Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo vs Vredestein Ultrac Pro
Across four shared 2026 tests (including Autobild's sports-car and mainstream summer rounds, plus a large braking shootout), the two tires often finish close on pure lap/braking metrics-yet the ownership-facing traits (noise, rolling resistance, price/value, and wear) separate them more clearly than the headline positions suggest.
Test Results
Independent comparison tire tests are the best source of data to get tire information from, and the good news is there have been four tests which compare both tires directly!
| Tire | Test Wins | Performance |
|---|---|---|
| Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo | two | |
| Vredestein Ultrac Pro | one | |
| one draws in one tests | ||
While it might look like the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo is better than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro purely based on the higher number of test wins, tires are very complicated objects which means where one tire is better than the other can be more important in real world use.
Let's look at how the two tires compare across multiple tire test categories.
Key Strengths
- Stronger wet performance bias overall: wins wet braking 3/4 and wet handling 3/3 in shared comparisons (e.g., 43.9 vs 46.2 m wet braking in Autobild Sports Cars)
- More dynamic, sharper handling character in multiple tests (e.g., SUV dry handling 106.6 vs 103.1 km/h; testers note direct steering and agility)
- Better comfort and ride impressions where rated (wins subjective comfort in 2/2 Autobild tests: 8.7 vs 8.0 and 8.0 vs 7.3)
- Better longevity indicators in the main Autobild Summer test (projected wear 51,860 vs 42,100 km; lower abrasion 1533g vs 1617g)
- Consistently lower noise (wins 3/3; e.g., 69.1 vs 72.4 dB in the SUV test and 70.9 vs 74.0 dB in Autobild Sports Cars)
- Consistently lower rolling resistance / better efficiency (wins 3/3; e.g., 6.92 vs 8.57 kg/t in the SUV test)
- Competitive dry performance and often very close on dry braking/handling (including wins in Autobild Summer dry braking 34.2 vs 34.5 m and dry handling 101.0 vs 99.8 km/h)
- Stronger straight-line/curved aquaplaning resilience in the SUV test (89.3 vs 87.2 km/h straight aquaplaning; 2.5 vs 2.4 m/s² curved)
Dry Braking
Looking at data from four tire tests, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during two dry braking tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo stopped the vehicle in 0.2% less distance than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Dry Braking: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
See how the Dry Braking winner was calculated >>
Dry Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from three tire tests, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during one dry handling [km/h] tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was 0.71% faster around a lap than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Dry Handling [Km/H]: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
See how the Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Subj. Dry Handling
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during one subj. dry handling tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro scored 22.99% more points than the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo.
Best In Subj. Dry Handling: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Subj. Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Braking
Looking at data from four tire tests, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during three wet braking tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo stopped the vehicle in 1.98% less distance than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Wet Braking: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
See how the Wet Braking winner was calculated >>
Wet Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from three tire tests, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during three wet handling [km/h] tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was 1.53% faster around a wet lap than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Wet Handling [Km/H]: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
See how the Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Subj. Wet Handling
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo and Vredestein Ultrac Pro performed equally well in subj. wet handling tests.
Best In Subj. Wet Handling: Both tires performed equally well
See how the Subj. Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Circle
Looking at data from three tire tests, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during two wet circle tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was 3.38% faster around a wet circle than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Wet Circle: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
See how the Wet Circle winner was calculated >>
Straight Aqua
Looking at data from three tire tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during two straight aqua tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro floated at a 0.93% higher speed than the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo.
Best In Straight Aqua: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Straight Aqua winner was calculated >>
Curved Aquaplaning
Looking at data from two tire tests, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during one curved aquaplaning tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo slipped out at a 3.37% higher speed than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Curved Aquaplaning: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
See how the Curved Aquaplaning winner was calculated >>
Gravel Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during one gravel handling [km/h] tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was 0.93% faster around a lap than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Gravel Handling [Km/H]: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
See how the Gravel Handling winner was calculated >>
Gravel Traction
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during one gravel traction tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo had 1.92% better traction on gravel than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Gravel Traction: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
See how the Gravel Traction winner was calculated >>
Sand Traction
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during one sand traction tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro had 12.32% better traction in sand than the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo.
Best In Sand Traction: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Sand Traction winner was calculated >>
Grass Traction
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during one grass traction tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo had 11.5% better traction on grass than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Grass Traction: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
See how the Grass Traction winner was calculated >>
Subj. Comfort
Looking at data from two tire tests, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during two subj. comfort tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo scored 8.38% more points than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Subj. Comfort: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
See how the Subj. Comfort winner was calculated >>
Noise
Looking at data from three tire tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during three noise tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro measured 4.18% quieter than the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo.
Best In Noise: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Noise winner was calculated >>
Wear
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during one wear tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo is predicted to cover 18.82% miles before reaching 1.6mm than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Wear: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
See how the Wear winner was calculated >>
Value
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during one value tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro proved to have a 7.26% better value based on price/1000km than the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo.
Best In Value: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Value winner was calculated >>
Rolling Resistance
Looking at data from three tire tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during three rolling resistance tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro had a 12.33% lower rolling resistance than the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo.
Best In Rolling Resistance: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Rolling Resistance winner was calculated >>
Abrasion
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during one abrasion tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo lost 5.19% less particle wear matter than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Abrasion: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
See how the Abrasion winner was calculated >>
Real World Driver Reviews
Tire Reviews also collects real world driver reviews for the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo and Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
In total the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo has been reviewed 4 times and drivers have given the tire 90% overall.
The Vredestein Ultrac Pro has been reviewed 6 times and drivers have given the tire 81% overall.
This means in real world driving, people prefer the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo.
They absorb potholes and speed bumps wonderfully. Paid £129.99 a corner from Asda tires, they were nearly £30 a corner cheaper than Michelin which my 19inch wheels are PS4S. I prefer the Bridgestones.
Conclusion
The Ultrac Pro's big wins are the ones you live with every day: it is consistently quieter (wins noise in 3/3 tests; e.g., 70.9 vs 74.0 dB in Autobild Sports Cars) and consistently more energy-efficient (wins rolling resistance in 3/3; as large as 6.92 vs 8.57 kg/t in the SUV test). Add tester comments calling it the quietest tire with fair pricing/value, and it becomes the smarter choice for fast road use where refinement and running costs matter. The trade-off is that it's less “special” dynamically and can give up some wet-circuit/handling sharpness, while the Bridgestone's main practical penalties are higher rolling resistance and a higher purchase price-even though it can claw back value with clearly better projected wear in one major test (51,860 vs 42,100 km).
Practical takeaway: pick the Bridgestone if your priority is maximum control and sporty feel (especially in the wet); pick the Vredestein if you want near-top-tier performance wrapped in a quieter, more efficient, better-value package.
Key Differences
- Wet control vs refinement: Bridgestone leads wet handling decisively across tests (3/3 wins), while Vredestein leads noise and rolling resistance in every test where measured (3/3 each)
- Largest practical gap is efficiency: rolling resistance advantage for Ultrac Pro ranges from ~6% to ~19% (e.g., 6.92 vs 8.57 kg/t in the SUV test)
- Largest “feel” gap is cabin noise: Ultrac Pro is ~3-4 dB quieter in shared tests (e.g., 70.9 vs 74.0 dB), which is noticeable in daily driving
- Wet braking is more often a Bridgestone win (3/4), but not universal-Vredestein edges one test (SUV wet braking 51.9 vs 52.3 m)
- Aquaplaning results are mixed: Vredestein tends to be better in straight-line aquaplaning (wins 2/3), while Bridgestone shows at least one strong curved-aquaplaning result (3.54 vs 3.23 m/s² in Autobild Summer)
- Running costs/value split: Vredestein is repeatedly described as fair-priced with better value metrics (15.2 vs 16.39 price/1000), but Bridgestone counterpunches with materially better projected mileage (51,860 vs 42,100 km)
Overall Winner: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
Based on the tire test data and user reviews we have in our database, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo has demonstrated better overall performance in this comparison. However, as you can see from the spider diagram above, each tire has its own strengths which should be considered in your final tire buying choice.Similar Comparisons
Looking for more tire comparisons? Here are other direct comparisons involving these tires:
Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo Top Comparisons
No other comparisons available for this tire.
Vredestein Ultrac Pro Top Comparisons
No other comparisons available for this tire.
Footnote
This page has been developed using tire industry testing best practices. This means we are only comparing tests which have had both tires in the same test.
Why is this important? Tire testing is heavily affected by things like surface grip levels and surface temperature, which means you can only compare values from the same day. During a tire test external condition changes are calculated into the overall results, but it is not possible to calculate this between tire tests performed on different days or at different locations.
As a result you will see other tests on Tire Reviews which feature both the %s and %s, but as they weren't conducted on the same day, the results are not comparable.
Lots of other websites do this sort of tire comparison, Tire Reviews doesn't.