BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 vs Michelin Alpin 6
That split is visible in the win counts: Michelin leads most road-surface disciplines (notably wet braking: 10 wins to 0), and dominates wear (5 wins to 0). BFGoodrich, however, consistently tops the winter disciplines-especially snow braking (10 wins to 0) and also leads straight-ahead aquaplaning (6 wins to 0). If your winter is predominantly snow-covered, the BFGoodrich keeps making a compelling case; if your winter is more “cold + wet asphalt,” the Michelin's edge is usually the safer and more refined choice.
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 fourteen tests which compare both tires directly!
| Tire | Test Wins | Performance |
|---|---|---|
| BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 | three | |
| Michelin Alpin 6 | eleven |
While it might look like the Michelin Alpin 6 is better than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 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 stronger snow braking/handling focus (snow braking wins 10-0; frequent wins in snow handling/slalom)
- Higher aquaplaning safety reserves in straight-line testing (straight aquaplaning wins 6-0; e.g., 83.4 vs 78.5 km/h in Auto Bild 2024)
- Often strong lateral aquaplaning results (multiple wins; e.g., 3.46 vs 3.16 m/s² in Auto Bild 2024)
- Typically better upfront price and often better 'value' scores in several Auto Bild-style cost metrics
- Much stronger wet braking consistency (wet braking wins 10-0; e.g., 36.4 vs 39.5 m in ADAC 2023)
- Better dry braking performance across tests (dry braking wins 6-0) and generally more precise, balanced road handling
- Clearly superior predicted mileage/wear (e.g., 50,500 vs 41,330 km in Auto Bild 2024; 53,300 vs 41,700 km in ADAC 2023)
- Lower rolling resistance / better efficiency trend and strong 'eco' credentials (incl. 'Green Tire' recognition in Auto Bild context)
Dry Braking
Looking at data from six tire tests, the Michelin Alpin 6 was better during six dry braking tests. On average the Michelin Alpin 6 stopped the vehicle in 3.39% less distance than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Dry Braking: Michelin Alpin 6
See how the Dry Braking winner was calculated >>
Dry Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from five tire tests, the Michelin Alpin 6 was better during four dry handling [km/h] tests. On average the Michelin Alpin 6 was 0.62% faster around a lap than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Dry Handling [Km/H]: Michelin Alpin 6
See how the Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Braking
Looking at data from ten tire tests, the Michelin Alpin 6 was better during ten wet braking tests. On average the Michelin Alpin 6 stopped the vehicle in 3.85% less distance than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Wet Braking: Michelin Alpin 6
See how the Wet Braking winner was calculated >>
Wet Braking - Concrete
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Michelin Alpin 6 was better during one wet braking - concrete tests. On average the Michelin Alpin 6 stopped the vehicle in 5.12% less distance than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Wet Braking - Concrete: Michelin Alpin 6
See how the Wet Braking - Concrete winner was calculated >>
Wet Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from five tire tests, the Michelin Alpin 6 was better during five wet handling [km/h] tests. On average the Michelin Alpin 6 was 1.43% faster around a wet lap than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Wet Handling [Km/H]: Michelin Alpin 6
See how the Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Circle
Looking at data from three tire tests, the Michelin Alpin 6 was better during two wet circle tests. On average the Michelin Alpin 6 was 0.87% faster around a wet circle than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Wet Circle: Michelin Alpin 6
See how the Wet Circle winner was calculated >>
Straight Aqua
Looking at data from six tire tests, the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was better during six straight aqua tests. On average the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 floated at a 3.98% higher speed than the Michelin Alpin 6.
Best In Straight Aqua: BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2
See how the Straight Aqua winner was calculated >>
Curved Aquaplaning
Looking at data from five tire tests, the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was better during three curved aquaplaning tests. On average the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 slipped out at a 3.87% higher speed than the Michelin Alpin 6.
Best In Curved Aquaplaning: BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2
See how the Curved Aquaplaning winner was calculated >>
Snow Braking
Looking at data from ten tire tests, the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was better during ten snow braking tests. On average the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 stopped the vehicle in 2.81% less distance than the Michelin Alpin 6.
Best In Snow Braking: BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2
See how the Snow Braking winner was calculated >>
Snow Traction
Looking at data from five tire tests, the Michelin Alpin 6 was better during two snow traction tests. On average the Michelin Alpin 6 had 0.91% better snow traction than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Snow Traction: Michelin Alpin 6
See how the Snow Traction winner was calculated >>
Snow Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from five tire tests, the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was better during five snow handling [km/h] tests. On average the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was 1.82% faster around a lap than the Michelin Alpin 6.
Best In Snow Handling [Km/H]: BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2
See how the Snow Handling winner was calculated >>
Snow Slalom
Looking at data from two tire tests, the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was better during two snow slalom tests. On average the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was 3.1% faster through a slalom than the Michelin Alpin 6.
Best In Snow Slalom: BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2
See how the Snow Slalom winner was calculated >>
Ice Braking
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Michelin Alpin 6 was better during one ice braking tests. On average the Michelin Alpin 6 stopped the vehicle 7.14% shorter than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Ice Braking: Michelin Alpin 6
See how the Ice Braking winner was calculated >>
Noise
Looking at data from six tire tests, the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was better during two noise tests. On average the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 measured 0.49% quieter than the Michelin Alpin 6.
Best In Noise: BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2
See how the Noise winner was calculated >>
Wear
Looking at data from five tire tests, the Michelin Alpin 6 was better during five wear tests. On average the Michelin Alpin 6 is predicted to cover 18.73% miles before reaching 1.6mm than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Wear: Michelin Alpin 6
See how the Wear winner was calculated >>
Value
Looking at data from four tire tests, the Michelin Alpin 6 was better during one value tests. On average the Michelin Alpin 6 proved to have a 2.71% better value based on price/1000km than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Value: Michelin Alpin 6
See how the Value winner was calculated >>
Price
Looking at data from four tire tests, the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was better during four price tests. On average the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 cost 14.02% less than the Michelin Alpin 6.
Best In Price: BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2
See how the Price winner was calculated >>
Rolling Resistance
Looking at data from five tire tests, the Michelin Alpin 6 was better during four rolling resistance tests. On average the Michelin Alpin 6 had a 3.92% lower rolling resistance than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Rolling Resistance: Michelin Alpin 6
See how the Rolling Resistance winner was calculated >>
Fuel Consumption
Looking at data from one tire tests, the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 and Michelin Alpin 6 performed equally well in fuel consumption tests.
Best In Fuel Consumption: Both tires performed equally well
See how the Fuel Consumption winner was calculated >>
Abrasion
Looking at data from one tire tests, the Michelin Alpin 6 was better during one abrasion tests. On average the Michelin Alpin 6 emitted 8.93% less particle wear matter than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Abrasion: Michelin Alpin 6
See how the Abrasion winner was calculated >>
Real World Driver Reviews
BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 Driver Reviews
Drivers largely praise the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 for outstanding snow and ice traction, strong wet grip and aquaplaning resistance, good comfort, and value, with many saying they'd buy again. Dry performance is acceptable for a winter tire but less responsive with softer handling and modest on-center feel. Wear is generally viewed as good, though a few sporty drivers report faster wear. Noise is mostly low, with occasional reports of wet-road noise.
Based on 28 reviews with an average rating of 88%
Michelin Alpin 6 Driver Reviews
Drivers largely praise the Michelin Alpin 6 for excellent wet and dry cold grip, strong braking, high comfort, low noise, and outstanding longevity/wear. Snow performance is mixed: many report very good traction and control in snow, while a notable minority criticize snow/ice grip and especially snow braking as average or poor. Handling feel is generally stable, though a few note softness or vague steering at higher speeds. Overall sentiment is positive, with the Alpin 6 seen as a durable, refined winter tire that excels in wet/dry but can be inconsistent on deep snow/ice.
Based on 35 reviews with an average rating of 85%
Conclusion
BFGoodrich g-Force Winter 2 earns its keep by being the more specialised winter tool: it very frequently beats the Michelin on snow metrics (including snow braking across multiple tests) and it repeatedly posts higher aquaplaning thresholds (e.g., Auto Bild 2024 straight aquaplaning 83.4 km/h vs 78.5; ADAC 2023 curved aquaplaning 3.5 vs 3.2 m/s²). The practical takeaway is simple: choose the Alpin 6 if your winter driving is mostly wet/cold tarmac and you want maximum “set-and-forget” security, low running costs, and long life; choose the g-Force Winter 2 if you regularly face deeper snow and want strong snow traction/braking plus very good aquaplaning reserves at a typically lower upfront price-accepting that wet braking is its recurring weakness.
Key Differences
- Wet-road safety: Alpin 6 repeatedly stops shorter in the wet (up to ~7.85% advantage in ADAC 2023 wet braking), while g-Force Winter 2's wet braking is the most consistent drawback noted in test write-ups.
- Snow performance: g-Force Winter 2 is the more snow-optimised tire (snow braking wins 10-0; frequent wins in snow handling/slalom), making it the better choice for regularly snow-covered roads.
- Aquaplaning: g-Force Winter 2 more often posts higher aquaplaning thresholds (straight aquaplaning wins 6-0; plus multiple curved aquaplaning wins), offering strong water-safety reserves even if its wet braking lags.
- Longevity: Alpin 6's mileage advantage is large and repeatable (often ~18-28% higher predicted km), which materially changes total cost over several winters.
- Efficiency: Alpin 6 more consistently leads on rolling resistance and associated eco metrics, supporting lower fuel/energy use over time.
- Value proposition: BFGoodrich is usually cheaper and can win on test 'value' calculations, but Michelin tends to repay its higher price with substantially longer wear and a more balanced wet/dry performance envelope.
Overall Winner: Michelin Alpin 6
Based on the tire test data and user reviews we have in our database, the Michelin Alpin 6 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:
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.