Below is the data from the 2023 16" ADAC winter tire test.

Noteworthy performers included the Falken EUROWINTER HS02 with good dry braking, Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 showcasing remarkable wet braking, and the Goodyear UltraGrip 9 Plus excelling in snow and ice braking. On the flip side, the Austone SP 901 displayed weaknesses in wet conditions and aquaplaning scenarios. The Fulda Kristall Control HP2 emerged as a durable option with the longest wear, while the Barum Polaris 5 stood out for fuel efficiency.

The biggest surprise is probably the winner. The now aging Dunlop Winter Sport 5 emerged as the overall victor in the 2023 ADAC 16 Inch Tire Test, exhibiting a balanced performance across various testing categories. Its well-rounded performance underscores its reliability and suitability for diverse road conditions, making it a commendable choice for motorists seeking a harmonized blend of safety, comfort, and efficiency

Test setup & methodology

The test setting, the conditions recorded and how the results contribute to the score.

Recorded test conditions

Dry Braking: 62.1 → 0.0 mph
Wet Braking: 49.7 → 0.0 mph
Wet Braking - Concrete: 49.7 → 0.0 mph
Snow Braking: 18.6 → 0.0 mph

Dry

In the dry braking test, the Falken EUROWINTER HS02 stood out with a shortest braking distance of 41.4 M, showcasing its superior stopping power on dry surfaces. On the other hand, the Uniroyal WinterExpert lagged with a longer braking distance of 45.6 M, indicating room for improvement in dry braking performance.

Dry Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Falken EUROWINTER HS02	136 ft	Best	0 mph
2Vredestein Wintrac	141 ft	+5 ft	15 mph
2Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	141 ft	+5 ft	15 mph
4Michelin Alpin 6	141 ft	+5 ft	15 mph
5Austone SP 901	142 ft	+6 ft	16 mph
6Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	143 ft	+7 ft	18 mph
7BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2	145 ft	+9 ft	20 mph
8Kleber Krisalp HP3	145 ft	+9 ft	20 mph
9Dunlop Winter Sport 5	146 ft	+10 ft	21 mph
10Fulda Kristall Control HP2	146 ft	+10 ft	21 mph
11Barum Polaris 5	146 ft	+10 ft	21 mph
12Hankook Winter I cept RS3	147 ft	+11 ft	22 mph
13Goodyear UltraGrip 9+	147 ft	+11 ft	22 mph
13Lassa Snoways 4	147 ft	+11 ft	22 mph
15Firestone Winterhawk 4	148 ft	+12 ft	23 mph
16Uniroyal WinterExpert	150 ft	+14 ft	24 mph

The difference between best and worst was 10.1% (14 ft ≈ 0.9 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Uniroyal WinterExpert would still be travelling at 24 mph when the Falken EUROWINTER HS02 had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

Wet

For wet braking the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 demonstrated excellent braking performance, stopping at a distance of 35.2 M. Conversely, the Austone SP 901 had a less desirable outcome with a braking distance of 45.6 M, showing its limitations in wet conditions.

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	115 ft	Best	0 mph
2Firestone Winterhawk 4	118 ft	+3 ft	11 mph
3Michelin Alpin 6	119 ft	+4 ft	15 mph
4Goodyear UltraGrip 9+	121 ft	+6 ft	17 mph
4Hankook Winter I cept RS3	121 ft	+6 ft	17 mph
6Dunlop Winter Sport 5	122 ft	+7 ft	19 mph
7Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	125 ft	+10 ft	22 mph
8Kleber Krisalp HP3	126 ft	+11 ft	23 mph
8Falken EUROWINTER HS02	126 ft	+11 ft	23 mph
10Barum Polaris 5	127 ft	+12 ft	24 mph
11Vredestein Wintrac	128 ft	+13 ft	25 mph
11Uniroyal WinterExpert	128 ft	+13 ft	25 mph
13BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2	130 ft	+15 ft	26 mph
14Lassa Snoways 4	131 ft	+16 ft	28 mph
15Fulda Kristall Control HP2	135 ft	+20 ft	31 mph
16Austone SP 901	150 ft	+35 ft	38 mph

The difference between best and worst was 29.5% (35 ft ≈ 2.3 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Austone SP 901 would still be travelling at 38 mph when the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

Again, the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 showed strong performance on concrete wet surfaces with a braking distance of 36.4 M, indicating its reliable wet grip. The Austone SP 901 again struggled with a distance of 45.1 M, reflecting its weaker performance in these conditions.

Wet Braking - Concrete
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	119 ft	Best	0 mph
2Firestone Winterhawk 4	126 ft	+7 ft	18 mph
3Falken EUROWINTER HS02	127 ft	+8 ft	19 mph
4Hankook Winter I cept RS3	127 ft	+8 ft	20 mph
5Michelin Alpin 6	128 ft	+9 ft	20 mph
6Dunlop Winter Sport 5	129 ft	+10 ft	22 mph
6Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	129 ft	+10 ft	22 mph
8Vredestein Wintrac	131 ft	+12 ft	23 mph
9Goodyear UltraGrip 9+	132 ft	+13 ft	25 mph
10Lassa Snoways 4	132 ft	+13 ft	25 mph
11Kleber Krisalp HP3	133 ft	+14 ft	25 mph
12BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2	135 ft	+16 ft	27 mph
13Barum Polaris 5	137 ft	+18 ft	29 mph
14Fulda Kristall Control HP2	138 ft	+19 ft	29 mph
15Uniroyal WinterExpert	139 ft	+20 ft	30 mph
16Austone SP 901	148 ft	+29 ft	35 mph

The difference between best and worst was 23.9% (29 ft ≈ 1.9 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Austone SP 901 would still be travelling at 35 mph when the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

In the straight aquaplaning test, the Firestone Winterhawk 4 exhibited impressive control, maintaining a speed of 56.3 mph. The Austone SP 901, on the other hand, was significantly slower with a speed of 42.9 mph, showing susceptibility to aquaplaning.

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Firestone Winterhawk 4	56.3 mph	Best
2Goodyear UltraGrip 9+	55.2 mph	-1.1 mph
3Lassa Snoways 4	54.2 mph	-2.1 mph
4Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	53.7 mph	-2.6 mph
5Kleber Krisalp HP3	53.6 mph	-2.7 mph
6Hankook Winter I cept RS3	53.1 mph	-3.2 mph
7BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2	53.1 mph	-3.2 mph
8Vredestein Wintrac	52.8 mph	-3.5 mph
9Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	52.5 mph	-3.8 mph
10Fulda Kristall Control HP2	52.4 mph	-3.9 mph
11Falken EUROWINTER HS02	51.7 mph	-4.6 mph
12Uniroyal WinterExpert	51.3 mph	-5.0 mph
13Dunlop Winter Sport 5	51.1 mph	-5.2 mph
14Michelin Alpin 6	50.6 mph	-5.7 mph
15Barum Polaris 5	49.8 mph	-6.5 mph
16Austone SP 901	42.9 mph	-13.4 mph

The difference between best and worst was 23.7% (13.4 mph).

The Firestone Winterhawk 4 again showcased superior control in curved aquaplaning scenarios with a speed of 3.9 m/sec², indicating its strong aquaplaning resistance. The Austone SP 901 struggled with a speed of 2.1 m/sec², displaying a higher tendency to lose control.

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Firestone Winterhawk 4	12.8 ft/s²	Best
2Fulda Kristall Control HP2	12.5 ft/s²	-0.3 ft/s²
2Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	12.5 ft/s²	-0.3 ft/s²
2Goodyear UltraGrip 9+	12.5 ft/s²	-0.3 ft/s²
2Lassa Snoways 4	12.5 ft/s²	-0.3 ft/s²
6Dunlop Winter Sport 5	11.8 ft/s²	-1.0 ft/s²
6Uniroyal WinterExpert	11.8 ft/s²	-1.0 ft/s²
8BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2	11.5 ft/s²	-1.3 ft/s²
8Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	11.5 ft/s²	-1.3 ft/s²
10Kleber Krisalp HP3	11.2 ft/s²	-1.6 ft/s²
10Hankook Winter I cept RS3	11.2 ft/s²	-1.6 ft/s²
12Barum Polaris 5	10.8 ft/s²	-2.0 ft/s²
12Vredestein Wintrac	10.8 ft/s²	-2.0 ft/s²
12Falken EUROWINTER HS02	10.8 ft/s²	-2.0 ft/s²
15Michelin Alpin 6	10.5 ft/s²	-2.3 ft/s²
16Austone SP 901	6.9 ft/s²	-5.9 ft/s²

The difference between best and worst was 46.2% (5.9 ft/s²).

Snow

In snowy conditions, the Goodyear UltraGrip 9 Plus excelled with a short braking distance of 9.5 M, demonstrating reliable stopping power. In contrast, the Falken EUROWINTER HS02 required a longer distance of 11.4 M to halt, suggesting less effectiveness in snow braking.

Snow Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Kleber Krisalp HP3	31 ft	Best	0 mph
1Goodyear UltraGrip 9+	31 ft	Best	0 mph
1Austone SP 901	31 ft	Best	0 mph
1Hankook Winter I cept RS3	31 ft	Best	0 mph
5Dunlop Winter Sport 5	31 ft	0 ft	8 mph
5BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2	31 ft	0 ft	8 mph
5Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	31 ft	0 ft	8 mph
5Uniroyal WinterExpert	31 ft	0 ft	8 mph
9Fulda Kristall Control HP2	32 ft	+1 ft	11 mph
10Barum Polaris 5	32 ft	+1 ft	16 mph
10Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	32 ft	+1 ft	16 mph
12Firestone Winterhawk 4	33 ft	+2 ft	18 mph
13Vredestein Wintrac	33 ft	+2 ft	21 mph
14Michelin Alpin 6	34 ft	+3 ft	25 mph
15Lassa Snoways 4	37 ft	+6 ft	32 mph
16Falken EUROWINTER HS02	37 ft	+6 ft	33 mph

The difference between best and worst was 20% (6 ft ≈ 0.4 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Falken EUROWINTER HS02 would still be travelling at 33 mph when the Kleber Krisalp HP3 had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

The BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 led in snow traction with a force of 265.3 N, indicating strong grip on snowy surfaces. The Lassa Snoways 4, however, showed weaker traction with a force of 223.6 N, hinting at its limitations in snow traction.

Snow Traction
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2	60 lbf	Best
2Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	59 lbf	-1 lbf
3Michelin Alpin 6	59 lbf	-1 lbf
4Dunlop Winter Sport 5	58 lbf	-2 lbf
4Austone SP 901	58 lbf	-2 lbf
6Hankook Winter I cept RS3	58 lbf	-2 lbf
7Goodyear UltraGrip 9+	58 lbf	-2 lbf
8Kleber Krisalp HP3	58 lbf	-2 lbf
9Uniroyal WinterExpert	56 lbf	-4 lbf
10Fulda Kristall Control HP2	56 lbf	-4 lbf
10Vredestein Wintrac	56 lbf	-4 lbf
12Firestone Winterhawk 4	55 lbf	-5 lbf
12Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	55 lbf	-5 lbf
14Barum Polaris 5	53 lbf	-7 lbf
15Falken EUROWINTER HS02	51 lbf	-9 lbf
16Lassa Snoways 4	50 lbf	-10 lbf

The difference between best and worst was 15.7% (10 lbf).

Ice

The Goodyear UltraGrip 9 Plus performed exceptionally in ice braking, stopping at 18.6 M, showcasing its capability on icy surfaces. The Kleber Krisalp HP3 had a longer braking distance of 21.8 M, reflecting a lesser performance on ice.

Ice Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Goodyear UltraGrip 9+	61 ft	Best	0 mph
2Vredestein Wintrac	63 ft	+2 ft	13 mph
3Michelin Alpin 6	64 ft	+3 ft	17 mph
4Dunlop Winter Sport 5	64 ft	+3 ft	18 mph
5Hankook Winter I cept RS3	65 ft	+4 ft	19 mph
6Fulda Kristall Control HP2	66 ft	+5 ft	21 mph
7Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	67 ft	+6 ft	23 mph
7Falken EUROWINTER HS02	67 ft	+6 ft	23 mph
9Firestone Winterhawk 4	67 ft	+6 ft	24 mph
10Barum Polaris 5	68 ft	+7 ft	26 mph
11BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2	69 ft	+8 ft	27 mph
11Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	69 ft	+8 ft	27 mph
11Uniroyal WinterExpert	69 ft	+8 ft	27 mph
14Lassa Snoways 4	70 ft	+9 ft	28 mph
15Austone SP 901	70 ft	+9 ft	29 mph
16Kleber Krisalp HP3	72 ft	+11 ft	31 mph

The difference between best and worst was 17.2% (11 ft ≈ 0.7 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 would still be travelling at 31 mph when the Goodyear UltraGrip 9+ had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

Comfort

Noise test results indicated a quieter ride with Austone SP 901 registering 70.4 dB, thus offering a more comfortable driving experience. In contrast, the Fulda Kristall Control HP2 was louder with 74.1 dB, which might be perceived as less comfortable.

Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Austone SP 901	70.4 dB	Best
2Kleber Krisalp HP3	70.6 dB	+0.20 dB
3Firestone Winterhawk 4	70.8 dB	+0.40 dB
4Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	70.9 dB	+0.50 dB
5Goodyear UltraGrip 9+	71.1 dB	+0.70 dB
5Falken EUROWINTER HS02	71.1 dB	+0.70 dB
7Michelin Alpin 6	71.2 dB	+0.80 dB
8BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2	71.3 dB	+0.90 dB
8Vredestein Wintrac	71.3 dB	+0.90 dB
10Lassa Snoways 4	71.4 dB	+1.00 dB
11Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	71.8 dB	+1.40 dB
11Hankook Winter I cept RS3	71.8 dB	+1.40 dB
13Uniroyal WinterExpert	72.1 dB	+1.70 dB
14Dunlop Winter Sport 5	72.4 dB	+2.00 dB
15Barum Polaris 5	72.8 dB	+2.40 dB
16Fulda Kristall Control HP2	74.1 dB	+3.70 dB

The difference between best and worst was 5.3% (3.7 dB).

Value

In the wear test, the Fulda Kristall Control HP2 showcased outstanding durability with 34,983 miles, promising a longer tire lifespan. The Bridgestone Blizzak LM005, however, showed quicker wear with 21,624 miles, indicating a shorter tire lifespan.

Wear
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Fulda Kristall Control HP2	34,983 miles	Best
2Michelin Alpin 6	33,119 miles	-1,864 miles
3Dunlop Winter Sport 5	29,639 miles	-5,344 miles
4Barum Polaris 5	29,142 miles	-5,841 miles
5Vredestein Wintrac	27,775 miles	-7,208 miles
6Goodyear UltraGrip 9+	27,278 miles	-7,705 miles
7Lassa Snoways 4	26,160 miles	-8,823 miles
7Falken EUROWINTER HS02	26,160 miles	-8,823 miles
9BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2	25,911 miles	-9,072 miles
9Kleber Krisalp HP3	25,911 miles	-9,072 miles
9Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	25,911 miles	-9,072 miles
12Austone SP 901	24,855 miles	-10,128 miles
13Hankook Winter I cept RS3	24,047 miles	-10,936 miles
14Uniroyal WinterExpert	22,991 miles	-11,992 miles
15Firestone Winterhawk 4	22,183 miles	-12,800 miles
16Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	21,624 miles	-13,359 miles

The difference between best and worst was 38.2% (13,359 miles).

The Barum Polaris 5 proved to be fuel-efficient with a consumption of 5.5 l/100km, making it a more economical choice. The Austone SP 901 consumed more fuel at 5.8 l/100km, making it less economical in comparison.

Fuel Consumption
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Barum Polaris 5	5.5 l/100km	Best	$0
2Fulda Kristall Control HP2	5.6 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	$18
2Goodyear UltraGrip 9+	5.6 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	$18
2Vredestein Wintrac	5.6 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	$18
2Uniroyal WinterExpert	5.6 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	$18
6Dunlop Winter Sport 5	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
6BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
6Kleber Krisalp HP3	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
6Michelin Alpin 6	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
6Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
6Firestone Winterhawk 4	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
6Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
6Lassa Snoways 4	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
6Falken EUROWINTER HS02	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
6Hankook Winter I cept RS3	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
16Austone SP 901	5.8 l/100km	+0.30 l/100km	$55

The difference between best and worst was 5.5% (0.3 l/100km). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Austone SP 901 uses about 15 gal ($55) more fuel than the Barum Polaris 5.

Adjust the assumptions

Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions.

Gas/Diesel Electric

Annual Mileage

12,000 mi

km (L)

miles (US gal)

Fuel Price

$3.60/gal

GBP (£)

EUR (€)

USD ($)

Set my vehicle consumption

Estimates based on typical driving conditions. Rolling resistance accounts for approximately 20% of IC vehicle fuel consumption and 25% of EV energy consumption. Actual savings vary based on driving style, vehicle weight, road conditions, and tire age. For comparative purposes only. Lifetime savings based on a 40,000km / 25,000 mile tread life.

The Michelin Alpin 6 exhibited the lowest abrasion with 51 mg/km/t, suggesting better material endurance. On the other hand, the Uniroyal WinterExpert had higher abrasion at 90 mg/km/t, indicating a propensity for quicker material degradation1.

Abrasion
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Alpin 6	51 mg/km/t	Best
2BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2	56 mg/km/t	+5.00 mg/km/t
2Kleber Krisalp HP3	56 mg/km/t	+5.00 mg/km/t
4Vredestein Wintrac	62 mg/km/t	+11.00 mg/km/t
5Fulda Kristall Control HP2	65 mg/km/t	+14.00 mg/km/t
6Austone SP 901	67 mg/km/t	+16.00 mg/km/t
7Dunlop Winter Sport 5	69 mg/km/t	+18.00 mg/km/t
8Hankook Winter I cept RS3	70 mg/km/t	+19.00 mg/km/t
9Barum Polaris 5	71 mg/km/t	+20.00 mg/km/t
9Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	71 mg/km/t	+20.00 mg/km/t
11Goodyear UltraGrip 9+	74 mg/km/t	+23.00 mg/km/t
12Falken EUROWINTER HS02	76 mg/km/t	+25.00 mg/km/t
13Lassa Snoways 4	78 mg/km/t	+27.00 mg/km/t
14Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	83 mg/km/t	+32.00 mg/km/t
15Firestone Winterhawk 4	89 mg/km/t	+38.00 mg/km/t
16Uniroyal WinterExpert	90 mg/km/t	+39.00 mg/km/t

The difference between best and worst was 76.5% (39 mg/km/t).

Results

The DUNLOP Winter Sport 5 demonstrates precise steering and good safety margins on dry roads, including quick stabilization after evasive maneuvers. Braking performance from 62 mph is rated as good within the test field. On wet roads, the WINTER SPORT 5 tire performs well in all sub-criteria, including above-average scores in braking and handling. However, its performance in longitudinal aquaplaning is below the average of competitors. On snowy and icy roads, the tire scores above average in braking, acceleration, and handling. Regarding environmental impact, the WINTER SPORT 5 also receives good ratings, offering high projected mileage, low wear, low weight, and decent fuel efficiency.

Dry93.2%

Wet93.6%

Snow98.5%

Ice94.9%

Comfort97.2%

Value86%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	9^th / 16	146 ft	+10 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	6^th / 16	122 ft	+7 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	6^th / 16	129 ft	+10 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	13^th / 16	51.1 mph	-5.2 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	6^th / 16	11.8 ft/s²	-1.0 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	5^th / 16	31 ft	0 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	4^th / 16	58 lbf	-2 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	4^th / 16	64 ft	+3 ft
NoiseLower is better	14^th / 16	72.4 dB	+2.00 dB
WearHigher is better	3^rd / 16	29,639 miles	-5,344 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	6^th / 16	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	7^th / 16	69 mg/km/t	+18.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

The MICHELIN ALPIN 6 performs well on dry roads, offering precise steering and sufficient safety margins, even at the limit. Its braking from 62 mph is slightly above average. On wet surfaces, the tire excels in braking distance measurements but receives only satisfactory ratings in lateral aquaplaning. Handling is nearly rated as good; for better precision, the tire needs to better integrate longitudinal and lateral forces. On winter roads, the ALPIN 6 scores well, with slightly below-average braking and above-average traction measurements. Its handling and ice braking are rated as good. Environmentally, the ALPIN 6 stands out for its above-average wear resistance and low fuel consumption, attributed to its low weight and low rolling resistance. Noise levels are average.

Dry96.3%

Wet93.1%

Snow94.7%

Ice95.4%

Comfort98.9%

Value96.8%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	4^th / 16	141 ft	+5 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 16	119 ft	+4 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	5^th / 16	128 ft	+9 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	14^th / 16	50.6 mph	-5.7 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	15^th / 16	10.5 ft/s²	-2.3 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	14^th / 16	34 ft	+3 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	3^rd / 16	59 lbf	-1 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 16	64 ft	+3 ft
NoiseLower is better	7^th / 16	71.2 dB	+0.80 dB
WearHigher is better	2^nd / 16	33,119 miles	-1,864 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	6^th / 16	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	1^st / 16	51 mg/km/t	Best in this discipline

3PMSF: Yes

The GOODYEAR UltraGrip 9+ shows minor weaknesses in steering precision and feedback on dry roads but compensates with good safety margins during sudden evasive maneuvers and average braking distances. On wet roads, it performs clearly above average, offering short braking distances and secure, easily controllable handling. In lateral aquaplaning, its performance is rated as good, and it narrowly misses an excellent rating in longitudinal aquaplaning. On winter roads, the UltraGrip 9+ scores above average in braking and slightly above average in traction. While it offers good safety reserves in snow handling, steering could be more precise. In ice braking tests, the UltraGrip 9+ excels with the shortest braking distances. Environmentally, the tire achieves a good rating for its projected lifespan and wear, and it receives the best rating in the test for efficiency.

Dry92.2%

Wet96.1%

Snow98.4%

Ice100%

Comfort99%

Value82.8%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	13^th / 16	147 ft	+11 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	4^th / 16	121 ft	+6 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	9^th / 16	132 ft	+13 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	2^nd / 16	55.2 mph	-1.1 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	2^nd / 16	12.5 ft/s²	-0.3 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	1^st / 16	31 ft	Best in this discipline
Snow TractionHigher is better	7^th / 16	58 lbf	-2 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	1^st / 16	61 ft	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	5^th / 16	71.1 dB	+0.70 dB
WearHigher is better	6^th / 16	27,278 miles	-7,705 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	2^nd / 16	5.6 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	11^th / 16	74 mg/km/t	+23.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

The Continental WinterContact TS 870 P exhibits minor weaknesses in steering precision and feedback on dry roads but compensates with good safety reserves in sudden evasive maneuvers and clearly above-average braking distances. On wet roads, the tire performs consistently well across all sub-criteria, including slightly above-average results in braking and aquaplaning. It also offers easy and secure handling. On winter roads, the tire achieves average scores in braking and traction but excels in handling due to its large safety reserves and precise steering. Ice braking performance is average. Environmentally, the tire receives a barely good rating; its wear is average, and its projected lifespan is slightly below average but still rated as good. Efficiency metrics are average.

Dry96.5%

Wet91.9%

Snow94.2%

Ice91.6%

Comfort99.3%

Value81.5%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 16	141 ft	+5 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	7^th / 16	125 ft	+10 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	6^th / 16	129 ft	+10 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	9^th / 16	52.5 mph	-3.8 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	8^th / 16	11.5 ft/s²	-1.3 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	10^th / 16	32 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	12^th / 16	55 lbf	-5 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	7^th / 16	67 ft	+6 ft
NoiseLower is better	4^th / 16	70.9 dB	+0.50 dB
WearHigher is better	9^th / 16	25,911 miles	-9,072 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	6^th / 16	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	9^th / 16	71 mg/km/t	+20.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

The Hankook Winter i*cept RS3 shows minor deficiencies in steering precision and feedback on dry roads but earns a good overall rating due to its safety reserves in sudden evasive maneuvers and braking performance rated as "still good." On wet roads, the tire performs well in braking, longitudinal aquaplaning, and handling, but falls short in lateral aquaplaning with a satisfactory rating. On winter roads, it ranks second-best in the test, excelling in braking and acceleration, and offering secure and precise handling on snow. Its ice braking performance is also above average. Environmentally, the tire misses a good rating due to its below-average projected lifespan, although its wear and efficiency are rated as good.

Dry92.4%

Wet93.8%

Snow98.5%

Ice94.4%

Comfort98.1%

Value79.8%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	12^th / 16	147 ft	+11 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	4^th / 16	121 ft	+6 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	4^th / 16	127 ft	+8 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	6^th / 16	53.1 mph	-3.2 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	10^th / 16	11.2 ft/s²	-1.6 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	1^st / 16	31 ft	Best in this discipline
Snow TractionHigher is better	6^th / 16	58 lbf	-2 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	5^th / 16	65 ft	+4 ft
NoiseLower is better	11^th / 16	71.8 dB	+1.40 dB
WearHigher is better	13^th / 16	24,047 miles	-10,936 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	6^th / 16	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	8^th / 16	70 mg/km/t	+19.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

The BRIDGESTONE BLIZZAK LM 005 has minor issues with steering precision and feedback on dry roads but maintains a good overall rating due to its safety reserves during sudden evasive maneuvers and average braking distances. On wet roads, it sets the standard, achieving the shortest braking distances in the test and excelling in aquaplaning and handling. On winter roads, it earns a good rating for its decent braking distances, good handling, and safety reserves, although its ice braking performance is below average. Environmentally, the tire falls short of a good rating due to its below-average projected lifespan and satisfactory wear rating. While it scores well in fuel efficiency, its weight is rated as satisfactory.

Dry94.7%

Wet98.8%

Snow98.7%

Ice88.6%

Comfort98.1%

Value74.2%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	6^th / 16	143 ft	+7 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	1^st / 16	115 ft	Best in this discipline
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	1^st / 16	119 ft	Best in this discipline
Straight AquaHigher is better	4^th / 16	53.7 mph	-2.6 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	2^nd / 16	12.5 ft/s²	-0.3 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	5^th / 16	31 ft	0 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	2^nd / 16	59 lbf	-1 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	11^th / 16	69 ft	+8 ft
NoiseLower is better	11^th / 16	71.8 dB	+1.40 dB
WearHigher is better	16^th / 16	21,624 miles	-13,359 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	6^th / 16	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	14^th / 16	83 mg/km/t	+32.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

The Firestone WINTERHAWK 4 provides satisfactory steering feedback on dry roads and remains stable at the limit, earning a good overall rating for dry conditions due to its good braking performance. On wet roads, the tire performs well in braking and handling, with very good ratings in longitudinal aquaplaning and above-average results in lateral aquaplaning. On winter roads, it scores well for braking and handling but falls short in traction and ice braking, receiving only a satisfactory rating for these criteria. Environmentally, the tire misses a good rating due to its below-average projected lifespan and satisfactory wear. However, it scores well in fuel efficiency and weight.

Dry92%

Wet98.7%

Snow93.7%

Ice91.2%

Comfort99.4%

Value73.7%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	15^th / 16	148 ft	+12 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 16	118 ft	+3 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	2^nd / 16	126 ft	+7 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	1^st / 16	56.3 mph	Best in this discipline
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	1^st / 16	12.8 ft/s²	Best in this discipline
Snow BrakingLower is better	12^th / 16	33 ft	+2 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	12^th / 16	55 lbf	-5 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	9^th / 16	67 ft	+6 ft
NoiseLower is better	3^rd / 16	70.8 dB	+0.40 dB
WearHigher is better	15^th / 16	22,183 miles	-12,800 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	6^th / 16	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	15^th / 16	89 mg/km/t	+38.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

The BFGoodrich G-FORCE WINTER 2 provides only satisfactory steering feedback on dry roads but remains stable at the limit. Its braking is rated as "still good," earning it an overall good rating for dry conditions. On wet roads, the tire receives a satisfactory overall rating; while its braking and aquaplaning are rated as good, it struggles in wet handling due to excessive understeer or oversteer. On winter roads, it scores well for braking and handling but falls short in ice braking, receiving a satisfactory rating. Environmentally, the tire achieves a barely good rating; its projected lifespan is rated as just good, its wear is clearly good, and while it performs well in fuel efficiency, its weight is only rated as satisfactory.

Dry93.7%

Wet90.1%

Snow99.5%

Ice88.6%

Comfort98.7%

Value86.7%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	7^th / 16	145 ft	+9 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	13^th / 16	130 ft	+15 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	12^th / 16	135 ft	+16 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	7^th / 16	53.1 mph	-3.2 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	8^th / 16	11.5 ft/s²	-1.3 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	5^th / 16	31 ft	0 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	1^st / 16	60 lbf	Best in this discipline
Ice BrakingLower is better	11^th / 16	69 ft	+8 ft
NoiseLower is better	8^th / 16	71.3 dB	+0.90 dB
WearHigher is better	9^th / 16	25,911 miles	-9,072 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	6^th / 16	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	2^nd / 16	56 mg/km/t	+5.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

The KRISTALL CONTROL HP 2 provides good steering feedback and precision on dry roads, along with good safety margins at the limit. Its braking is also rated as good. On wet roads, the tire receives an overall satisfactory rating; it scores well in aquaplaning but only satisfactory in braking and inadequate in handling due to low grip levels and imprecise steering. On winter roads, it earns a good overall rating due to its strong braking performance on snow and ice, although it falls short in traction and handling. Environmentally, the tire excels across the board, offering the highest projected lifespan in the test, low wear, and above-average performance in fuel efficiency and weight.

Dry93%

Wet88.8%

Snow95.7%

Ice93%

Comfort95%

Value93.5%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	10^th / 16	146 ft	+10 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	15^th / 16	135 ft	+20 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	14^th / 16	138 ft	+19 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	10^th / 16	52.4 mph	-3.9 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	2^nd / 16	12.5 ft/s²	-0.3 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	9^th / 16	32 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	10^th / 16	56 lbf	-4 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	6^th / 16	66 ft	+5 ft
NoiseLower is better	16^th / 16	74.1 dB	+3.70 dB
WearHigher is better	1^st / 16	34,983 miles	Best in this discipline
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	2^nd / 16	5.6 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	5^th / 16	65 mg/km/t	+14.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

The Kleber KRISALP HP3 provides only average steering feedback and lacks precision on dry roads, requiring frequent corrections during steering and cornering. Its braking distance is average within the test field and rated as good. On wet roads, the tire achieves a satisfactory overall rating; it performs well in braking and longitudinal aquaplaning but falls short in lateral aquaplaning and wet handling due to excessive understeer or oversteer. On winter roads, it earns a good rating for its decent braking distances and good handling, although its ice braking performance is below average. Environmentally, the tire achieves a barely good rating; its projected lifespan is rated as just good, its wear is clearly good, and while it performs well in fuel efficiency, its weight is slightly above average and rated as satisfactory.

Dry93.5%

Wet91.3%

Snow98.3%

Ice85.3%

Comfort99.7%

Value86.7%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	8^th / 16	145 ft	+9 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	8^th / 16	126 ft	+11 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	11^th / 16	133 ft	+14 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	5^th / 16	53.6 mph	-2.7 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	10^th / 16	11.2 ft/s²	-1.6 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	1^st / 16	31 ft	Best in this discipline
Snow TractionHigher is better	8^th / 16	58 lbf	-2 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	16^th / 16	72 ft	+11 ft
NoiseLower is better	2^nd / 16	70.6 dB	+0.20 dB
WearHigher is better	9^th / 16	25,911 miles	-9,072 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	6^th / 16	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	2^nd / 16	56 mg/km/t	+5.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

The FALKEN EUROWINTER HS02 provides good steering feedback and safety margins on dry roads, along with above-average braking performance. On wet roads, it excels in braking and longitudinal aquaplaning but receives only a satisfactory rating in lateral aquaplaning and handling. While the tire offers sufficient safety reserves, it lacks precision due to inadequate integration of longitudinal and lateral forces. On winter roads, the tire achieves a satisfactory overall rating, missing good scores in braking, traction, and handling. The vehicle tends to understeer or oversteer early, limiting the handling precision. However, its ice braking performance is average and rated as good. Environmentally, the tire receives a satisfactory overall rating; its projected lifespan and wear are rated as just good, but its higher weight impacts its efficiency rating negatively. Its sustainability, given its production in Turkey, is rated as inadequate.

Dry100%

Wet90.4%

Snow84.7%

Ice91.6%

Comfort99%

Value80.5%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	1^st / 16	136 ft	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	8^th / 16	126 ft	+11 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	3^rd / 16	127 ft	+8 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	11^th / 16	51.7 mph	-4.6 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	12^th / 16	10.8 ft/s²	-2.0 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	16^th / 16	37 ft	+6 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	15^th / 16	51 lbf	-9 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	7^th / 16	67 ft	+6 ft
NoiseLower is better	5^th / 16	71.1 dB	+0.70 dB
WearHigher is better	7^th / 16	26,160 miles	-8,823 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	6^th / 16	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	12^th / 16	76 mg/km/t	+25.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

The Barum POLARIS 5 provides inadequate steering feedback and precision on dry roads, requiring frequent corrections. The vehicle tends to oversteer during dynamic evasive maneuvers, earning the tire a barely satisfactory rating in limit behavior. Its braking distance is average and rated as good. On wet roads, the tire achieves a satisfactory overall rating, excelling only in longitudinal aquaplaning. It falls short in braking, lateral aquaplaning, and handling due to early understeer or oversteer. On winter roads, it also receives a satisfactory rating, narrowly missing good scores in traction and handling. Its ice braking performance is average. Environmentally, the tire performs well, with good projected lifespan and wear. It also scores well in weight and achieves the best fuel efficiency in the test.

Dry92.8%

Wet89.4%

Snow92.3%

Ice89.4%

Comfort96.7%

Value86.2%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	11^th / 16	146 ft	+10 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	10^th / 16	127 ft	+12 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	13^th / 16	137 ft	+18 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	15^th / 16	49.8 mph	-6.5 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	12^th / 16	10.8 ft/s²	-2.0 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	10^th / 16	32 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	14^th / 16	53 lbf	-7 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	10^th / 16	68 ft	+7 ft
NoiseLower is better	15^th / 16	72.8 dB	+2.40 dB
WearHigher is better	4^th / 16	29,142 miles	-5,841 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 16	5.5 l/100km	Best in this discipline
AbrasionLower is better	9^th / 16	71 mg/km/t	+20.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

The VREDESTEIN WINTRAC provides inadequate steering feedback and precision on dry roads, requiring frequent corrections. The vehicle tends to oversteer during dynamic maneuvers, earning the tire a barely satisfactory rating in limit behavior. Its braking distance is average and rated as good. On wet roads, it performs well in braking and longitudinal aquaplaning but falls short in lateral aquaplaning and handling. While the tire offers sufficient safety reserves, it lacks precision due to inadequate integration of longitudinal and lateral forces. On winter roads, it earns a good rating for its decent braking distances and good handling, although its traction performance is only satisfactory. It secures the second-best result in the test for ice braking. Environmentally, the tire performs well, with good projected lifespan and wear. It also scores well in fuel efficiency and weight.

Dry96.5%

Wet89.8%

Snow93.4%

Ice97.4%

Comfort98.7%

Value86.9%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 16	141 ft	+5 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	11^th / 16	128 ft	+13 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	8^th / 16	131 ft	+12 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	8^th / 16	52.8 mph	-3.5 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	12^th / 16	10.8 ft/s²	-2.0 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	13^th / 16	33 ft	+2 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	10^th / 16	56 lbf	-4 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 16	63 ft	+2 ft
NoiseLower is better	8^th / 16	71.3 dB	+0.90 dB
WearHigher is better	5^th / 16	27,775 miles	-7,208 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	2^nd / 16	5.6 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	4^th / 16	62 mg/km/t	+11.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

The UNIROYAL WinterExpert provides inadequate steering feedback and precision on dry roads, requiring frequent corrections. The vehicle tends to oversteer in dynamic maneuvers but earns a barely satisfactory rating in limit behavior. Its braking distance is below average but still rated as good. On wet roads, it narrowly misses a good rating, performing satisfactorily in braking and handling due to imprecise steering. It excels only in aquaplaning tests. On winter roads, it earns a nearly good rating for its snow braking and handling but falls short in snow traction and ice braking. Environmentally, the tire achieves a satisfactory rating, with both its projected lifespan and wear rated as satisfactory. Despite good ratings in weight and fuel efficiency, the overall environmental performance is only satisfactory.

Dry90.8%

Wet90.6%

Snow96.6%

Ice88.6%

Comfort97.6%

Value75%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	16^th / 16	150 ft	+14 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	11^th / 16	128 ft	+13 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	15^th / 16	139 ft	+20 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	12^th / 16	51.3 mph	-5.0 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	6^th / 16	11.8 ft/s²	-1.0 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	5^th / 16	31 ft	0 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	9^th / 16	56 lbf	-4 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	11^th / 16	69 ft	+8 ft
NoiseLower is better	13^th / 16	72.1 dB	+1.70 dB
WearHigher is better	14^th / 16	22,991 miles	-11,992 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	2^nd / 16	5.6 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	16^th / 16	90 mg/km/t	+39.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

The LASSA SNOWAYS 4 provides good steering feedback and precision on dry roads, with satisfactory limit behavior and good braking performance. On wet roads, it performs well in braking and aquaplaning tests but lacks the precision needed for a good handling rating. On winter roads, the tire struggles, earning only satisfactory ratings in braking and traction tests and a poor rating in handling. It loses traction early and has a narrow limit of safety, making precise maneuvering difficult. Ice braking performance is also only satisfactory. Environmentally, the tire narrowly misses a good rating. Its projected lifespan and wear are rated as good, but its high weight results in only a satisfactory efficiency rating.

Dry92.2%

Wet91%

Snow84.2%

Ice87.7%

Comfort98.6%

Value80.1%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	13^th / 16	147 ft	+11 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	14^th / 16	131 ft	+16 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	10^th / 16	132 ft	+13 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	3^rd / 16	54.2 mph	-2.1 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	2^nd / 16	12.5 ft/s²	-0.3 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	15^th / 16	37 ft	+6 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	16^th / 16	50 lbf	-10 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	14^th / 16	70 ft	+9 ft
NoiseLower is better	10^th / 16	71.4 dB	+1.00 dB
WearHigher is better	7^th / 16	26,160 miles	-8,823 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	6^th / 16	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	13^th / 16	78 mg/km/t	+27.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

The AUSTONE ATHENA SP-901 provides barely adequate steering feedback and is imprecise on dry roads, requiring constant corrections. It tends to oversteer early in dynamic maneuvers, earning it a barely adequate rating for limit behavior. Its braking performance on dry roads is average but rated as good. On wet roads, the tire struggles significantly. Its braking distance is rated as barely adequate, and while it earns a satisfactory rating for longitudinal aquaplaning, it performs poorly in lateral aquaplaning and handling due to low grip levels and early understeer/oversteer tendencies. On winter roads, however, the tire excels, showing the best behavior in the test. It handles securely and precisely on snow, with good results in braking and traction tests. Its ice braking performance is rated as satisfactory. Environmentally, the tire misses a good rating. Its projected lifespan is rated as satisfactory, and although its wear is rated as good, its high weight results in an adequate efficiency rating.

Dry95.8%

Wet73.1%

Snow98.9%

Ice86.9%

Comfort100%

Value81%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	5^th / 16	142 ft	+6 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	16^th / 16	150 ft	+35 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	16^th / 16	148 ft	+29 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	16^th / 16	42.9 mph	-13.4 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	16^th / 16	6.9 ft/s²	-5.9 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	1^st / 16	31 ft	Best in this discipline
Snow TractionHigher is better	4^th / 16	58 lbf	-2 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	15^th / 16	70 ft	+9 ft
NoiseLower is better	1^st / 16	70.4 dB	Best in this discipline
WearHigher is better	12^th / 16	24,855 miles	-10,128 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	16^th / 16	5.8 l/100km	+0.30 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	6^th / 16	67 mg/km/t	+16.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

Tire	Dunlop Winter Sport 5	Michelin Alpin 6	Goodyear UltraGrip 9+	Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	Hankook Winter I cept RS3	Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	Firestone Winterhawk 4	BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2	Fulda Kristall Control HP2	Kleber Krisalp HP3	Falken EUROWINTER HS02	Barum Polaris 5	Vredestein Wintrac	Uniroyal WinterExpert	Lassa Snoways 4	Austone SP 901
Position	1^st	2^nd	3^rd	4^th	5^th	6^th	7^th	8^th	9^th	10^th	11^th	12^th	13^th	14^th	15^th	16^th
Category scores (% of best)
Dry	93.2%	96.3%	92.2%	96.5%	92.4%	94.7%	92%	93.7%	93%	93.5%	100%	92.8%	96.5%	90.8%	92.2%	95.8%
Wet	93.6%	93.1%	96.1%	91.9%	93.8%	98.8%	98.7%	90.1%	88.8%	91.3%	90.4%	89.4%	89.8%	90.6%	91%	73.1%
Snow	98.5%	94.7%	98.4%	94.2%	98.5%	98.7%	93.7%	99.5%	95.7%	98.3%	84.7%	92.3%	93.4%	96.6%	84.2%	98.9%
Ice	94.9%	95.4%	100%	91.6%	94.4%	88.6%	91.2%	88.6%	93%	85.3%	91.6%	89.4%	97.4%	88.6%	87.7%	86.9%
Comfort	97.2%	98.9%	99%	99.3%	98.1%	98.1%	99.4%	98.7%	95%	99.7%	99%	96.7%	98.7%	97.6%	98.6%	100%
Value	86%	96.8%	82.8%	81.5%	79.8%	74.2%	73.7%	86.7%	93.5%	86.7%	80.5%	86.2%	86.9%	75%	80.1%	81%
Keep researching	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results

Menu

Tire shortlist

The evidence behind the verdict

Test setup & methodology

Recorded test conditions

Dry

Wet

Snow

Ice

Comfort

Value

Results

Cross-check this test