Hankook Ventus Evo vs Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
- TR Score
- 9.4/10
- Owners say
- 86% · 24
- TR Score
- 9.2/10
- Owners say
- 84% · 41
In the 8 independent tests that ran both tires, the Hankook Ventus Evo finished ahead 6 times and the Ecsta Sport PS72 twice. The Ventus Evo stopped 3% shorter in the wet; the Ecsta Sport PS72 had 4.8% lower rolling resistance.
Data updated
Which should you buy?
Choose the Hankook Ventus Evo if you prioritize wet-weather safety (wet braking + aquaplaning), a more complete all-round test record, and potentially better wear/value. Choose the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 if your priority is maximum value with strong day-to-day refinement and better rolling resistance/efficiency, and you're willing to trade some wet-security margin and limit-behavior polish for the price.
Where the Ventus Evo is stronger
- Wet safety advantage: dominant wet braking and wet handling trend (wins wet braking in 7/8 shared comparisons; e.g., 32.4 m vs 35.9 m in Auto Express 225/40 R18)
- Aquaplaning resistance: repeatedly higher straight/curved aquaplaning thresholds (e.g., +10.3% straight and +15.7% curved in 225/45 R17 testing)
- Balanced performance + value in large-group tests: outright win in AutoBild 1/20 with strong dry braking (32.8 m) and strong wet package, plus best cost-per-km outcome reported
Where the Ecsta Sport PS72 is stronger
- Often strong dry grip/pace metrics: can lead on dry circle speed (e.g., 73.75 vs 70.16 km/h in AutoView Value) and occasionally edge dry braking/handling in smaller-size tests
- Efficiency advantage overall: more frequent rolling-resistance wins (4 vs 1 in the summary; e.g., 7.36 vs 7.9 kg/t in Auto Express)
- Refinement can be a standout: quietest tire in AutoView Sport test (47.8 dB vs 49.44 dB) and frequently praised for low noise/road manners in value-focused comparisons
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.
Ventus Evo vs Ecsta Sport PS72 at a glance
| Category | Ventus Evo | Gap | Ecsta Sport PS72 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shared tests won8 shared tests | 6 | 2 | |
| Dry21 measurements | 10 | The Ventus Evo stopped 1.6% shorter in the dry (8 tests) | 9 |
| Wet30 measurements | 26 | The Ventus Evo stopped 3% shorter in the wet (8 tests) | 3 |
| Off road4 measurements | 2 | Level between the two. | 2 |
| Comfort12 measurements | 8 | The Ventus Evo was 0.6 dB quieter (6 tests) | 3 |
| Value7 measurements | 3 | The Ecsta Sport PS72 had 4.8% lower rolling resistance (5 tests) | 4 |
| Tire Reviews Scoreevery test and review we hold | 9.4/10 | The Ventus Evo by 0.2 | 9.2/10 |
| Owner rating24 and 41 reviews | 86% | The Ventus Evo by 2 points | 84% |
| Would buy againshare of owners | 78% | The Ecsta Sport PS72 by 4 points | 82% |
| Pricein the 3 tests that listed prices | +14% | The Ventus Evo was dearer in 3 of 3 | Cheaper |
| Sizes madeEU label registrations | 106 | 38 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 8 tests, 2025 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 | Ventus Evo | Field | Ecsta Sport PS72 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 AutoView Sport Tire Test | P6 of 7 | P4 of 7 | |
| 2026 AutoView Value Sport Tire Test | P4 of 4 | P2 of 4 | |
| 2026 Motor Summer Tire Test | P3 of 9 | P4 of 9 | |
| 2026 Summer SUV Tire Test | P1 of 9 | P6 of 9 | |
| 2026 Autobild Summer Tire Test | P1 of 20 | P6 of 20 | |
| The BEST Summer Tires for 2026 Tested and Rated | P3 of 12 | P4 of 12 | |
| 2026 Summer Braking Super Tire Test - How do 52 Tires Perform in Wet and Dry Braking? | P2 of 50 | P4 of 50 | |
| 2025 Auto Express Summer Tire Test | P3 of 9 | P5 of 9 |
Performance profile
15 measurements from the 8 shared tests, each tire shown as its share of the better figure in every test.
Where each is furthest ahead
Ventus 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 94%: a point further in sits on the hub's edge, hollow. 8 measurements recorded in only one shared test are left off; every measurement is in the table further down.
Where each scores higher
Ventus 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
Ventus Evo
Ecsta Sport PS72
Point at or tap any spoke for both tires' figures.
Owners rate the Ventus Evo 86% from 24 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 | Ventus Evo | Gap | Ecsta Sport PS72 | Wins | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 115 | 1.6% | 117 | 5-3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 81.89 | 0.1% | 81.8 | 1-2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 64 | 0.7% | 63.6 | 1-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| scored | 5.6% | scored | 3-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 43.9 | 3.2% | 45.3 | 0-2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 112 | 3% | 116 | 7-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 76.6 | 1.1% | 77.45 | 3-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 53.7 | 2.1% | 52.5 | 2-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| scored | 2.4% | scored | 1-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1.7 | 0.5% | 1.7 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 18.82 | 1.2% | 19.06 | 4-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 52.6 | 5.1% | 50.3 | 4-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9.5 | 11.5% | 8.6 | 4-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 39.3 | 0.8% | 39.6 | 0-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2,572 | 5.8% | 2,430 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1,911 | 17.9% | 2,252 | 0-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 838 | 44.3% | 581 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| scored | 5.1% | scored | 4-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| scored | 4.2% | scored | 0-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 65.17 | 0.6 dB | 65.75 | 4-2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 34,989 | 16.8% | 29,969 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6.69 | 4.8% | 6.41 | 1-4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1,470 | 8.4% | 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 Ventus Evo scores 9.4 and the Ecsta Sport PS72 9.2 out of 10.
| Ventus Evo | Category | Ecsta Sport PS72 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 89 | Dry | 92 | ||
| 99 | Wet | 88 | ||
| 50 | Comfort | 35 | ||
| 47 | 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
| Ventus Evo | Category | Ecsta Sport PS72 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9.3 | Dry Grip | 9 | ||
| 9.2 | Wet Grip | 8.8 | ||
| 8.3 | Road Feedback | 8.6 | ||
| 9 | Handling | 8.6 | ||
| 7.8 | Wear | 8.3 | ||
| 7.9 | Comfort | 7.7 | ||
Owners rate the Ventus Evo 86% from 24 reviews and the Ecsta Sport PS72 84% from 41. Reviews are vetted by hand before publication; ownership is not verified.
Hankook Ventus Evo
- 86%from 24 reviews
- 78%would buy again
- 106,316 milesdriven by reviewers
Owners rate the Hankook Ventus Evo very highly overall, with most praising strong dry and wet grip that inspires confidence. A clear majority also highlight low road noise and a comfortable, compliant ride for an everyday performance tire. The main drawback is steering feel: around one in three owners say it lacks initial feedback or sharpness versus premium rivals, even if outright grip remains strong.
- Very strong dry grip
- Very strong wet grip
- Generally quiet at speed
- Comfortable, compliant ride
- Steering feel lacks feedback/initial bite for some drivers
- Can be a bit noisy on certain surfaces or at particular speeds
- Ride can feel slightly firm on low-profile fitments
Summarised by AI from 21 vetted reviews; the reviews themselves are on the tire page.
All 24 Ventus Evo reviewsI bought set of these in SUV version to replace OEM worn-out Bridgestone Dueller tires. The Hankooks were one of few options available in size for Lexus RX and the price was very good. Obviously, they are sport-biased, not intended for a comfortable relaxed SUV. Their grip both in dry and wet is perfect, steering precise. But, they are not the choice for maximum comfort and silence. Winter set (Conti 870P) in the same size are significantly quieter and more comfortable. However, these tires are a smart choice- good price, peak safety and also good wear- after 20000km stil about 4-5mm. I would buy them again, but not for RX.
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: 106 sizes of the Ventus Evo and 86 of the Ecsta Sport PS72, 38 of them made in both.
| Category | Ventus Evo | Ecsta Sport PS72 |
|---|---|---|
| Season | Summer | Summer |
| Sizes made | 106 sizes, 17 to 22 inch | 86 sizes, 17 to 21 inch |
| Made in both | 38 sizes 205/45 R17215/45 R17225/45 R17225/50 R17225/55 R17245/45 R17205/40 R18215/40 R18215/45 R18225/40 R18225/45 R18235/40 R18and 26 more | |
| EU label wet grip | A97%B3% | A95%B5% |
| EU label rolling resistance | C83%A10%B7%D1% | C77%B10%A8%D5% |
| EU label noise | 68-73 dB B76%A24% | 70-74 dB B100% |
| Replaced | Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3 (2021) | Kumho Ecsta PS91 |
| Awards | Winner: Performance Tire of the Year (WhatTire, 2026/27) Winner: Performance Tire of the Year (WhatTire, 2025) | Winner: Summer Value Performer (17in and above) (WhatTire, 2026/27) |
| Price in the shared tests | The Ventus Evo was the dearer tire in 3 of the 3 tests that listed prices, by 14% 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.
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.
Hankook's Ventus Evo and Kumho's Ecsta Sport PS72 sit in the same “max-performance summer” lane, but the shared 8-test dataset shows they get to similar lap-time capability via different priorities. The Ventus Evo is repeatedly set up as the wet-weather and safety-focused option, while the PS72 often shines on the everyday ownership metrics (notably efficiency/rolling resistance and, in some tests, cabin noise) and can post strong dry grip numbers.
What makes this head-to-head especially interesting is variance: the Ventus Evo ranges from class-leading (1st/20 in AutoBild 245/45 R19 and 1st/9 in a 255/45 R19 SUV test) to unusually weak (6th/7 in AutoView 225/45 R18, where testers noted loose on-center steering and non-linear limit behavior). The PS72 is more consistently “good but not great” overall, typically landing mid-top pack, with a recurring theme of strong peak grip undermined by steering/limit-behavior polish and, in several reports, weaker aquaplaning resilience.
Conclusion
Across the full set of shared results, the Hankook Ventus Evo is the more convincing all-round performance tire-particularly if wet braking, wet handling and aquaplaning safety matter. It wins wet braking in 7 of the shared comparisons and repeatedly shows a meaningful margin in water clearance (e.g., 225/45 R17 straight aquaplaning 78.8 vs 71.4 km/h and curved aquaplaning 3.84 vs 3.32 m/s²). It also backs that up with strong dry fundamentals in key tests (e.g., AutoBild 245/45 R19: 32.8 m dry braking vs 34.4 m for the PS72) plus standout wear/value in the one test that measured it (56,310 km vs 48,230 km).
The Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 remains a smart buy when price and daily drivability are the priority, and it can absolutely deliver competitive pace-sometimes even topping dry metrics like circle speed (e.g., AutoView Value 235/40 R18: 73.75 vs 70.16 km/h). But the dataset flags two practical caveats: (1) braking can be the weak link (longest dry braking in AutoView Value), and (2) the way it communicates at/over the limit is frequently described as less refined (slower steering response, early understeer or a snappier breakaway depending on test). The practical takeaway: if you want the safer, more complete “rain-ready” performance package, the Ventus Evo is the stronger bet; if you want a keenly priced sporty tire with good efficiency and often excellent noise results, the PS72 is compelling-just accept that ultimate wet security and limit polish aren't its headline strengths.
Ventus Evo vs Ecsta Sport PS72: your questions
Is the Hankook Ventus Evo or the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 the better tire?
In the 8 independent tests that ran both tires, the Hankook Ventus Evo finished ahead 6 times and the Ecsta Sport PS72 twice. On the Tire Reviews Score, which weighs every test and review we hold, the Ventus Evo scores 9.4 and the Ecsta Sport PS72 9.2 out of 10.
Which is better in the wet, the Ventus Evo or the Ecsta Sport PS72?
The Ventus Evo led 26 of the 30 wet measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it stopped 3% shorter in the wet across 8 tests.
Which is better in the dry?
The Ventus Evo led 10 of the 21 dry measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it stopped 1.6% shorter in the dry across 8 tests.
Which lasts longer and costs less to run?
The Ecsta Sport PS72 had 4.8% lower rolling resistance (5 tests). Owners rate wear 7.8/10 for the Ventus Evo and 8.3/10 for the Ecsta Sport PS72.
Which is quieter and more comfortable?
The Ventus Evo was 0.6 dB quieter (6 tests). Owners rate comfort 7.9/10 for the Ventus Evo and 7.7/10 for the Ecsta Sport PS72.
What do owners say?
Owners rate the Ventus Evo 86% from 24 reviews and the Ecsta Sport PS72 84% from 41. 78% of Ventus Evo owners would buy it again, against 82% for the Ecsta Sport PS72.
Which is more expensive?
In the 3 tests that listed prices, the Ventus Evo was the dearer tire in 3 of them, by 14% on average. Prices are the test's own at the time, in its own market.
Are they available in the same sizes?
The Ventus Evo is made in 106 sizes (17 to 22 inch) and the Ecsta Sport PS72 in 86 (17 to 21 inch). 38 sizes are available in both. On the EU label the Ventus 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 
Hankook Ventus Evo vs Michelin Pilot Sport 5
3-4 in 7 shared tests
vs
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6 vs Hankook Ventus Evo
1-5 in 6 shared tests
vs
Continental SportContact 7 vs Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
1-2 in 3 shared tests
vs
Bridgestone Potenza Sport vs Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
1-1 in 2 shared tests
vs
Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 vs Michelin Pilot Sport 5
3-3 in 6 shared tests
vs
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6 vs Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
2-2 in 4 shared tests
vs
Continental PremiumContact 7 vs Hankook Ventus Evo
2-3 in 6 shared tests
vs 
Hankook Ventus Evo vs Michelin Primacy 5
2-0 in 2 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