Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo vs Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
- TR Score
- 9.5/10
- Owners say
- 85% · 16
- TR Score
- 9.2/10
- Owners say
- 84% · 41
The Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo and the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 have met in 4 independent tests and the record is level at 2-2. The Potenza Sport Evo held 1.6% more grip in curved aquaplaning; the Ecsta Sport PS72 had 8.9% lower rolling resistance.
Data updated
Which should you buy?
Choose the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo if you prioritize the most precise steering, high-speed handling confidence, and a premium “no weak links” safety feel-especially on heavier vehicles or demanding mixed conditions-accepting higher price and poorer efficiency. Choose the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 if you want a genuinely quick max-performance summer tire with excellent cost efficiency, lower rolling resistance, and strong wet-braking credentials in key road tests, and you're willing to trade some refinement and some variability depending on test/fitment.
Where the Potenza Sport Evo is stronger
- Sharper, more dynamic handling character with strong objective dry/wet handling results in the SUV test (dry handling 106.6 vs 104.6 km/h; wet handling 88.9 vs 86.5 km/h)
- Strong braking credibility and top-tier safety scoring in ACE (best dry safety; very strong wet safety), with notable wet/dry braking wins in the SUV test
- Better comfort/refinement indicators where measured (comfort win in Autobild; lower noise in both measured tests: 72.4 vs 72.9 dB and 73.8 vs 74.1 dB)
Where the Ecsta Sport PS72 is stronger
- Better value proposition (cheapest/among lowest priced; Autobild value 12.44 vs 16.39 price/1000) with competitive performance
- Stronger wet-braking performance in key road-focused tests (Autobild 42.4 vs 44.1 m; braking mega-test 27.1 vs 28.2 m)
- Lower rolling resistance in both tests that measured it (7.62 vs 8.57 kg/t; 8.15 vs 8.74 kg/t) supporting fuel/EV efficiency
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.
Potenza Sport Evo vs Ecsta Sport PS72 at a glance
| Category | Potenza Sport Evo | Gap | Ecsta Sport PS72 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shared tests won4 shared tests | 2 | 2 | |
| Dry6 measurements | 2 | The Ecsta Sport PS72 stopped 1.1% shorter in the dry (3 tests) | 4 |
| Wet12 measurements | 6 | The Potenza Sport Evo held 1.6% more grip in curved aquaplaning (2 tests) | 5 |
| Off road4 measurements | 2 | Level between the two. | 2 |
| Comfort3 measurements | 3 | 0 | |
| Value4 measurements | 2 | Level between the two. | 2 |
| Tire Reviews Scoreevery test and review we hold | 9.5/10 | The Potenza Sport Evo by 0.3 | 9.2/10 |
| Owner rating16 and 41 reviews | 85% | Too close to call | 84% |
| Would buy againshare of owners | 86% | The Potenza Sport Evo by 4 points | 82% |
| Pricein the 2 tests that listed prices | +47.1% | The Potenza Sport Evo was dearer in 2 of 2 | Cheaper |
| Sizes madeEU label registrations | 115 | 62 sizes made in both | 86 |
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 4 tests in 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 | Potenza Sport Evo | Field | Ecsta Sport PS72 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 Summer SUV Tire Test | P2 of 9 | P6 of 9 | |
| 2026 Autobild Summer Tire Test | P11 of 20 | P6 of 20 | |
| 2026 Summer Braking Super Tire Test - How do 52 Tires Perform in Wet and Dry Braking? | P11 of 50 | P4 of 50 | |
| 2026 ACE Summer Tire Test | P3 of 10 | P7 of 10 |
Performance profile
9 measurements from the 4 shared tests, each tire shown as its share of the better figure in every test.
Where each is furthest ahead
Potenza Sport Evo
Ecsta Sport PS72
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 97%: a point further in sits on the hub's edge, hollow. 9 measurements recorded in only one shared test are left off; every measurement is in the table further down.
Where each scores higher
Potenza Sport Evo
Ecsta Sport PS72
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
Potenza Sport Evo
Ecsta Sport PS72
Point at or tap any spoke for both tires' figures.
Owners rate the Potenza Sport Evo 85% from 16 reviews and the Ecsta Sport PS72 84% from 41. 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 | Potenza Sport Evo | Gap | Ecsta Sport PS72 | Wins | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 112 | 1.1% | 113 | 1-2 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 64.1 | 0.9% | 63.6 | 1-1 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| scored | 19.4% | scored | 0-1 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 136 | 1.3% | 135 | 1-2 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 53.2 | 1.3% | 52.5 | 1-1 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| scored | 8.7% | scored | 0-1 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 17.32 | 1.7% | 17.7 | 1-1 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 55.4 | 0.1% | 55.3 | 2-0 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 9.7 | 1.6% | 9.6 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 39.9 | 0.6% | 39.6 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 2,293 | 6% | 2,430 | 0-1 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 2,000 | 12.6% | 2,252 | 0-1 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 647 | 11.4% | 581 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| scored | 9.6% | scored | 1-0 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 73.1 | 0.4 dB | 73.5 | 2-0 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 32,224 | 7.5% | 29,969 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 8.66 | 8.9% | 7.89 | 0-2 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 1,533 | 4.5% | 1,605 | 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. "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 Potenza Sport Evo scores 9.5 and the Ecsta Sport PS72 9.2 out of 10.
| Potenza Sport Evo | Category | Ecsta Sport PS72 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 98 | Dry | 92 | ||
| 97 | Wet | 88 | ||
| 11 | Comfort | 35 | ||
| 20 | Value | 49 | ||
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
| Potenza Sport Evo | Category | Ecsta Sport PS72 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8.8 | Dry Grip | 9 | ||
| 8.6 | Wet Grip | 8.8 | ||
| 8.4 | Road Feedback | 8.6 | ||
| 9.2 | Handling | 8.6 | ||
| 7.8 | Wear | 8.3 | ||
| 7.7 | Comfort | 7.7 | ||
Owners rate the Potenza Sport Evo 85% from 16 reviews and the Ecsta Sport PS72 84% from 41. Reviews are vetted by hand before publication; ownership is not verified.
Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
- 85%from 16 reviews
- 86%would buy again
- 71,803 milesdriven by reviewers
Drivers report the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo delivers outstanding dry grip and exceptionally strong wet traction, with very sharp turn-in and confident, stable handling that suits fast road use and even track days. Many also feel wear and track durability are improved versus the older Potenza Sport, and value-for-money is frequently praised against Michelin/Continental rivals. The main recurring drawback is higher road noise and a firmer, stiff-sidewall ride, which can reduce refinement on quieter cars.
- Excellent dry grip
- Very strong wet grip and confidence in rain/cold conditions
- Sharp steering response and quick turn-in
- Stable, predictable handling with strong braking/traction
- Noticeably higher road noise/roar
- Firm ride and stiff sidewalls (reduced comfort/refinement for some)
Summarised by AI from 13 vetted reviews; the reviews themselves are on the tire page.
All 16 Potenza Sport Evo reviewsBefore switching to the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo (in size 205/45/17), I had the Yokohama Advan Neova RS (in size 205/55/17). The difference is night and day—in favor of the Bridgestones. Their grip and user-friendliness are on an entirely different level; they are in a different league compared to the unacceptable Yokohama Advan Neova RS, whose only real advantage was minimal wear.
The Bridgestones seem much more prone to wear, but that’s a fair trade-off given their excellent performance—after all, you can’t have everything. I can’t comment on their performance in the rain, as I haven’t had the chance to drive in such conditions yet.
To wrap up, they are quiet and feature a very solid sidewall—though perhaps not quite as good as those found on older Bridgestone models.
I recommend them without hesitation!
Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
- 84%from 41 reviews
- 82%would buy again
- 160,312 milesdriven by reviewers
Owners rate the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 highly overall (average 81.6%), most often praising its strong value for money and genuinely impressive dry performance, with confident handling and high-speed stability. Wet grip also comes through as a notable strength for around a third of reviewers, helping it feel safe and predictable in poor weather. Comfort and road noise are generally seen as good for a performance tire, though a smaller but meaningful group find it noisier or less refined than expected. The main recurring downside is vibration or balancing/out-of-round issues mentioned by around one in six owners, with tread life only getting mixed, limited commentary so far.
- Excellent value for money versus premium rivals
- Strong dry grip with lots of confidence
- Sharp, capable dry handling through corners
- Stable and planted at motorway/high speeds
- Vibration/balancing or out-of-round issues at speed
- Can be noisy on some surfaces or at higher speeds
- Tread life concerns from a minority (seems to wear quickly for some)
Summarised by AI from 38 vetted reviews; the reviews themselves are on the tire page.
All 41 Ecsta Sport PS72 reviewsBought them to replace Hankook ventus prime 4 (Touring type of tires), did a bunch of research before buying, they were really cheap ! So i bought them, you notice the difference in handling and cornering immediately, yes they are UHP and they deliver on that, not that the hankook's were inferior but the Kumhos are a different experience during fast cornering. I drive mainly on mountain passes, they stick like glue on the tarmac they hold well on the wet, haven't drove hard yet on really heavy rain but they seem to do great, no aquaplaning as of now. Sidewalls are not hard as a rock but they aren't soft, they don't deform during cornering, riding on them is nice and comfortable. The only negative as a first impression is this, went from a 68db tire to a 71db on the highway noise is significant worse with those Kumho, you can feel and hear every imperfection of the road, if you care about the noise buy the version with the foam inside I think they call it K version or something.
Sizes, EU label and lineage
From the EU label registrations for each tire: 115 sizes of the Potenza Sport Evo and 86 of the Ecsta Sport PS72, 62 of them made in both.
| Category | Potenza Sport Evo | Ecsta Sport PS72 |
|---|---|---|
| Season | Summer | Summer |
| Sizes made | 115 sizes, 16 to 22 inch | 86 sizes, 17 to 21 inch |
| Made in both | 62 sizes 205/40 R17205/45 R17205/50 R17215/40 R17215/45 R17215/50 R17215/55 R17225/45 R17225/50 R17225/55 R17235/45 R17245/40 R17and 50 more | |
| EU label wet grip | A99%B1% | A95%B5% |
| EU label rolling resistance | C67%D30%B3% | C77%B10%A8%D5% |
| EU label noise | 71-73 dB B100% | 70-74 dB B100% |
| On the market since | 2025 | - |
| Replaced | Bridgestone Potenza Sport (2021) | Kumho Ecsta PS91 |
| Awards | Winner: Supersports Tire of the Year (WhatTire, 2026/27) | Winner: Summer Value Performer (17in and above) (WhatTire, 2026/27) |
| Price in the shared tests | The Potenza Sport Evo was the dearer tire in 2 of the 2 tests that listed prices, by 47.1% 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.
Previous generation: Bridgestone Potenza Sport vs Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 (2 shared tests)
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.
Bridgestone's Potenza Sport Evo and Kumho's Ecsta Sport PS72 sit in the same “max-performance summer” bracket, but the shared 2026 test data shows they reach that goal with different priorities. Across four head-to-head comparisons (sizes from 225/40 R18 to 255/45 R19), Bridgestone trends toward a more premium, precision-focused setup with standout safety scores and sharp steering feel-at a clear cost and efficiency penalty.
Kumho, meanwhile, consistently looks like the value-driven disruptor: it can match or beat the Bridgestone on key wet and dry braking metrics in the Autobild and braking mega-test, and it repeatedly wins on rolling resistance and cost-per-km/value. The trade-off is that its performance can be more test-dependent-particularly in the SUV-oriented test where wet metrics dropped into the lower half and the Bridgestone's dynamic advantage was obvious.
Conclusion
Taken as a pattern across the shared tests, the Potenza Sport Evo is the more “driver's” tire and the more reassuring choice when you prioritize stability, steering response, and safety-critical repeatability across conditions. It was especially convincing in the 2026 Summer SUV test (2nd vs 6th) where it led the Kumho in the core on-road metrics: dry braking by 1.3 m (33.1 m vs 34.4 m), wet braking by 2.1 m (52.3 m vs 54.4 m), plus clear gains in wet circle (19.9 s vs 20.8 s) and wet handling (88.9 vs 86.5 km/h). It also brings comfort/noise strengths and a wear edge in Autobild (51,860 km vs 48,230 km). The recurring downsides are the ones buyers feel over time: it's flagged as the most expensive option in the SUV test and repeatedly posts higher rolling resistance (e.g., 8.57 vs 7.62 kg/t; 8.74 vs 8.15 kg/t), which hurts running costs.
The Ecsta Sport PS72 makes the strongest case for performance-per-euro. In Autobild it finished higher overall (6th vs 11th) and beat the Bridgestone on both wet braking (42.4 m vs 44.1 m) and subjective handling scores, and it backed that up in the 50-tire braking comparison with a meaningful wet-braking advantage (27.1 m vs 28.2 m). Combine that with better rolling resistance and a markedly stronger value score (12.44 vs 16.39 price/1000), and it's easy to recommend for fast road driving where budget and efficiency matter. The practical takeaway: if you want the sharper, more consistently “premium” dynamic feel and don't mind paying for it, Bridgestone is the safer bet; if you want near-premium stopping power and handling at a lower purchase and energy cost, Kumho is the smarter buy.
Potenza Sport Evo vs Ecsta Sport PS72: your questions
Is the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo or the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 the better tire?
The Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo and the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 have met in 4 independent tests and the record is level at 2-2. On the Tire Reviews Score, which weighs every test and review we hold, the Potenza Sport Evo scores 9.5 and the Ecsta Sport PS72 9.2 out of 10.
Which is better in the wet, the Potenza Sport Evo or the Ecsta Sport PS72?
The Potenza Sport Evo led 6 of the 12 wet measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it held 1.6% more grip in curved aquaplaning across 2 tests.
Which is better in the dry?
The Ecsta Sport PS72 led 4 of the 6 dry measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it stopped 1.1% shorter in the dry across 3 tests.
Which lasts longer and costs less to run?
The Ecsta Sport PS72 had 8.9% lower rolling resistance (2 tests). Owners rate wear 7.8/10 for the Potenza Sport Evo and 8.3/10 for the Ecsta Sport PS72.
Which is quieter and more comfortable?
Owners rate comfort 7.7/10 for the Potenza Sport Evo and 7.7/10 for the Ecsta Sport PS72.
What do owners say?
Owners rate the Potenza Sport Evo 85% from 16 reviews and the Ecsta Sport PS72 84% from 41. 86% of Potenza Sport Evo owners would buy it again, against 82% for the Ecsta Sport PS72.
Which is more expensive?
In the 2 tests that listed prices, the Potenza Sport Evo was the dearer tire in 2 of them, by 47.1% on average. Prices are the test's own at the time, in its own market.
Are they available in the same sizes?
The Potenza Sport Evo is made in 115 sizes (16 to 22 inch) and the Ecsta Sport PS72 in 86 (17 to 21 inch). 62 sizes are available in both. On the EU label the Potenza Sport Evo is graded A for wet grip and C for rolling resistance in most sizes; the Ecsta Sport PS72 A and C.
More comparisons with these tires
vs
Bridgestone Potenza Sport vs Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
1-1 in 2 shared tests
vs 
Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo vs Michelin Pilot Sport 5
1-2 in 3 shared tests
vs
Hankook Ventus Evo vs Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
6-2 in 8 shared tests
vs 
Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo vs Continental SportContact 7
1-2 in 3 shared tests
vs
Continental SportContact 7 vs Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
1-2 in 3 shared tests
vs 
Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo vs Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
1-1 in 2 shared tests
vs 
Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo vs Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
2-2 in 4 shared tests
vs 
Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo vs Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport
3-0 in 3 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.
Discussion