||
| Ice Braking ft | 137 | 9.5% | 124 | 1-1 |
| Ice Traction s | 5 | 7.9% | 4.45 | 1-1 |
| Ice Handling s | 57.8 | 3.8% | 55.6 | 0-1 |
| Subj. Ice Handling pts | scored | = | scored | 0-0 |
| Comfort IceContact 3 ahead | ||||
| Subj. Comfort pts | scored | 500% | scored | 1-0 |
| Subj. Noise pts | scored | 1.7% | scored | 1-1 |
| Value IceContact 3 ahead | ||||
| Fuel Consumption l/100km | 5.89 | 1.1% | 5.95 | 1-0 |
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.
Head to head in 3 tests, 2021 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 | IceContact 3 | Field | WinterCraft Ice Wi32 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 Studded, Friction and European Winter Tire Test | P3 of 8 | P6 of 8 | |
| 2025 Friction and Studded Winter Tire Test | P2 of 7 | P7 of 7 | |
| 2021 Studless and Studded Winter Tire Test | P6 of 9 | P8 of 9 |
IceContact 3 vs WinterCraft Ice Wi32: your questions
Is the Continental IceContact 3 or the Kumho WinterCraft Ice Wi32 the better tire?
In the 3 independent tests that ran both tires, the Continental IceContact 3 finished ahead 3 times and the WinterCraft Ice Wi32 not once. On the Tire Reviews Score, which weighs every test and review we hold, the IceContact 3 scores 9.1 and the WinterCraft Ice Wi32 4.7 out of 10.
Which is better in the wet, the IceContact 3 or the WinterCraft Ice Wi32?
The IceContact 3 led 7 of the 7 wet measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it stopped 11.3% shorter in the wet across 2 tests.
Which is better in the dry?
The IceContact 3 led 3 of the 3 dry measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it stopped 2.9% shorter in the dry across 2 tests.
Which is better in snow?
The IceContact 3 led 5 of the 6 snow measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it stopped 1.8% shorter on snow across 2 tests.
Which is quieter and more comfortable?
Owners rate comfort 7.3/10 for the IceContact 3 and 4/10 for the WinterCraft Ice Wi32.
What do owners say?
Owners rate the IceContact 3 79% from 3 reviews and the WinterCraft Ice Wi32 67% from 2.
Which is more expensive?
In the 2 tests that listed prices, the IceContact 3 was the dearer tire in 2 of them, by 58.3% on average. Prices are the test's own at the time, in its own market.
More comparisons with these tires
vs 
Continental IceContact 3 vs Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
0-7 in 7 shared tests
vs 
Continental IceContact 3 vs Michelin X Ice Snow
2-0 in 6 shared tests
vs 
Continental IceContact 3 vs Michelin X Ice North 4
3-6 in 11 shared tests
vs 
Continental IceContact 3 vs Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2
1-7 in 8 shared tests
vs
Kumho WinterCraft Ice Wi32 vs Michelin X Ice North 4
0-4 in 4 shared tests
vs 
Continental IceContact 3 vs Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
2-0 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.