Hankook Ventus Evo vs Vredestein Ultrac Pro
Across five independent shared tests (including two large Auto Bild group tests and a dedicated wet/dry braking comparison), the Ventus Evo repeatedly lands at or near the top of the field-winning every shared overall result-whereas the Ultrac Pro typically places mid-pack overall despite having a few specific advantages. The interesting part is that Vredestein's wins tend to be in secondary-but-daily-relevant areas (noise, rolling resistance, a couple of aquaplaning/off-road metrics), while Hankook dominates the safety-critical and performance-defining categories (wet and dry braking, wet handling).
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 five tests which compare both tires directly!
| Tire | Test Wins | Performance |
|---|---|---|
| Hankook Ventus Evo | five |
While it might look like the Hankook Ventus 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
- Consistently shorter braking distances in both dry and wet (won 5/5 in dry braking and 5/5 in wet braking; e.g., 42.1 m vs 45.0 m wet in Auto Bild 2026)
- Stronger wet performance envelope overall (best-in-test wet credentials; faster wet handling and wet circle across shared tests)
- Higher durability and better cost-per-km/value in the Auto Bild tests (56310 km vs 42100 km in 2026; 41440 km vs 32930 km in 2025, plus better value scores)
- Excellent mixed-surface traction where tested (dominant grass and gravel traction in the 2026 SUV test: +46% on grass, +14% on gravel)
- Lower noise / more refinement in multiple tests (quietest in the 2026 SUV test; wins noise 2 out of 3 measured comparisons here)
- Very low rolling resistance/efficiency, including best-in-field in the 2026 SUV test (6.92 vs 8.15 kg/t)
- Competitive aquaplaning strengths in specific metrics (wins straight aquaplaning in the 2026 SUV test; ties straight aqua in Auto Bild 2026 and 2025)
- Strong sand traction where measured (2026 SUV test: 10147 N vs 8501 N)
Dry Braking
Looking at data from five tire tests, the Hankook Ventus Evo was better during five dry braking tests. On average the Hankook Ventus Evo stopped the vehicle in 3.14% less distance than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Dry Braking: Hankook Ventus Evo
See how the Dry Braking winner was calculated >>
Dry Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from three tire tests, the Hankook Ventus Evo was better during three dry handling [km/h] tests. On average the Hankook Ventus Evo was 1.62% faster around a lap than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Dry Handling [Km/H]: Hankook Ventus Evo
See how the Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Subj. Dry Handling
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Hankook Ventus Evo was better during one subj. dry handling tests. On average the Hankook Ventus Evo scored 13% more points than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Subj. Dry Handling: Hankook Ventus Evo
See how the Subj. Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Braking
Looking at data from five tire tests, the Hankook Ventus Evo was better during five wet braking tests. On average the Hankook Ventus Evo stopped the vehicle in 7.92% less distance than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Wet Braking: Hankook Ventus Evo
See how the Wet Braking winner was calculated >>
Wet Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from three tire tests, the Hankook Ventus Evo was better during three wet handling [km/h] tests. On average the Hankook Ventus Evo was 2.28% faster around a wet lap than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Wet Handling [Km/H]: Hankook Ventus Evo
See how the Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Subj. Wet Handling
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Hankook Ventus Evo was better during one subj. wet handling tests. On average the Hankook Ventus Evo scored 8.05% more points than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Subj. Wet Handling: Hankook Ventus Evo
See how the Subj. Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Circle
Looking at data from three tire tests, the Hankook Ventus Evo was better during three wet circle tests. On average the Hankook Ventus Evo was 2.96% faster around a wet circle than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Wet Circle: Hankook Ventus 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 one straight aqua tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro floated at a 0.23% higher speed than the Hankook Ventus Evo.
Best In Straight Aqua: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Straight Aqua winner was calculated >>
Curved Aquaplaning
Looking at data from three tire tests, the Hankook Ventus Evo and Vredestein Ultrac Pro performed equally well in curved aquaplaning tests.
Best In Curved Aquaplaning: Both tires performed equally well
See how the Curved Aquaplaning winner was calculated >>
Gravel Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during one gravel handling [km/h] tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was 0.47% faster around a lap than the Hankook Ventus Evo.
Best In Gravel Handling [Km/H]: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
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 12.58% better traction on gravel than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
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 Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during one sand traction tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro had 16.22% better traction in sand than the Hankook Ventus 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 Hankook Ventus Evo was better during one grass traction tests. On average the Hankook Ventus Evo had 31.67% better traction on grass than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Grass Traction: Hankook Ventus Evo
See how the Grass Traction winner was calculated >>
Subj. Comfort
Looking at data from two tire tests, the Hankook Ventus Evo was better during one subj. comfort tests. On average the Hankook Ventus Evo scored 5.38% more points than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Subj. Comfort: Hankook Ventus Evo
See how the Subj. Comfort winner was calculated >>
Noise
Looking at data from three tire tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during two noise tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro measured 0.88% quieter than the Hankook Ventus Evo.
Best In Noise: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Noise winner was calculated >>
Wear
Looking at data from two tire tests, the Hankook Ventus Evo was better during two wear tests. On average the Hankook Ventus Evo is predicted to cover 23.24% miles before reaching 1.6mm than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Wear: Hankook Ventus Evo
See how the Wear winner was calculated >>
Value
Looking at data from two tire tests, the Hankook Ventus Evo was better during two value tests. On average the Hankook Ventus Evo proved to have a 23.5% better value based on price/1000km than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Value: Hankook Ventus Evo
See how the Value winner was calculated >>
Rolling Resistance
Looking at data from three tire tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during two rolling resistance tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro had a 3.06% lower rolling resistance than the Hankook Ventus 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 Hankook Ventus Evo was better during one abrasion tests. On average the Hankook Ventus Evo lost 9.09% less particle wear matter than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
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%
Vredestein Ultrac Pro Driver Reviews
Drivers largely praise the Vredestein Ultrac Pro for strong dry and wet grip, confident handling, and notably good ride comfort, with several noting premium feel and value. High-scoring reviews highlight short braking distances, stability, and decent wear for aggressive or heavy vehicles. A minority report concerns include poor performance in very cold (sub-5°C) conditions and one case of premature wear/delamination. Overall, the Ultrac Pro delivers balanced performance with comfort-focused tuning and attractive design.
Based on 6 reviews with an average rating of 81%
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
Conclusion
The Vredestein Ultrac Pro still makes sense when comfort/efficiency are top priorities and you can accept giving up braking and longevity. It is repeatedly quieter (e.g., 69.1 vs 70.6 dB in the 2026 SUV test; 71.0 vs 71.8 dB in Auto Bild 2026) and frequently shows lower rolling resistance (notably 6.92 vs 8.15 kg/t in the SUV test, the best in that field). It also edges straight-line aquaplaning in the SUV test (89.3 vs 88.7 km/h) and is strong in sand traction there (10147 N vs 8501 N). The practical takeaway: Ventus Evo is the performance-and-safety pick with better ownership economics; Ultrac Pro is the more refined, efficient cruiser-provided you're comfortable with its weaker braking/wear outcomes in these comparisons.
Key Differences
- Braking is the headline separator: Ventus Evo wins every shared wet and dry braking result, often by large real-world margins (e.g., wet 42.7 m vs 48.8 m in Auto Bild 2025).
- Overall standings heavily favor Hankook: Ventus Evo places 1/9, 1/20, 2/50, 4/21, 3/52 in the shared tests, while Ultrac Pro ranges from 2/9 (best) to 18/52.
- Efficiency and refinement lean Vredestein: lower rolling resistance in 2/3 shared RR comparisons and lower noise in 2/3, including a big RR advantage in the SUV test (6.92 vs 8.15 kg/t).
- Longevity and cost-per-km favor Hankook: projected mileage advantages of ~34% (Auto Bild 2026) and ~26% (Auto Bild 2025), which also drives better 'value' scores.
- Wet handling capability favors Hankook consistently (e.g., 83.6 vs 82.3 km/h in Auto Bild 2026; 73.5 vs 71.3 km/h in Auto Bild 2025).
- Use-case quirks from the SUV off-road subset: Hankook is far stronger on grass/gravel traction, while Vredestein is better on sand traction and slightly better in straight aquaplaning in that specific test.
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.
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.