Test source ADAC

2025 ADAC Winter Tire Test

Overall test winnerGoodyear UltraGrip Performance 3

ADAC are one of the most respected sources of tires tests for a good reason, they are fully independent, and do things most others cannot do such as wear tests, real world fuel usage tests instead of a machine measurement of rolling…

Data analyzed and reviewed byJonathan Benson

September 26, 2025 13 min read

Tire shortlist Read the test

Tires tested: 31
Tested size: 225/40 R18
Disciplines: 12

At a glance

Tire shortlist

31 Tires tested

Published finishing positions, with the strengths and considerations from this test. Owner reviews cover other sizes and driving conditions.

Tire shortlist

Compare selected tires

2025 ADAC Winter Tire Test · 225/40 R18

Tire	Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	Bridgestone Blizzak 6	Dunlop Winter Sport 5	Hankook Winter i cept evo3	Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	Kleber Krisalp HP3	Momo North Pole W 20 EUROPA	Nokian Snowproof P	Ceat WinterDrive	Matador MP93 Nordicca	Uniroyal WinterExpert	Fulda Kristall Control HP2	GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	Semperit Speed Grip 5	Giti GitiWinterW2	Firestone Winterhawk 4	Point S Winter S	Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6	Apollo Aspire XP Winter	Radar Dimax Winter	Nankang Winter Activa SV 4	Landsail Winter Lander	Petlas SnowMaster 2 Sport	Imperial Snowdragon UHP	Goodride SW608	CST Medallion Winter WCP1	Evergreen Winter EW66	Star Performer Stratos UHP	Syron Everest 2	Tomket Snowroad Pro 3
Position	1^st	2^nd	3^rd	Joint 4^th	Joint 4^th	6^th	7^th	Joint 8^th	Joint 8^th	10^th	Joint 11^th	Joint 11^th	13^th	14^th	15^th	16^th	Joint 17^th	Joint 17^th	19^th	20^th	21^st	22^nd	Joint 23^rd	Joint 23^rd	25^th	26^th	Joint 27^th	Joint 27^th	Joint 27^th	Joint 27^th	Joint 27^th
Category scores (% of best)
Dry	97.9%	100%	94.5%	94.1%	94.7%	97.2%	93.7%	96.1%	98.1%	98.6%	91.8%	94.3%	91.4%	92%	93.5%	91.6%	91.6%	93%	91.6%	94.5%	93.9%	92.4%	97.4%	94.3%	92.8%	92%	95.6%	89.6%	93.2%	90%	92.4%
Wet	98.3%	89%	95.8%	94.2%	94.9%	92.1%	88.4%	86.3%	80.7%	86.9%	85.1%	90.4%	91.2%	85.1%	90.2%	96.1%	86.3%	85.1%	87.9%	87.4%	83.8%	85.6%	89%	77.9%	73%	81.2%	86.4%	43.9%	76.3%	57.4%	80.2%
Snow	95.1%	97.1%	94.9%	95.8%	94.2%	93.4%	98%	92.9%	90.8%	95.7%	95.1%	93.6%	95.3%	94%	94%	91.4%	95.3%	94.2%	93.2%	92.1%	96.4%	86.2%	74%	87.9%	89.3%	87.7%	80.9%	93.8%	93.6%	100%	92.9%
Ice	91%	93.3%	93.8%	90.5%	87.4%	84%	90.5%	91%	95%	98.1%	90.5%	87.4%	89.4%	89.4%	89.4%	85.4%	94.4%	91%	86.9%	91.6%	96.2%	79.6%	91%	89.9%	87.4%	83.5%	78.8%	72%	87.4%	100%	95.6%
Comfort	98.7%	98.3%	97.1%	94.9%	93.4%	97.9%	97.8%	98.5%	99.2%	98.2%	98.9%	96%	94.6%	96.6%	94.7%	97%	96.4%	100%	96.3%	95%	97.2%	97.6%	98.2%	95.9%	97.1%	95.8%	93.1%	96.7%	97.8%	97.5%	98.2%
Value	96.7%	92.4%	82.9%	83.5%	92.5%	82.8%	80.5%	83.7%	81.1%	85.4%	77.9%	78.5%	80.3%	72.7%	77.1%	70.4%	76.4%	79.5%	87.4%	77%	97.2%	65.1%	75.6%	76.2%	85.5%	75.5%	79.3%	74.9%	85.2%	70.3%	89.7%
Keep researching	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	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

Explore the complete results →

The full test

The evidence behind the verdict

For their 2025 winter tire test, ADAC have tested a huge 32 patterns in 225/40 R18. Below is the summary data, be sure to check out the full details on their site.

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

The stand out results include

The Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3 winning the test overall, beating the excellent Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 and Bridgestone Blizzak 6
The Hankook Winter I*Cept Evo3 once again performing well
The Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3 having a predicted treadlife of over 46,603 miles, but still having grip!
Real world fuel consumption being relatively close between all the tires
Snow braking not really lining up with ice braking

ADAC are also known for being brutally honest with their tire notes, keep that in mind when reading the summary of their assessment for each tire.

We respect it.

Dry

Dry Braking

Dry Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	136 ft	Best	0 mph
2Ceat WinterDrive	138 ft	+2 ft	10 mph
3Nokian Snowproof P	138 ft	+2 ft	11 mph
4Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	139 ft	+3 ft	12 mph
5Landsail Winter Lander	139 ft	+3 ft	13 mph
6Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	140 ft	+4 ft	13 mph
7Momo North Pole W 20 EUROPA	141 ft	+5 ft	16 mph
8CST Medallion Winter WCP1	142 ft	+6 ft	17 mph
9Hankook Winter i cept evo3	143 ft	+7 ft	18 mph
10Apollo Aspire XP Winter	144 ft	+8 ft	19 mph
10Bridgestone Blizzak 6	144 ft	+8 ft	19 mph
12Petlas SnowMaster 2 Sport	144 ft	+8 ft	19 mph
12Uniroyal WinterExpert	144 ft	+8 ft	19 mph
14Dunlop Winter Sport 5	144 ft	+8 ft	19 mph
15Radar Dimax Winter	145 ft	+9 ft	20 mph
16Kleber Krisalp HP3	145 ft	+9 ft	20 mph
17Semperit Speed Grip 5	145 ft	+9 ft	20 mph
18Star Performer Stratos UHP	146 ft	+10 ft	21 mph
19Point S Winter S	146 ft	+10 ft	21 mph
20Imperial Snowdragon UHP	146 ft	+10 ft	21 mph
21Tomket Snowroad Pro 3	147 ft	+11 ft	22 mph
21Nankang Winter Activa SV 4	147 ft	+11 ft	22 mph
23GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	148 ft	+12 ft	23 mph
23Goodride SW608	148 ft	+12 ft	23 mph
25Matador MP93 Nordicca	148 ft	+12 ft	23 mph
26Giti GitiWinterW2	148 ft	+12 ft	23 mph
26Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6	148 ft	+12 ft	23 mph
26Firestone Winterhawk 4	148 ft	+12 ft	23 mph
29Fulda Kristall Control HP2	149 ft	+13 ft	23 mph
30Syron Everest 2	151 ft	+15 ft	25 mph
31Evergreen Winter EW66	152 ft	+16 ft	26 mph

The difference between best and worst was 11.6% (16 ft ≈ 1.1 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Evergreen Winter EW66 would still be travelling at 26 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.

Wet

Wet Braking

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	104 ft	Best	0 mph
2Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	106 ft	+2 ft	10 mph
3Bridgestone Blizzak 6	106 ft	+2 ft	11 mph
4Momo North Pole W 20 EUROPA	107 ft	+3 ft	14 mph
5Landsail Winter Lander	108 ft	+4 ft	15 mph
6Uniroyal WinterExpert	108 ft	+4 ft	15 mph
6Hankook Winter i cept evo3	108 ft	+4 ft	15 mph
8Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	108 ft	+4 ft	16 mph
8Firestone Winterhawk 4	108 ft	+4 ft	16 mph
10Semperit Speed Grip 5	109 ft	+5 ft	18 mph
11Nokian Snowproof P	110 ft	+6 ft	18 mph
12Apollo Aspire XP Winter	112 ft	+8 ft	22 mph
13Dunlop Winter Sport 5	113 ft	+9 ft	22 mph
14Ceat WinterDrive	113 ft	+9 ft	23 mph
15Giti GitiWinterW2	114 ft	+10 ft	24 mph
16Matador MP93 Nordicca	115 ft	+11 ft	24 mph
17Kleber Krisalp HP3	115 ft	+11 ft	25 mph
17Point S Winter S	115 ft	+11 ft	25 mph
19CST Medallion Winter WCP1	116 ft	+12 ft	26 mph
20Petlas SnowMaster 2 Sport	116 ft	+12 ft	26 mph
21Nankang Winter Activa SV 4	117 ft	+13 ft	26 mph
22Fulda Kristall Control HP2	118 ft	+14 ft	27 mph
23GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	119 ft	+15 ft	28 mph
24Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6	119 ft	+15 ft	29 mph
25Radar Dimax Winter	120 ft	+16 ft	30 mph
26Imperial Snowdragon UHP	124 ft	+20 ft	32 mph
27Goodride SW608	126 ft	+22 ft	34 mph
28Star Performer Stratos UHP	131 ft	+27 ft	36 mph
29Tomket Snowroad Pro 3	133 ft	+29 ft	37 mph
30Evergreen Winter EW66	139 ft	+35 ft	40 mph
31Syron Everest 2	155 ft	+51 ft	46 mph

The difference between best and worst was 48.6% (51 ft ≈ 3.4 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Syron Everest 2 would still be travelling at 46 mph when the Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3 had stopped.

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

Wet Braking - Concrete

Wet Braking - Concrete
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Bridgestone Blizzak 6	120 ft	Best	0 mph
2Momo North Pole W 20 EUROPA	120 ft	0 ft	4 mph
2Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	120 ft	0 ft	4 mph
4Landsail Winter Lander	121 ft	+1 ft	8 mph
4Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	121 ft	+1 ft	8 mph
6Hankook Winter i cept evo3	123 ft	+3 ft	13 mph
7Semperit Speed Grip 5	123 ft	+3 ft	14 mph
8Nokian Snowproof P	124 ft	+4 ft	14 mph
9Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	125 ft	+5 ft	16 mph
10Uniroyal WinterExpert	125 ft	+5 ft	16 mph
11Firestone Winterhawk 4	125 ft	+5 ft	17 mph
12Apollo Aspire XP Winter	128 ft	+8 ft	20 mph
12Dunlop Winter Sport 5	128 ft	+8 ft	20 mph
14Ceat WinterDrive	130 ft	+10 ft	23 mph
15Fulda Kristall Control HP2	131 ft	+11 ft	24 mph
15Giti GitiWinterW2	131 ft	+11 ft	24 mph
17CST Medallion Winter WCP1	132 ft	+12 ft	24 mph
18Point S Winter S	133 ft	+13 ft	25 mph
19Kleber Krisalp HP3	134 ft	+14 ft	26 mph
20GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	134 ft	+14 ft	26 mph
21Matador MP93 Nordicca	134 ft	+14 ft	26 mph
22Petlas SnowMaster 2 Sport	135 ft	+15 ft	27 mph
22Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6	135 ft	+15 ft	27 mph
24Nankang Winter Activa SV 4	136 ft	+16 ft	28 mph
25Radar Dimax Winter	137 ft	+17 ft	28 mph
26Imperial Snowdragon UHP	143 ft	+23 ft	32 mph
27Goodride SW608	147 ft	+27 ft	34 mph
28Star Performer Stratos UHP	155 ft	+35 ft	38 mph
29Tomket Snowroad Pro 3	155 ft	+35 ft	38 mph
30Evergreen Winter EW66	156 ft	+36 ft	39 mph
31Syron Everest 2	174 ft	+54 ft	45 mph

The difference between best and worst was 45.2% (54 ft ≈ 3.7 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Syron Everest 2 would still be travelling at 45 mph when the Bridgestone Blizzak 6 had stopped.

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

Wet Circle

Wet Circle
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Giti GitiWinterW2	6.9 mph	Best
2Dunlop Winter Sport 5	6.7 mph	-0.2 mph
2Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	6.7 mph	-0.2 mph
4Fulda Kristall Control HP2	6.5 mph	-0.4 mph
4Bridgestone Blizzak 6	6.5 mph	-0.4 mph
4Hankook Winter i cept evo3	6.5 mph	-0.4 mph
7Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6	6.0 mph	-0.9 mph
7Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	6.0 mph	-0.9 mph
9Kleber Krisalp HP3	5.8 mph	-1.1 mph
9Uniroyal WinterExpert	5.8 mph	-1.1 mph
9Semperit Speed Grip 5	5.8 mph	-1.1 mph
12Nankang Winter Activa SV 4	5.6 mph	-1.3 mph
12Radar Dimax Winter	5.6 mph	-1.3 mph
12Ceat WinterDrive	5.6 mph	-1.3 mph
12CST Medallion Winter WCP1	5.6 mph	-1.3 mph
12GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	5.6 mph	-1.3 mph
12Tomket Snowroad Pro 3	5.6 mph	-1.3 mph
12Apollo Aspire XP Winter	5.6 mph	-1.3 mph
12Landsail Winter Lander	5.6 mph	-1.3 mph
20Goodride SW608	5.4 mph	-1.5 mph
20Matador MP93 Nordicca	5.4 mph	-1.5 mph
20Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	5.4 mph	-1.5 mph
20Point S Winter S	5.4 mph	-1.5 mph
24Firestone Winterhawk 4	5.1 mph	-1.8 mph
24Momo North Pole W 20 EUROPA	5.1 mph	-1.8 mph
26Star Performer Stratos UHP	4.9 mph	-2.0 mph
27Nokian Snowproof P	4.5 mph	-2.4 mph
27Petlas SnowMaster 2 Sport	4.5 mph	-2.4 mph
29Imperial Snowdragon UHP	4.0 mph	-2.9 mph
30Syron Everest 2	2.9 mph	-4.0 mph

The difference between best and worst was 58.1% (4 mph).

Straight Aqua

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Giti GitiWinterW2	49.0 mph	Best
2Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	47.9 mph	-1.1 mph
3Kleber Krisalp HP3	47.8 mph	-1.2 mph
4Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	46.7 mph	-2.3 mph
4Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	46.7 mph	-2.3 mph
6CST Medallion Winter WCP1	46.7 mph	-2.3 mph
7Bridgestone Blizzak 6	46.5 mph	-2.5 mph
8Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6	46.4 mph	-2.6 mph
9Semperit Speed Grip 5	46.1 mph	-2.9 mph
10Fulda Kristall Control HP2	46.0 mph	-3.0 mph
10Hankook Winter i cept evo3	46.0 mph	-3.0 mph
12Firestone Winterhawk 4	45.9 mph	-3.1 mph
13Point S Winter S	45.7 mph	-3.3 mph
14GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	45.6 mph	-3.4 mph
15Dunlop Winter Sport 5	45.5 mph	-3.5 mph
16Apollo Aspire XP Winter	45.1 mph	-3.9 mph
17Matador MP93 Nordicca	44.9 mph	-4.1 mph
18Uniroyal WinterExpert	44.8 mph	-4.2 mph
18Goodride SW608	44.8 mph	-4.2 mph
20Nankang Winter Activa SV 4	44.7 mph	-4.3 mph
21Ceat WinterDrive	44.4 mph	-4.6 mph
22Momo North Pole W 20 EUROPA	44.2 mph	-4.8 mph
22Landsail Winter Lander	44.2 mph	-4.8 mph
24Evergreen Winter EW66	44.0 mph	-5.0 mph
25Imperial Snowdragon UHP	42.7 mph	-6.3 mph
26Tomket Snowroad Pro 3	42.2 mph	-6.8 mph
27Nokian Snowproof P	42.1 mph	-6.9 mph
28Radar Dimax Winter	42.1 mph	-6.9 mph
29Star Performer Stratos UHP	41.5 mph	-7.5 mph
30Petlas SnowMaster 2 Sport	40.9 mph	-8.1 mph
31Syron Everest 2	38.3 mph	-10.7 mph

The difference between best and worst was 21.9% (10.7 mph).

Snow

Snow Braking

Snow Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Syron Everest 2	30 ft	Best	0 mph
2Kleber Krisalp HP3	31 ft	+1 ft	12 mph
2Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	31 ft	+1 ft	12 mph
4Dunlop Winter Sport 5	31 ft	+1 ft	14 mph
4Radar Dimax Winter	31 ft	+1 ft	14 mph
6Semperit Speed Grip 5	31 ft	+1 ft	16 mph
6Bridgestone Blizzak 6	31 ft	+1 ft	16 mph
8Firestone Winterhawk 4	32 ft	+2 ft	18 mph
8Uniroyal WinterExpert	32 ft	+2 ft	18 mph
8Matador MP93 Nordicca	32 ft	+2 ft	18 mph
8Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	32 ft	+2 ft	18 mph
8Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6	32 ft	+2 ft	18 mph
8Hankook Winter i cept evo3	32 ft	+2 ft	18 mph
8GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	32 ft	+2 ft	18 mph
8Ceat WinterDrive	32 ft	+2 ft	18 mph
8Point S Winter S	32 ft	+2 ft	18 mph
8Fulda Kristall Control HP2	32 ft	+2 ft	18 mph
8Evergreen Winter EW66	32 ft	+2 ft	18 mph
19Momo North Pole W 20 EUROPA	32 ft	+2 ft	20 mph
19Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	32 ft	+2 ft	20 mph
19Apollo Aspire XP Winter	32 ft	+2 ft	20 mph
22Star Performer Stratos UHP	32 ft	+2 ft	21 mph
23Giti GitiWinterW2	33 ft	+3 ft	23 mph
23Nokian Snowproof P	33 ft	+3 ft	23 mph
23Tomket Snowroad Pro 3	33 ft	+3 ft	23 mph
26Nankang Winter Activa SV 4	34 ft	+4 ft	26 mph
26Imperial Snowdragon UHP	34 ft	+4 ft	26 mph
28Petlas SnowMaster 2 Sport	34 ft	+4 ft	27 mph
29Goodride SW608	34 ft	+4 ft	28 mph
30CST Medallion Winter WCP1	36 ft	+6 ft	32 mph
31Landsail Winter Lander	40 ft	+10 ft	40 mph

The difference between best and worst was 32.6% (10 ft ≈ 0.7 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Landsail Winter Lander would still be travelling at 40 mph when the Syron Everest 2 had stopped.

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

Snow Traction

Snow Traction
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Syron Everest 2	57 lbf	Best
2Kleber Krisalp HP3	56 lbf	-1 lbf
3Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	55 lbf	-2 lbf
3Ceat WinterDrive	55 lbf	-2 lbf
5Radar Dimax Winter	55 lbf	-2 lbf
6Fulda Kristall Control HP2	55 lbf	-2 lbf
6Firestone Winterhawk 4	55 lbf	-2 lbf
8Matador MP93 Nordicca	54 lbf	-3 lbf
8Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	54 lbf	-3 lbf
10Dunlop Winter Sport 5	54 lbf	-3 lbf
11Star Performer Stratos UHP	54 lbf	-3 lbf
11Bridgestone Blizzak 6	54 lbf	-3 lbf
13Hankook Winter i cept evo3	54 lbf	-3 lbf
13Point S Winter S	54 lbf	-3 lbf
13Tomket Snowroad Pro 3	54 lbf	-3 lbf
16GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	53 lbf	-4 lbf
17Evergreen Winter EW66	53 lbf	-4 lbf
17Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	53 lbf	-4 lbf
19Semperit Speed Grip 5	53 lbf	-4 lbf
19Uniroyal WinterExpert	53 lbf	-4 lbf
21Momo North Pole W 20 EUROPA	53 lbf	-4 lbf
22Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6	52 lbf	-5 lbf
23Giti GitiWinterW2	52 lbf	-5 lbf
24Apollo Aspire XP Winter	52 lbf	-5 lbf
25Nokian Snowproof P	51 lbf	-6 lbf
26Imperial Snowdragon UHP	51 lbf	-6 lbf
27Goodride SW608	50 lbf	-7 lbf
28Petlas SnowMaster 2 Sport	50 lbf	-7 lbf
29Nankang Winter Activa SV 4	48 lbf	-9 lbf
30CST Medallion Winter WCP1	45 lbf	-12 lbf
31Landsail Winter Lander	42 lbf	-15 lbf

The difference between best and worst was 27.2% (15 lbf).

Ice

Ice Braking

Ice Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Syron Everest 2	50 ft	Best	0 mph
2Ceat WinterDrive	51 ft	+1 ft	11 mph
3Radar Dimax Winter	52 ft	+2 ft	16 mph
4Tomket Snowroad Pro 3	52 ft	+2 ft	17 mph
5Nokian Snowproof P	52 ft	+2 ft	18 mph
6Firestone Winterhawk 4	53 ft	+3 ft	19 mph
7Bridgestone Blizzak 6	53 ft	+3 ft	20 mph
8Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	53 ft	+3 ft	21 mph
9Apollo Aspire XP Winter	54 ft	+4 ft	23 mph
10Momo North Pole W 20 EUROPA	55 ft	+5 ft	24 mph
10Point S Winter S	55 ft	+5 ft	24 mph
10Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	55 ft	+5 ft	24 mph
10Landsail Winter Lander	55 ft	+5 ft	24 mph
14Matador MP93 Nordicca	55 ft	+5 ft	25 mph
14Kleber Krisalp HP3	55 ft	+5 ft	25 mph
14Dunlop Winter Sport 5	55 ft	+5 ft	25 mph
17Petlas SnowMaster 2 Sport	55 ft	+5 ft	25 mph
18GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	56 ft	+6 ft	26 mph
18Semperit Speed Grip 5	56 ft	+6 ft	26 mph
18Fulda Kristall Control HP2	56 ft	+6 ft	26 mph
21Hankook Winter i cept evo3	57 ft	+7 ft	28 mph
21Imperial Snowdragon UHP	57 ft	+7 ft	28 mph
21Star Performer Stratos UHP	57 ft	+7 ft	28 mph
21Uniroyal WinterExpert	57 ft	+7 ft	28 mph
25Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6	57 ft	+7 ft	29 mph
26Giti GitiWinterW2	58 ft	+8 ft	31 mph
27Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	59 ft	+9 ft	32 mph
28Goodride SW608	60 ft	+10 ft	32 mph
29Nankang Winter Activa SV 4	63 ft	+13 ft	36 mph
30CST Medallion Winter WCP1	63 ft	+13 ft	37 mph
31Evergreen Winter EW66	69 ft	+19 ft	42 mph

The difference between best and worst was 38.8% (19 ft ≈ 1.3 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Evergreen Winter EW66 would still be travelling at 42 mph when the Syron Everest 2 had stopped.

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

Comfort

Noise

Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Point S Winter S	70.3 dB	Best
2Nokian Snowproof P	70.9 dB	+0.60 dB
3Matador MP93 Nordicca	71.1 dB	+0.80 dB
4Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	71.2 dB	+0.90 dB
5Momo North Pole W 20 EUROPA	71.4 dB	+1.10 dB
6Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	71.5 dB	+1.20 dB
7Ceat WinterDrive	71.6 dB	+1.30 dB
7Landsail Winter Lander	71.6 dB	+1.30 dB
7Tomket Snowroad Pro 3	71.6 dB	+1.30 dB
10Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	71.8 dB	+1.50 dB
11Star Performer Stratos UHP	71.9 dB	+1.60 dB
11Kleber Krisalp HP3	71.9 dB	+1.60 dB
13Nankang Winter Activa SV 4	72 dB	+1.70 dB
14Syron Everest 2	72.1 dB	+1.80 dB
15Radar Dimax Winter	72.3 dB	+2.00 dB
16Imperial Snowdragon UHP	72.4 dB	+2.10 dB
16Bridgestone Blizzak 6	72.4 dB	+2.10 dB
18Giti GitiWinterW2	72.5 dB	+2.20 dB
19Evergreen Winter EW66	72.7 dB	+2.40 dB
20GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	72.8 dB	+2.50 dB
21Firestone Winterhawk 4	72.9 dB	+2.60 dB
22Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6	73 dB	+2.70 dB
23Uniroyal WinterExpert	73.2 dB	+2.90 dB
24Petlas SnowMaster 2 Sport	73.3 dB	+3.00 dB
25Goodride SW608	73.4 dB	+3.10 dB
26Apollo Aspire XP Winter	74 dB	+3.70 dB
27Dunlop Winter Sport 5	74.1 dB	+3.80 dB
28Semperit Speed Grip 5	74.2 dB	+3.90 dB
29Fulda Kristall Control HP2	74.3 dB	+4.00 dB
30Hankook Winter i cept evo3	75.3 dB	+5.00 dB
31CST Medallion Winter WCP1	75.5 dB	+5.20 dB

The difference between best and worst was 7.4% (5.2 dB).

Value

Wear

Wear
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Radar Dimax Winter	50,331 miles	Best
2Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	47,535 miles	-2,796 miles
3Hankook Winter i cept evo3	44,987 miles	-5,344 miles
4Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	41,632 miles	-8,699 miles
5Tomket Snowroad Pro 3	41,321 miles	-9,010 miles
6Ceat WinterDrive	40,141 miles	-10,190 miles
7Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6	38,774 miles	-11,557 miles
8Dunlop Winter Sport 5	38,090 miles	-12,241 miles
9Momo North Pole W 20 EUROPA	38,028 miles	-12,303 miles
10Star Performer Stratos UHP	37,282 miles	-13,049 miles
11Imperial Snowdragon UHP	36,847 miles	-13,484 miles
12Bridgestone Blizzak 6	35,853 miles	-14,478 miles
13Fulda Kristall Control HP2	35,356 miles	-14,975 miles
14CST Medallion Winter WCP1	34,424 miles	-15,907 miles
15Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	32,995 miles	-17,336 miles
16Uniroyal WinterExpert	32,933 miles	-17,398 miles
16Point S Winter S	32,933 miles	-17,398 miles
18Kleber Krisalp HP3	32,746 miles	-17,585 miles
19Apollo Aspire XP Winter	32,249 miles	-18,082 miles
20Nokian Snowproof P	32,063 miles	-18,268 miles
21Landsail Winter Lander	31,690 miles	-18,641 miles
22Matador MP93 Nordicca	31,131 miles	-19,200 miles
23Firestone Winterhawk 4	30,323 miles	-20,008 miles
24Goodride SW608	30,074 miles	-20,257 miles
25Semperit Speed Grip 5	29,764 miles	-20,567 miles
26Evergreen Winter EW66	29,639 miles	-20,692 miles
27Petlas SnowMaster 2 Sport	28,769 miles	-21,562 miles
28GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	27,713 miles	-22,618 miles
29Giti GitiWinterW2	27,154 miles	-23,177 miles
30Syron Everest 2	25,973 miles	-24,358 miles
31Nankang Winter Activa SV 4	21,251 miles	-29,080 miles

The difference between best and worst was 57.8% (29,080 miles).

Fuel Consumption

Fuel Consumption
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Star Performer Stratos UHP	5.6 l/100km	Best	$0
1Point S Winter S	5.6 l/100km	Best	$0
1Petlas SnowMaster 2 Sport	5.6 l/100km	Best	$0
1Matador MP93 Nordicca	5.6 l/100km	Best	$0
1Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	5.6 l/100km	Best	$0
1Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6	5.6 l/100km	Best	$0
1Tomket Snowroad Pro 3	5.6 l/100km	Best	$0
8Evergreen Winter EW66	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	$18
8Syron Everest 2	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	$18
8Hankook Winter i cept evo3	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	$18
8Nokian Snowproof P	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	$18
8Firestone Winterhawk 4	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	$18
8Goodride SW608	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	$18
8Dunlop Winter Sport 5	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	$18
8Kleber Krisalp HP3	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	$18
16GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
16Radar Dimax Winter	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
16Fulda Kristall Control HP2	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
16Ceat WinterDrive	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
16Bridgestone Blizzak 6	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
16Landsail Winter Lander	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
16Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
16Uniroyal WinterExpert	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
16Semperit Speed Grip 5	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
16Giti GitiWinterW2	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
16Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
16Imperial Snowdragon UHP	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
16Apollo Aspire XP Winter	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
29CST Medallion Winter WCP1	5.9 l/100km	+0.30 l/100km	$55
29Nankang Winter Activa SV 4	5.9 l/100km	+0.30 l/100km	$55
31Momo North Pole W 20 EUROPA	6 l/100km	+0.40 l/100km	$73

The difference between best and worst was 7.1% (0.4 l/100km). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Momo North Pole W 20 EUROPA uses about 20 gal ($73) more fuel than the Star Performer Stratos UHP.

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

Abrasion
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	50 mg/km/t	Best
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	50 mg/km/t	Best
3Radar Dimax Winter	53 mg/km/t	+3.00 mg/km/t
4Hankook Winter i cept evo3	56 mg/km/t	+6.00 mg/km/t
5Imperial Snowdragon UHP	57 mg/km/t	+7.00 mg/km/t
6Tomket Snowroad Pro 3	58 mg/km/t	+8.00 mg/km/t
7Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6	59 mg/km/t	+9.00 mg/km/t
8Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	60 mg/km/t	+10.00 mg/km/t
9Momo North Pole W 20 EUROPA	61 mg/km/t	+11.00 mg/km/t
9Nokian Snowproof P	61 mg/km/t	+11.00 mg/km/t
11Star Performer Stratos UHP	62 mg/km/t	+12.00 mg/km/t
11Bridgestone Blizzak 6	62 mg/km/t	+12.00 mg/km/t
13Kleber Krisalp HP3	64 mg/km/t	+14.00 mg/km/t
13Ceat WinterDrive	64 mg/km/t	+14.00 mg/km/t
15Semperit Speed Grip 5	66 mg/km/t	+16.00 mg/km/t
16Dunlop Winter Sport 5	67 mg/km/t	+17.00 mg/km/t
17CST Medallion Winter WCP1	68 mg/km/t	+18.00 mg/km/t
18Fulda Kristall Control HP2	69 mg/km/t	+19.00 mg/km/t
18Uniroyal WinterExpert	69 mg/km/t	+19.00 mg/km/t
20Point S Winter S	70 mg/km/t	+20.00 mg/km/t
21Matador MP93 Nordicca	71 mg/km/t	+21.00 mg/km/t
21Petlas SnowMaster 2 Sport	71 mg/km/t	+21.00 mg/km/t
23Firestone Winterhawk 4	72 mg/km/t	+22.00 mg/km/t
24Apollo Aspire XP Winter	73 mg/km/t	+23.00 mg/km/t
25Goodride SW608	75 mg/km/t	+25.00 mg/km/t
26Evergreen Winter EW66	76 mg/km/t	+26.00 mg/km/t
27Landsail Winter Lander	77 mg/km/t	+27.00 mg/km/t
27GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	77 mg/km/t	+27.00 mg/km/t
29Syron Everest 2	85 mg/km/t	+35.00 mg/km/t
30Giti GitiWinterW2	86 mg/km/t	+36.00 mg/km/t
31Nankang Winter Activa SV 4	88 mg/km/t	+38.00 mg/km/t

The difference between best and worst was 76% (38 mg/km/t).

Results

The Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3 receives a good overall rating due to its combination of solid driving safety and environmental performance. In terms of driving safety, the tire provides good handling on dry roads with effective braking distances, though it could be slightly less prone to oversteering during evasive maneuvers. On wet roads, it achieves the best test score with the shortest braking distances, excellent aquaplaning resistance, and superior grip that makes the vehicle easy to control on wet handling courses. For winter conditions, the tire performs well across all criteria including snow traction, braking on snow and ice, and snow handling, offering good reserves and precise maneuverability. Regarding environmental impact, this German-manufactured tire earns high marks with very good ratings for predicted mileage and low tire wear, while also demonstrating low weight and fuel consumption, contributing to its good overall environmental score.

Dry97.9%

Wet98.3%

Snow95.1%

Ice91%

Comfort98.7%

Value96.7%

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	4^th / 31	139 ft	+3 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	1^st / 31	104 ft	Best in this discipline
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	2^nd / 31	120 ft	0 ft
Wet CircleHigher is better	2^nd / 30	6.7 mph	-0.2 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	2^nd / 31	47.9 mph	-1.1 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 31	32 ft	+2 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	8^th / 31	54 lbf	-3 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	10^th / 31	55 ft	+5 ft
NoiseLower is better	4^th / 31	71.2 dB	+0.90 dB
WearHigher is better	2^nd / 31	47,535 miles	-2,796 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	16^th / 31	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	1^st / 31	50 mg/km/t	Best in this discipline

EU Label: D/B/71
Origin: Germany
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 171.00

The Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 achieves good ratings in both driving safety and environmental impact, securing a good overall test score. For driving safety, the tire provides excellent dry road performance with good steering feel, precise response to commands, and outstanding braking distances from 62 mph that earned it the best score in testing. On wet roads, it excels in braking performance and delivers good handling with adequate safety reserves, though it only receives a satisfactory rating for lateral aquaplaning resistance. In winter conditions, the Michelin performs well across all criteria, offering good traction and braking on snow, effective handling that combines both elements with lateral forces, and good braking distances on ice with precise steering control throughout. Regarding environmental performance, this Spanish-manufactured tire scores well with very high predicted mileage, very low tire wear, and good fuel efficiency due to low consumption. However, a negative point is noted regarding production residues on new tires that unnecessarily end up in the environment during the first kilometers of driving.

Dry100%

Wet89%

Snow97.1%

Ice93.3%

Comfort98.3%

Value92.4%

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	1^st / 31	136 ft	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 31	106 ft	+2 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	4^th / 31	121 ft	+1 ft
Wet CircleHigher is better	20^th / 30	5.4 mph	-1.5 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	4^th / 31	46.7 mph	-2.3 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 31	31 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	3^rd / 31	55 lbf	-2 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	8^th / 31	53 ft	+3 ft
NoiseLower is better	6^th / 31	71.5 dB	+1.20 dB
WearHigher is better	4^th / 31	41,632 miles	-8,699 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	16^th / 31	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	1^st / 31	50 mg/km/t	Best in this discipline

EU Label: D/B/70
Origin: Spain
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 177.00

The Bridgestone Blizzak 6 delivers good performance in both driving safety and environmental impact, earning a good overall rating. For driving safety, the tire provides good steering feel and feedback on dry roads with spontaneous and precise response to steering commands, allowing for accurate vehicle control and achieving good braking distances from 62 mph. On wet surfaces, it also receives good ratings, particularly for braking performance, and scores well in longitudinal aquaplaning resistance and handling with good safety reserves and precise control, though it only achieves a satisfactory rating for lateral aquaplaning resistance. In winter conditions, the Blizzak 6 earns good ratings with effective braking distances on both snow and ice and good traction performance, but narrowly misses a good rating for snow handling as it could better combine longitudinal and lateral forces, offering satisfactory reserves and adequate precision on the handling course. Regarding environmental performance, this Polish-manufactured tire scores well with good predicted mileage, low tire wear, and good efficiency thanks to its low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry94.5%

Wet95.8%

Snow94.9%

Ice93.8%

Comfort97.1%

Value82.9%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	10^th / 31	144 ft	+8 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 31	106 ft	+2 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	1^st / 31	120 ft	Best in this discipline
Wet CircleHigher is better	4^th / 30	6.5 mph	-0.4 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	7^th / 31	46.5 mph	-2.5 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	6^th / 31	31 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	11^th / 31	54 lbf	-3 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	7^th / 31	53 ft	+3 ft
NoiseLower is better	16^th / 31	72.4 dB	+2.10 dB
WearHigher is better	12^th / 31	35,853 miles	-14,478 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	16^th / 31	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	11^th / 31	62 mg/km/t	+12.00 mg/km/t

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

The Hankook Winter i*cept evo3 W330 narrowly misses a good rating for driving safety but achieves a good overall score thanks to its strong environmental performance. For driving safety, the tire demonstrates good precision and responsiveness to steering commands on dry roads, with safe and controllable behavior during sudden evasive maneuvers and good braking distances from 62 mph. On wet surfaces, it earns good ratings overall, achieving good scores for longitudinal aquaplaning resistance, braking distances, and handling with good grip levels and reserves that allow largely precise control, though it only receives a satisfactory rating for lateral aquaplaning resistance. In winter conditions, the Hankook narrowly misses good results, showing slightly above-average performance for braking and acceleration on snow, but falls short in snow handling where it would need to better combine longitudinal and lateral forces and provide improved lateral guidance, and also narrowly misses a good rating for ice braking distances, resulting in an overall satisfactory rating that impacts the driving safety score. Regarding environmental performance, this Hungarian-manufactured tire achieves good results with very high predicted mileage, low tire wear, and good efficiency due to low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry94.7%

Wet94.9%

Snow94.2%

Ice87.4%

Comfort93.4%

Value92.5%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	9^th / 31	143 ft	+7 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	6^th / 31	108 ft	+4 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	6^th / 31	123 ft	+3 ft
Wet CircleHigher is better	4^th / 30	6.5 mph	-0.4 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	10^th / 31	46.0 mph	-3.0 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 31	32 ft	+2 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	13^th / 31	54 lbf	-3 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	21^st / 31	57 ft	+7 ft
NoiseLower is better	30^th / 31	75.3 dB	+5.00 dB
WearHigher is better	3^rd / 31	44,987 miles	-5,344 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	8^th / 31	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	4^th / 31	56 mg/km/t	+6.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/72
Origin: Hungary
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 140.00

The Dunlop Winter Sport 5 achieves good ratings in both driving safety and environmental performance, resulting in a good overall score. For driving safety, while the tire could provide slightly better steering feel, responsiveness, and precision on dry roads, it maintains good performance limits allowing stable and safe obstacle avoidance with good braking distances from 62 mph. On wet surfaces, it earns good ratings for braking performance and handling with good safety reserves and precise control over test courses, though it only achieves satisfactory results in both longitudinal and lateral aquaplaning resistance, albeit narrowly missing better scores. In winter conditions, the Winter Sport 5 receives good ratings with effective braking distances on snow and ice, good traction performance, and just barely achieves a good rating for snow handling by adequately combining longitudinal and lateral forces while providing sufficient reserves for largely precise handling course navigation. Regarding environmental impact, this German-manufactured tire earns good ratings due to its high predicted mileage and low tire wear, while also scoring well for efficiency thanks to its low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry94.1%

Wet94.2%

Snow95.8%

Ice90.5%

Comfort94.9%

Value83.5%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	14^th / 31	144 ft	+8 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	13^th / 31	113 ft	+9 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	12^th / 31	128 ft	+8 ft
Wet CircleHigher is better	2^nd / 30	6.7 mph	-0.2 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	15^th / 31	45.5 mph	-3.5 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	4^th / 31	31 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	10^th / 31	54 lbf	-3 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	14^th / 31	55 ft	+5 ft
NoiseLower is better	27^th / 31	74.1 dB	+3.80 dB
WearHigher is better	8^th / 31	38,090 miles	-12,241 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	8^th / 31	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	16^th / 31	67 mg/km/t	+17.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/C/72
Origin: Germany
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 169.00

The Continental WinterContact TS 870 P narrowly misses a good driving safety rating due to its winter road performance but still achieves a good overall score thanks to its strong environmental performance. For driving safety, the tire provides good steering feel on dry roads with largely spontaneous response and good precision, maintaining good performance limits that allow stable and safe obstacle avoidance with clearly good braking performance from 62 mph. On wet surfaces, it earns good ratings with strong braking distances and longitudinal aquaplaning resistance, plus good handling with effective grip, precision, and adequate reserves in limit situations, though it only achieves satisfactory results for lateral aquaplaning resistance. In winter conditions, the WinterContact TS 870 P fails to achieve good ratings overall, though it just barely manages good scores for braking and traction tests on snow as well as handling, allowing safe and largely precise control over test courses, but its satisfactory performance in ice braking tests ultimately prevents it from achieving a good winter road rating. Regarding environmental performance, this tire manufactured in Romania and France receives good ratings with good predicted mileage, clearly good tire wear ratings, and good efficiency thanks to low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry97.2%

Wet92.1%

Snow93.4%

Ice84%

Comfort97.9%

Value82.8%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	6^th / 31	140 ft	+4 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	8^th / 31	108 ft	+4 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	9^th / 31	125 ft	+5 ft
Wet CircleHigher is better	7^th / 30	6.0 mph	-0.9 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	4^th / 31	46.7 mph	-2.3 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	19^th / 31	32 ft	+2 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	17^th / 31	53 lbf	-4 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	27^th / 31	59 ft	+9 ft
NoiseLower is better	10^th / 31	71.8 dB	+1.50 dB
WearHigher is better	15^th / 31	32,995 miles	-17,336 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 31	5.6 l/100km	Best in this discipline
AbrasionLower is better	8^th / 31	60 mg/km/t	+10.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: C/B/71
Origin: France/Romania
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 177.00

The Kleber Krisalp HP3 misses a good driving safety rating due to its wet road performance and, despite achieving a good environmental rating, only manages a satisfactory overall score. For driving safety, the tire provides good steering feel on dry roads with largely spontaneous response and good precision, maintaining good performance limits that allow stable and safe obstacle avoidance with good braking performance from 62 mph. However, on wet surfaces, it clearly fails to achieve good ratings - while it narrowly misses good scores for braking distances, it clearly performs only at a satisfactory level in handling due to moderate grip levels that cause the test vehicle to understeer earlier than desired, and while it achieves good longitudinal aquaplaning resistance, its lateral aquaplaning performance is also only satisfactory. In winter conditions, the Krisalp HP3 regains good ratings with good performance in ice and snow braking distances and snow traction, and even achieves very good ratings for handling where the test vehicle can always be controlled safely and precisely with many reserves in limit situations. Regarding environmental performance, this Romanian-manufactured tire receives good ratings with good predicted mileage, low tire wear, and good efficiency primarily due to low fuel consumption, though production residues on new tires that unnecessarily end up in the environment during the first kilometers are noted as a negative point.

Dry93.7%

Wet88.4%

Snow98%

Ice90.5%

Comfort97.8%

Value80.5%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	16^th / 31	145 ft	+9 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	17^th / 31	115 ft	+11 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	19^th / 31	134 ft	+14 ft
Wet CircleHigher is better	9^th / 30	5.8 mph	-1.1 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	3^rd / 31	47.8 mph	-1.2 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 31	31 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	2^nd / 31	56 lbf	-1 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	14^th / 31	55 ft	+5 ft
NoiseLower is better	11^th / 31	71.9 dB	+1.60 dB
WearHigher is better	18^th / 31	32,746 miles	-17,585 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	8^th / 31	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	13^th / 31	64 mg/km/t	+14.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/69
Origin: Romania
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 143.00

The Nokian Tires Snowproof P fails to achieve good ratings on all three road surfaces and therefore misses a good overall driving safety score, and despite achieving a good environmental rating, only manages a satisfactory overall evaluation. For driving safety, the tire provides only satisfactory steering feedback and precision on dry roads, requiring occasional corrections during steering input and cornering due to its elastic response feel, and the test vehicle tends to oversteer during dynamic evasive maneuvers or lane changes with only satisfactory limit behavior, though it achieves good braking distances that are slightly above average for the test field. On wet surfaces, the Nokian delivers satisfactory overall performance - while it still scores well for braking distances, it only achieves satisfactory ratings for both longitudinal and lateral aquaplaning resistance and handling, where the tire tends to understeer early and lacks precision with moderate limit performance. In winter conditions, the Snowproof P also only manages satisfactory ratings overall, achieving good scores only for ice braking while receiving satisfactory evaluations for snow braking distances, traction, and handling, where the test vehicle cannot be steered with particular precision and the limit range is again only at a moderate level with early tendencies toward under- or oversteering, though the tire still offers some reserves. Regarding environmental performance, this Finnish-manufactured tire receives good ratings with good predicted mileage and tire wear, plus good overall efficiency primarily due to low fuel consumption, though its weight is rated only as satisfactory.

Dry98.1%

Wet80.7%

Snow90.8%

Ice95%

Comfort99.2%

Value81.1%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 31	138 ft	+2 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	11^th / 31	110 ft	+6 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	8^th / 31	124 ft	+4 ft
Wet CircleHigher is better	27^th / 30	4.5 mph	-2.4 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	27^th / 31	42.1 mph	-6.9 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	23^rd / 31	33 ft	+3 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	25^th / 31	51 lbf	-6 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	5^th / 31	52 ft	+2 ft
NoiseLower is better	2^nd / 31	70.9 dB	+0.60 dB
WearHigher is better	20^th / 31	32,063 miles	-18,268 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	8^th / 31	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	9^th / 31	61 mg/km/t	+11.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: C/B/70
Origin: Finland
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 148.00

The Momo W-20 North Pole fails to achieve good ratings on dry and winter roads and therefore misses a good driving safety score, and also only manages a satisfactory environmental rating, resulting in a satisfactory overall grade. For driving safety, the Momo shows slight weaknesses in precision and steering feedback on dry roads, with limit behavior rated as only satisfactory compared to the test field - the test vehicle should respond more decisively to steering commands and stabilize more quickly when counter-steering, though the tire's braking distances are rated as good. On wet surfaces, the W-20 North Pole achieves a good rating, particularly excelling in braking tests and convincing with good handling where the test vehicle can be steered largely precisely over the course with good grip providing decent safety reserves, though it narrowly misses good ratings for longitudinal aquaplaning and is rated just satisfactory for lateral aquaplaning. In winter conditions, the W-20 North Pole again only manages satisfactory ratings overall - while it achieves good scores for braking tests on snow and ice as well as pure snow traction, it cannot maintain this level in handling where the tire can only satisfactorily combine longitudinal and lateral forces, causing the test vehicle to tend toward under- or oversteering somewhat early depending on the curve, negatively affecting precision and limit reserves. Regarding environmental performance, this Serbian-manufactured tire only achieves satisfactory ratings despite scoring well for predicted mileage and low tire wear, but falls short in efficiency due to higher weight and fuel consumption.

Dry96.1%

Wet86.3%

Snow92.9%

Ice91%

Comfort98.5%

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	7^th / 31	141 ft	+5 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	4^th / 31	107 ft	+3 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	2^nd / 31	120 ft	0 ft
Wet CircleHigher is better	24^th / 30	5.1 mph	-1.8 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	22^nd / 31	44.2 mph	-4.8 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	19^th / 31	32 ft	+2 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	21^st / 31	53 lbf	-4 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	10^th / 31	55 ft	+5 ft
NoiseLower is better	5^th / 31	71.4 dB	+1.10 dB
WearHigher is better	9^th / 31	38,028 miles	-12,303 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	31^st / 31	6 l/100km	+0.40 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	9^th / 31	61 mg/km/t	+11.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/72
Origin: Serbia
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 115.00

The Ceat WinterDrive fails to achieve good ratings on dry and wet roads and therefore misses a good driving safety score, and despite achieving a good environmental rating, only manages a satisfactory overall evaluation. For driving safety, the tire shows weaknesses in precision and steering feedback on dry roads, lacking the accuracy and directness expected for good ratings during steering input and cornering - steering corrections are needed to maintain the desired path, and during sudden evasive maneuvers the WinterDrive doesn't fully convince as the test vehicle tends to oversteer, especially when counter-steering, with sliding phases that could be shorter, resulting in limit behavior that isn't critical but only achieves satisfactory ratings, though dry braking distances are clearly rated as good. On wet surfaces, the Ceat also only manages satisfactory ratings overall - while it achieves good braking distance scores, it only receives satisfactory ratings for both longitudinal and lateral aquaplaning resistance, and its handling performance is rated as just adequate due to insufficient combination of longitudinal and lateral forces, causing the test vehicle to understeer early and lack precision over the course with moderate limit performance and adequate safety reserves. In winter conditions, however, the WinterDrive achieves clearly good ratings with above-average performance in both snow and ice braking distances as well as snow traction, plus good handling results where the test vehicle can be steered precisely with consistently good reserves. Regarding environmental performance, this Indian-manufactured tire receives good ratings with above-average predicted mileage, low tire wear, and good efficiency thanks to low fuel consumption, though its weight is slightly elevated.

Dry98.6%

Wet86.9%

Snow95.7%

Ice98.1%

Comfort98.2%

Value85.4%

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	2^nd / 31	138 ft	+2 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	14^th / 31	113 ft	+9 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	14^th / 31	130 ft	+10 ft
Wet CircleHigher is better	12^th / 30	5.6 mph	-1.3 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	21^st / 31	44.4 mph	-4.6 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 31	32 ft	+2 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	3^rd / 31	55 lbf	-2 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 31	51 ft	+1 ft
NoiseLower is better	7^th / 31	71.6 dB	+1.30 dB
WearHigher is better	6^th / 31	40,141 miles	-10,190 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	16^th / 31	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	13^th / 31	64 mg/km/t	+14.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/C/70
Origin: India
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 136.00

The Matador MP93 Nordicca fails to achieve good results on dry, wet, and winter roads, resulting in only a satisfactory driving safety rating, and also narrowly misses a good environmental score, leading to a satisfactory overall evaluation. For driving safety, the tire shows weaknesses in precision and steering feedback on dry roads, lacking the accuracy and directness expected for good ratings during steering input and cornering - steering corrections are needed to maintain the desired path, and during sudden evasive maneuvers the Matador doesn't fully convince as the test vehicle tends to oversteer, especially when counter-steering, with sliding phases that could be shorter, resulting in limit behavior that isn't critical but only achieves satisfactory ratings, and dry braking distances are also rated as only satisfactory compared to the test field. On wet surfaces, the MP93 Nordicca also only manages satisfactory ratings, failing to achieve good scores for braking distances or longitudinal and lateral aquaplaning resistance, while its handling performance is rated as merely adequate due to poor combination of longitudinal and lateral forces, causing the test vehicle to tend toward under- or oversteering early and for extended periods depending on the curve, preventing precise control over the course with low limit performance and only adequate safety reserves. In winter conditions, the MP93 Nordicca also narrowly misses good results, though it achieves good ratings for snow and ice braking as well as snow traction, its handling performance is only rated as satisfactory since the tire should better combine longitudinal and lateral forces for more precise course control, with moderate limit reserves. Regarding environmental performance, this French-manufactured tire narrowly falls short of satisfactory ratings, just missing good scores for predicted mileage but showing low tire wear and good efficiency thanks to low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry91.8%

Wet85.1%

Snow95.1%

Ice90.5%

Comfort98.9%

Value77.9%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	25^th / 31	148 ft	+12 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	16^th / 31	115 ft	+11 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	21^st / 31	134 ft	+14 ft
Wet CircleHigher is better	20^th / 30	5.4 mph	-1.5 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	17^th / 31	44.9 mph	-4.1 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 31	32 ft	+2 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	8^th / 31	54 lbf	-3 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	14^th / 31	55 ft	+5 ft
NoiseLower is better	3^rd / 31	71.1 dB	+0.80 dB
WearHigher is better	22^nd / 31	31,131 miles	-19,200 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 31	5.6 l/100km	Best in this discipline
AbrasionLower is better	21^st / 31	71 mg/km/t	+21.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: C/C/72
Origin: France
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 110.00

The Uniroyal WinterExpert fails to achieve good ratings on dry and winter roads and therefore misses a good driving safety score, and despite earning a good environmental rating, this isn't sufficient to improve the overall judgment to "good." For driving safety, the tire shows significant weaknesses in precision and steering feedback on dry roads, lacking the accuracy and directness expected during steering input and cornering - constant steering corrections are needed to maintain the desired path, and during sudden evasive maneuvers the WinterExpert doesn't convince as the test vehicle tends to oversteer, especially when counter-steering, with sliding phases that could be shorter, resulting in overall limit behavior that isn't at a high level and is just rated as satisfactory, though dry braking distances are still rated as good compared to the test field. On wet surfaces, the Uniroyal achieves good ratings with both braking distances and handling performance rated as good - the test vehicle can be driven safely and controllably over the course with the tire consistently providing good limit reserves, though its longitudinal and lateral aquaplaning behavior is only satisfactory compared to the test field. In winter conditions, the WinterExpert narrowly misses good ratings, achieving good scores for both snow braking distances and snow traction compared to the test field, but failing to earn good handling ratings as it would need to better combine longitudinal and lateral forces, overall providing moderate grip levels in handling with satisfactory limit reserves, and also only achieving satisfactory ratings for ice braking. Regarding environmental performance, this French-manufactured tire receives good ratings with good predicted mileage, low tire wear, and good efficiency thanks to low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry94.3%

Wet90.4%

Snow93.6%

Ice87.4%

Comfort96%

Value78.5%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	12^th / 31	144 ft	+8 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	6^th / 31	108 ft	+4 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	10^th / 31	125 ft	+5 ft
Wet CircleHigher is better	9^th / 30	5.8 mph	-1.1 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	18^th / 31	44.8 mph	-4.2 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 31	32 ft	+2 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	19^th / 31	53 lbf	-4 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	21^st / 31	57 ft	+7 ft
NoiseLower is better	23^rd / 31	73.2 dB	+2.90 dB
WearHigher is better	16^th / 31	32,933 miles	-17,398 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	16^th / 31	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	18^th / 31	69 mg/km/t	+19.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/72
Origin: France
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 143.00

The Fulda Kristall Control HP2 fails to achieve good ratings on dry and wet roads and therefore misses a good driving safety score, and despite earning a good environmental rating, this isn't sufficient to improve the overall judgment to "good." For driving safety, the tire shows weaknesses in precision and steering feedback on dry roads, lacking the accuracy and directness expected during steering input and cornering - frequent steering corrections are needed to maintain the desired path, and during sudden evasive maneuvers the Kristall Control HP2 doesn't convince as the test vehicle tends to oversteer, especially when counter-steering, with sliding phases that could be shorter, resulting in overall limit behavior that isn't at a high level and is rated as adequate, while dry braking distances are also rated as only satisfactory compared to the test field. On wet surfaces, the Fulda also only manages satisfactory ratings - while it narrowly misses good scores for braking distances, its handling behavior is clearly rated as satisfactory due to moderate grip levels and the need to better combine longitudinal and lateral forces, which would positively impact limit behavior and precision, and while its longitudinal aquaplaning behavior is still rated as good, it doesn't achieve good ratings for lateral aquaplaning. In winter conditions, the Kristall Control HP2 just manages to secure good ratings overall, achieving good scores for both snow braking distances and snow traction compared to the test field, but narrowly missing good ratings for ice braking distances and snow handling, where it would need to better combine longitudinal and lateral forces for good scores, offering moderate grip levels and satisfactory limit reserves. Regarding environmental performance, this German-manufactured tire receives good ratings with good mileage, low tire wear, and good efficiency thanks to low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry91.4%

Wet91.2%

Snow95.3%

Ice89.4%

Comfort94.6%

Value80.3%

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	29^th / 31	149 ft	+13 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	22^nd / 31	118 ft	+14 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	15^th / 31	131 ft	+11 ft
Wet CircleHigher is better	4^th / 30	6.5 mph	-0.4 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	10^th / 31	46.0 mph	-3.0 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 31	32 ft	+2 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	6^th / 31	55 lbf	-2 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	18^th / 31	56 ft	+6 ft
NoiseLower is better	29^th / 31	74.3 dB	+4.00 dB
WearHigher is better	13^th / 31	35,356 miles	-14,975 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	16^th / 31	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	18^th / 31	69 mg/km/t	+19.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/C/72
Origin: Germany
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 143.00

The GT Radial WinterPro 2 Sport fails to achieve good results on dry, wet, and winter roads, resulting in only a satisfactory driving safety rating, and also only manages satisfactory environmental performance, leading to a satisfactory overall judgment. For driving safety, the tire shows weaknesses in precision and steering feedback on dry roads, lacking the accuracy and directness expected during steering input and cornering - steering corrections are needed to maintain the desired path, and during sudden evasive maneuvers the WinterPro 2 Sport doesn't fully convince as the test vehicle tends to oversteer, especially when counter-steering, with sliding phases that could be shorter, resulting in overall limit behavior that isn't critical but only achieves satisfactory ratings for both responsiveness and limit performance, while dry braking distances are also rated as only satisfactory compared to the test field. On wet surfaces, the GT Radial also only manages satisfactory ratings, failing to achieve good scores for braking distances or longitudinal and lateral aquaplaning resistance, while its handling performance is rated as merely adequate due to poor combination of longitudinal and lateral forces, causing the test vehicle to tend toward under- or oversteering early and for extended periods depending on the curve, preventing precise control over the course with low limit performance and only adequate safety reserves. In winter conditions, the WinterPro 2 Sport also fails to achieve good results overall, though it manages good scores for snow braking and snow traction, its handling performance is rated as only satisfactory since it would need to clearly better combine longitudinal and lateral forces for more precise course control, with moderate limit reserves, and it also narrowly misses good ratings for ice braking. Regarding environmental performance, this Chinese-manufactured tire also only achieves satisfactory ratings due to satisfactory predicted mileage that impacts the environmental score, though it earns good ratings for tire wear and fuel consumption while having above-average weight.

Dry92%

Wet85.1%

Snow94%

Ice89.4%

Comfort96.6%

Value72.7%

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	23^rd / 31	148 ft	+12 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	23^rd / 31	119 ft	+15 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	20^th / 31	134 ft	+14 ft
Wet CircleHigher is better	12^th / 30	5.6 mph	-1.3 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	14^th / 31	45.6 mph	-3.4 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 31	32 ft	+2 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	16^th / 31	53 lbf	-4 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	18^th / 31	56 ft	+6 ft
NoiseLower is better	20^th / 31	72.8 dB	+2.50 dB
WearHigher is better	28^th / 31	27,713 miles	-22,618 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	16^th / 31	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	27^th / 31	77 mg/km/t	+27.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/70
Origin: China
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 130.00

The Semperit Speed-Grip 5 clearly misses good ratings on dry roads and narrowly fails on winter roads, and while it achieves good scores on wet surfaces, overall driving safety is rated as only satisfactory, with environmental performance also receiving satisfactory ratings, resulting in a satisfactory overall judgment. For driving safety, the tire shows weaknesses in precision and steering feedback on dry roads, lacking the accuracy and directness expected for good ratings during steering input and cornering - steering corrections are needed to maintain the desired path, and during sudden evasive maneuvers the Semperit doesn't convince as the test vehicle tends to oversteer, especially when counter-steering, with sliding phases that could be shorter, resulting in overall limit behavior that isn't at a high level and is rated as only adequate, though dry braking distances are still rated as good compared to the test field. On wet surfaces, the Speed-Grip 5 achieves good ratings with good scores for braking distances, longitudinal aquaplaning behavior, and handling, though it only manages satisfactory ratings for lateral aquaplaning - overall the test vehicle can be driven safely and controllably over the course with the tire providing sufficient limit reserves. In winter conditions, the Speed-Grip 5 narrowly misses good ratings, achieving good scores for both snow braking distances and snow traction compared to the test field, but scoring just satisfactory for ice braking and missing good handling ratings as it would need to better combine longitudinal and lateral forces, offering moderate grip levels and satisfactory limit reserves. Regarding environmental performance, this French-manufactured tire misses good ratings due to its predicted mileage, though its tire wear is still rated as good and efficiency is good thanks to low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry93.5%

Wet90.2%

Snow94%

Ice89.4%

Comfort94.7%

Value77.1%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	17^th / 31	145 ft	+9 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	10^th / 31	109 ft	+5 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	7^th / 31	123 ft	+3 ft
Wet CircleHigher is better	9^th / 30	5.8 mph	-1.1 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	9^th / 31	46.1 mph	-2.9 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	6^th / 31	31 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	19^th / 31	53 lbf	-4 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	18^th / 31	56 ft	+6 ft
NoiseLower is better	28^th / 31	74.2 dB	+3.90 dB
WearHigher is better	25^th / 31	29,764 miles	-20,567 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	16^th / 31	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	15^th / 31	66 mg/km/t	+16.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/72
Origin: France
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 142.00

The Giti GitiWinter W2 fails to achieve good ratings on dry, wet, and winter roads, resulting in only satisfactory driving safety and environmental performance with a satisfactory overall judgment. On dry roads, it shows poor precision and steering feedback requiring constant corrections, with oversteering tendencies and adequate limit behavior, plus satisfactory braking distances. On wet surfaces, it narrowly misses good ratings despite achieving good scores for braking and aquaplaning resistance, but handling is only satisfactory due to moderate grip and early understeer. In winter conditions, it manages only satisfactory ratings for snow braking and traction with adequate handling performance that lacks precise control and sufficient reserves, though ice braking is satisfactory. This Chinese-manufactured tire receives satisfactory environmental ratings due to moderate predicted mileage, despite good scores for tire wear and efficiency.

Dry91.6%

Wet96.1%

Snow91.4%

Ice85.4%

Comfort97%

Value70.4%

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	26^th / 31	148 ft	+12 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	15^th / 31	114 ft	+10 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	15^th / 31	131 ft	+11 ft
Wet CircleHigher is better	1^st / 30	6.9 mph	Best in this discipline
Straight AquaHigher is better	1^st / 31	49.0 mph	Best in this discipline
Snow BrakingLower is better	23^rd / 31	33 ft	+3 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	23^rd / 31	52 lbf	-5 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	26^th / 31	58 ft	+8 ft
NoiseLower is better	18^th / 31	72.5 dB	+2.20 dB
WearHigher is better	29^th / 31	27,154 miles	-23,177 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	16^th / 31	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	30^th / 31	86 mg/km/t	+36.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/71
Origin: China
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 136.00

The Point S Winter S receives only adequate ratings on dry roads and satisfactory on wet surfaces, but achieves good winter performance, though overall driving safety is rated as adequate due to dry road weaknesses. Despite good environmental performance, the overall judgment remains adequate. On dry roads, it shows poor precision and steering feedback requiring frequent corrections, with oversteering tendencies and adequate limit behavior, though braking distances are still good. On wet surfaces, it achieves good braking performance but only satisfactory ratings for aquaplaning resistance and handling due to moderate grip levels and poor force combination. In winter conditions, it just earns good ratings with good snow and ice braking plus snow traction, but narrowly misses good handling scores due to moderate grip and satisfactory reserves. This Slovakian-manufactured tire receives good environmental ratings with good mileage, low tire wear, and good efficiency thanks to low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry93%

Wet85.1%

Snow94.2%

Ice91%

Comfort100%

Value79.5%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	19^th / 31	146 ft	+10 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	17^th / 31	115 ft	+11 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	18^th / 31	133 ft	+13 ft
Wet CircleHigher is better	20^th / 30	5.4 mph	-1.5 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	13^th / 31	45.7 mph	-3.3 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 31	32 ft	+2 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	13^th / 31	54 lbf	-3 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	10^th / 31	55 ft	+5 ft
NoiseLower is better	1^st / 31	70.3 dB	Best in this discipline
WearHigher is better	16^th / 31	32,933 miles	-17,398 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 31	5.6 l/100km	Best in this discipline
AbrasionLower is better	20^th / 31	70 mg/km/t	+20.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: C/C/72
Origin: Slovakia
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 121.00

The Firestone Winterhawk 4 receives only adequate ratings on dry roads and narrowly misses satisfactory on wet surfaces, but achieves good winter performance, though overall driving safety is rated as adequate due to dry road weaknesses. It also misses good environmental ratings, resulting in an adequate overall judgment. On dry roads, it shows poor precision and steering feedback requiring frequent corrections, with oversteering tendencies and adequate limit behavior, plus braking distances that just miss good ratings. On wet surfaces, it narrowly misses good overall ratings despite achieving good braking and longitudinal aquaplaning performance, but only satisfactory lateral aquaplaning and handling due to moderate grip levels. In winter conditions, it clearly earns good ratings across all criteria including snow and ice braking, snow traction, and handling with precise control and sufficient reserves. This Italian-manufactured tire misses good environmental ratings due to satisfactory predicted mileage, though it shows low tire wear and good efficiency thanks to low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry91.6%

Wet86.3%

Snow95.3%

Ice94.4%

Comfort96.4%

Value76.4%

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	26^th / 31	148 ft	+12 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	8^th / 31	108 ft	+4 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	11^th / 31	125 ft	+5 ft
Wet CircleHigher is better	24^th / 30	5.1 mph	-1.8 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	12^th / 31	45.9 mph	-3.1 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 31	32 ft	+2 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	6^th / 31	55 lbf	-2 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	6^th / 31	53 ft	+3 ft
NoiseLower is better	21^st / 31	72.9 dB	+2.60 dB
WearHigher is better	23^rd / 31	30,323 miles	-20,008 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	8^th / 31	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	23^rd / 31	72 mg/km/t	+22.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/71
Origin: Italy
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 135.00

The Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6 receives only adequate ratings on dry roads and satisfactory on wet and winter surfaces, resulting in adequate overall driving safety despite good environmental performance. On dry roads, it provides only adequate steering feedback and precision requiring frequent corrections as the test vehicle doesn't follow consistent radii, with oversteering tendencies during dynamic maneuvers and above-average long braking distances rated as satisfactory. On wet surfaces, it achieves overall satisfactory performance with satisfactory braking distances and lateral aquaplaning, but only adequate handling due to weak grip levels and poor force combination, though it manages good longitudinal aquaplaning resistance. In winter conditions, it misses good ratings despite good snow braking and traction performance, but fails to achieve good ice braking and only manages satisfactory handling with early under/oversteering tendencies and moderate limit performance. This Chinese-manufactured tire receives good environmental ratings with good predicted mileage, low tire wear, and good efficiency.

Dry91.6%

Wet87.9%

Snow93.2%

Ice86.9%

Comfort96.3%

Value87.4%

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	26^th / 31	148 ft	+12 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	24^th / 31	119 ft	+15 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	22^nd / 31	135 ft	+15 ft
Wet CircleHigher is better	7^th / 30	6.0 mph	-0.9 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	8^th / 31	46.4 mph	-2.6 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 31	32 ft	+2 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	22^nd / 31	52 lbf	-5 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	25^th / 31	57 ft	+7 ft
NoiseLower is better	22^nd / 31	73 dB	+2.70 dB
WearHigher is better	7^th / 31	38,774 miles	-11,557 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 31	5.6 l/100km	Best in this discipline
AbrasionLower is better	7^th / 31	59 mg/km/t	+9.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/70
Origin: China
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 112.00

The Apollo Aspire XP Winter receives only adequate ratings on dry roads and satisfactory on wet and winter surfaces, resulting in adequate overall driving safety and satisfactory environmental performance for an adequate overall judgment. On dry roads, it provides barely adequate steering feedback with imprecise handling requiring frequent corrections as the test vehicle doesn't follow consistent radii, plus oversteering tendencies during dynamic maneuvers rated as just adequate, though braking distances are good. On wet surfaces, it narrowly misses good overall ratings despite good braking performance, with satisfactory aquaplaning resistance and handling due to moderate grip levels and the need for better force combination. In winter conditions, it also misses good ratings despite good snow and ice braking performance, but only satisfactory snow traction and handling with early under/oversteering tendencies and moderate limit performance. This Dutch-manufactured tire receives satisfactory environmental ratings with good predicted mileage and tire wear, but satisfactory efficiency due to low fuel consumption offset by high weight.

Dry94.5%

Wet87.4%

Snow92.1%

Ice91.6%

Comfort95%

Value77%

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 / 31	144 ft	+8 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	12^th / 31	112 ft	+8 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	12^th / 31	128 ft	+8 ft
Wet CircleHigher is better	12^th / 30	5.6 mph	-1.3 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	16^th / 31	45.1 mph	-3.9 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	19^th / 31	32 ft	+2 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	24^th / 31	52 lbf	-5 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	9^th / 31	54 ft	+4 ft
NoiseLower is better	26^th / 31	74 dB	+3.70 dB
WearHigher is better	19^th / 31	32,249 miles	-18,082 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	16^th / 31	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	24^th / 31	73 mg/km/t	+23.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/72
Origin: Netherlands
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 133.00

The Radar Dimax Winter receives poor overall driving safety ratings due to pronounced weaknesses on wet roads, despite satisfactory dry performance and good winter ratings, and achieves satisfactory environmental performance despite high weight. On dry roads, it provides only adequate precision and steering feedback requiring frequent corrections, with oversteering tendencies during evasive maneuvers and adequate limit behavior, though braking distances are still good. On wet surfaces, it receives poor ratings overall with very early under/oversteering tendencies and poor force combination compared to other test products, plus low grip and limit performance, though it manages satisfactory ratings for braking and aquaplaning resistance. In winter conditions, it achieves good ratings with short braking distances on snow and ice, good snow traction, and good handling with precise control and good limit performance through effective force combination. This Chinese-manufactured tire receives satisfactory environmental ratings despite very high predicted mileage and good tire wear due to high weight that results in only satisfactory efficiency despite low fuel consumption, plus adequate sustainability ratings.

Dry93.9%

Wet83.8%

Snow96.4%

Ice96.2%

Comfort97.2%

Value97.2%

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	15^th / 31	145 ft	+9 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	25^th / 31	120 ft	+16 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	25^th / 31	137 ft	+17 ft
Wet CircleHigher is better	12^th / 30	5.6 mph	-1.3 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	28^th / 31	42.1 mph	-6.9 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	4^th / 31	31 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	5^th / 31	55 lbf	-2 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 31	52 ft	+2 ft
NoiseLower is better	15^th / 31	72.3 dB	+2.00 dB
WearHigher is better	1^st / 31	50,331 miles	Best in this discipline
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	16^th / 31	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	3^rd / 31	53 mg/km/t	+3.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: C/B/72
Origin: Thailand
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 99.00

The Nankang Winter Activa 4 receives poor ratings on dry and winter roads resulting in poor overall driving safety, with only satisfactory wet performance and adequate environmental ratings for a poor overall judgment. On dry roads, it shows poor responsiveness and steering feedback with very imprecise handling requiring constant corrections, oversteering tendencies during dynamic maneuvers with adequate limit behavior, and narrowly misses good braking distances. On wet surfaces, it achieves only satisfactory ratings across all criteria including braking, aquaplaning resistance, and handling with moderate grip levels and the need for better force combination. In winter conditions, it receives poor ratings overall despite satisfactory snow braking and traction performance, with poor handling due to inadequate force combination resulting in very imprecise control, very low limits, and early under/oversteering tendencies, plus adequate ice braking performance. This Chinese-manufactured tire receives adequate environmental ratings with the lowest predicted mileage in the test, satisfactory tire wear, and narrowly missing good efficiency ratings.

Dry92.4%

Wet85.6%

Snow86.2%

Ice79.6%

Comfort97.6%

Value65.1%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	21^st / 31	147 ft	+11 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	21^st / 31	117 ft	+13 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	24^th / 31	136 ft	+16 ft
Wet CircleHigher is better	12^th / 30	5.6 mph	-1.3 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	20^th / 31	44.7 mph	-4.3 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	26^th / 31	34 ft	+4 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	29^th / 31	48 lbf	-9 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	29^th / 31	63 ft	+13 ft
NoiseLower is better	13^th / 31	72 dB	+1.70 dB
WearHigher is better	31^st / 31	21,251 miles	-29,080 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	29^th / 31	5.9 l/100km	+0.30 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	31^st / 31	88 mg/km/t	+38.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/71
Origin: China
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 112.00

The Landsail Winter Lander receives poor ratings on winter roads resulting in poor overall driving safety, with only adequate dry performance and narrowly missing good wet ratings, plus satisfactory environmental performance for a poor overall judgment. On dry roads, it shows barely adequate responsiveness and steering feedback with very imprecise handling requiring constant corrections, oversteering tendencies during dynamic maneuvers with adequate limit behavior, but good braking performance. On wet surfaces, it narrowly misses good overall ratings with good braking distances but only satisfactory aquaplaning resistance and handling due to moderate grip levels and the need for better force combination. In winter conditions, it receives poor ratings with poor snow braking and handling performance due to inadequate force combination resulting in very imprecise control and very low limits with early under/oversteering tendencies, though it achieves adequate snow traction and good ice braking. This Chinese-manufactured tire receives satisfactory environmental ratings with barely satisfactory predicted mileage, low tire wear, slightly elevated weight, but good fuel consumption.

Dry97.4%

Wet89%

Snow74%

Ice91%

Comfort98.2%

Value75.6%

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	5^th / 31	139 ft	+3 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	5^th / 31	108 ft	+4 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	4^th / 31	121 ft	+1 ft
Wet CircleHigher is better	12^th / 30	5.6 mph	-1.3 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	22^nd / 31	44.2 mph	-4.8 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	31^st / 31	40 ft	+10 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	31^st / 31	42 lbf	-15 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	10^th / 31	55 ft	+5 ft
NoiseLower is better	7^th / 31	71.6 dB	+1.30 dB
WearHigher is better	21^st / 31	31,690 miles	-18,641 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	16^th / 31	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	27^th / 31	77 mg/km/t	+27.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: C/B/72
Origin: China
3PMSF: Yes

The Petlas SnowMaster 2 Sport receives poor ratings on dry and winter roads resulting in poor overall driving safety, with satisfactory wet and environmental performance for a poor overall judgment. On dry roads, it shows poor responsiveness and steering feedback with very imprecise handling requiring constant corrections, oversteering tendencies during dynamic maneuvers with adequate limit behavior, though braking distances are still good. On wet surfaces, it achieves only satisfactory ratings overall with satisfactory braking and longitudinal aquaplaning but only adequate lateral aquaplaning and handling due to weak grip levels, low limits, and inadequate force combination. In winter conditions, it receives poor ratings despite satisfactory snow braking and traction, with poor handling performance due to inadequate force combination resulting in very imprecise control and very low limits with early under/oversteering tendencies, though it narrowly misses good ice braking ratings. This Turkish-manufactured tire receives satisfactory environmental ratings, missing good predicted mileage but achieving good tire wear ratings, with good fuel consumption offset by slightly above-average weight.

Dry94.3%

Wet77.9%

Snow87.9%

Ice89.9%

Comfort95.9%

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	12^th / 31	144 ft	+8 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	20^th / 31	116 ft	+12 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	22^nd / 31	135 ft	+15 ft
Wet CircleHigher is better	27^th / 30	4.5 mph	-2.4 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	30^th / 31	40.9 mph	-8.1 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	28^th / 31	34 ft	+4 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	28^th / 31	50 lbf	-7 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	17^th / 31	55 ft	+5 ft
NoiseLower is better	24^th / 31	73.3 dB	+3.00 dB
WearHigher is better	27^th / 31	28,769 miles	-21,562 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 31	5.6 l/100km	Best in this discipline
AbrasionLower is better	21^st / 31	71 mg/km/t	+21.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: C/B/72
Origin: Turkey
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 128.00

The Imperial Snowdragon UHP receives poor overall driving safety ratings due to pronounced weaknesses on wet roads, despite satisfactory dry and winter performance, though it achieves good environmental ratings for a poor overall judgment. On dry roads, it shows weaknesses in precision and steering feedback requiring constant corrections, with oversteering tendencies during evasive maneuvers and satisfactory limit behavior, though braking distances are still good. On wet surfaces, it receives poor ratings overall with very early under/oversteering tendencies and poor force combination compared to other test products, plus very low grip and limit performance, with only satisfactory braking and longitudinal aquaplaning but adequate lateral aquaplaning. In winter conditions, it achieves satisfactory ratings overall with satisfactory snow and ice braking plus snow traction, but only adequate handling due to imprecise control, low limits, and early under/oversteering tendencies requiring better force combination. This Chinese-manufactured tire receives clearly good environmental ratings with good predicted mileage, low tire wear, and good efficiency thanks to low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry92.8%

Wet73%

Snow89.3%

Ice87.4%

Comfort97.1%

Value85.5%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	20^th / 31	146 ft	+10 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	26^th / 31	124 ft	+20 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	26^th / 31	143 ft	+23 ft
Wet CircleHigher is better	29^th / 30	4.0 mph	-2.9 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	25^th / 31	42.7 mph	-6.3 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	26^th / 31	34 ft	+4 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	26^th / 31	51 lbf	-6 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	21^st / 31	57 ft	+7 ft
NoiseLower is better	16^th / 31	72.4 dB	+2.10 dB
WearHigher is better	11^th / 31	36,847 miles	-13,484 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	16^th / 31	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	5^th / 31	57 mg/km/t	+7.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: C/C/72
Origin: China
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 97.00

The Goodride SW608 receives poor overall driving safety ratings due to pronounced weaknesses on wet roads, despite adequate dry and winter performance, plus satisfactory environmental performance for a poor overall judgment. On dry roads, it shows only adequate precision and steering feedback requiring frequent corrections, with significant oversteering tendencies and adequate limit behavior, narrowly missing good braking distances. On wet surfaces, it receives poor ratings overall with very early under/oversteering tendencies and poor force combination compared to other test products, plus very low grip and limits, though braking and aquaplaning resistance are rated as satisfactory. In winter conditions, it achieves adequate ratings overall with satisfactory snow and ice braking plus snow traction, but barely adequate handling due to imprecise control, low limits, and early under/oversteering tendencies requiring better force combination. This Chinese-manufactured tire receives satisfactory environmental ratings due to moderate predicted mileage, despite good tire wear and efficiency ratings.

Dry92%

Wet81.2%

Snow87.7%

Ice83.5%

Comfort95.8%

Value75.5%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	23^rd / 31	148 ft	+12 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	27^th / 31	126 ft	+22 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	27^th / 31	147 ft	+27 ft
Wet CircleHigher is better	20^th / 30	5.4 mph	-1.5 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	18^th / 31	44.8 mph	-4.2 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	29^th / 31	34 ft	+4 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	27^th / 31	50 lbf	-7 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	28^th / 31	60 ft	+10 ft
NoiseLower is better	25^th / 31	73.4 dB	+3.10 dB
WearHigher is better	24^th / 31	30,074 miles	-20,257 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	8^th / 31	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	25^th / 31	75 mg/km/t	+25.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/C/72
Origin: China
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 96.00

The Syron Everest 2 receives poor ratings on dry and wet roads resulting in poor overall driving safety despite very good winter performance, plus satisfactory environmental performance for a poor overall judgment. On dry roads, it shows poor responsiveness and steering feedback with very imprecise handling requiring constant corrections, oversteering tendencies during dynamic maneuvers with adequate limit behavior, and only satisfactory braking distances. On wet surfaces, it receives poor ratings overall with very early under/oversteering tendencies and poor force combination compared to other test products, plus very low grip and limits, with poor braking and lateral aquaplaning but adequate longitudinal aquaplaning. In winter conditions, it achieves the best results in the test with very good ratings across all criteria including snow and ice braking, snow traction, and handling with excellent force combination allowing absolutely safe and precise control with very high limits. This Chinese-manufactured tire receives satisfactory environmental ratings with satisfactory predicted mileage, tire wear, and weight, good fuel consumption, though production residues on new tires that end up in the environment are noted negatively.

Dry90%

Wet57.4%

Snow100%

Ice100%

Comfort97.5%

Value70.3%

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	30^th / 31	151 ft	+15 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	31^st / 31	155 ft	+51 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	31^st / 31	174 ft	+54 ft
Wet CircleHigher is better	30^th / 30	2.9 mph	-4.0 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	31^st / 31	38.3 mph	-10.7 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	1^st / 31	30 ft	Best in this discipline
Snow TractionHigher is better	1^st / 31	57 lbf	Best in this discipline
Ice BrakingLower is better	1^st / 31	50 ft	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	14^th / 31	72.1 dB	+1.80 dB
WearHigher is better	30^th / 31	25,973 miles	-24,358 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	8^th / 31	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	29^th / 31	85 mg/km/t	+35.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/C/72
Origin: China
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 126.00

The CST Medallion Winter WCP1 receives satisfactory ratings on dry and wet roads but poor winter performance, resulting in poor overall driving safety despite satisfactory environmental performance for a poor overall judgment. On dry roads, it shows only adequate precision and steering feedback requiring frequent corrections, with significant oversteering tendencies and adequate limit behavior, but achieves satisfactory ratings overall thanks to above-average braking distances. On wet surfaces, it achieves satisfactory ratings with good braking and longitudinal aquaplaning but only satisfactory lateral aquaplaning and adequate handling due to weak grip, low limits, and inadequate force combination. In winter conditions, it receives poor ratings despite satisfactory snow braking and traction, with poor handling performance due to inadequate force combination resulting in very imprecise control and very low limits with early under/oversteering tendencies, plus only adequate ice braking. This Turkish-manufactured tire receives satisfactory environmental ratings with good predicted mileage and tire wear, but satisfactory efficiency due to high weight despite good fuel consumption impact.

Dry95.6%

Wet86.4%

Snow80.9%

Ice78.8%

Comfort93.1%

Value79.3%

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	8^th / 31	142 ft	+6 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	19^th / 31	116 ft	+12 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	17^th / 31	132 ft	+12 ft
Wet CircleHigher is better	12^th / 30	5.6 mph	-1.3 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	6^th / 31	46.7 mph	-2.3 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	30^th / 31	36 ft	+6 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	30^th / 31	45 lbf	-12 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	30^th / 31	63 ft	+13 ft
NoiseLower is better	31^st / 31	75.5 dB	+5.20 dB
WearHigher is better	14^th / 31	34,424 miles	-15,907 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	29^th / 31	5.9 l/100km	+0.30 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	17^th / 31	68 mg/km/t	+18.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/71
Origin: China
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 93.00

The Star Performer Stratos UHP receives just satisfactory ratings on dry roads and clearly satisfactory on winter surfaces, but poor on wet roads, resulting in poor overall driving safety despite good environmental performance for a poor overall judgment. On dry roads, it shows adequate responsiveness and steering feedback with imprecise handling requiring constant corrections, oversteering tendencies during dynamic maneuvers with adequate limit behavior, and just manages good braking distances. On wet surfaces, it receives poor ratings overall with very early under/oversteering tendencies and poor force combination compared to other test products, plus very low grip and limit performance, with only adequate braking and lateral aquaplaning but satisfactory longitudinal aquaplaning. In winter conditions, it achieves satisfactory ratings overall with good snow braking and traction performance, but only satisfactory handling and ice braking with adequately precise control, moderate limits, and early under/oversteering tendencies requiring better force combination. This Chinese-manufactured tire receives clearly good environmental ratings with very high predicted mileage, good tire wear, and good efficiency thanks to low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry93.2%

Wet76.3%

Snow93.6%

Ice87.4%

Comfort97.8%

Value85.2%

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	18^th / 31	146 ft	+10 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	28^th / 31	131 ft	+27 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	28^th / 31	155 ft	+35 ft
Wet CircleHigher is better	26^th / 30	4.9 mph	-2.0 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	29^th / 31	41.5 mph	-7.5 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	22^nd / 31	32 ft	+2 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	11^th / 31	54 lbf	-3 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	21^st / 31	57 ft	+7 ft
NoiseLower is better	11^th / 31	71.9 dB	+1.60 dB
WearHigher is better	10^th / 31	37,282 miles	-13,049 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 31	5.6 l/100km	Best in this discipline
AbrasionLower is better	11^th / 31	62 mg/km/t	+12.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/C/72
Origin: China
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 95.00

The Tomket Snowroad Pro 3 receives adequate ratings on dry roads, satisfactory on winter surfaces, but poor on wet roads, resulting in poor overall driving safety despite good environmental performance for a poor overall judgment. On dry roads, it shows barely adequate responsiveness and steering feedback with very imprecise handling requiring constant corrections, oversteering tendencies during dynamic maneuvers with adequate limit behavior, and narrowly missing good braking distances. On wet surfaces, it receives poor ratings overall with very early under/oversteering tendencies and poor force combination compared to other test products, plus very low grip and limit performance, with only satisfactory ratings for braking and aquaplaning resistance. In winter conditions, it achieves satisfactory ratings across all criteria including snow and ice braking, snow traction, and handling, though control isn't particularly precise with moderate limits and early under/oversteering tendencies requiring better force combination. This Chinese-manufactured tire receives clearly good environmental ratings with very high predicted mileage rated as very good, low tire wear, and good efficiency thanks to low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry92.4%

Wet80.2%

Snow92.9%

Ice95.6%

Comfort98.2%

Value89.7%

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	21^st / 31	147 ft	+11 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	29^th / 31	133 ft	+29 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	29^th / 31	155 ft	+35 ft
Wet CircleHigher is better	12^th / 30	5.6 mph	-1.3 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	26^th / 31	42.2 mph	-6.8 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	23^rd / 31	33 ft	+3 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	13^th / 31	54 lbf	-3 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	4^th / 31	52 ft	+2 ft
NoiseLower is better	7^th / 31	71.6 dB	+1.30 dB
WearHigher is better	5^th / 31	41,321 miles	-9,010 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 31	5.6 l/100km	Best in this discipline
AbrasionLower is better	6^th / 31	58 mg/km/t	+8.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/C/72
Origin: China
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 107.00

The Evergreen EW66 receives poor ratings on all three surfaces, with wet road performance being the main factor in the overall downgrade, plus satisfactory environmental performance due to low predicted mileage for a poor overall judgment. On dry roads, it shows poor responsiveness and steering feedback with very imprecise handling requiring constant corrections, oversteering tendencies during dynamic maneuvers with adequate limit behavior, and only satisfactory braking distances. On wet surfaces, it receives poor ratings overall with very early under/oversteering tendencies and poor force combination compared to other test products, plus very low grip and limit performance, with only adequate braking and lateral aquaplaning but satisfactory longitudinal aquaplaning. In winter conditions, it also receives poor ratings due to poor ice braking performance, despite good snow performance with good braking, traction, and handling that combines forces well with safe, precise control and good limits. This Chinese-manufactured tire receives satisfactory environmental ratings with satisfactory predicted mileage and weight, but good tire wear and fuel consumption.

Dry89.6%

Wet43.9%

Snow93.8%

Ice72%

Comfort96.7%

Value74.9%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (11)

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	31^st / 31	152 ft	+16 ft
Wet BrakingLower is better	30^th / 31	139 ft	+35 ft
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	30^th / 31	156 ft	+36 ft
Straight AquaHigher is better	24^th / 31	44.0 mph	-5.0 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 31	32 ft	+2 ft
Snow TractionHigher is better	17^th / 31	53 lbf	-4 lbf
Ice BrakingLower is better	31^st / 31	69 ft	+19 ft
NoiseLower is better	19^th / 31	72.7 dB	+2.40 dB
WearHigher is better	26^th / 31	29,639 miles	-20,692 miles
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	8^th / 31	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	26^th / 31	76 mg/km/t	+26.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/C/72
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 133.00

More tire tests

Cross-check this test

All tire tests

Where these tires were tested again, and how the verdict held up.

Auto Bild2025

2025 Winter Tire Braking Test - 52 Sets!

225/40 R1851 tires tested

20 of these 31 tires tested again

Winner there

Dunlop Winter Response 2

This test’s winner finished 3^rd there

Auto Bild2026

2026 Winter Tire Braking Test - 50 Sets

245/45 R1950 tires tested

16 of these 31 tires tested again

Winner there

Pirelli P Zero Winter 2

This test’s winner finished 9^th there

Auto Bild2023

2023 Winter Tire Test 54 Set Braking Test

225/45 R1854 tires tested

16 of these 31 tires tested again

Winner there

Bridgestone Blizzak LM005

This test’s winner finished 3^rd there

More tire tests2026 Auto Bild Winter Tire Test 2026 Tire Rack New Winter Tire Test 2026 Auto Bild Sportscars Winter Tire Test The BEST Winter Tires for 2026/27 All tests: Winter Tires

Best tiresBest Winter Tires Best UHP Winter Tires Best Studless Winter Tires

Discussion

4 comments

Alper Pala Dec 29, 2025 archived

Momo was shown 8th , now it says 9th. What’s changed?

#10476
1. TireReviews Alper Pala Dec 29, 2025 archived
  
  It's still showing as joint 8th for me?
  
  #10477
  1. Alper Pala TireReviews Dec 30, 2025 archived
    
    In ADAC test result placement, yesterday it was shown 8th- Nokian , 9th-Momo and 10- Ceat.. and now yes you’re right! it’s 8th- Nokian & Momo, 10 - Ceat.. so, who’s 9th now? a ghost! :)
    
    #10478
    1. TireReviews Alper Pala Dec 30, 2025 archived
      
      There's two tires in 8th place that tied on points according to the adac grading :)
      Maybe if you went to the results tab it doesn't show placement so momo would look to be in 9th.
      
      #10479

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