Every year ADAC perform some of the most in depth tire tests in the world, and this years 17 inch winter tire test is no different.

For 2023 ADAC have taken15 of the most popular winter tires in 225/45 R17 and tested them in all the usual tests, such as dry, wet and snow performance, but also put all 15 sets through ice braking, a real world road wear test, and measured particulate matter to tell you which tire is best for the environment.

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
Snow Braking: 18.6 → 0.0 mph
Ice Braking: 12.4 → 0.0 mph

Before you get to the final results it's important to explain how the ADAC scoring system works, as if you go to the score weighting page for this test, the calculated results will look a little different from the actual ADAC results.

To calculate their final results, ADAC score based on the German school system scoring, which rates each tire in each test from 1 (best) to 6 (worse), and each score can be broken down with a plus or minus (eg 3+.) How these score systems are bracketed is up to ADAC and is not made public so we can't be sure exactly how they reached their conclusion, however we do know that if a tire performs very poorly in a certain category, it gets manually deranked and can't finish in a top position. This is why the Bridgestone finishes very low in the ADAC rating (deranked because of high wear), and why the Kumho is in a different spot

Value

Wear is naturally a very important metric, but we believe value (cost per 1,000 km driven) is even more important as low wearing tires with high purchase prices are still an expensive choice for the consumer.

ADAC don't calculate value, so we have done so using their reported purchase price and projected wear. In this metric the Kumho Winter Craft WP52 had a predicted tread life of 39,768 miles and a cost of €1.72 per 1000km. In contrast, Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 had a tread life of 22,432 miles and a cost of €4.35 per 1000km. The nearly 17,398 miles difference in tread life and the €2.63 difference in cost per 1000km are worth keeping in mind when reading the rest of the test.

Value
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Kumho Winter Craft WP52	1.72 Price/1000	Best
2Sava Eskimo HP2	2.28 Price/1000	+0.56 Price/1000
3Semperit Speed Grip 5	2.38 Price/1000	+0.66 Price/1000
4Dunlop Winter Sport 5	2.39 Price/1000	+0.67 Price/1000
5Apollo Aspire XP Winter	2.4 Price/1000	+0.68 Price/1000
6Michelin Alpin 6	2.79 Price/1000	+1.07 Price/1000
7Vredestein Wintrac Pro	2.81 Price/1000	+1.09 Price/1000
8Giti GitiWinterW2	2.83 Price/1000	+1.11 Price/1000
9Hankook Winter I cept RS3	2.84 Price/1000	+1.12 Price/1000
10Continental WinterContact TS 870	2.99 Price/1000	+1.27 Price/1000
10Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	2.99 Price/1000	+1.27 Price/1000
12Goodyear UltraGrip Performance+	3.05 Price/1000	+1.33 Price/1000
13Nokian WR Snowproof	3.22 Price/1000	+1.50 Price/1000
14Yokohama BluEarth Winter V906	3.24 Price/1000	+1.52 Price/1000
15Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	4.35 Price/1000	+2.63 Price/1000

The difference between best and worst was 152.9% (2.63 Price/1000).

Wear
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Kumho Winter Craft WP52	39,768 miles	Best
2Dunlop Winter Sport 5	38,214 miles	-1,554 miles
3Michelin Alpin 6	37,904 miles	-1,864 miles
4Continental WinterContact TS 870	34,735 miles	-5,033 miles
5Semperit Speed Grip 5	34,424 miles	-5,344 miles
6Goodyear UltraGrip Performance+	33,803 miles	-5,965 miles
7Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	32,808 miles	-6,960 miles
8Sava Eskimo HP2	31,566 miles	-8,202 miles
9Vredestein Wintrac Pro	30,323 miles	-9,445 miles
9Apollo Aspire XP Winter	30,323 miles	-9,445 miles
11Hankook Winter I cept RS3	28,397 miles	-11,371 miles
12Nokian WR Snowproof	27,775 miles	-11,993 miles
13Giti GitiWinterW2	25,228 miles	-14,540 miles
14Yokohama BluEarth Winter V906	23,985 miles	-15,783 miles
15Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	22,432 miles	-17,336 miles

The difference between best and worst was 43.6% (17,336 miles).

We can't talk about value without considering fuel consumption which ADAC tested on a vehicle, not on a machine. The Sava Eskimo HP2 and Dunlop Winter Sport 5 both recorded 5.5 liters per 100 km, while Michelin Alpin 6 was less efficient at 5.8 liters per 100 km. The 0.3-liter difference may seem small but can add up over time, affecting the total cost of ownership.

Fuel Consumption
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Dunlop Winter Sport 5	5.5 l/100km	Best	$0
1Sava Eskimo HP2	5.5 l/100km	Best	$0
3Nokian WR Snowproof	5.6 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	$18
3Goodyear UltraGrip Performance+	5.6 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	$18
5Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
5Continental WinterContact TS 870	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
5Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
5Giti GitiWinterW2	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
5Semperit Speed Grip 5	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
5Yokohama BluEarth Winter V906	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
5Kumho Winter Craft WP52	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
12Vredestein Wintrac Pro	5.8 l/100km	+0.30 l/100km	$55
12Michelin Alpin 6	5.8 l/100km	+0.30 l/100km	$55
12Apollo Aspire XP Winter	5.8 l/100km	+0.30 l/100km	$55
12Hankook Winter I cept RS3	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 Vredestein Wintrac Pro uses about 15 gal ($55) more fuel than the Dunlop Winter Sport 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.

Abrasion is becoming more and more important, which measures the wear of a tire through the life and the weight of particles it ejects into the environment. This is a category Michelin always excels in, with a clear lead over the Kumho in second place. The fast wearing Bridgestone was almost twice as bad for the environment with the worse result on test.

Abrasion
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Alpin 6	56 mg/km/t	Best
2Kumho Winter Craft WP52	58.8 mg/km/t	+2.80 mg/km/t
3Vredestein Wintrac Pro	64.7 mg/km/t	+8.70 mg/km/t
4Dunlop Winter Sport 5	65.3 mg/km/t	+9.30 mg/km/t
4Continental WinterContact TS 870	65.3 mg/km/t	+9.30 mg/km/t
6Goodyear UltraGrip Performance+	66.7 mg/km/t	+10.70 mg/km/t
7Nokian WR Snowproof	68.1 mg/km/t	+12.10 mg/km/t
8Semperit Speed Grip 5	69.7 mg/km/t	+13.70 mg/km/t
9Apollo Aspire XP Winter	71 mg/km/t	+15.00 mg/km/t
10Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	73.9 mg/km/t	+17.90 mg/km/t
11Hankook Winter I cept RS3	74.1 mg/km/t	+18.10 mg/km/t
12Sava Eskimo HP2	75.4 mg/km/t	+19.40 mg/km/t
13Yokohama BluEarth Winter V906	83.9 mg/km/t	+27.90 mg/km/t
14Giti GitiWinterW2	88.1 mg/km/t	+32.10 mg/km/t
15Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	98.5 mg/km/t	+42.50 mg/km/t

The difference between best and worst was 75.9% (42.5 mg/km/t).

Dry

The Kumho Winter Craft WP52 had the shortest dry braking distance at 140 feet, followed by Continental's WinterContact at 143 feet. Sava Eskimo HP2 lagged behind at 152 feet. The difference of nearly 13 feet between the best and worst performers can be significant in real-world scenarios, potentially affecting collision avoidance.

Dry Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Kumho Winter Craft WP52	140 ft	Best	0 mph
2Continental WinterContact TS 870	143 ft	+3 ft	12 mph
3Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	143 ft	+3 ft	13 mph
4Nokian WR Snowproof	144 ft	+4 ft	13 mph
5Apollo Aspire XP Winter	145 ft	+5 ft	15 mph
6Michelin Alpin 6	146 ft	+6 ft	17 mph
6Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	146 ft	+6 ft	17 mph
6Yokohama BluEarth Winter V906	146 ft	+6 ft	17 mph
9Vredestein Wintrac Pro	147 ft	+7 ft	17 mph
10Hankook Winter I cept RS3	147 ft	+7 ft	18 mph
11Goodyear UltraGrip Performance+	147 ft	+7 ft	18 mph
12Semperit Speed Grip 5	148 ft	+8 ft	18 mph
13Dunlop Winter Sport 5	149 ft	+9 ft	20 mph
13Giti GitiWinterW2	149 ft	+9 ft	20 mph
15Sava Eskimo HP2	152 ft	+12 ft	23 mph

The difference between best and worst was 8.9% (12 ft ≈ 0.8 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Sava Eskimo HP2 would still be travelling at 23 mph when the Kumho Winter Craft WP52 had stopped.

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

Wet

Hankook Winter I cept RS3 led in wet braking with a distance of 112 feet. Sava Eskimo HP2 was at the bottom with 140 feet. The 8.5-meter difference between the two could be a matter of safety, especially on slippery roads.

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Hankook Winter I cept RS3	112 ft	Best	0 mph
2Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	118 ft	+6 ft	17 mph
3Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	120 ft	+8 ft	20 mph
4Michelin Alpin 6	121 ft	+9 ft	21 mph
5Continental WinterContact TS 870	124 ft	+12 ft	24 mph
6Yokohama BluEarth Winter V906	125 ft	+13 ft	25 mph
7Kumho Winter Craft WP52	126 ft	+14 ft	26 mph
8Vredestein Wintrac Pro	126 ft	+14 ft	27 mph
8Apollo Aspire XP Winter	126 ft	+14 ft	27 mph
10Semperit Speed Grip 5	127 ft	+15 ft	27 mph
11Giti GitiWinterW2	128 ft	+16 ft	28 mph
12Dunlop Winter Sport 5	129 ft	+17 ft	29 mph
13Goodyear UltraGrip Performance+	133 ft	+21 ft	32 mph
14Nokian WR Snowproof	135 ft	+23 ft	33 mph
15Sava Eskimo HP2	140 ft	+28 ft	36 mph

The difference between best and worst was 24.9% (28 ft ≈ 1.9 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Sava Eskimo HP2 would still be travelling at 36 mph when the Hankook Winter I cept RS3 had stopped.

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

The Continental WinterContact TS870 had a significant lead in both straight and curved aquaplaning, with the Nokian Snowproof and Vredestein Wintrac Pro struggling in both.

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental WinterContact TS 870	50.4 mph	Best
2Hankook Winter I cept RS3	48.9 mph	-1.5 mph
3Semperit Speed Grip 5	48.6 mph	-1.8 mph
4Michelin Alpin 6	48.3 mph	-2.1 mph
5Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	47.7 mph	-2.7 mph
5Giti GitiWinterW2	47.7 mph	-2.7 mph
7Apollo Aspire XP Winter	47.6 mph	-2.8 mph
8Goodyear UltraGrip Performance+	46.0 mph	-4.4 mph
9Dunlop Winter Sport 5	45.9 mph	-4.5 mph
9Kumho Winter Craft WP52	45.9 mph	-4.5 mph
11Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	45.7 mph	-4.7 mph
12Sava Eskimo HP2	45.0 mph	-5.4 mph
13Yokohama BluEarth Winter V906	45.0 mph	-5.4 mph
14Vredestein Wintrac Pro	44.6 mph	-5.8 mph
15Nokian WR Snowproof	44.2 mph	-6.2 mph

The difference between best and worst was 12.3% (6.2 mph).

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental WinterContact TS 870	10.8 ft/s²	Best
2Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	10.5 ft/s²	-0.3 ft/s²
3Dunlop Winter Sport 5	10.2 ft/s²	-0.6 ft/s²
3Goodyear UltraGrip Performance+	10.2 ft/s²	-0.6 ft/s²
3Giti GitiWinterW2	10.2 ft/s²	-0.6 ft/s²
3Semperit Speed Grip 5	10.2 ft/s²	-0.6 ft/s²
3Hankook Winter I cept RS3	10.2 ft/s²	-0.6 ft/s²
8Sava Eskimo HP2	9.8 ft/s²	-1.0 ft/s²
8Apollo Aspire XP Winter	9.8 ft/s²	-1.0 ft/s²
10Michelin Alpin 6	9.5 ft/s²	-1.3 ft/s²
11Kumho Winter Craft WP52	9.2 ft/s²	-1.6 ft/s²
12Vredestein Wintrac Pro	8.9 ft/s²	-1.9 ft/s²
12Nokian WR Snowproof	8.9 ft/s²	-1.9 ft/s²
12Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	8.9 ft/s²	-1.9 ft/s²
12Yokohama BluEarth Winter V906	8.9 ft/s²	-1.9 ft/s²

The difference between best and worst was 18.2% (1.9 ft/s²).

Snow

Dunlop Winter Sport 5 stopped at 31 feet in snow braking, while Apollo Aspire XP Winter recorded 34 feet.

Snow Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Dunlop Winter Sport 5	31 ft	Best	0 mph
2Sava Eskimo HP2	31 ft	0 ft	8 mph
2Continental WinterContact TS 870	31 ft	0 ft	8 mph
2Hankook Winter I cept RS3	31 ft	0 ft	8 mph
5Goodyear UltraGrip Performance+	31 ft	0 ft	12 mph
6Giti GitiWinterW2	32 ft	+1 ft	14 mph
7Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	32 ft	+1 ft	18 mph
8Michelin Alpin 6	33 ft	+2 ft	20 mph
9Vredestein Wintrac Pro	33 ft	+2 ft	21 mph
9Semperit Speed Grip 5	33 ft	+2 ft	21 mph
9Kumho Winter Craft WP52	33 ft	+2 ft	21 mph
12Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	33 ft	+2 ft	22 mph
13Nokian WR Snowproof	34 ft	+3 ft	24 mph
13Yokohama BluEarth Winter V906	34 ft	+3 ft	24 mph
15Apollo Aspire XP Winter	34 ft	+3 ft	26 mph

The difference between best and worst was 11.7% (3 ft). From 80 mph, the Apollo Aspire XP Winter would still be travelling at 26 mph when the Dunlop Winter Sport 5 had stopped.

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

The Dunlop was back at the front for snow traction testing

Snow Traction
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Dunlop Winter Sport 5	58 lbf	Best
2Sava Eskimo HP2	58 lbf	0 lbf
3Continental WinterContact TS 870	57 lbf	-1 lbf
4Michelin Alpin 6	56 lbf	-2 lbf
5Hankook Winter I cept RS3	56 lbf	-2 lbf
6Goodyear UltraGrip Performance+	56 lbf	-2 lbf
6Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	56 lbf	-2 lbf
8Giti GitiWinterW2	55 lbf	-3 lbf
9Kumho Winter Craft WP52	55 lbf	-3 lbf
10Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	53 lbf	-5 lbf
11Yokohama BluEarth Winter V906	53 lbf	-5 lbf
12Vredestein Wintrac Pro	53 lbf	-5 lbf
13Apollo Aspire XP Winter	52 lbf	-6 lbf
14Semperit Speed Grip 5	52 lbf	-6 lbf
15Nokian WR Snowproof	52 lbf	-6 lbf

The difference between best and worst was 11.1% (6 lbf).

Ice

The Continental WinterContact TS870 drew with the Vredestein Wintrac Pro, having the best ice braking distances.

Ice Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Vredestein Wintrac Pro	64 ft	Best	0 mph
1Continental WinterContact TS 870	64 ft	Best	0 mph
3Michelin Alpin 6	65 ft	+1 ft	8 mph
3Kumho Winter Craft WP52	65 ft	+1 ft	8 mph
5Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	65 ft	+1 ft	10 mph
6Sava Eskimo HP2	65 ft	+1 ft	11 mph
7Goodyear UltraGrip Performance+	66 ft	+2 ft	14 mph
8Dunlop Winter Sport 5	66 ft	+2 ft	15 mph
9Hankook Winter I cept RS3	67 ft	+3 ft	17 mph
10Apollo Aspire XP Winter	68 ft	+4 ft	18 mph
11Nokian WR Snowproof	68 ft	+4 ft	20 mph
11Semperit Speed Grip 5	68 ft	+4 ft	20 mph
13Giti GitiWinterW2	69 ft	+5 ft	21 mph
14Yokohama BluEarth Winter V906	70 ft	+6 ft	23 mph
15Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	73 ft	+9 ft	27 mph

The difference between best and worst was 13.3% (9 ft ≈ 0.6 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 would still be travelling at 27 mph when the Vredestein Wintrac Pro had stopped.

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

Comfort

The Kumho WinterCraft WP52 had the quietest passby noise.

Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Kumho Winter Craft WP52	70.9 dB	Best
2Giti GitiWinterW2	71.6 dB	+0.70 dB
3Hankook Winter I cept RS3	71.7 dB	+0.80 dB
4Continental WinterContact TS 870	72 dB	+1.10 dB
5Nokian WR Snowproof	72.1 dB	+1.20 dB
6Vredestein Wintrac Pro	72.3 dB	+1.40 dB
7Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	72.4 dB	+1.50 dB
8Semperit Speed Grip 5	72.7 dB	+1.80 dB
9Michelin Alpin 6	72.9 dB	+2.00 dB
10Goodyear UltraGrip Performance+	73.1 dB	+2.20 dB
11Yokohama BluEarth Winter V906	73.3 dB	+2.40 dB
12Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	73.7 dB	+2.80 dB
13Apollo Aspire XP Winter	74.1 dB	+3.20 dB
14Dunlop Winter Sport 5	74.3 dB	+3.40 dB
15Sava Eskimo HP2	75.6 dB	+4.70 dB

The difference between best and worst was 6.6% (4.7 dB).

Results

The Continental WinterContact TS 870 tire offers strong performance across the board. On dry roads, it provides good steering feedback, precision, and safety reserves, along with above-average braking. In wet conditions, it excels in all sub-criteria, including short braking distances and good aquaplaning behavior. On winter roads, it performs slightly above average in braking and traction, with good handling and large safety reserves. Environmentally, it has a very good predicted mileage, good wear, and scores well in efficiency due to its low weight and fuel consumption. Overall, it has a clearly good environmental performance.

Dry97.9%

Wet94.4%

Snow98.3%

Ice100%

Comfort98.5%

Value84.7%

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	2^nd / 15	143 ft	+3 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	5^th / 15	124 ft	+12 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	1^st / 15	50.4 mph	Best in this discipline
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	1^st / 15	10.8 ft/s²	Best in this discipline
Snow BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 15	31 ft	0 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	3^rd / 15	57 lbf	-1 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	1^st / 15	64 ft	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	4^th / 15	72 dB	+1.10 dB
WearHigher is better	4^th / 15	34,735 miles	-5,033 miles
ValueLower is better	10^th / 15	2.99 Price/1000	+1.27 Price/1000
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	5^th / 15	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	4^th / 15	65.3 mg/km/t	+9.30 mg/km/t

EU Label: C/B/70
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 167.00

The MICHELIN ALPIN 6 tire performs well on dry roads, offering good steering feedback and safety reserves. It has an average braking distance but still secures a good rating. In wet conditions, it excels in braking but falls short in transverse aquaplaning and handling, requiring better force distribution for a higher rating. On winter roads, it performs slightly below average in braking but above average in traction, with good handling and ice braking. Environmentally, it stands out for its above-average predicted mileage, low wear, and impressive efficiency due to low tire weight and fuel consumption. Overall, it has a strong environmental performance.

Dry95.7%

Wet92.5%

Snow95.7%

Ice99%

Comfort97.3%

Value89.3%

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 / 15	146 ft	+6 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	4^th / 15	121 ft	+9 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	4^th / 15	48.3 mph	-2.1 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	10^th / 15	9.5 ft/s²	-1.3 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 15	33 ft	+2 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	4^th / 15	56 lbf	-2 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 15	65 ft	+1 ft
NoiseLower is better	9^th / 15	72.9 dB	+2.00 dB
WearHigher is better	3^rd / 15	37,904 miles	-1,864 miles
ValueLower is better	6^th / 15	2.79 Price/1000	+1.07 Price/1000
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	12^th / 15	5.8 l/100km	+0.30 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	1^st / 15	56 mg/km/t	Best in this discipline

EU Label: D/B/69
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 170.00

The GOODYEAR UltraGrip Performance+ tire offers good steering feedback and safety reserves on dry roads, with an average braking distance earning it a good rating. On wet roads, it performs well in aquaplaning and handling, securing a good overall rating despite narrowly missing a good mark in braking distance. In winter conditions, it shows above-average performance in braking and traction, and excels in snow handling and ice braking. Environmentally, the tire is rated well for its very good predicted mileage, good wear, and low fuel consumption, despite its above-average weight. Overall, it achieves a good environmental rating.

Dry94.9%

Wet87.7%

Snow97.3%

Ice97%

Comfort97%

Value84.4%

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 / 15	147 ft	+7 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	13^th / 15	133 ft	+21 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	8^th / 15	46.0 mph	-4.4 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	3^rd / 15	10.2 ft/s²	-0.6 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	5^th / 15	31 ft	0 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	6^th / 15	56 lbf	-2 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	7^th / 15	66 ft	+2 ft
NoiseLower is better	10^th / 15	73.1 dB	+2.20 dB
WearHigher is better	6^th / 15	33,803 miles	-5,965 miles
ValueLower is better	12^th / 15	3.05 Price/1000	+1.33 Price/1000
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	3^rd / 15	5.6 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	6^th / 15	66.7 mg/km/t	+10.70 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/72
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 166.00

The DUNLOP WINTER SPORT 5 tire provides good steering feedback and safety reserves during critical driving maneuvers. Its braking performance is rated as good. On wet roads, it performs well in aquaplaning but only achieves satisfactory results in braking and handling, lacking the precision for a higher rating. In winter conditions, it excels in braking, traction, and particularly in snow handling, where it receives a very good rating. Environmentally, the tire performs well due to its high predicted mileage, low wear, low weight, and low fuel consumption, securing it a good overall rating.

Dry94%

Wet89.1%

Snow100%

Ice96.5%

Comfort95.4%

Value90.8%

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 / 15	149 ft	+9 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	12^th / 15	129 ft	+17 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	9^th / 15	45.9 mph	-4.5 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	3^rd / 15	10.2 ft/s²	-0.6 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	1^st / 15	31 ft	Best in this discipline
Snow TractionHigher is better	1^st / 15	58 lbf	Best in this discipline
Ice BrakingLower is better	8^th / 15	66 ft	+2 ft
NoiseLower is better	14^th / 15	74.3 dB	+3.40 dB
WearHigher is better	2^nd / 15	38,214 miles	-1,554 miles
ValueLower is better	4^th / 15	2.39 Price/1000	+0.67 Price/1000
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 15	5.5 l/100km	Best in this discipline
AbrasionLower is better	4^th / 15	65.3 mg/km/t	+9.30 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/C/72
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 147.00

The VREDESTEIN WINTRAC PRO tire exhibits satisfactory steering feedback and precision on dry roads, requiring occasional corrections during turns and corners. It tends to oversteer during dynamic maneuvers, and its braking distance is average but rated as good. In wet conditions, it excels in braking but scores only satisfactory in aquaplaning and handling. While it offers sufficient safety reserves, it lacks the precision for a higher rating. On winter roads, it receives good ratings for braking on snow and ice, as well as for snow traction and handling, although it could improve in precision. Environmentally, the tire performs well with good predicted mileage and wear. Despite its slightly above-average weight, its low fuel consumption earns it a good efficiency rating.

Dry95.3%

Wet87.4%

Snow92.2%

Ice100%

Comfort98.1%

Value82.7%

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	9^th / 15	147 ft	+7 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	8^th / 15	126 ft	+14 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	14^th / 15	44.6 mph	-5.8 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	12^th / 15	8.9 ft/s²	-1.9 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	9^th / 15	33 ft	+2 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	12^th / 15	53 lbf	-5 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	1^st / 15	64 ft	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	6^th / 15	72.3 dB	+1.40 dB
WearHigher is better	9^th / 15	30,323 miles	-9,445 miles
ValueLower is better	7^th / 15	2.81 Price/1000	+1.09 Price/1000
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	12^th / 15	5.8 l/100km	+0.30 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	3^rd / 15	64.7 mg/km/t	+8.70 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/72
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 137.00

The SEMPERIT SPEED-GRIP 5 tire shows minor weaknesses in steering precision on dry roads but maintains good safety reserves and an average braking distance, earning it a good rating for dry conditions. On wet roads, it also secures a good rating for braking and aquaplaning but falls short in handling due to early tendencies to understeer. Its performance on winter roads is less than ideal, missing a good rating due to shortcomings in ice braking, snow traction, and handling. The tire tends to understeer or oversteer early, affecting precise control. Environmentally, the tire receives a good rating; its predicted mileage is very good and wear is also rated as good. Although it narrowly misses a good rating for weight, its low fuel consumption secures it a good efficiency rating.

Dry94.7%

Wet91.2%

Snow91.6%

Ice93.8%

Comfort97.5%

Value86.4%

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 / 15	148 ft	+8 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	10^th / 15	127 ft	+15 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	3^rd / 15	48.6 mph	-1.8 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	3^rd / 15	10.2 ft/s²	-0.6 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	9^th / 15	33 ft	+2 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	14^th / 15	52 lbf	-6 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	11^th / 15	68 ft	+4 ft
NoiseLower is better	8^th / 15	72.7 dB	+1.80 dB
WearHigher is better	5^th / 15	34,424 miles	-5,344 miles
ValueLower is better	3^rd / 15	2.38 Price/1000	+0.66 Price/1000
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	5^th / 15	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	8^th / 15	69.7 mg/km/t	+13.70 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/72
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 132.00

The Hankook Winter i*cept RS3 tire exhibits minor weaknesses on dry roads, particularly in steering precision and driving safety, with a tendency to oversteer during sudden maneuvers. However, its braking distance is rated as good. On wet roads, the tire performs well across all metrics, including precise handling and good safety reserves. It also ranks third in winter road performance, excelling in braking and acceleration on snow and offering precise and safe handling. Its ice braking performance is average. Environmentally, the tire scores well with good predicted mileage and wear. Its efficiency is also commendable due to its low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry95.1%

Wet98.2%

Snow98.1%

Ice95.6%

Comfort98.9%

Value79.4%

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 / 15	147 ft	+7 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	1^st / 15	112 ft	Best in this discipline
Straight AquaHigher is better	2^nd / 15	48.9 mph	-1.5 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	3^rd / 15	10.2 ft/s²	-0.6 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 15	31 ft	0 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	5^th / 15	56 lbf	-2 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	9^th / 15	67 ft	+3 ft
NoiseLower is better	3^rd / 15	71.7 dB	+0.80 dB
WearHigher is better	11^th / 15	28,397 miles	-11,371 miles
ValueLower is better	9^th / 15	2.84 Price/1000	+1.12 Price/1000
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	12^th / 15	5.8 l/100km	+0.30 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	11^th / 15	74.1 mg/km/t	+18.10 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/72
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 130.00

The Giti GitiWinter W2 tire shows minor weaknesses in steering precision on dry roads but maintains good safety reserves and braking distance, earning it a good rating for dry conditions. On wet roads, it also secures a good rating for braking and aquaplaning but falls short in handling due to early tendencies to understeer. Its performance on winter roads is less than ideal, missing a good rating due to shortcomings in ice braking, snow traction, and handling. The tire tends to understeer or oversteer early, affecting precise control. Environmentally, the tire receives only a satisfactory rating; its predicted mileage and wear are below average. Despite good fuel consumption, its efficiency is compromised by its weight, also earning a satisfactory rating.

Dry94%

Wet90.5%

Snow95.7%

Ice92.9%

Comfort99%

Value76.2%

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	13^th / 15	149 ft	+9 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	11^th / 15	128 ft	+16 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	5^th / 15	47.7 mph	-2.7 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	3^rd / 15	10.2 ft/s²	-0.6 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	6^th / 15	32 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	8^th / 15	55 lbf	-3 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	13^th / 15	69 ft	+5 ft
NoiseLower is better	2^nd / 15	71.6 dB	+0.70 dB
WearHigher is better	13^th / 15	25,228 miles	-14,540 miles
ValueLower is better	8^th / 15	2.83 Price/1000	+1.11 Price/1000
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	5^th / 15	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	14^th / 15	88.1 mg/km/t	+32.10 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/71
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 115.00

The Kumho WINTERCRAFT WP52 tire provides only satisfactory steering feedback and precision on dry roads, requiring occasional corrections due to its elastic response. It tends to oversteer during dynamic maneuvers, but its above-average braking distance earns it a good grade. On wet roads, the tire excels in braking and longitudinal aquaplaning but falls short in lateral aquaplaning and handling. On winter roads, it performs well, particularly in snow and ice braking, and offers good controllability in handling. However, it narrowly misses a good rating in snow traction. Environmentally, the tire has the highest predicted mileage in the test and good abrasion ratings but falls short in efficiency due to its above-average weight, despite good fuel consumption.

Dry100%

Wet88.6%

Snow93.6%

Ice99%

Comfort100%

Value97.6%

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 / 15	140 ft	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	7^th / 15	126 ft	+14 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	9^th / 15	45.9 mph	-4.5 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	11^th / 15	9.2 ft/s²	-1.6 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	9^th / 15	33 ft	+2 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	9^th / 15	55 lbf	-3 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 15	65 ft	+1 ft
NoiseLower is better	1^st / 15	70.9 dB	Best in this discipline
WearHigher is better	1^st / 15	39,768 miles	Best in this discipline
ValueLower is better	1^st / 15	1.72 Price/1000	Best in this discipline
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	5^th / 15	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	2^nd / 15	58.8 mg/km/t	+2.80 mg/km/t

EU Label: C/B/72
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 110.00

The Apollo ASPIRE XP WINTER tire shows minor weaknesses on dry roads, particularly in steering precision and driving safety, with a tendency to oversteer during sudden maneuvers. However, its braking distance is rated as good. On wet roads, the tire performs well in braking and aquaplaning, but lacks precision in handling. Its performance on winter roads is satisfactory, doing well in snow braking but falling short in snow traction, ice braking, and snow handling. Handling is imprecise, with early tendencies to understeer or oversteer, although some reserves are available. Environmentally, the tire narrowly misses a good rating; it has good predicted mileage and abrasion, but its efficiency is only satisfactory due to its above-average weight, despite good fuel consumption.

Dry96.6%

Wet90.4%

Snow89.8%

Ice94.7%

Comfort95.7%

Value83.3%

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 / 15	145 ft	+5 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	8^th / 15	126 ft	+14 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	7^th / 15	47.6 mph	-2.8 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	8^th / 15	9.8 ft/s²	-1.0 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	15^th / 15	34 ft	+3 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	13^th / 15	52 lbf	-6 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	10^th / 15	68 ft	+4 ft
NoiseLower is better	13^th / 15	74.1 dB	+3.20 dB
WearHigher is better	9^th / 15	30,323 miles	-9,445 miles
ValueLower is better	5^th / 15	2.4 Price/1000	+0.68 Price/1000
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	12^th / 15	5.8 l/100km	+0.30 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	9^th / 15	71 mg/km/t	+15.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/72
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 117.00

The Nokian Tires WR Snowproof offers only satisfactory steering feedback and precision on dry roads, requiring occasional corrections due to its elastic response. It tends to oversteer during dynamic evasive maneuvers or lane changes, and its limit behavior is also rated as just satisfactory. However, its braking distance is slightly above average, earning it a good rating. On wet roads, the tire's performance is unconvincing, resulting in an overall satisfactory rating. Whether in braking tests or aquaplaning behavior, its performance is below average. The tire tends to understeer or oversteer early in corners, showing imprecision and limited reserves. Overall, its handling receives an insufficient rating. On winter roads, it also earns a satisfactory rating, although it secures a good note for snow braking. Its snow traction, ice braking, and snow handling are all rated as satisfactory. The vehicle's handling is not very precise, and it tends to understeer or oversteer early, offering limited reserves. Regarding environmental impact, the tire receives a good rating for its predicted mileage and wear. Its efficiency is also rated as good, mainly due to low fuel consumption, although its weight receives a satisfactory rating.

Dry97.3%

Wet83.9%

Snow90.1%

Ice93.8%

Comfort98.3%

Value80.4%

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 / 15	144 ft	+4 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	14^th / 15	135 ft	+23 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	15^th / 15	44.2 mph	-6.2 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	12^th / 15	8.9 ft/s²	-1.9 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	13^th / 15	34 ft	+3 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	15^th / 15	52 lbf	-6 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	11^th / 15	68 ft	+4 ft
NoiseLower is better	5^th / 15	72.1 dB	+1.20 dB
WearHigher is better	12^th / 15	27,775 miles	-11,993 miles
ValueLower is better	13^th / 15	3.22 Price/1000	+1.50 Price/1000
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	3^rd / 15	5.6 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	7^th / 15	68.1 mg/km/t	+12.10 mg/km/t

EU Label: C/B/69
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 144.00

The PIRELLI CINTURATO WINTER 2 tire exhibits clear weaknesses on dry roads, particularly in steering response and driving safety, with tendencies to oversteer and delayed stabilization. However, its braking distance is good. On wet roads, the tire performs well in braking and aquaplaning but lacks precision in handling. Its performance on winter roads is good, particularly in braking on snow and ice, and it offers good controllability in handling. It narrowly misses a good rating in snow traction. Environmentally, the tire scores well in predicted mileage, wear, and efficiency, with both its weight and fuel consumption at good levels.

Dry95.7%

Wet91.7%

Snow94.4%

Ice98.5%

Comfort97.9%

Value81.8%

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	6^th / 15	146 ft	+6 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 15	118 ft	+6 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	11^th / 15	45.7 mph	-4.7 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	12^th / 15	8.9 ft/s²	-1.9 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	12^th / 15	33 ft	+2 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	6^th / 15	56 lbf	-2 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	5^th / 15	65 ft	+1 ft
NoiseLower is better	7^th / 15	72.4 dB	+1.50 dB
WearHigher is better	7^th / 15	32,808 miles	-6,960 miles
ValueLower is better	10^th / 15	2.99 Price/1000	+1.27 Price/1000
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	5^th / 15	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	10^th / 15	73.9 mg/km/t	+17.90 mg/km/t

EU Label: C/B/72
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 158.00

The YOKOHAMA BluEarth*WINTER V906 tire has notable weaknesses on dry roads, including imprecise steering feedback and a tendency to oversteer during sudden maneuvers. Its braking distance, however, is rated as good. On wet roads, the tire performs well in braking and handling but falls short in aquaplaning with a below-average rating. Its performance on winter roads is satisfactory; it does well in snow braking but struggles with traction, ice braking, and snow handling. Handling is imprecise, and the tire tends to understeer or oversteer early, offering limited reserves. Environmentally, the tire receives a good grade, but its predicted mileage and wear are only satisfactory.

Dry95.7%

Wet88.2%

Snow91.4%

Ice91.6%

Comfort96.7%

Value74.6%

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 / 15	146 ft	+6 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	6^th / 15	125 ft	+13 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	13^th / 15	45.0 mph	-5.4 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	12^th / 15	8.9 ft/s²	-1.9 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	13^th / 15	34 ft	+3 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	11^th / 15	53 lbf	-5 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	14^th / 15	70 ft	+6 ft
NoiseLower is better	11^th / 15	73.3 dB	+2.40 dB
WearHigher is better	14^th / 15	23,985 miles	-15,783 miles
ValueLower is better	14^th / 15	3.24 Price/1000	+1.52 Price/1000
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	5^th / 15	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	13^th / 15	83.9 mg/km/t	+27.90 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/71
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 125.00

The Sava eskimo hp2 tire exhibits only satisfactory performance on dry and wet roads, requiring frequent steering corrections and showing tendencies to oversteer during dynamic maneuvers. Its braking distance is below average. On wet roads, it performs well only in aquaplaning but is otherwise just satisfactory. Handling is also merely adequate, with early understeer and imprecise cornering. However, the tire excels on winter roads, achieving above-average results in braking, acceleration, and snow handling. Environmentally, the eskimo hp2 performs well, with good predicted mileage and wear, and it ranks highest in efficiency due to low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry91.8%

Wet84.1%

Snow99.3%

Ice98%

Comfort93.8%

Value85.8%

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	15^th / 15	152 ft	+12 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	15^th / 15	140 ft	+28 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	12^th / 15	45.0 mph	-5.4 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	8^th / 15	9.8 ft/s²	-1.0 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 15	31 ft	0 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	2^nd / 15	58 lbf	0 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	6^th / 15	65 ft	+1 ft
NoiseLower is better	15^th / 15	75.6 dB	+4.70 dB
WearHigher is better	8^th / 15	31,566 miles	-8,202 miles
ValueLower is better	2^nd / 15	2.28 Price/1000	+0.56 Price/1000
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 15	5.5 l/100km	Best in this discipline
AbrasionLower is better	12^th / 15	75.4 mg/km/t	+19.40 mg/km/t

EU Label: C/C/72
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 116.00

Dry97.5%

Wet94.4%

Snow93.4%

Ice88.2%

Comfort96.2%

Value69.2%

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	3^rd / 15	143 ft	+3 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 15	120 ft	+8 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	5^th / 15	47.7 mph	-2.7 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	2^nd / 15	10.5 ft/s²	-0.3 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	7^th / 15	32 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	10^th / 15	53 lbf	-5 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	15^th / 15	73 ft	+9 ft
NoiseLower is better	12^th / 15	73.7 dB	+2.80 dB
WearHigher is better	15^th / 15	22,432 miles	-17,336 miles
ValueLower is better	15^th / 15	4.35 Price/1000	+2.63 Price/1000
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	5^th / 15	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	15^th / 15	98.5 mg/km/t	+42.50 mg/km/t

EU Label: C/A/71
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 157.00

Tire	Continental WinterContact TS 870	Michelin Alpin 6	Goodyear UltraGrip Performance+	Dunlop Winter Sport 5	Vredestein Wintrac Pro	Semperit Speed Grip 5	Hankook Winter I cept RS3	Giti GitiWinterW2	Kumho Winter Craft WP52	Apollo Aspire XP Winter	Nokian WR Snowproof	Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	Yokohama BluEarth Winter V906	Sava Eskimo HP2	Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
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
Category scores (% of best)
Dry	97.9%	95.7%	94.9%	94%	95.3%	94.7%	95.1%	94%	100%	96.6%	97.3%	95.7%	95.7%	91.8%	97.5%
Wet	94.4%	92.5%	87.7%	89.1%	87.4%	91.2%	98.2%	90.5%	88.6%	90.4%	83.9%	91.7%	88.2%	84.1%	94.4%
Snow	98.3%	95.7%	97.3%	100%	92.2%	91.6%	98.1%	95.7%	93.6%	89.8%	90.1%	94.4%	91.4%	99.3%	93.4%
Ice	100%	99%	97%	96.5%	100%	93.8%	95.6%	92.9%	99%	94.7%	93.8%	98.5%	91.6%	98%	88.2%
Comfort	98.5%	97.3%	97%	95.4%	98.1%	97.5%	98.9%	99%	100%	95.7%	98.3%	97.9%	96.7%	93.8%	96.2%
Value	84.7%	89.3%	84.4%	90.8%	82.7%	86.4%	79.4%	76.2%	97.6%	83.3%	80.4%	81.8%	74.6%	85.8%	69.2%
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

Menu

Tire shortlist

The evidence behind the verdict

Test setup & methodology

Recorded test conditions

Value

Dry

Wet

Snow

Ice

Comfort

Results

Cross-check this test