Hankook Ventus Evo vs Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
Across these tests, the comparison quickly becomes a story of priorities: the Hankook repeatedly scores higher overall and is consistently stronger in wet safety metrics (braking and aquaplaning in particular), while the Kumho tends to trade some wet margin for efficiency (rolling resistance) and occasionally edges out small wins in dry handling or specific wet-grip subtests. Both are credible sporty summer tires-but they get there in different ways.
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 six tests which compare both tires directly!
| Tire | Test Wins | Performance |
|---|---|---|
| Hankook Ventus Evo | six |
While it might look like the Hankook Ventus Evo is better than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 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 safety overall: wins wet braking in every shared test (e.g., 43.2 m vs 44.3 m in Motor; 50.2 m vs 54.4 m in the SUV test)
- Much better aquaplaning resistance in most datasets, sometimes by a large margin (e.g., 78.8 vs 71.4 km/h straight aquaplaning; 3.84 vs 3.32 m/s² curved aquaplaning)
- More refined on average: typically lower noise and higher comfort scores (e.g., 64.8 vs 65.2 dB in Motor; 71.8 vs 74.1 dB in Autobild; higher subjective comfort)
- Stronger ownership proposition in wear/value where measured (Autobild: 56,310 km vs 48,230 km and better value score)
- Often better efficiency: rolling resistance advantage in most shared comparisons (wins 4 out of 5 RR results provided)
- Competitive dry performance with occasional wins in dry braking/handling (e.g., Motor dry braking 37.1 vs 37.3 m; small edges in some dry-handling results)
- Good subjective 'sporty' balance/steering noted in commentary, aligning with consistently solid grip scores when conditions are stable
- Strong value positioning in some tests due to low purchase price (noted as the cheapest tire in the SUV test, and among the lowest-priced finalists in Autobild)
Dry Braking
Looking at data from six tire tests, the Hankook Ventus Evo was better during four dry braking tests. On average the Hankook Ventus Evo stopped the vehicle in 2.21% less distance than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Dry Braking: Hankook Ventus Evo
See how the Dry Braking winner was calculated >>
Dry Handling [s]
Looking at data from three tire tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during two dry handling [s] tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was 0.27% faster around a lap than the Hankook Ventus Evo.
Best In Dry Handling [s]: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Dry Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from two tire tests, the Hankook Ventus Evo was better during one dry handling [km/h] tests. On average the Hankook Ventus Evo was 0.63% faster around a lap than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Dry Handling [Km/H]: Hankook Ventus Evo
See how the Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Subj. Dry Handling
Looking at data from three tire tests, the Hankook Ventus Evo was better during two subj. dry handling tests. On average the Hankook Ventus Evo scored 8.54% more points than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Subj. Dry Handling: Hankook Ventus Evo
See how the Subj. Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Braking
Looking at data from six tire tests, the Hankook Ventus Evo was better during six wet braking tests. On average the Hankook Ventus Evo stopped the vehicle in 4.28% less distance than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Wet Braking: Hankook Ventus Evo
See how the Wet Braking winner was calculated >>
Wet Handling [s]
Looking at data from three tire tests, the Hankook Ventus Evo was better during three wet handling [s] tests. On average the Hankook Ventus Evo was 1.1% faster around a wet lap than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Wet Handling [s]: Hankook Ventus Evo
See how the Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from two tire tests, the Hankook Ventus Evo was better during two wet handling [km/h] tests. On average the Hankook Ventus Evo was 2.08% faster around a wet lap than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Wet Handling [Km/H]: Hankook Ventus Evo
See how the Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Subj. Wet Handling
Looking at data from two tire tests, the Hankook Ventus Evo was better during one subj. wet handling tests. On average the Hankook Ventus Evo scored 2.3% more points than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Subj. Wet Handling: Hankook Ventus Evo
See how the Subj. Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Circle
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Hankook Ventus Evo was better during one wet circle tests. On average the Hankook Ventus Evo had 1.3% higher lateral wet grip than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Wet Circle: Hankook Ventus Evo
See how the Wet Circle winner was calculated >>
Straight Aqua
Looking at data from five tire tests, the Hankook Ventus Evo was better during four straight aqua tests. On average the Hankook Ventus Evo floated at a 4.41% higher speed than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Straight Aqua: Hankook Ventus Evo
See how the Straight Aqua winner was calculated >>
Curved Aquaplaning
Looking at data from five tire tests, the Hankook Ventus Evo was better during four curved aquaplaning tests. On average the Hankook Ventus Evo slipped out at a 9% higher speed than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Curved Aquaplaning: Hankook Ventus Evo
See how the Curved Aquaplaning winner was calculated >>
Gravel Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one gravel handling [km/h] tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was 0.78% faster around a lap than the Hankook Ventus Evo.
Best In Gravel Handling [Km/H]: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Gravel Handling winner was calculated >>
Gravel Traction
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Hankook Ventus Evo was better during one gravel traction tests. On average the Hankook Ventus Evo had 5.52% better traction on gravel than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Gravel Traction: Hankook Ventus Evo
See how the Gravel Traction winner was calculated >>
Sand Traction
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one sand traction tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 had 15.15% better traction in sand than the Hankook Ventus Evo.
Best In Sand Traction: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Sand Traction winner was calculated >>
Grass Traction
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Hankook Ventus Evo was better during one grass traction tests. On average the Hankook Ventus Evo had 30.71% better traction on grass than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Grass Traction: Hankook Ventus Evo
See how the Grass Traction winner was calculated >>
Subj. Comfort
Looking at data from three tire tests, the Hankook Ventus Evo was better during three subj. comfort tests. On average the Hankook Ventus Evo scored 7.14% more points than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Subj. Comfort: Hankook Ventus Evo
See how the Subj. Comfort winner was calculated >>
Subj. Noise
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one subj. noise tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 scored 4% more points than the Hankook Ventus Evo.
Best In Subj. Noise: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Subj. Noise winner was calculated >>
Noise
Looking at data from four tire tests, the Hankook Ventus Evo was better during four noise tests. On average the Hankook Ventus Evo measured 2.32% quieter than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Noise: Hankook Ventus Evo
See how the Noise winner was calculated >>
Wear
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Hankook Ventus Evo was better during one wear tests. On average the Hankook Ventus Evo is predicted to cover 14.35% miles before reaching 1.6mm than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Wear: Hankook Ventus Evo
See how the Wear winner was calculated >>
Value
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Hankook Ventus Evo was better during one value tests. On average the Hankook Ventus Evo proved to have a 11.5% better value based on price/1000km than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Value: Hankook Ventus Evo
See how the Value winner was calculated >>
Rolling Resistance
Looking at data from five tire tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during four rolling resistance tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 had a 4.19% lower rolling resistance than the Hankook Ventus Evo.
Best In Rolling Resistance: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Rolling Resistance winner was calculated >>
Abrasion
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Hankook Ventus Evo was better during one abrasion tests. On average the Hankook Ventus Evo lost 8.41% less particle wear matter than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Abrasion: Hankook Ventus Evo
See how the Abrasion winner was calculated >>
Real World Driver Reviews
Hankook Ventus Evo Driver Reviews
Overall sentiment toward the Hankook Ventus Evo is strongly positive. Most drivers praise its high mechanical grip in dry and especially wet conditions, confident braking, stability, low noise, and good comfort-often comparing it favorably to Michelin PS4, Goodyear Asymmetric, and Bridgestone. A minority mention softer steering feel/feedback and one mid-scoring review reports faster wear on a high-performance Tesla. For most users, it delivers excellent everyday sporty performance at a good price.
Based on 9 reviews with an average rating of 83%
Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 Driver Reviews
Drivers generally report the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 delivers strong dry and wet grip with confident, predictable handling and very good steering precision for the price. Many describe it as comparable to premium options (e.g., Michelin Pilot Sport and Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric lines) while offering standout value. Noise and comfort are often rated as good to very good, though a minority note it can be a bit firm or road-noisy depending on car/road. The main recurring complaint is vibration/balancing problems (often described as out-of-round tires) on some sets, which can undermine an otherwise very positive experience.
Based on 25 reviews with an average rating of 84%
The size is a bit of an unusual one, and therefore the price of this set, compared to a set of... Continue reading this review using the link below
They are not loud, but wouldn't they are necessarily quiet. You can hear them a bit depending on the road surface and speed.
Didn’t drive them too much in the rain, but seem to hold pretty well in wet conditions.
Mounted them in march this year and after 10-15k km I don’t see any major wear, but I would have to abstain on this one until I get them properly... Continue reading this review using the link below
Conclusion
The Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 is best viewed as a value-leaning, sporty-feeling alternative that can be very close on dry lap-time style metrics (and occasionally wins them), plus it frequently posts lower rolling resistance (wins 4/5 reported RR comparisons). However, its recurring weakness is wet robustness-especially aquaplaning resistance-where it repeatedly gives away the kind of margin that shows up on motorways in heavy rain. If your driving includes frequent wet weather or you want the safest “one-tire answer,” the Hankook is the confident pick. If your climate is mostly dry and your top priorities are upfront price and efficiency, the Kumho makes sense-just accept the wet-aquaplaning trade-off.
Key Differences
- Wet braking is the biggest consistent separator: Hankook wins 6/6 wet braking comparisons and can be substantially shorter (SUV test: 50.2 m vs 54.4 m).
- Aquaplaning margin generally favors Hankook heavily (e.g., 78.8 vs 71.4 km/h straight aquaplaning; 3.84 vs 3.32 m/s² curved), whereas Kumho's aquaplaning is repeatedly flagged as below average.
- Overall placements consistently favor Hankook (e.g., 1/20 vs 6/20 in Autobild; 1/9 vs 6/9 in the SUV test; 3/9 vs 4/9 in Motor; 3/13 vs 4/13 in the 'Best Summer Tires' test).
- Efficiency tends to favor Kumho: rolling resistance is typically lower for PS72 (wins 4/5), though Hankook does beat it in Autobild RR (7.69 vs 8.15 kg/t).
- Refinement tends to favor Hankook in the shared objective/subjective measures (noise and comfort wins in most reported datasets), even though one test narrative highlights Kumho's comfort as a standout in that specific context.
- Longevity/value data (where provided) leans Hankook: better projected wear (56,310 km vs 48,230 km) and a stronger cost-per-km style value metric in Autobild.
Overall Winner: Hankook Ventus Evo
Based on the tire test data and user reviews we have in our database, the Hankook Ventus 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:
Hankook Ventus Evo Top Comparisons
No other comparisons available for this tire.
Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 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.