Test Charts / Tire Reviews

2023 Tire Reviews Winter Tire Test

Compare each discipline in the tested size. See the measured result, position and gap to the best tire, then read the verdict for the trade-offs behind the finishing order.

Tested size: 225/45 R18
Tires tested: 11
Disciplines: 13

Dry

Dry Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
RefHankook Ventus Prime 4	113 ft	-22 ft	0 mph
RefHankook Kinergy 4S2	135 ft	0 ft	0 mph
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	135 ft	Best	0 mph
2Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	137 ft	+2 ft	8 mph
3Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	140 ft	+5 ft	14 mph
4Giti GitiWinterW2	140 ft	+5 ft	15 mph
4Kumho Winter Craft WP52	140 ft	+5 ft	15 mph
6Falken EUROWINTER HS02 Pro	140 ft	+5 ft	15 mph
7Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	141 ft	+6 ft	16 mph
8Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	141 ft	+6 ft	17 mph
9Hankook Winter i cept evo3	143 ft	+8 ft	18 mph
10Vredestein Wintrac Pro	143 ft	+8 ft	19 mph
11Leao Winter Defender UHP	149 ft	+14 ft	24 mph

The difference between best and worst was 31.9% (36 ft ≈ 2.4 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Leao Winter Defender UHP would still be travelling at 24 mph when the Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 had stopped.

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

Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
RefHankook Ventus Prime 4	69.94 s	-0.87 s
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	70.81 s	Best
2Falken EUROWINTER HS02 Pro	71.25 s	+0.44 s
3Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	71.4 s	+0.59 s
4Kumho Winter Craft WP52	71.45 s	+0.64 s
5Giti GitiWinterW2	71.59 s	+0.78 s
6Hankook Winter i cept evo3	71.68 s	+0.87 s
RefHankook Kinergy 4S2	71.84 s	+1.03 s
7Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	71.86 s	+1.05 s
8Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	71.91 s	+1.10 s
9Vredestein Wintrac Pro	72 s	+1.19 s
10Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	72.06 s	+1.25 s
11Leao Winter Defender UHP	73.24 s	+2.43 s

The difference between best and worst was 4.7% (3.3 s).

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	100 Points	Best
RefHankook Ventus Prime 4	100 Points	0.00 Points
1Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	100 Points	Best
RefHankook Kinergy 4S2	98 Points	-2.00 Points
3Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	98 Points	-2.00 Points
3Hankook Winter i cept evo3	98 Points	-2.00 Points
3Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	98 Points	-2.00 Points
3Giti GitiWinterW2	98 Points	-2.00 Points
7Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	95 Points	-5.00 Points
7Vredestein Wintrac Pro	95 Points	-5.00 Points
7Kumho Winter Craft WP52	95 Points	-5.00 Points
7Falken EUROWINTER HS02 Pro	95 Points	-5.00 Points
11Leao Winter Defender UHP	92 Points	-8.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 8% (8 Points).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
RefHankook Ventus Prime 4	81 ft	-9 ft	0 mph
1Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	90 ft	Best	0 mph
RefHankook Kinergy 4S2	91 ft	+1 ft	10 mph
2Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	91 ft	+1 ft	11 mph
3Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	92 ft	+2 ft	12 mph
4Hankook Winter i cept evo3	93 ft	+3 ft	16 mph
5Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	93 ft	+3 ft	16 mph
6Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	94 ft	+4 ft	17 mph
7Giti GitiWinterW2	95 ft	+5 ft	19 mph
8Vredestein Wintrac Pro	97 ft	+7 ft	22 mph
9Falken EUROWINTER HS02 Pro	97 ft	+7 ft	22 mph
10Kumho Winter Craft WP52	101 ft	+11 ft	27 mph
11Leao Winter Defender UHP	115 ft	+25 ft	38 mph

The difference between best and worst was 42.1% (34 ft ≈ 2.3 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Leao Winter Defender UHP 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.

Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	56.33 s	Best
RefHankook Ventus Prime 4	56.87 s	+0.54 s
2Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	57.53 s	+1.20 s
3Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	57.97 s	+1.64 s
3Falken EUROWINTER HS02 Pro	57.97 s	+1.64 s
5Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	58.01 s	+1.68 s
6Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	58.09 s	+1.76 s
7Hankook Winter i cept evo3	58.15 s	+1.82 s
8Giti GitiWinterW2	58.2 s	+1.87 s
RefHankook Kinergy 4S2	58.36 s	+2.03 s
9Vredestein Wintrac Pro	59.38 s	+3.05 s
10Kumho Winter Craft WP52	60.19 s	+3.86 s
11Leao Winter Defender UHP	66.05 s	+9.72 s

The difference between best and worst was 17.3% (9.72 s).

Subj. Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	100 Points	Best
2Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	98 Points	-2.00 Points
2Hankook Winter i cept evo3	98 Points	-2.00 Points
2Giti GitiWinterW2	98 Points	-2.00 Points
RefHankook Ventus Prime 4	98 Points	-2.00 Points
2Kumho Winter Craft WP52	98 Points	-2.00 Points
2Falken EUROWINTER HS02 Pro	98 Points	-2.00 Points
2Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	98 Points	-2.00 Points
RefHankook Kinergy 4S2	95 Points	-5.00 Points
8Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	95 Points	-5.00 Points
8Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	95 Points	-5.00 Points
10Vredestein Wintrac Pro	92 Points	-8.00 Points
11Leao Winter Defender UHP	80 Points	-20.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 20% (20 Points).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
RefHankook Ventus Prime 4	62.2 mph	+2.0 mph
1Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	60.2 mph	Best
2Giti GitiWinterW2	59.7 mph	-0.5 mph
3Falken EUROWINTER HS02 Pro	59.2 mph	-1.0 mph
4Hankook Winter i cept evo3	59.1 mph	-1.1 mph
5Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	59.0 mph	-1.2 mph
RefHankook Kinergy 4S2	58.8 mph	-1.4 mph
6Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	58.3 mph	-1.9 mph
7Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	58.2 mph	-2.0 mph
8Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	58.0 mph	-2.2 mph
9Vredestein Wintrac Pro	57.8 mph	-2.4 mph
10Kumho Winter Craft WP52	56.9 mph	-3.3 mph
11Leao Winter Defender UHP	56.6 mph	-3.6 mph

The difference between best and worst was 9% (5.6 mph).

Snow

Snow Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Hankook Winter i cept evo3	59 ft	Best	0 mph
2Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	59 ft	0 ft	4 mph
3Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	60 ft	+1 ft	11 mph
4Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	60 ft	+1 ft	13 mph
5Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	61 ft	+2 ft	15 mph
6Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	61 ft	+2 ft	15 mph
RefHankook Kinergy 4S2	61 ft	+2 ft	16 mph
7Vredestein Wintrac Pro	62 ft	+3 ft	17 mph
8Giti GitiWinterW2	62 ft	+3 ft	18 mph
9Leao Winter Defender UHP	62 ft	+3 ft	19 mph
10Kumho Winter Craft WP52	63 ft	+4 ft	21 mph
11Falken EUROWINTER HS02 Pro	69 ft	+10 ft	30 mph
RefHankook Ventus Prime 4	126 ft	+67 ft	58 mph

The difference between best and worst was 114.5% (67 ft ≈ 4.6 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Falken EUROWINTER HS02 Pro would still be travelling at 30 mph when the Hankook Winter i cept evo3 had stopped.

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

Snow Traction
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	5.54 s	Best
2Hankook Winter i cept evo3	5.65 s	+0.11 s
3Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	5.73 s	+0.19 s
4Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	5.76 s	+0.22 s
5Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	5.79 s	+0.25 s
RefHankook Kinergy 4S2	5.88 s	+0.34 s
6Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	5.91 s	+0.37 s
7Leao Winter Defender UHP	5.95 s	+0.41 s
8Vredestein Wintrac Pro	5.98 s	+0.44 s
8Kumho Winter Craft WP52	5.98 s	+0.44 s
10Giti GitiWinterW2	6.09 s	+0.55 s
11Falken EUROWINTER HS02 Pro	6.15 s	+0.61 s
RefHankook Ventus Prime 4	14.24 s	+8.70 s

The difference between best and worst was 157% (8.7 s).

Snow Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	84.26 s	Best
2Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	84.82 s	+0.56 s
3Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	85 s	+0.74 s
4Hankook Winter i cept evo3	85.24 s	+0.98 s
5Vredestein Wintrac Pro	86.32 s	+2.06 s
6Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	86.63 s	+2.37 s
7Kumho Winter Craft WP52	86.79 s	+2.53 s
RefHankook Kinergy 4S2	87.12 s	+2.86 s
8Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	87.61 s	+3.35 s
8Giti GitiWinterW2	87.61 s	+3.35 s
10Leao Winter Defender UHP	89.95 s	+5.69 s
11Falken EUROWINTER HS02 Pro	90.66 s	+6.40 s
RefHankook Ventus Prime 4	122.18 s	+37.92 s

The difference between best and worst was 45% (37.92 s).

Subj. Snow Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	100 Points	Best
2Vredestein Wintrac Pro	95 Points	-5.00 Points
2Hankook Winter i cept evo3	95 Points	-5.00 Points
2Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	95 Points	-5.00 Points
2Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	95 Points	-5.00 Points
RefHankook Kinergy 4S2	92 Points	-8.00 Points
6Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	92 Points	-8.00 Points
6Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	92 Points	-8.00 Points
6Giti GitiWinterW2	92 Points	-8.00 Points
6Kumho Winter Craft WP52	92 Points	-8.00 Points
10Falken EUROWINTER HS02 Pro	90 Points	-10.00 Points
10Leao Winter Defender UHP	90 Points	-10.00 Points
RefHankook Ventus Prime 4	50 Points	-50.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 50% (50 Points).

Comfort

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	100 Points	Best
1Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	100 Points	Best
1Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	100 Points	Best
1Falken EUROWINTER HS02 Pro	100 Points	Best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	100 Points	Best
RefHankook Kinergy 4S2	95 Points	-5.00 Points
6Hankook Winter i cept evo3	95 Points	-5.00 Points
RefHankook Ventus Prime 4	95 Points	-5.00 Points
6Leao Winter Defender UHP	95 Points	-5.00 Points
8Vredestein Wintrac Pro	92 Points	-8.00 Points
9Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	90 Points	-10.00 Points
9Giti GitiWinterW2	90 Points	-10.00 Points
9Kumho Winter Craft WP52	90 Points	-10.00 Points

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

Value

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	7.39 kg/t	Best	$0
RefHankook Ventus Prime 4	7.69 kg/t	+0.30 kg/t	$12
2Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	7.85 kg/t	+0.46 kg/t	$18
RefHankook Kinergy 4S2	7.91 kg/t	+0.52 kg/t	$21
3Leao Winter Defender UHP	8.44 kg/t	+1.05 kg/t	$42
4Vredestein Wintrac Pro	8.45 kg/t	+1.06 kg/t	$42
5Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	8.49 kg/t	+1.10 kg/t	$44
5Hankook Winter i cept evo3	8.49 kg/t	+1.10 kg/t	$44
7Kumho Winter Craft WP52	8.6 kg/t	+1.21 kg/t	$48
8Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	8.62 kg/t	+1.23 kg/t	$49
9Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	8.76 kg/t	+1.37 kg/t	$54
10Giti GitiWinterW2	8.79 kg/t	+1.40 kg/t	$56
11Falken EUROWINTER HS02 Pro	8.9 kg/t	+1.51 kg/t	$60

The difference between best and worst was 20.4% (1.51 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Falken EUROWINTER HS02 Pro uses about 17 gal ($60) more fuel than the Continental WinterContact TS 870 P.

Adjust the assumptions

Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions. These calculators use the full test field, independently of your tire selection above.

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.

Test setup & methodology

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

Show full testing methodology

Recorded test conditions

Dry Braking: 62.1 → 3.1 mph · 46–48 °F
Wet Braking: 49.7 → 3.1 mph
Snow Braking: 24.9 → 3.1 mph
Snow Traction: 3.1 → 24.9 mph

Score Weighting

Weights express the scoring priorities, not how much each discipline actually changed the finishing order. The size of the performance gaps matters too. Category weights contribute to the overall score. Within each category, discipline weights divide that category’s share. Published finishing positions also need to be read alongside the editorial verdict.

Test	Within category	Share of overall score
Dry · 20%
Dry Braking	60%	12%
Dry Handling	35%	7%
Subj. Dry Handling	5%	1%
Wet · 35%
Wet Braking	50%	17.5%
Wet Handling	35%	12.25%
Subj. Wet Handling	5%	1.75%
Straight Aqua	10%	3.5%
Snow · 30%
Snow Braking	45%	13.5%
Snow Traction	15%	4.5%
Snow Handling	30%	9%
Subj. Snow Handling	10%	3%
Comfort · 5%
Subj. Comfort	100%	5%
Value · 10%
Rolling Resistance	100%	10%

Our standard methods

The conditions above are recorded for this test. The descriptions below explain our standard procedures; measurement windows and run counts can vary by test.

Dry Braking

For dry braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 110 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on clean, dry asphalt. I typically use an 100–5 km/h measurement window. My standard programme is five runs per tire set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tire category justify it. I analyze the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. Reference tires are run repeatedly throughout the session to correct for changing conditions.

Dry Handling

For dry handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated handling circuit with ESC disabled where possible so I can assess the tire's natural balance, transient response, and limit behavior without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tire set, depending on the circuit, tire type, and consistency of conditions. I exclude laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Control runs are carried out frequently throughout the session, and I often use multiple sets of control tires so that wear on the references does not become a meaningful variable. For more track-focused products, I also do endurance testing, which is a set number of laps at race pace to determine tire wear patterns and heat resistance over longer driving.

Subj. Dry Handling

I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated dry handling circuit. I score steering precision, steering response, turn-in behavior, mid-corner balance, corner-exit traction, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tire before evaluating each candidate.

Wet Braking

For wet braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 88 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on an asphalt surface with a controlled water film. I typically use an 80–5 km/h measurement window to isolate tire performance from variability in the initial brake application. My standard programme is eight runs per tire set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tire category justify it. I analyze the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. To correct for changing conditions, I run reference tires repeatedly throughout the session — in wet testing, typically every three candidate test sets.

Wet Handling

For wet handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated handling circuit. I generally use specialist wet circuits with kerb-watering systems designed to maintain a consistent surface condition. ESC is disabled where possible so I can assess the tire's natural balance, transient response, and limit behavior without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tire set, depending on the circuit, tire type, and consistency of conditions. I exclude laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Control runs are carried out frequently throughout the session, and I often use multiple sets of control tires so that wear on the references does not become a meaningful variable.

Subj. Wet Handling

I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated wet handling circuit. I score steering precision, steering response, turn-in behavior, mid-corner balance, aquaplaning resistance, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tire before evaluating each candidate.

Straight Aqua

To measure straight-line aquaplaning resistance, I drive one side of the vehicle through a water trough of controlled depth, typically around 7 mm, while the opposite side remains on dry pavement. I enter at a fixed speed and then accelerate progressively. I define aquaplaning onset as the point at which the wheel travelling through the water exceeds a specified slip threshold relative to the dry-side reference wheel. I usually perform four runs per tire set and average the valid results.

Snow Braking

For snow braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 50 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on a groomed, compacted snow surface, measuring 45-5 km/h. I generally use a wide VDA (vehicle dynamic area) and progressively move across the surface between runs so that no tire ever brakes on the same piece of snow twice. My standard programme is twelve runs per tire set, although the sequence can extend further if the data justify it. I analyze the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. To correct for changing snow surface conditions, I run reference tires repeatedly — typically every two candidate test sets.

Snow Traction

For snow traction, I accelerate the vehicle from rest on a groomed snow surface with traction control active and measure speed and time using GPS telemetry. I typically use a 5–35 km/h measurement window to reduce the influence of launch transients and powertrain irregularities. I use a wide VDA (vehicle dynamic area) and progressively move across the surface between runs so that no tire ever accelerates on the same piece of snow twice. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. I complete multiple runs per tire set and average the valid results. Reference tires are run typically every two candidate test sets to correct for changing snow surface conditions.

Snow Handling

For snow handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated snow handling circuit with ESC disabled where possible. The circuit is groomed and prepared after every run while tires are being changed, so each set runs on a consistently prepared surface. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tire set, excluding laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Because snow surfaces degrade more rapidly than asphalt, control runs are carried out more frequently — typically every two candidate test sets.

Subj. Snow Handling

I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated snow handling circuit. The circuit is groomed and prepared after every run while tires are being changed, so each set runs on a consistently prepared surface. I score steering precision, turn-in behavior, mid-corner balance, corner-exit traction, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence on snow using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tire before evaluating each candidate.

Subj. Comfort

To assess comfort, I drive on a wide range of road surfaces (often dedicated comfort tracks at test facilities) at speeds from 50 to 120 km/h, including smooth motorway, coarse surfaces, expansion joints, broken pavement, and sharp-edged obstacles. I evaluate primary ride quality, secondary ride quality, impact harshness, seat-transmitted vibration, and the tire's ability to absorb sharp inputs. Ratings are assigned on a 1–10 scale relative to the reference tire.

Rolling Resistance

Rolling resistance is measured under controlled laboratory conditions in accordance with ISO 28580 and UNECE Regulation 117 Annex 6. The tire is mounted on a test wheel and loaded against a large-diameter steel drum. After thermal stabilisation at the prescribed test speed, rolling resistance force is measured at the spindle and corrected according to the relevant procedure. The result is expressed as rolling resistance coefficient, typically in kg/tonne.

Read our complete testing methodology →

Tire shortlist →Read the test →

More tire tests