Nokian WR A4 vs Hankook Winter i cept evo3
In the 2 independent tests that ran both tires, the Hankook Winter i cept evo3 finished ahead 2 times and the WR A4 not once. The WR A4 was stronger in comfort, the Winter i cept evo3 in dry, wet and snow.
Performance profile
11 measurements from the 2 shared tests, each tire shown as its share of the better figure in every test.
Where each is furthest ahead
WR A4
Winter i cept evo3
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.
Where each scores higher
WR A4
Winter i cept evo3
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
WR A4
Winter i cept evo3
Point at or tap any spoke for both tires' figures.
Owners rate the WR A4 84% from 24 reviews and the Winter i cept evo3 86% from 23. 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 | WR A4 | Gap | Winter i cept evo3 | Wins |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Winter i cept evo3 ahead | ||||
| Dry Braking ft | 146 | 1.1% | 144 | 0-1 |
| Dry Handling mph | 68.2 | 0.3% | 68.4 | 0-1 |
| Wet Winter i cept evo3 ahead | ||||
| Wet Braking ft | 145 | 6.6% | 136 | 0-2 |
| Wet Handling mph | 44.4 | 2.5% | 45.5 | 0-1 |
| Straight Aqua mph | 52.1 | 5.7% | 55.1 | 0-1 |
| Snow Winter i cept evo3 ahead | ||||
| Snow Braking ft | 84 | 2% | 82 | 0-2 |
| Snow Traction lbf | 648 | 0.2% | 650 | 0-1 |
| Snow Handling mph | 36.8 | 1.5% | 37.4 | 0-1 |
| Comfort WR A4 ahead | ||||
| Noise dB | 71.1 | 3.1 dB | 74.2 | 1-0 |
| Value Level | ||||
| Wear miles | 23,183 | 6.6% | 24,712 | 0-1 |
| Rolling Resistance kg / t | 7.42 | 13.6% | 8.59 | 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 2 tests in 2020
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 | WR A4 | Field | Winter i cept evo3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 Auto Bild Performance Winter Tire Test | P16 of 20 | P6 of 20 | |
| 2020 Winter Tire Market Overview - 52 Tire Braking Test | P12 of 51 | P5 of 51 |
WR A4 vs Winter i cept evo3: your questions
Is the Nokian WR A4 or the Hankook Winter i cept evo3 the better tire?
In the 2 independent tests that ran both tires, the Hankook Winter i cept evo3 finished ahead 2 times and the WR A4 not once. On the Tire Reviews Score, which weighs every test and review we hold, the WR A4 scores 7.4 and the Winter i cept evo3 9.2 out of 10.
Which is better in the wet, the WR A4 or the Winter i cept evo3?
The Winter i cept evo3 led 4 of the 4 wet measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it stopped 6.6% shorter in the wet across 2 tests.
Which is better in the dry?
The Winter i cept evo3 led 2 of the 2 dry measurements the shared tests recorded.
Which is better in snow?
The Winter i cept evo3 led 4 of the 4 snow measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it stopped 2% shorter on snow across 2 tests.
Which is quieter and more comfortable?
Owners rate comfort 8.5/10 for the WR A4 and 7.8/10 for the Winter i cept evo3.
What do owners say?
Owners rate the WR A4 84% from 24 reviews and the Winter i cept evo3 86% from 23. 85% of WR A4 owners would buy it again, against 91% for the Winter i cept evo3.
Are they available in the same sizes?
The WR A4 is made in 9 sizes (17 to 21 inch) and the Winter i cept evo3 in 86 (17 to 22 inch). 5 sizes are available in both. On the EU label the WR A4 is graded B for wet grip and C for rolling resistance in most sizes; the Winter i cept evo3 B and C.
Which is the newer tire?
The Winter i cept evo3 is the newer design: it reached the market in 2021, the WR A4 in 2016. The WR A4 replaced the Nokian WR A3. The Winter i cept evo3 replaced the Hankook Winter i cept evo2.
More comparisons with these tires
vs 
Hankook Winter i cept evo3 vs Kumho Winter Craft WP52
5-1 in 6 shared tests
vs 
Hankook Winter i cept evo3 vs Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
1-18 in 20 shared tests
vs
Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3 vs Hankook Winter i cept evo3
12-0 in 13 shared tests
vs
Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 vs Hankook Winter i cept evo3
8-5 in 14 shared tests
vs
Continental WinterContact TS 870 P vs Hankook Winter i cept evo3
13-3 in 17 shared tests
vs
Bridgestone Blizzak 6 vs Hankook Winter i cept evo3
6-0 in 6 shared tests
vs
Dunlop Winter Sport 5 vs Hankook Winter i cept evo3
2-6 in 9 shared tests
vs 
Hankook Winter i cept evo3 vs Uniroyal WinterExpert
5-1 in 6 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.