Bridgestone Turanza 6 vs Falken Azenis FK520
The data shows meaningful gaps where it matters: Falken repeatedly leads dry braking (by 3-8%) and often wet braking too, while Bridgestone posts class-leading rolling resistance (typically 12-17% lower) and quieter pass-by noise. In SUV formats, results diverge: FK520 ranked 2/10 in AutoBild Off-Road (2025), but 7/8 in AMS (2024), whereas Turanza 6 landed 7/10 and 4/8 respectively-highlighting that tire-character fit can vary by vehicle and test emphasis.
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 Turanza 6 | two | |
| Falken Azenis FK520 | two |
The Bridgestone Turanza 6 and Falken Azenis FK520 have an equal number of test wins. However, 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
- Class-leading rolling resistance (≈12-17% lower vs FK520 in multiple tests)
- Very good curved aquaplaning resistance and rain security
- Lower exterior noise and refined road manners
- Balanced, predictable handling with strong gravel traction for light off-road
- Shorter dry and frequent wet braking (dry advantage ~3-8%)
- More dynamic handling feel on dry and wet circuits
- Stronger value: lower price and better wear in UHP size
- Solid aquaplaning straight-line performance and good overall SUV handling
Dry Braking
Looking at data from four tire tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during four dry braking tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 stopped the vehicle in 5.64% less distance than the Bridgestone Turanza 6.
Best In Dry Braking: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Dry Braking winner was calculated >>
Dry Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from three tire tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during three dry handling [km/h] tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 was 0.81% faster around a lap than the Bridgestone Turanza 6.
Best In Dry Handling [Km/H]: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Braking
Looking at data from four tire tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during three wet braking tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 stopped the vehicle in 3.45% less distance than the Bridgestone Turanza 6.
Best In Wet Braking: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Wet Braking winner was calculated >>
Wet Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from three tire tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during two wet handling [km/h] tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 was 0.98% faster around a wet lap than the Bridgestone Turanza 6.
Best In Wet Handling [Km/H]: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Circle
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during one wet circle tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 was 5.04% faster around a wet circle than the Bridgestone Turanza 6.
Best In Wet Circle: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Wet Circle winner was calculated >>
Straight Aqua
Looking at data from three tire tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during two straight aqua tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 floated at a 0.34% higher speed than the Bridgestone Turanza 6.
Best In Straight Aqua: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Straight Aqua winner was calculated >>
Curved Aquaplaning
Looking at data from three tire tests, the Bridgestone Turanza 6 was better during three curved aquaplaning tests. On average the Bridgestone Turanza 6 slipped out at a 4.11% higher speed than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Curved Aquaplaning: Bridgestone Turanza 6
See how the Curved Aquaplaning winner was calculated >>
Gravel Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during one gravel handling [km/h] tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 was 1.48% faster around a lap than the Bridgestone Turanza 6.
Best In Gravel Handling [Km/H]: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Gravel Handling winner was calculated >>
Gravel Traction
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Bridgestone Turanza 6 was better during one gravel traction tests. On average the Bridgestone Turanza 6 had 5.81% better traction on gravel than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Gravel Traction: Bridgestone Turanza 6
See how the Gravel Traction winner was calculated >>
Sand Traction
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during one sand traction tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 had 6.07% better traction in sand than the Bridgestone Turanza 6.
Best In Sand Traction: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Sand Traction winner was calculated >>
Grass Traction
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Bridgestone Turanza 6 was better during one grass traction tests. On average the Bridgestone Turanza 6 was 1.71% faster accelerating on grass than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Grass Traction: Bridgestone Turanza 6
See how the Grass Traction winner was calculated >>
Noise
Looking at data from three tire tests, the Bridgestone Turanza 6 was better during three noise tests. On average the Bridgestone Turanza 6 measured 0.68% quieter than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Noise: Bridgestone Turanza 6
See how the Noise winner was calculated >>
Wear
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during one wear tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 is predicted to cover 9.82% miles before reaching 1.6mm than the Bridgestone Turanza 6.
Best In Wear: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Wear winner was calculated >>
Value
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during one value tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 proved to have a 26.44% better value based on price/1000km than the Bridgestone Turanza 6.
Best In Value: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Value winner was calculated >>
Price
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during one price tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 cost 18.4% less than the Bridgestone Turanza 6.
Best In Price: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Price winner was calculated >>
Rolling Resistance
Looking at data from three tire tests, the Bridgestone Turanza 6 was better during three rolling resistance tests. On average the Bridgestone Turanza 6 had a 14.19% lower rolling resistance than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Rolling Resistance: Bridgestone Turanza 6
See how the Rolling Resistance winner was calculated >>
Real World Driver Reviews
Bridgestone Turanza 6 Driver Reviews
Most drivers rate the Bridgestone Turanza 6 highly for its excellent wet grip and braking, very low noise levels, comfortable ride, and improved fuel economy, often noting strong aquaplaning resistance and confidence in heavy rain. Dry grip is generally good for a touring tire, but the softer sidewalls can make steering feel less precise, with some reports of floatiness, understeer, and reduced feedback at higher speeds. A minority mention faster or uneven wear and occasional noise increase over time, but these are not dominant trends. Overall, the Turanza 6 suits drivers prioritizing comfort, quietness, and wet-weather security over sporty handling feel.
Based on 48 reviews with an average rating of 79%
Falken Azenis FK520 Driver Reviews
Drivers report the Falken Azenis FK520 delivers excellent dry grip, very strong wet braking/traction, and predictable, progressive handling, while remaining comfortable and relatively quiet. Value for money is a standout, with several users comparing its performance favorably to premium brands, and wear generally viewed as good for a UHP tire. A minority note that steering precision/feedback isn't as sharp as top-tier UUHP options, and it's not the best choice for track days or prolonged hard driving due to some heat fade. Overall sentiment is strongly positive given the performance-to-price ratio.
Based on 38 reviews with an average rating of 83%
Conclusion
Practically: the FK520 suits enthusiastic drivers and value seekers who want confident stopping and responsive handling without paying full-premium prices. The Turanza 6 is ideal for commuters, EV/hybrid owners, and long-distance travelers focused on fuel/electricity savings, comfort, and safety in heavy rain. The memorable takeaway: Falken stops sooner; Bridgestone sips fewer watts and keeps calmer in deep water.
Key Differences
- Braking: FK520 consistently shorter in dry and often wet; Turanza 6 only edges wet braking in one SUV test.
- Handling character: FK520 feels sharper and faster on laps; Turanza 6 is stable and mildly understeer-safe in the wet.
- Aquaplaning: Turanza 6 leads curved aquaplaning across tests; FK520 slightly better at straight aquaplaning in two of four.
- Efficiency: Turanza 6 has markedly lower rolling resistance (≈12-17%), beneficial for fuel/EV range.
- Comfort/noise: Turanza 6 is quieter by ~0.5-0.8 dB and rides more calmly; FK520 is a touch louder.
- Value and longevity: FK520 is cheaper (≈18% in cited UHP size) and showed longer wear (+11%) in AutoBild UHP.
Overall Winner: Falken Azenis FK520
Based on the tire test data and user reviews we have in our database, the Falken Azenis FK520 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 Turanza 6 Top Comparisons
No other comparisons available for this tire.
Falken Azenis FK520 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.