For 2024 ADAC have tested two sizes of winter tires. The below test covers the 16" version. There's nothing particularly shocking in the overall results, so enjoy the data, which includes wear, below!

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
Ice Braking: 12.4 → 0.0 mph

Dry

The Falken EUROWINTER HS02 performed best in dry braking, stopping in 142 feet. The worst performer was the Winrun Winter max A1 WR22, taking 153 feet to stop - a difference of 10 feet. Most tires clustered between 44-151 feet, with the top 3 (Falken, Nokian, and Goodyear) showing noticeably shorter braking distances.

Dry Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Falken EUROWINTER HS02	142 ft	Best	0 mph
2Nokian Snowproof 2	145 ft	+3 ft	11 mph
3Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	145 ft	+3 ft	11 mph
4Vredestein Wintrac	146 ft	+4 ft	13 mph
5Continental WinterContact TS 870	147 ft	+5 ft	14 mph
6Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	148 ft	+6 ft	16 mph
7Michelin Alpin 6	149 ft	+7 ft	18 mph
8Dunlop Winter Sport 5	150 ft	+8 ft	18 mph
9Hankook Winter I cept RS3	150 ft	+8 ft	18 mph
10GT Radial WinterPro2 Evo	150 ft	+8 ft	19 mph
11Zeetex WH 1000	151 ft	+9 ft	19 mph
12Winrun Winter max A1 WR22	153 ft	+11 ft	21 mph

The difference between best and worst was 7.4% (11 ft ≈ 0.7 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Winrun Winter max A1 WR22 would still be travelling at 21 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

In wet braking, there was a tie for first place between the Continental WinterContact TS 870 and Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2, both stopping in 115 feet. The worst performer was the Winrun Winter max A1 WR22 at 134 feet - a significant 18 feet difference. The top 5 tires were closely grouped within 3 feet of each other, while there was a clear performance drop-off for the bottom 3 tires.

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Continental WinterContact TS 870	115 ft	Best	0 mph
1Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	115 ft	Best	0 mph
3Michelin Alpin 6	116 ft	+1 ft	7 mph
4Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	116 ft	+1 ft	8 mph
5Falken EUROWINTER HS02	118 ft	+3 ft	12 mph
6Vredestein Wintrac	118 ft	+3 ft	13 mph
7Nokian Snowproof 2	119 ft	+4 ft	15 mph
8GT Radial WinterPro2 Evo	121 ft	+6 ft	18 mph
9Hankook Winter I cept RS3	122 ft	+7 ft	19 mph
10Dunlop Winter Sport 5	122 ft	+7 ft	19 mph
11Zeetex WH 1000	130 ft	+15 ft	27 mph
12Winrun Winter max A1 WR22	134 ft	+19 ft	30 mph

The difference between best and worst was 16% (19 ft ≈ 1.2 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Winrun Winter max A1 WR22 would still be travelling at 30 mph when the Continental WinterContact TS 870 had stopped.

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

On concrete in wet conditions, the Continental WinterContact TS 870 performed best, stopping in 126 feet. The Winrun Winter max A1 WR22 again performed worst, taking 153 feet - a substantial 27 feet difference. There was a noticeable performance gap between the top 4 tires and the rest of the field.

Wet Braking - Concrete
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Continental WinterContact TS 870	126 ft	Best	0 mph
2Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	128 ft	+2 ft	9 mph
3Michelin Alpin 6	128 ft	+2 ft	10 mph
4Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	129 ft	+3 ft	11 mph
5Falken EUROWINTER HS02	132 ft	+6 ft	16 mph
6Vredestein Wintrac	132 ft	+6 ft	17 mph
7Nokian Snowproof 2	135 ft	+9 ft	20 mph
8Dunlop Winter Sport 5	137 ft	+11 ft	22 mph
9Hankook Winter I cept RS3	138 ft	+12 ft	23 mph
10GT Radial WinterPro2 Evo	139 ft	+13 ft	24 mph
11Zeetex WH 1000	145 ft	+19 ft	29 mph
12Winrun Winter max A1 WR22	153 ft	+27 ft	33 mph

The difference between best and worst was 21% (27 ft ≈ 1.8 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Winrun Winter max A1 WR22 would still be travelling at 33 mph when the Continental WinterContact TS 870 had stopped.

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

The Hankook Winter I cept RS3 performed best in straight aquaplaning, maintaining control up to 52.4 mph. The worst performer was the Zeetex WH 1000 at 42.8 mph - a significant 9.6 mph difference. There was a clear performance divide, with the top 7 tires maintaining control above 50 mph, while the bottom 5 dropped below 48 mph.

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Hankook Winter I cept RS3	52.4 mph	Best
2Continental WinterContact TS 870	52.2 mph	-0.2 mph
3Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	51.6 mph	-0.8 mph
4Vredestein Wintrac	50.3 mph	-2.1 mph
5Nokian Snowproof 2	50.1 mph	-2.3 mph
6Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	50.1 mph	-2.3 mph
7Falken EUROWINTER HS02	50.0 mph	-2.4 mph
8Michelin Alpin 6	48.0 mph	-4.4 mph
9Dunlop Winter Sport 5	47.5 mph	-4.9 mph
10GT Radial WinterPro2 Evo	47.3 mph	-5.1 mph
11Winrun Winter max A1 WR22	42.9 mph	-9.5 mph
12Zeetex WH 1000	42.8 mph	-9.6 mph

The difference between best and worst was 18.4% (9.6 mph).

In curved aquaplaning, the Continental WinterContact TS 870 performed best with 3.7 m/sec2 of lateral acceleration. The Zeetex WH 1000 and Winrun Winter max A1 WR22 tied for worst at 2.4 m/sec2 - a difference of 1.3 m/sec2. There was a notable performance gap between the top 5 tires and the rest of the field.

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental WinterContact TS 870	12.1 ft/s²	Best
2Dunlop Winter Sport 5	11.8 ft/s²	-0.3 ft/s²
2Hankook Winter I cept RS3	11.8 ft/s²	-0.3 ft/s²
2Nokian Snowproof 2	11.8 ft/s²	-0.3 ft/s²
2Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	11.8 ft/s²	-0.3 ft/s²
6Vredestein Wintrac	10.8 ft/s²	-1.3 ft/s²
6Falken EUROWINTER HS02	10.8 ft/s²	-1.3 ft/s²
8Michelin Alpin 6	10.5 ft/s²	-1.6 ft/s²
9Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	9.8 ft/s²	-2.3 ft/s²
10GT Radial WinterPro2 Evo	9.5 ft/s²	-2.6 ft/s²
11Zeetex WH 1000	7.9 ft/s²	-4.2 ft/s²
11Winrun Winter max A1 WR22	7.9 ft/s²	-4.2 ft/s²

The difference between best and worst was 35.1% (4.2 ft/s²).

Snow

The Continental WinterContact TS 870 and Dunlop Winter Sport 5 tied for best snow braking performance, stopping in 32 feet. The Zeetex WH 1000 and Falken EUROWINTER HS02 tied for worst at 36 feet - a difference of 4 feet. Most tires performed relatively closely, with only 4 feet separating the best from worst.

Snow Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Dunlop Winter Sport 5	32 ft	Best	0 mph
1Continental WinterContact TS 870	32 ft	Best	0 mph
3Hankook Winter I cept RS3	33 ft	+1 ft	8 mph
4Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	33 ft	+1 ft	11 mph
4Winrun Winter max A1 WR22	33 ft	+1 ft	11 mph
6Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	33 ft	+1 ft	14 mph
6Nokian Snowproof 2	33 ft	+1 ft	14 mph
8Michelin Alpin 6	34 ft	+2 ft	16 mph
8GT Radial WinterPro2 Evo	34 ft	+2 ft	16 mph
10Vredestein Wintrac	34 ft	+2 ft	19 mph
11Zeetex WH 1000	36 ft	+4 ft	25 mph
11Falken EUROWINTER HS02	36 ft	+4 ft	25 mph

The difference between best and worst was 11.1% (4 ft). From 80 mph, the Falken EUROWINTER HS02 would still be travelling at 25 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 Michelin Alpin 6 provided the best snow traction at 236 N. The Zeetex WH 1000 performed worst at 208 N - a difference of 28 N. There was a clear performance divide, with the top 9 tires providing over 229 N of traction, while the bottom 3 dropped below 222 N.

Snow Traction
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Alpin 6	53 lbf	Best
2Dunlop Winter Sport 5	53 lbf	0 lbf
2Vredestein Wintrac	53 lbf	0 lbf
4Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	52 lbf	-1 lbf
4Hankook Winter I cept RS3	52 lbf	-1 lbf
6Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	52 lbf	-1 lbf
6Winrun Winter max A1 WR22	52 lbf	-1 lbf
8GT Radial WinterPro2 Evo	52 lbf	-1 lbf
9Continental WinterContact TS 870	51 lbf	-2 lbf
10Nokian Snowproof 2	50 lbf	-3 lbf
11Falken EUROWINTER HS02	49 lbf	-4 lbf
12Zeetex WH 1000	47 lbf	-6 lbf

The difference between best and worst was 11.9% (6 lbf).

Ice

On ice, the Continental WinterContact TS 870 performed best, stopping in 60 feet. The Nokian Snowproof 2 performed worst at 71 feet - a difference of 11 feet. There was a notable performance gap between the top 6 tires and the rest of the field.

Ice Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Continental WinterContact TS 870	60 ft	Best	0 mph
2Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	63 ft	+3 ft	16 mph
3Vredestein Wintrac	64 ft	+4 ft	19 mph
3Falken EUROWINTER HS02	64 ft	+4 ft	19 mph
3Winrun Winter max A1 WR22	64 ft	+4 ft	19 mph
6Hankook Winter I cept RS3	65 ft	+5 ft	22 mph
7Dunlop Winter Sport 5	66 ft	+6 ft	23 mph
7Zeetex WH 1000	66 ft	+6 ft	23 mph
9GT Radial WinterPro2 Evo	67 ft	+7 ft	25 mph
10Michelin Alpin 6	68 ft	+8 ft	28 mph
11Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	70 ft	+10 ft	30 mph
12Nokian Snowproof 2	71 ft	+11 ft	31 mph

The difference between best and worst was 18% (11 ft ≈ 0.7 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Nokian Snowproof 2 would still be travelling at 31 mph when the Continental WinterContact TS 870 had stopped.

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

Comfort

The Vredestein Wintrac was the quietest tire at 70.4 dB. The Dunlop Winter Sport 5 was the noisiest at 73.0 dB - a difference of 2.6 dB. Most tires performed relatively closely, with only 2.6 dB separating the quietest from the noisiest.

Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Vredestein Wintrac	70.4 dB	Best
2Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	70.9 dB	+0.50 dB
3Falken EUROWINTER HS02	71 dB	+0.60 dB
4Continental WinterContact TS 870	71.1 dB	+0.70 dB
5Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	71.2 dB	+0.80 dB
6GT Radial WinterPro2 Evo	71.3 dB	+0.90 dB
7Zeetex WH 1000	71.6 dB	+1.20 dB
8Hankook Winter I cept RS3	71.7 dB	+1.30 dB
9Michelin Alpin 6	71.9 dB	+1.50 dB
10Winrun Winter max A1 WR22	72 dB	+1.60 dB
11Nokian Snowproof 2	72.5 dB	+2.10 dB
12Dunlop Winter Sport 5	73 dB	+2.60 dB

The difference between best and worst was 3.7% (2.6 dB).

Value

The Michelin Alpin 6 showed the best projected tread life at 33,057 miles. The Vredestein Wintrac had the shortest projected life at 20,754 miles - a significant difference of 12,303 miles. There was a wide range of performance, with clear tiers of durability among the tested tires.

Wear
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Alpin 6	33,057 miles	Best
2Hankook Winter I cept RS3	32,808 miles	-249 miles
3Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	30,509 miles	-2,548 miles
4Dunlop Winter Sport 5	30,261 miles	-2,796 miles
5Winrun Winter max A1 WR22	29,204 miles	-3,853 miles
6Zeetex WH 1000	27,402 miles	-5,655 miles
7Continental WinterContact TS 870	27,216 miles	-5,841 miles
8Falken EUROWINTER HS02	26,284 miles	-6,773 miles
9Nokian Snowproof 2	23,923 miles	-9,134 miles
10GT Radial WinterPro2 Evo	23,053 miles	-10,004 miles
11Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	21,127 miles	-11,930 miles
12Vredestein Wintrac	20,754 miles	-12,303 miles

The difference between best and worst was 37.2% (12,303 miles).

Several tires tied for best fuel consumption at 5.1 l/100km. The worst performers (including Zeetex WH 1000 and Winrun Winter max A1 WR22) consumed 5.2 l/100km - a minor 0.1 l/100km difference. Overall, fuel consumption was very similar across all tested tires.

Fuel Consumption
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Dunlop Winter Sport 5	5.1 l/100km	Best	$0
1Continental WinterContact TS 870	5.1 l/100km	Best	$0
1Vredestein Wintrac	5.1 l/100km	Best	$0
1Hankook Winter I cept RS3	5.1 l/100km	Best	$0
1Nokian Snowproof 2	5.1 l/100km	Best	$0
1GT Radial WinterPro2 Evo	5.1 l/100km	Best	$0
7Michelin Alpin 6	5.2 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	$18
7Zeetex WH 1000	5.2 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	$18
7Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	5.2 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	$18
7Falken EUROWINTER HS02	5.2 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	$18
7Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	5.2 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	$18
7Winrun Winter max A1 WR22	5.2 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	$18

All the tires in the Fuel Consumption test finished less than 3% apart. Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Michelin Alpin 6 uses about 5 gal ($18) 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.

The Hankook Winter I cept RS3 and Michelin Alpin 6 tied for best (lowest) abrasion at 48 mg/km/t. The Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2 had the highest abrasion at 79 mg/km/t - a significant difference of 31 mg/km/t. There was a wide range of performance, with clear groupings of tires at different abrasion levels.

Abrasion
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Alpin 6	48 mg/km/t	Best
1Hankook Winter I cept RS3	48 mg/km/t	Best
3Dunlop Winter Sport 5	57 mg/km/t	+9.00 mg/km/t
3Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	57 mg/km/t	+9.00 mg/km/t
5Continental WinterContact TS 870	59 mg/km/t	+11.00 mg/km/t
6Winrun Winter max A1 WR22	61 mg/km/t	+13.00 mg/km/t
7Nokian Snowproof 2	62 mg/km/t	+14.00 mg/km/t
8Falken EUROWINTER HS02	71 mg/km/t	+23.00 mg/km/t
9Vredestein Wintrac	72 mg/km/t	+24.00 mg/km/t
9Zeetex WH 1000	72 mg/km/t	+24.00 mg/km/t
9GT Radial WinterPro2 Evo	72 mg/km/t	+24.00 mg/km/t
12Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	79 mg/km/t	+31.00 mg/km/t

The difference between best and worst was 64.6% (31 mg/km/t).

Results

The Continental WinterContact TS 870 tire performs excellently in safety tests across all road surfaces. It scores particularly well in wet and winter conditions, offering good handling, short braking distances, and high safety reserves. The tire also has a good environmental rating due to its durability, low wear, light weight, and fuel efficiency.

Dry96.9%

Wet99.9%

Snow98.4%

Ice100%

Comfort99%

Value88.4%

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	5^th / 12	147 ft	+5 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	1^st / 12	115 ft	Best in this discipline
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	1^st / 12	126 ft	Best in this discipline
Straight AquaHigher is better	2^nd / 12	52.2 mph	-0.2 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	1^st / 12	12.1 ft/s²	Best in this discipline
Snow BrakingLower is better	1^st / 12	32 ft	Best in this discipline
Snow TractionHigher is better	9^th / 12	51 lbf	-2 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	1^st / 12	60 ft	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	4^th / 12	71.1 dB	+0.70 dB
WearHigher is better	7^th / 12	27,216 miles	-5,841 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 12	5.1 l/100km	Best in this discipline
AbrasionLower is better	5^th / 12	59 mg/km/t	+11.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 8.4 kgs

The Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3 tire demonstrates varied capabilities across different road conditions. While it performs adequately on dry surfaces with good steering feel but some weaknesses in borderline situations, it excels on wet roads with above-average braking, aquaplaning resistance, and handling. In winter conditions, it shows strong handling performance and slightly above-average braking, but struggles on ice. The tire's environmental impact is positive, with good projected mileage, wear ratings, and fuel efficiency. Overall, the UltraGrip Performance 3 is most impressive on wet and general winter roads, with room for improvement on dry surfaces and icy conditions, making it a well-rounded option with particular strengths in challenging weather.

Dry98%

Wet98.5%

Snow97.9%

Ice86.3%

Comfort98.9%

Value92.2%

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 / 12	145 ft	+3 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	4^th / 12	116 ft	+1 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	4^th / 12	129 ft	+3 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	3^rd / 12	51.6 mph	-0.8 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	2^nd / 12	11.8 ft/s²	-0.3 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	4^th / 12	33 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	6^th / 12	52 lbf	-1 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	11^th / 12	70 ft	+10 ft
NoiseLower is better	5^th / 12	71.2 dB	+0.80 dB
WearHigher is better	3^rd / 12	30,509 miles	-2,548 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	7^th / 12	5.2 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	3^rd / 12	57 mg/km/t	+9.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 8 kgs

The Michelin Alpin 6 tire demonstrates good overall performance across various driving conditions. On dry roads, it offers good steering feedback and precise handling with adequate safety reserves, though its braking distance is slightly below average. In wet conditions, it excels in braking tests and performs well in aquaplaning resistance and handling. The tire's best performance is on winter roads, with average to above-average results in braking and traction, and very good handling due to its safety reserves and precise control. Ice braking is rated as satisfactory. Environmentally, the Alpin 6 stands out with the highest mileage and lowest wear in the test, as well as good efficiency due to its low weight and fuel consumption. However, it's slightly noisier than average. Overall, the Michelin Alpin 6 is a well-rounded tire with particular strengths in winter conditions and environmental performance.

Dry95.2%

Wet95.7%

Snow98.2%

Ice88%

Comfort97.9%

Value99.3%

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	7^th / 12	149 ft	+7 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 12	116 ft	+1 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	3^rd / 12	128 ft	+2 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	8^th / 12	48.0 mph	-4.4 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	8^th / 12	10.5 ft/s²	-1.6 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 12	34 ft	+2 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	1^st / 12	53 lbf	Best in this discipline
Ice BrakingLower is better	10^th / 12	68 ft	+8 ft
NoiseLower is better	9^th / 12	71.9 dB	+1.50 dB
WearHigher is better	1^st / 12	33,057 miles	Best in this discipline
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	7^th / 12	5.2 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	1^st / 12	48 mg/km/t	Best in this discipline

3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 8.2 kgs

The Hankook Winter icept RS3 tire shows mixed performance across different driving conditions. On dry roads, it offers good steering feedback, precise handling, and good safety reserves during sudden evasive maneuvers, though its braking distance is slightly longer than average. Its performance on wet roads is less impressive, barely missing a good rating. While it handles aquaplaning well, it struggles with wet braking and handling, showing weak grip and a tendency to oversteer. The tire performs well on winter roads, with above-average braking and acceleration on snow, and safe, precise handling on snowy courses. Ice braking performance is average. Environmentally, the tire scores well with above-average mileage, very low wear, light weight, and low fuel consumption. However, it's noted that production residues on new tires unnecessarily end up in nature during the first few kilometers of use. Overall, the Hankook Winter icept RS3 excels in dry and winter conditions but has room for improvement on wet surfaces.

Dry94.8%

Wet95.9%

Snow98.9%

Ice92.4%

Comfort98.2%

Value99.7%

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 / 12	150 ft	+8 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	9^th / 12	122 ft	+7 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	9^th / 12	138 ft	+12 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	1^st / 12	52.4 mph	Best in this discipline
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	2^nd / 12	11.8 ft/s²	-0.3 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 12	33 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	4^th / 12	52 lbf	-1 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	6^th / 12	65 ft	+5 ft
NoiseLower is better	8^th / 12	71.7 dB	+1.30 dB
WearHigher is better	2^nd / 12	32,808 miles	-249 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 12	5.1 l/100km	Best in this discipline
AbrasionLower is better	1^st / 12	48 mg/km/t	Best in this discipline

3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 8.4 kgs

The Dunlop Winter Sport 5 tire shows mixed performance across different driving conditions. On dry roads, it struggles with precision and steering feedback, requiring frequent corrections to maintain the desired path. It also shows weaknesses in sudden evasive maneuvers and has below-average dry braking distances. Performance on wet roads is marginally good, with satisfactory results in braking and longitudinal aquaplaning, but excelling in lateral aquaplaning resistance and handling. The tire's strongest performance is on winter roads, where it achieves clearly good ratings. It offers some of the shortest braking distances on snow, above-average traction, and excellent handling with good combination of longitudinal and lateral forces. Ice braking narrowly misses a good rating. Environmentally, the Winter Sport 5 scores well, offering above-average mileage, low wear, and good efficiency due to its low weight and fuel consumption. Overall, the Dunlop Winter Sport 5 excels in winter conditions and environmental performance but has notable room for improvement on dry surfaces.

Dry95%

Wet94.2%

Snow99.8%

Ice91.5%

Comfort96.4%

Value92.6%

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	8^th / 12	150 ft	+8 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	10^th / 12	122 ft	+7 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	8^th / 12	137 ft	+11 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	9^th / 12	47.5 mph	-4.9 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	2^nd / 12	11.8 ft/s²	-0.3 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	1^st / 12	32 ft	Best in this discipline
Snow TractionHigher is better	2^nd / 12	53 lbf	0 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	7^th / 12	66 ft	+6 ft
NoiseLower is better	12^th / 12	73 dB	+2.60 dB
WearHigher is better	4^th / 12	30,261 miles	-2,796 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 12	5.1 l/100km	Best in this discipline
AbrasionLower is better	3^rd / 12	57 mg/km/t	+9.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 8.2 kgs

The Nokian Tires Snowproof 2 demonstrates mixed performance across different driving conditions. On dry roads, it shows slight weaknesses in precision and steering feedback, requiring minor corrections to maintain the desired path. Its performance in sudden evasive maneuvers is not entirely convincing, with a tendency to oversteer. However, it achieves good dry braking distances. On wet surfaces, the tire performs well overall, with good results in aquaplaning resistance and handling, though narrowly missing a good rating in wet braking. Its weakest performance is on winter roads, where it achieves good snow braking but only satisfactory results in traction and handling due to average grip levels and suboptimal force combination. Ice braking is below average. Environmentally, the tire's performance is mixed, with below-average projected mileage but good wear resistance and efficiency due to low weight and fuel consumption. Overall, the Nokian Tires Snowproof 2 excels on wet roads but has room for improvement on dry and winter surfaces, as well as in terms of longevity.

Dry98.2%

Wet96.4%

Snow95.4%

Ice84.7%

Comfort97.1%

Value83.7%

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 / 12	145 ft	+3 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	7^th / 12	119 ft	+4 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	7^th / 12	135 ft	+9 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	5^th / 12	50.1 mph	-2.3 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	2^nd / 12	11.8 ft/s²	-0.3 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	6^th / 12	33 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	10^th / 12	50 lbf	-3 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	12^th / 12	71 ft	+11 ft
NoiseLower is better	11^th / 12	72.5 dB	+2.10 dB
WearHigher is better	9^th / 12	23,923 miles	-9,134 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 12	5.1 l/100km	Best in this discipline
AbrasionLower is better	7^th / 12	62 mg/km/t	+14.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 8.2 kgs

The Falken Eurowinter HS02 tire shows varied performance across different driving conditions. On dry roads, it excels with the best rating in the test, offering precise steering, good safety reserves, and the shortest braking distance. Wet performance is marginally good, with above-average results in braking and aquaplaning resistance, though it narrowly misses a good rating in handling due to slightly lower precision. The tire's weakest performance is on winter roads, where it achieves only satisfactory results in braking, traction, and handling, with early tendencies to under- and oversteer. Ice braking is average. Environmentally, the tire narrowly misses a good rating despite good projected mileage, wear resistance, and efficiency. Average noise levels and only adequate sustainability in its Turkish production prevent a higher environmental score. Overall, the Falken Eurowinter HS02 performs best on dry and wet roads but struggles in winter conditions, with room for improvement in environmental aspects.

Dry100%

Wet95.9%

Snow90.8%

Ice94.3%

Comfort99.2%

Value83%

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 / 12	142 ft	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	5^th / 12	118 ft	+3 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	5^th / 12	132 ft	+6 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	7^th / 12	50.0 mph	-2.4 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	6^th / 12	10.8 ft/s²	-1.3 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	11^th / 12	36 ft	+4 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	11^th / 12	49 lbf	-4 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 12	64 ft	+4 ft
NoiseLower is better	3^rd / 12	71 dB	+0.60 dB
WearHigher is better	8^th / 12	26,284 miles	-6,773 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	7^th / 12	5.2 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	8^th / 12	71 mg/km/t	+23.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 8.3 kgs

The Zeetex WH 1000 tire demonstrates below-average performance across most driving conditions. On dry roads, it offers only adequate steering feedback and precision, requiring frequent corrections. It tends to oversteer during dynamic maneuvers, and its braking distance is longer than average. Wet performance is also rated as merely adequate, with satisfactory results in braking and aquaplaning tests but weak handling due to low grip and poor combination of longitudinal and lateral forces. Winter performance is slightly better, rated as satisfactory overall. Snow and ice braking narrowly miss good ratings, but snow traction is clearly satisfactory, and handling is again rated as just adequate due to early under- and oversteering tendencies and lack of precision. Environmentally, the tire achieves a satisfactory rating. It scores well in projected mileage and wear resistance but misses a good efficiency rating due to its weight. Sustainability is impacted by rubber protrusions on new tires. Overall, the Zeetex WH 1000, produced in China, shows significant room for improvement across all performance aspects, particularly in dry and wet conditions.

Dry94.1%

Wet83.3%

Snow89%

Ice91.5%

Comfort98.3%

Value84%

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 / 12	151 ft	+9 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	11^th / 12	130 ft	+15 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	11^th / 12	145 ft	+19 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	12^th / 12	42.8 mph	-9.6 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	11^th / 12	7.9 ft/s²	-4.2 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	11^th / 12	36 ft	+4 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	12^th / 12	47 lbf	-6 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	7^th / 12	66 ft	+6 ft
NoiseLower is better	7^th / 12	71.6 dB	+1.20 dB
WearHigher is better	6^th / 12	27,402 miles	-5,655 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	7^th / 12	5.2 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	9^th / 12	72 mg/km/t	+24.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 9 kgs

The GT Radial WinterPro2 Evo tire demonstrates mixed performance across different driving conditions, with notable weaknesses on dry roads. It struggles with steering precision and feedback on dry surfaces, requiring frequent corrections and showing a tendency to oversteer in dynamic maneuvers. Wet performance is slightly better, rated as clearly satisfactory overall, though handling remains a weak point due to low grip and imprecise control. The tire's best performance is in winter conditions, where it nearly achieves a good rating with strong snow braking and traction, but still shows room for improvement in handling precision and combining longitudinal and lateral forces. Environmentally, the tire receives a satisfactory rating, with good wear resistance and efficiency but only satisfactory projected mileage. Produced in China, its sustainability rating is adequate. Overall, while the GT Radial WinterPro2 Evo shows some strengths in winter conditions, it requires significant improvements across all performance aspects, particularly in dry conditions and environmental factors.

Dry94.5%

Wet91.4%

Snow96.8%

Ice90.2%

Comfort98.7%

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	10^th / 12	150 ft	+8 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	8^th / 12	121 ft	+6 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	10^th / 12	139 ft	+13 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	10^th / 12	47.3 mph	-5.1 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	10^th / 12	9.5 ft/s²	-2.6 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 12	34 ft	+2 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	8^th / 12	52 lbf	-1 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	9^th / 12	67 ft	+7 ft
NoiseLower is better	6^th / 12	71.3 dB	+0.90 dB
WearHigher is better	10^th / 12	23,053 miles	-10,004 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 12	5.1 l/100km	Best in this discipline
AbrasionLower is better	9^th / 12	72 mg/km/t	+24.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 8.8 kgs

The Vredestein Wintrac tire receives mixed ratings for driving safety. It performs adequately on dry roads, narrowly misses a good rating on wet surfaces, and earns a clear "good" rating on winter roads. On dry surfaces, it lacks precision and requires frequent steering corrections. In wet conditions, it excels in braking and aquaplaning resistance but falls short in handling. The tire performs well on winter roads, offering good traction, excellent handling, and strong performance in icy conditions. However, its environmental assessment is only satisfactory, with a mediocre predicted lifespan. The tire's efficiency is praised for its low fuel consumption and light weight.

Dry97.3%

Wet95.6%

Snow97.1%

Ice94.3%

Comfort100%

Value77.2%

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	4^th / 12	146 ft	+4 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	6^th / 12	118 ft	+3 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	6^th / 12	132 ft	+6 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	4^th / 12	50.3 mph	-2.1 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	6^th / 12	10.8 ft/s²	-1.3 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	10^th / 12	34 ft	+2 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	2^nd / 12	53 lbf	0 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 12	64 ft	+4 ft
NoiseLower is better	1^st / 12	70.4 dB	Best in this discipline
WearHigher is better	12^th / 12	20,754 miles	-12,303 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 12	5.1 l/100km	Best in this discipline
AbrasionLower is better	9^th / 12	72 mg/km/t	+24.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 8.3 kgs

The Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2 tire receives mixed ratings for driving safety. It performs adequately on dry roads, earning only a satisfactory rating due to insufficient steering precision and a tendency to oversteer during dynamic maneuvers. However, it achieves good ratings on both wet and winter roads. On wet surfaces, it excels in braking and longitudinal aquaplaning resistance, narrowly missing good ratings in lateral aquaplaning and handling. The tire performs well on winter roads, with good braking on snow and ice, excellent snow traction, and very good handling characteristics. Its environmental assessment falls short of a good rating, with satisfactory wear resistance and only average predicted lifespan. However, the tire scores well in efficiency, particularly due to its low weight.

Dry95.8%

Wet96%

Snow98%

Ice95.8%

Comfort99.3%

Value75.4%

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	6^th / 12	148 ft	+6 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	1^st / 12	115 ft	Best in this discipline
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	2^nd / 12	128 ft	+2 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	6^th / 12	50.1 mph	-2.3 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	9^th / 12	9.8 ft/s²	-2.3 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	6^th / 12	33 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	4^th / 12	52 lbf	-1 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 12	63 ft	+3 ft
NoiseLower is better	2^nd / 12	70.9 dB	+0.50 dB
WearHigher is better	11^th / 12	21,127 miles	-11,930 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	7^th / 12	5.2 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	12^th / 12	79 mg/km/t	+31.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 8.5 kgs

The Winrun Winter-max A1 WR22 tire receives a poor overall safety rating, primarily due to significant weaknesses on wet surfaces. On dry roads, it offers good steering feedback and borderline behavior, though with longer than average braking distances. Its performance on wet roads is inadequate, with early understeer and oversteer tendencies, poor grip, and barely satisfactory aquaplaning resistance. However, the tire performs well on winter roads, demonstrating good braking and traction on snow and ice, as well as precise handling on snowy surfaces. In terms of environmental impact, the Chinese-made tire narrowly misses a good rating. It scores well in predicted mileage and wear resistance but only achieves a satisfactory efficiency rating due to its high weight.

Dry93.1%

Wet81.8%

Snow97.9%

Ice94.3%

Comfort97.8%

Value89.2%

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	12^th / 12	153 ft	+11 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	12^th / 12	134 ft	+19 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	12^th / 12	153 ft	+27 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	11^th / 12	42.9 mph	-9.5 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	11^th / 12	7.9 ft/s²	-4.2 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	4^th / 12	33 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	6^th / 12	52 lbf	-1 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 12	64 ft	+4 ft
NoiseLower is better	10^th / 12	72 dB	+1.60 dB
WearHigher is better	5^th / 12	29,204 miles	-3,853 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	7^th / 12	5.2 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	6^th / 12	61 mg/km/t	+13.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 9.2 kgs

Tire	Continental WinterContact TS 870	Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	Michelin Alpin 6	Hankook Winter I cept RS3	Dunlop Winter Sport 5	Nokian Snowproof 2	Falken EUROWINTER HS02	Zeetex WH 1000	GT Radial WinterPro2 Evo	Vredestein Wintrac	Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	Winrun Winter max A1 WR22
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
Category scores (% of best)
Dry	96.9%	98%	95.2%	94.8%	95%	98.2%	100%	94.1%	94.5%	97.3%	95.8%	93.1%
Wet	99.9%	98.5%	95.7%	95.9%	94.2%	96.4%	95.9%	83.3%	91.4%	95.6%	96%	81.8%
Snow	98.4%	97.9%	98.2%	98.9%	99.8%	95.4%	90.8%	89%	96.8%	97.1%	98%	97.9%
Ice	100%	86.3%	88%	92.4%	91.5%	84.7%	94.3%	91.5%	90.2%	94.3%	95.8%	94.3%
Comfort	99%	98.9%	97.9%	98.2%	96.4%	97.1%	99.2%	98.3%	98.7%	100%	99.3%	97.8%
Value	88.4%	92.2%	99.3%	99.7%	92.6%	83.7%	83%	84%	79.8%	77.2%	75.4%	89.2%
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

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