Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2 vs Michelin X Ice North 4
- TR Score
- 9.2/10
- Owners say
- 91% · 1
- TR Score
- 8.6/10
- Owners say
- 84% · 12
In the 9 independent tests that ran both tires, the Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2 finished ahead 5 times and the X Ice North 4 4 times. The UltraGrip Arctic 2 stopped 6.2% shorter in the wet; the X Ice North 4 used 1% less fuel.
Data updated
Which should you buy?
Choose Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2 if your winter driving includes lots of wet/slushy asphalt, frequent highway speeds, and you want the most consistently strong safety envelope across conditions. Choose Michelin X-Ice North 4 if your priority is maximum straight-line traction on ice (starts, hills, polished intersections) and you prefer a more natural, stable steering feel on bare roads-accepting that wet braking/grip is usually the price you pay.
Where the UltraGrip Arctic 2 is stronger
- Consistently stronger wet-surface safety: shorter wet braking and faster wet handling in every shared test where measured (category summary: 6-0).
- Better aquaplaning resistance across all reported comparisons (e.g., 62.7 vs 59.5 km/h in 2026 Teknikens Värld; 68.4 vs 67.9 km/h in 2026 Vi Bilagare).
- Often the shorter stopper on dry asphalt by small but repeatable margins (e.g., 51.17 vs 52.28 m in 2026 Vi Bilagare).
Where the X Ice North 4 is stronger
- Class-leading straight-line traction on ice (wins ice traction 6-0 in the summary; e.g., 10.55 vs 12.94 s in 2026 Vi Bilagare).
- Typically better subjective dry handling/steering feel and high-speed stability on bare roads (summary: 3-0 in subjective dry handling; noted as “natural” and “honest” by testers).
- Strong snow/ice acceleration and competitive snow performance overall (often near the top for snow traction; multiple tests describe it as very capable on snow and ice).
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.
UltraGrip Arctic 2 vs X Ice North 4 at a glance
| Category | UltraGrip Arctic 2 | Gap | X Ice North 4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shared tests won9 shared tests | 5 | 4 | |
| Dry12 measurements | 4 | 6 | |
| Wet20 measurements | 18 | The UltraGrip Arctic 2 stopped 6.2% shorter in the wet (6 tests) | 0 |
| Snow19 measurements | 8 | Level between the two. | 8 |
| Ice19 measurements | 6 | The X Ice North 4 lapped the ice handling course 0.5% faster (5 tests) | 11 |
| Comfort10 measurements | 4 | 2 | |
| Value5 measurements | 1 | The X Ice North 4 used 1% less fuel (4 tests) | 4 |
| Tire Reviews Scoreevery test and review we hold | 9.2/10 | The UltraGrip Arctic 2 by 0.6 | 8.6/10 |
| Owner rating1 and 12 reviews | 91% | The UltraGrip Arctic 2 by 7 points | 84% |
| Pricein the 6 tests that listed prices | Cheaper | The X Ice North 4 was dearer in 4 of 6 | +5.6% |
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 9 tests, 2021 to 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 | UltraGrip Arctic 2 | Field | X Ice North 4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 Teknikens Värld Studded, Nordic and Central European Winter Tire Test | P2 of 7 | P3 of 7 | |
| 2026 Vi Bilagare Studded Tire Test | P2 of 8 | P3 of 8 | |
| 2025 Studded, Friction and European Winter Tire Test | P1 of 8 | P5 of 8 | |
| 2025 Friction and Studded Winter Tire Test | P3 of 7 | P4 of 7 | |
| 2024 Studded Tire Test | P4 of 8 | P3 of 8 | |
| The Best Studded / Friction Winter Tires for 2024 | P5 of 6 | P3 of 6 | |
| 2023 Studded Tire Test | P3 of 8 | P2 of 8 | |
| 2021 Nordic Studded Winter Tire Test | P3 of 8 | P2 of 8 | |
| 2021 Studless and Studded Winter Tire Test | P2 of 9 | P3 of 9 |
Performance profile
18 measurements from the 9 shared tests, each tire shown as its share of the better figure in every test.
Where each is furthest ahead
UltraGrip Arctic 2
X Ice North 4
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 85%: a point further in sits on the hub's edge, hollow. 3 measurements recorded in only one shared test are left off; every measurement is in the table further down.
Where each scores higher
UltraGrip Arctic 2
X Ice North 4
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.
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 | UltraGrip Arctic 2 | Gap | X Ice North 4 | Wins | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 116 | 0.5% | 117 | 4-2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| scored | 60.4% | scored | 0-3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| scored | 20% | scored | 0-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 42.9 | = | 42.9 | 0-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 128 | 6.2% | 136 | 6-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 40.18 | 2.1% | 41.02 | 6-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| scored | 9.5% | scored | 1-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 40.2 | 2.8% | 39.1 | 5-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 85 | = | 85 | 3-2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5.08 | 0.4% | 5.06 | 2-3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 71.77 | 0.2% | 71.64 | 2-3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| scored | 5.6% | scored | 1-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 68 | 1% | 69 | 4-2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6.64 | 10.2% | 5.84 | 0-6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 57.09 | 0.5% | 56.81 | 1-3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| scored | 14.3% | scored | 1-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| scored | 16.7% | scored | 0-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| scored | 11.1% | scored | 1-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 72.75 | 0.2 dB | 72.9 | 3-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5.7 | 3.5% | 5.5 | 0-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6.09 | 1% | 6.03 | 1-3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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. "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 UltraGrip Arctic 2 scores 9.2 and the X Ice North 4 8.6 out of 10.
| UltraGrip Arctic 2 | Category | X Ice North 4 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50 | Dry | 61 | ||
| 75 | Wet | 25 | ||
| 67 | Comfort | 57 | ||
| 23 | Value | 52 | ||
| 81 | Snow | 78 | ||
| 83 | Ice | 86 | ||
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
| UltraGrip Arctic 2 | Category | X Ice North 4 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | Dry Grip | 7.7 | ||
| 10 | Wet Grip | 7.3 | ||
| 9 | Road Feedback | 7.7 | ||
| 7 | Handling | 8.2 | ||
| - | Wear | 8.9 | ||
| 9 | Comfort | 8.3 | ||
| 10 | Snow Grip | 9.2 | ||
| 10 | Ice Grip | 9.8 | ||
Owners rate the UltraGrip Arctic 2 91% from 1 reviews and the X Ice North 4 84% from 12. Reviews are vetted by hand before publication; ownership is not verified.
Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2
- 91%from 1 reviews
- 1,500 milesdriven by reviewers
Michelin X Ice North 4
- 84%from 12 reviews
- 92%would buy again
- 132,021 milesdriven by reviewers
Drivers rate the Michelin X Ice North 4 very highly overall, most often praising outstanding traction and braking on ice and snow along with impressively low road noise for a studded tire. Several reviews also highlight confident handling/feedback and generally strong longevity, with some users reporting long tread life and good stud seating after proper break-in. A smaller minority note trade-offs such as weaker grip on wet/dry pavement and occasional stud loss or faster wear later in the tire's life.
- Excellent grip and braking on ice and snow
- Low noise levels for a studded winter tire
- Confident handling/control and good road feedback in low-friction conditions
- Generally good durability/longevity for winter use (tread and/or studs)
- Wet/dry grip is not as strong as its winter (ice/snow) performance
- Some users report stud loss over time or after multiple seasons
Summarised by AI from 9 vetted reviews; the reviews themselves are on the tire page.
All 12 X Ice North 4 reviewsVery good on ice - probably one of the very best. But I wouldn't buy them if most of the driving is on wet or dry roads. The amount of studs in them contributes to a great amount of noise, but in return you'll get very good grip on ice. I have used them mostly on ice tracks with 3 different cars and the speed and grip you can get with these is on another level. Probably only comparable to Bridgestone Blizzak Spike 3, but these have longer studs and lose studs easily. Compared to the Blizzaks, straight line grip is not as good, but generally they perform exceptionally well. Have no comparison to newer tires.
Snow grip is also really good. On dry and wet, feels a little spongy as you would expect from a winter tire. Haven't really driven them much on the road.
My experience is purely based on RWD cars: 1990 BMW 318i; 1995 BMW 328i; 2004 Smart Roadster. Used the same size with all of them.
Sizes, EU label and lineage
| Category | UltraGrip Arctic 2 | X Ice North 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Season | Winter | Winter |
| Price in the shared tests | The X Ice North 4 was the dearer tire in 4 of the 6 tests that listed prices, by 5.6% on average. Each test priced the tires in its own market at the time; only the gap is comparable. | |
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.
Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2 and Michelin X-Ice North 4 are both premium studded winter tires aimed at drivers who regularly face ice and hard-packed snow but still spend plenty of time on wet, cold asphalt. Across nine shared Nordic-region style tests (spanning multiple sizes and several winters), they repeatedly trade places near the top of the studded field-yet they get there with noticeably different “personalities.”
The data shows a clear pattern: Goodyear tends to win on wet-road safety and aquaplaning resistance (and often dry braking too), while Michelin more often leads on traction/acceleration on ice and snow, plus a more natural, confidence-inspiring steering feel on bare roads. That means the “best” choice depends less on brand and more on whether your winter risk is dominated by glare ice starts/steep driveways-or by wet, slushy highways and frequent bare-asphalt commuting.
Conclusion
Taken as a whole, UltraGrip Arctic 2 is the more consistently well-rounded studded tire across changing winter surfaces. It repeatedly outperforms the Michelin on wet braking and wet handling (a sweep in the shared category summary: 6-0 in both), and it's also ahead in aquaplaning thresholds in every shared test that measured it (5-0), for example 62.7 vs 59.5 km/h (Teknikens Värld 2026) and 70.7 vs 69.2 km/h (2024). It also tends to stop shorter on dry asphalt by small but repeatable margins (e.g., 51.17 vs 52.28 m in Vi Bilagare 2026), which matters in the “mixed winter” reality where roads are often merely cold and wet rather than fully snow covered.
X-Ice North 4's calling card is traction-especially straight-line bite on ice. Across the shared summary it wins ice traction 6-0, and the gaps can be meaningful (e.g., 10.55 vs 12.94 s in Vi Bilagare 2026, ~18% quicker). It also tends to score better for subjective dry handling/steering feel (3-0 in the summary), with testers repeatedly describing it as natural and stable on asphalt for a studded tire. The compromise is that Michelin's wet grip is the recurring weakness noted by multiple test teams (longer wet braking distances and weaker wet cornering), which often costs it overall positions even when its ice/snow traction looks excellent.
Practical takeaway: if your winter includes lots of wet highways, slush, and frequent transitions between bare and winter roads, Goodyear's “no obvious weakness” profile is usually the safer bet. If you prioritize maximum take-off traction on ice (and value calmer, more “normal” steering feel) and can accept that wet braking is not class-leading, Michelin remains a very capable-if more condition-dependent-option.
UltraGrip Arctic 2 vs X Ice North 4: your questions
Is the Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2 or the Michelin X Ice North 4 the better tire?
In the 9 independent tests that ran both tires, the Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2 finished ahead 5 times and the X Ice North 4 4 times. On the Tire Reviews Score, which weighs every test and review we hold, the UltraGrip Arctic 2 scores 9.2 and the X Ice North 4 8.6 out of 10.
Which is better in the wet, the UltraGrip Arctic 2 or the X Ice North 4?
The UltraGrip Arctic 2 led 18 of the 20 wet measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it stopped 6.2% shorter in the wet across 6 tests.
Which is better in the dry?
The X Ice North 4 led 6 of the 12 dry measurements the shared tests recorded.
Which is better in snow?
Across the shared tests the snow measurements are split 8-8 between the UltraGrip Arctic 2 and the X Ice North 4.
Which lasts longer and costs less to run?
The X Ice North 4 used 1% less fuel (4 tests).
Which is quieter and more comfortable?
Owners rate comfort 9/10 for the UltraGrip Arctic 2 and 8.3/10 for the X Ice North 4.
What do owners say?
Owners rate the UltraGrip Arctic 2 91% from 1 reviews and the X Ice North 4 84% from 12.
Which is more expensive?
In the 6 tests that listed prices, the X Ice North 4 was the dearer tire in 4 of them, by 5.6% on average. Prices are the test's own at the time, in its own market.
More comparisons with these tires
vs 
Michelin X Ice North 4 vs Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
0-7 in 7 shared tests
vs
Hankook Winter i pike RS2 vs Michelin X Ice North 4
0-5 in 5 shared tests
vs 
Michelin X Ice North 4 vs Michelin X Ice Snow
1-1 in 6 shared tests
vs
Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2 vs Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
1-6 in 7 shared tests
vs 
Michelin X Ice North 4 vs Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
1-2 in 5 shared tests
vs
Continental IceContact 3 vs Michelin X Ice North 4
3-6 in 11 shared tests
vs 
Michelin X Ice North 4 vs Pirelli Ice Zero 2
4-3 in 7 shared tests
vs
Continental VikingContact 8 vs Michelin X Ice North 4
2-0 in 4 shared tests
Every Goodyear vs Michelin test → All comparisons → Compare three or more tires →
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