Hankook Winter i cept evo3 vs Kumho Winter Craft WP52
- TR Score
- 9.2/10
- Owners say
- 86% · 23
- TR Score
- 8.3/10
- Owners say
- 68% · 9
In the 6 independent tests that ran both tires, the Hankook Winter i cept evo3 finished ahead 5 times and the Winter Craft WP52 once. The Winter i cept evo3 held 24.7% more grip in curved aquaplaning; the Winter Craft WP52 stopped 1% shorter in the dry.
Data updated
Which should you buy?
Choose Hankook Winter i*cept evo3 if you face frequent wet, slushy or snowy conditions and prioritize safety margins and control. Choose Kumho Winter Craft WP52 if your winter driving is mostly dry/cold highway commuting and you value a quieter, more affordable tire with decent all-round ability.
Where the Winter i cept evo3 is stronger
- Class-leading aquaplaning resistance (straight and curved) and consistent wet handling
- Best-in-test snow braking/traction multiple times with strong snow handling
- Short, reliable braking across conditions with low rolling resistance for a UHP winter
Where the Winter Craft WP52 is stronger
- Lower road noise and generally more comfortable touring demeanor
- Competitive dry braking/handling in several tests
- Attractive purchase price versus peers and Hankook
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.
Winter i cept evo3 vs Winter Craft WP52 at a glance
| Category | Winter i cept evo3 | Gap | Winter Craft WP52 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shared tests won6 shared tests | 5 | 1 | |
| Dry7 measurements | 2 | The Winter Craft WP52 stopped 1% shorter in the dry (3 tests) | 5 |
| Wet16 measurements | 14 | The Winter i cept evo3 held 24.7% more grip in curved aquaplaning (2 tests) | 1 |
| Snow14 measurements | 12 | The Winter i cept evo3 stopped 3% shorter on snow (6 tests) | 1 |
| Comfort3 measurements | 1 | The Winter Craft WP52 was 1.5 dB quieter (2 tests) | 2 |
| Value3 measurements | 2 | The Winter i cept evo3 had 1.1% lower rolling resistance (3 tests) | 1 |
| Tire Reviews Scoreevery test and review we hold | 9.2/10 | The Winter i cept evo3 by 0.9 | 8.3/10 |
| Owner rating23 and 9 reviews | 86% | The Winter i cept evo3 by 18 points | 68% |
| Would buy againshare of owners | 91% | The Winter i cept evo3 by 28 points | 63% |
| Pricein the 4 tests that listed prices | +15.3% | The Winter i cept evo3 was dearer in 4 of 4 | Cheaper |
| Sizes madeEU label registrations | 86 | 20 sizes made in both | 84 |
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 6 tests, 2022 to 2025
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 | Winter i cept evo3 | Field | Winter Craft WP52 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 Winter Tire Braking Test - 52 Sets! | P14 of 51 | P4 of 51 | |
| 2024 Auto Bild SUV Winter Tire Test | P5 of 12 | P7 of 12 | |
| 2023 Sports Cars Winter Tire Test | P4 of 11 | P7 of 11 | |
| 2023 Winter Tire Test 54 Set Braking Test | P8 of 54 | P25 of 54 | |
| 2023 Tire Reviews Winter Tire Test | P4 of 11 | P9 of 11 | |
| 2022 Winter Tire Market Overview | P9 of 56 | P19 of 56 |
Performance profile
11 measurements from the 6 shared tests, each tire shown as its share of the better figure in every test.
Where each is furthest ahead
Winter i cept evo3
Winter Craft WP52
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 96%: a point further in sits on the hub's edge, hollow. 10 measurements recorded in only one shared test are left off; every measurement is in the table further down.
Where each scores higher
Winter i cept evo3
Winter Craft WP52
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
Winter i cept evo3
Winter Craft WP52
Not ahead in any category
Point at or tap any spoke for both tires' figures.
Owners rate the Winter i cept evo3 86% from 23 reviews and the Winter Craft WP52 68% from 9. 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 | Winter i cept evo3 | Gap | Winter Craft WP52 | Wins | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 142 | 1% | 141 | 1-2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 71.68 | 0.3% | 71.45 | 0-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 64.5 | 0.1% | 64.5 | 0-2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| scored | 3.2% | scored | 1-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 117 | 2.1% | 120 | 5-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 58.15 | 3.4% | 60.19 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 51 | 1.6% | 50.3 | 2-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| scored | = | scored | 0-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 16.02 | 3.1% | 16.54 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 57 | 4.9% | 54.2 | 3-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10.4 | 24.7% | 8.3 | 2-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 85 | 3% | 87 | 6-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5.65 | 5.5% | 5.98 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 552 | 2.4% | 539 | 2-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 85.24 | 1.8% | 86.79 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 36.7 | 0.6% | 36.5 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| scored | 3.3% | scored | 1-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11.6 | 0.3% | 11.6 | 0-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| scored | 5.6% | scored | 1-0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 74.1 | 1.5 dB | 72.6 | 0-2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8.51 | 1.1% | 8.59 | 2-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 Winter i cept evo3 scores 9.2 and the Winter Craft WP52 8.3 out of 10.
| Winter i cept evo3 | Category | Winter Craft WP52 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 77 | Dry | 93 | ||
| 89 | Wet | 68 | ||
| 11 | Comfort | 21 | ||
| 57 | Value | 72 | ||
| 68 | Snow | 38 | ||
| 63 | Ice | 56 | ||
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
| Winter i cept evo3 | Category | Winter Craft WP52 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | Dry Grip | 7.7 | ||
| 9 | Wet Grip | 6.8 | ||
| 7.8 | Road Feedback | 6.9 | ||
| 8.4 | Handling | 7.1 | ||
| 8.8 | Wear | 6.8 | ||
| 7.8 | Comfort | 7.3 | ||
| 9.4 | Snow Grip | 7.3 | ||
| 8.5 | Ice Grip | 5.3 | ||
Owners rate the Winter i cept evo3 86% from 23 reviews and the Winter Craft WP52 68% from 9. Reviews are vetted by hand before publication; ownership is not verified.
Hankook Winter i cept evo3
- 86%from 23 reviews
- 91%would buy again
- 164,670 milesdriven by reviewers
Across 20 reviews, the Hankook Winter i*cept evo3 is described as a highly confidence-inspiring winter tire with standout traction in snow and strong, predictable grip in wet conditions (often praised for stability and aquaplaning resistance). Many drivers also report good dry-road handling for a winter tire and consider it excellent value versus premium brands. A smaller minority mention increased road noise or a firmer/less comfortable ride compared with their summer tires, but this is not the dominant experience.
- Excellent snow traction and confidence in winter conditions
- Strong wet grip and high aquaplaning resistance
- Stable, predictable handling and good road feedback
- Good comfort and generally low noise for a winter tire
- Some users find it noisier than summer tires or typical winter tire buzzing
Summarised by AI from 20 vetted reviews; the reviews themselves are on the tire page.
All 23 Winter i cept evo3 reviewsI used these Hankook Winter i*cept evo3 W330 tires for 4 full winter seasons on a Jeep Compass 2.0 Multijet 4x4. They lasted for roughly 5,500 miles (around 8,900 km). The grip held up exceptionally well as they wore down, providing consistent traction and stability for an AWD SUV in various winter conditions. They offer great value and reliable performance, and I would absolutely buy them again.
Kumho Winter Craft WP52
- 68%from 9 reviews
- 63%would buy again
- 97,000 milesdriven by reviewers
Drivers find the Kumho Winter Craft WP52 to deliver strong dry grip and handling with generally good snow traction, making it a solid value purchase. Wet performance is adequate but not standout, with several users noting longer wet braking distances or a vague feel. Noise can be higher than average for some, though overall comfort is acceptable. Overall sentiment is moderately positive with a few recurring caveats in the wet.
- dry grip and handling
- snow traction
- value for money
- average-to-weak wet braking/grip
- increased road noise
Summarised by AI from 6 vetted reviews; the reviews themselves are on the tire page.
All 9 Winter Craft WP52 reviewsThey were not at all suitable for my car, which has a diesel engine and higher torque. I drive mostly in the city, and they showed signs of fraying as early as the first winter. I experienced the same issue with Hankook tires in the past. For those who drive a more powerful car or one with high torque, I would recommend something that holds up better to conditions in cities with less snow.
Sizes, EU label and lineage
From the EU label registrations for each tire: 86 sizes of the Winter i cept evo3 and 84 of the Winter Craft WP52, 20 of them made in both.
| Category | Winter i cept evo3 | Winter Craft WP52 |
|---|---|---|
| Season | Winter | Winter |
| Sizes made | 86 sizes, 17 to 22 inch | 84 sizes, 13 to 21 inch |
| Made in both | 20 sizes 215/60 R17225/60 R17235/45 R17235/50 R17215/40 R18215/50 R18215/55 R18225/40 R18225/45 R18225/55 R18235/40 R18235/45 R18and 8 more | |
| EU label wet grip | B98%C1%D1% | B86%A14% |
| EU label rolling resistance | C57%D42%B1% | C67%D30%B3% |
| EU label noise | 70-75 dB B100% | 71-72 dB B100% |
| Severe snow (3PMSF) sizes | 124 of 124 | 298 of 298 |
| On the market since | 2021 | - |
| Replaced | Hankook Winter i cept evo2 | Kumho Winter Craft WP51 |
| Price in the shared tests | The Winter i cept evo3 was the dearer tire in 4 of the 4 tests that listed prices, by 15.3% 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.
This head-to-head pits two different winter philosophies against each other: the Hankook Winter i*cept evo3, an ultra-high-performance (UHP) winter tire aimed at keen drivers, versus the Kumho Winter Craft WP52, a premium-touring winter tire targeting comfort and value. Across six shared tests from 2022-2025, both tires deliver competent winter manners, but they prioritize different strengths.
The data show a clear pattern: Hankook consistently excels in wet and snow performance and offers outstanding aquaplaning reserves, while Kumho trades some wet security for stronger dry-road manners, lower noise, and a keener price. If your winters mean frequent rain, slush and snow, the Hankook's safety margin stands out; if you mostly drive on cold, dry highways and value comfort and cost, the Kumho makes a compelling case.
Conclusion
Across the six shared tests, Hankook takes five overall wins to the Kumho's one, underpinned by repeat advantages in wet braking (5-1), snow braking (6-0), wet handling, and both straight and curved aquaplaning. These are meaningful margins: up to ~7% quicker in wet braking and notable aquaplaning headroom translate directly into shorter stops and better stability in real-world winter moisture.
Kumho counters with quieter operation, slightly better dry braking/handling in several tests, and a lower purchase price (≈11.5% cheaper in the 2023 Tire Reviews test). For drivers spending most winter miles on dry, cold roads at steady speeds, those benefits matter. But for mixed or severe winter conditions, Hankook's broader capability and safety reserves make it the more complete winter choice. Practical takeaway: pick Hankook for confidence when it's wet, slushy or snowy; pick Kumho for quiet, budget-friendly commuting on predominantly dry winter days.
Winter i cept evo3 vs Winter Craft WP52: your questions
Is the Hankook Winter i cept evo3 or the Kumho Winter Craft WP52 the better tire?
In the 6 independent tests that ran both tires, the Hankook Winter i cept evo3 finished ahead 5 times and the Winter Craft WP52 once. On the Tire Reviews Score, which weighs every test and review we hold, the Winter i cept evo3 scores 9.2 and the Winter Craft WP52 8.3 out of 10.
Which is better in the wet, the Winter i cept evo3 or the Winter Craft WP52?
The Winter i cept evo3 led 14 of the 16 wet measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it held 24.7% more grip in curved aquaplaning across 2 tests.
Which is better in the dry?
The Winter Craft WP52 led 5 of the 7 dry measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it stopped 1% shorter in the dry across 3 tests.
Which is better in snow?
The Winter i cept evo3 led 12 of the 14 snow measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it stopped 3% shorter on snow across 6 tests.
Which lasts longer and costs less to run?
The Winter i cept evo3 had 1.1% lower rolling resistance (3 tests). Owners rate wear 8.8/10 for the Winter i cept evo3 and 6.8/10 for the Winter Craft WP52.
Which is quieter and more comfortable?
The Winter Craft WP52 was 1.5 dB quieter (2 tests). Owners rate comfort 7.8/10 for the Winter i cept evo3 and 7.3/10 for the Winter Craft WP52.
What do owners say?
Owners rate the Winter i cept evo3 86% from 23 reviews and the Winter Craft WP52 68% from 9. 91% of Winter i cept evo3 owners would buy it again, against 63% for the Winter Craft WP52.
Which is more expensive?
In the 4 tests that listed prices, the Winter i cept evo3 was the dearer tire in 4 of them, by 15.3% on average. Prices are the test's own at the time, in its own market.
Are they available in the same sizes?
The Winter i cept evo3 is made in 86 sizes (17 to 22 inch) and the Winter Craft WP52 in 84 (13 to 21 inch). 20 sizes are available in both. On the EU label the Winter i cept evo3 is graded B for wet grip and C for rolling resistance in most sizes; the Winter Craft WP52 B and C.
More comparisons with these tires
vs 
Hankook Winter i cept evo3 vs Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
1-18 in 20 shared tests
vs
Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3 vs Hankook Winter i cept evo3
12-0 in 13 shared tests
vs
Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 vs Hankook Winter i cept evo3
8-5 in 14 shared tests
vs
Continental WinterContact TS 870 P vs Hankook Winter i cept evo3
13-3 in 17 shared tests
vs
Bridgestone Blizzak 6 vs Hankook Winter i cept evo3
6-0 in 6 shared tests
vs
Dunlop Winter Sport 5 vs Hankook Winter i cept evo3
2-6 in 9 shared tests
vs
Hankook Winter I cept RS3 vs Kumho Winter Craft WP52
4-1 in 5 shared tests
vs 
Hankook Winter i cept evo3 vs Uniroyal WinterExpert
5-1 in 6 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