Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616 vs Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
The Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616 and the Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 have met in one independent test so far, and the Hakkapeliitta R5 finished ahead. The Winter I cept iZ2 W616 was stronger in wet and comfort, the Hakkapeliitta R5 in snow, ice and value.
Performance profile
13 measurements from the one shared test, each tire shown as its share of the better figure.
Where each is furthest ahead
Winter I cept iZ2 W616
Hakkapeliitta R5
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.
Where each scores higher
Winter I cept iZ2 W616
Hakkapeliitta R5
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
Winter I cept iZ2 W616
Hakkapeliitta R5
Point at or tap any spoke for both tires' figures.
Owners rate the Winter I cept iZ2 W616 84% from 5 reviews and the Hakkapeliitta R5 86% from 17. Each spoke is one question owners answer out of 10; reviews are vetted by hand before publication.
Every measurement, side by side
Both tires' figures from the one test that ran them together, on the same car, in the same size, on the same day. The bar grows towards the tire that did better.
| Measurement | Winter I cept iZ2 W616 | Gap | Hakkapeliitta R5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Level | |||
| Dry Braking ft | 106 | 3.2% | 103 |
| Subj. Dry Handling pts | 4 | 33.3% | 3 |
| Wet Winter I cept iZ2 W616 ahead | |||
| Wet Braking ft | 132 | 3.7% | 138 |
| Wet Handling s | 42.5 | 1.9% | 41.7 |
| Straight Aqua mph | 38.8 | 4.3% | 37.2 |
| Snow Hakkapeliitta R5 ahead | |||
| Snow Braking ft | 42 | 2.1% | 41 |
| Snow Traction s | 4.2 | = | 4.2 |
| Snow Handling s | 81.5 | 2.2% | 79.7 |
| Ice Hakkapeliitta R5 ahead | |||
| Ice Braking ft | 51 | 27.5% | 37 |
| Ice Traction s | 11 | 27.2% | 8.01 |
| Ice Handling s | 69.3 | 6.2% | 65 |
| Comfort Winter I cept iZ2 W616 ahead | |||
| Noise dB | 71.7 | 0.2 dB | 71.9 |
| Value Hakkapeliitta R5 ahead | |||
| Fuel Consumption l/100km | 5.4 | 1.9% | 5.3 |
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 1 test in 2024
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 | Winter I cept iZ2 W616 | Field | Hakkapeliitta R5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 Nordic Friction Winter Tire Test | P5 of 8 | P3 of 8 |
Winter I cept iZ2 W616 vs Hakkapeliitta R5: your questions
Is the Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616 or the Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 the better tire?
The Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616 and the Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 have met in one independent test so far, and the Hakkapeliitta R5 finished ahead. On the Tire Reviews Score, which weighs every test and review we hold, the Winter I cept iZ2 W616 scores 5.7 and the Hakkapeliitta R5 8.7 out of 10.
Which is better in the wet, the Winter I cept iZ2 W616 or the Hakkapeliitta R5?
The Winter I cept iZ2 W616 led 2 of the 3 wet measurements the shared tests recorded.
Which is better in the dry?
Across the shared tests the dry measurements are split 1-1 between the Winter I cept iZ2 W616 and the Hakkapeliitta R5.
Which is better in snow?
The Hakkapeliitta R5 led 2 of the 3 snow measurements the shared tests recorded.
Which is quieter and more comfortable?
Owners rate comfort 9.2/10 for the Winter I cept iZ2 W616 and 8.9/10 for the Hakkapeliitta R5.
What do owners say?
Owners rate the Winter I cept iZ2 W616 84% from 5 reviews and the Hakkapeliitta R5 86% from 17. 100% of Winter I cept iZ2 W616 owners would buy it again, against 88% for the Hakkapeliitta R5.
Are they available in the same sizes?
The Winter I cept iZ2 W616 is made in 50 sizes (13 to 19 inch) and the Hakkapeliitta R5 in 60 (14 to 20 inch). 36 sizes are available in both. On the EU label the Winter I cept iZ2 W616 is graded E for wet grip and C for rolling resistance in most sizes; the Hakkapeliitta R5 D and B.
More comparisons with these tires
vs 
Michelin X Ice Snow vs Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
0-6 in 8 shared tests
vs
Continental VikingContact 8 vs Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
6-0 in 6 shared tests
vs
Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 vs Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
2-2 in 6 shared tests
vs
Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3 vs Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
7-1 in 8 shared tests
vs
Hankook Winter I cept iZ2 W616 vs Michelin X Ice Snow
0-3 in 3 shared tests
vs
Michelin X Ice North 4 vs Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
1-2 in 5 shared tests
vs 
Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 vs Pirelli Ice Zero 2
1-0 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.
Review the Winter I cept iZ2 W616 Review the Hakkapeliitta R5
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.