For the 2025/2026 winter season, Autožurnál TV has conducted a comparative test of seven winter tires in the 215/65 R17 size, using a Volkswagen Tiguan as the test vehicle.

The test included two new models for the season: the Michelin Alpin 7 and the Barum Polaris 6. These were tested against the Tomket Snowroad SUV 3, Lassa Competus Winter 2+, and Ceat WinterDrive SUV. The lineup also featured the Kormoran SUV Snow and Riken SUV Snow, two tires from the Michelin group with identical tread patterns, both produced in Serbia.

Each tire was evaluated on dry, wet, and snow-covered surfaces. The test protocol included measurements for braking, handling, longitudinal and lateral aquaplaning, snow traction, rolling resistance, and external pass-by noise.

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: 62.1 → 0.0 mph
Snow Braking: 31.1 → 0.0 mph
Snow Traction: 0.0 → 12.4 mph

Dry

Dry Braking

Dry Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Michelin Alpin 7	147 ft	Best	0 mph
1Ceat WinterDrive SUV	147 ft	Best	0 mph
3Tomket Snowroad SUV 3	150 ft	+3 ft	10 mph
4Barum Polaris 6	151 ft	+4 ft	12 mph
5Riken Riken SUV Snow	152 ft	+5 ft	13 mph
6Kormoran Kormoran SUV Snow	152 ft	+5 ft	14 mph
7Lassa Competus Winter 2	158 ft	+11 ft	21 mph

The difference between best and worst was 7.6% (11 ft ≈ 0.8 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Lassa Competus Winter 2 would still be travelling at 21 mph when the Michelin Alpin 7 had stopped.

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

Dry Handling

Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Alpin 7	50.8 s	Best
2Tomket Snowroad SUV 3	51 s	+0.20 s
3Lassa Competus Winter 2	51.2 s	+0.40 s
4Ceat WinterDrive SUV	51.4 s	+0.60 s
5Barum Polaris 6	51.8 s	+1.00 s
6Riken Riken SUV Snow	52.3 s	+1.50 s
7Kormoran Kormoran SUV Snow	52.4 s	+1.60 s

The difference between best and worst was 3.1% (1.6 s).

Wet

Wet Braking

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Michelin Alpin 7	172 ft	Best	0 mph
2Ceat WinterDrive SUV	181 ft	+9 ft	18 mph
3Lassa Competus Winter 2	182 ft	+10 ft	19 mph
4Barum Polaris 6	185 ft	+13 ft	21 mph
5Riken Riken SUV Snow	198 ft	+26 ft	29 mph
6Kormoran Kormoran SUV Snow	199 ft	+27 ft	29 mph
7Tomket Snowroad SUV 3	220 ft	+48 ft	38 mph

The difference between best and worst was 28.2% (48 ft ≈ 3.3 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Tomket Snowroad SUV 3 would still be travelling at 38 mph when the Michelin Alpin 7 had stopped.

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

Wet Handling

Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Alpin 7	88.5 s	Best
2Barum Polaris 6	90.3 s	+1.80 s
3Lassa Competus Winter 2	90.5 s	+2.00 s
4Ceat WinterDrive SUV	90.6 s	+2.10 s
5Kormoran Kormoran SUV Snow	93.4 s	+4.90 s
5Riken Riken SUV Snow	93.4 s	+4.90 s
7Tomket Snowroad SUV 3	100.4 s	+11.90 s

The difference between best and worst was 13.4% (11.9 s).

Wet Circle

Wet Circle
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Tomket Snowroad SUV 3	30.4 mph	Best
2Riken Riken SUV Snow	29.8 mph	-0.6 mph
3Kormoran Kormoran SUV Snow	29.7 mph	-0.7 mph
4Lassa Competus Winter 2	28.5 mph	-1.9 mph
5Barum Polaris 6	28.4 mph	-2.0 mph
6Michelin Alpin 7	28.2 mph	-2.2 mph
7Ceat WinterDrive SUV	28.2 mph	-2.2 mph

The difference between best and worst was 7.2% (2.2 mph).

Straight Aqua

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Alpin 7	52.4 mph	Best
2Lassa Competus Winter 2	50.8 mph	-1.6 mph
3Ceat WinterDrive SUV	49.8 mph	-2.6 mph
4Barum Polaris 6	49.6 mph	-2.8 mph
5Kormoran Kormoran SUV Snow	47.8 mph	-4.6 mph
6Riken Riken SUV Snow	47.6 mph	-4.8 mph
7Tomket Snowroad SUV 3	45.7 mph	-6.7 mph

The difference between best and worst was 12.7% (6.7 mph).

Curved Aquaplaning

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Tomket Snowroad SUV 3	329.4 ft/s²	Best
2Kormoran Kormoran SUV Snow	306.4 ft/s²	-23.0 ft/s²
2Riken Riken SUV Snow	306.4 ft/s²	-23.0 ft/s²
4Ceat WinterDrive SUV	297.2 ft/s²	-32.2 ft/s²
5Lassa Competus Winter 2	296.9 ft/s²	-32.5 ft/s²
6Barum Polaris 6	296.3 ft/s²	-33.1 ft/s²
7Michelin Alpin 7	290.4 ft/s²	-39.0 ft/s²

The difference between best and worst was 11.9% (39 ft/s²).

Snow

Snow Braking

Snow Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Barum Polaris 6	81 ft	Best	0 mph
2Kormoran Kormoran SUV Snow	82 ft	+1 ft	10 mph
3Ceat WinterDrive SUV	84 ft	+3 ft	15 mph
3Riken Riken SUV Snow	84 ft	+3 ft	15 mph
5Michelin Alpin 7	85 ft	+4 ft	17 mph
6Lassa Competus Winter 2	86 ft	+5 ft	19 mph
7Tomket Snowroad SUV 3	86 ft	+5 ft	20 mph

The difference between best and worst was 6.5% (5 ft ≈ 0.4 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Tomket Snowroad SUV 3 would still be travelling at 20 mph when the Barum Polaris 6 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
1Barum Polaris 6	9 s	Best
2Ceat WinterDrive SUV	9.25 s	+0.25 s
3Kormoran Kormoran SUV Snow	9.27 s	+0.27 s
4Tomket Snowroad SUV 3	9.43 s	+0.43 s
4Michelin Alpin 7	9.43 s	+0.43 s
6Riken Riken SUV Snow	9.46 s	+0.46 s
7Lassa Competus Winter 2	9.67 s	+0.67 s

The difference between best and worst was 7.4% (0.67 s).

Snow Handling

Snow Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Alpin 7	76.1 s	Best
2Barum Polaris 6	76.6 s	+0.50 s
2Kormoran Kormoran SUV Snow	76.6 s	+0.50 s
4Lassa Competus Winter 2	77.1 s	+1.00 s
4Ceat WinterDrive SUV	77.1 s	+1.00 s
6Riken Riken SUV Snow	77.6 s	+1.50 s
7Tomket Snowroad SUV 3	78.7 s	+2.60 s

The difference between best and worst was 3.4% (2.6 s).

Comfort

Noise

Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Barum Polaris 6	70.4 dB	Best
2Ceat WinterDrive SUV	70.7 dB	+0.30 dB
3Michelin Alpin 7	71.5 dB	+1.10 dB
4Tomket Snowroad SUV 3	72.1 dB	+1.70 dB
5Kormoran Kormoran SUV Snow	73.1 dB	+2.70 dB
6Riken Riken SUV Snow	73.5 dB	+3.10 dB
7Lassa Competus Winter 2	73.8 dB	+3.40 dB

The difference between best and worst was 4.8% (3.4 dB).

Value

Rolling Resistance

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Barum Polaris 6	6.99 kg/t	Best	$0
2Michelin Alpin 7	7.25 kg/t	+0.26 kg/t	$11
3Tomket Snowroad SUV 3	7.77 kg/t	+0.78 kg/t	$33
4Lassa Competus Winter 2	8 kg/t	+1.01 kg/t	$42
5Kormoran Kormoran SUV Snow	8.71 kg/t	+1.72 kg/t	$72
6Ceat WinterDrive SUV	8.76 kg/t	+1.77 kg/t	$74
6Riken Riken SUV Snow	8.76 kg/t	+1.77 kg/t	$74

The difference between best and worst was 25.3% (1.77 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Ceat WinterDrive SUV uses about 21 gal ($74) more fuel than the Barum Polaris 6.

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.

Results

The Michelin Alpin 7 was the decisive winner of the test, earning the top spot in the overall ranking. This tire dominated on wet and dry surfaces, finishing first in both of these categories by achieving the best or second-best results in every single wet and dry test, from braking and handling to aquaplaning resistance. Its performance on snow, while not as dominant, was still competitive, placing it fourth in the snow category. The Michelin's superior mastery of wet and dry conditions solidified its position as the best tire in the comparison.

Dry100%

Wet97.2%

Snow97%

Comfort98.5%

Rolling Resistance96.4%

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 / 7	147 ft	Best in this discipline
Dry HandlingLower is better	1^st / 7	50.8 s	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	1^st / 7	172 ft	Best in this discipline
Wet HandlingLower is better	1^st / 7	88.5 s	Best in this discipline
Wet CircleHigher is better	6^th / 7	28.2 mph	-2.2 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	1^st / 7	52.4 mph	Best in this discipline
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	7^th / 7	290.4 ft/s²	-39.0 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	5^th / 7	85 ft	+4 ft
Snow TractionLower is better	4^th / 7	9.43 s	+0.43 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	1^st / 7	76.1 s	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	3^rd / 7	71.5 dB	+1.10 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	2^nd / 7	7.25 kg/t	+0.26 kg/t

Weight: Spain kgs
Tread: 10.08 mm

The Barum Polaris 6 was an exceptional performer, finishing second in the final overall standings. Its biggest strength was on snow, where it ranked first overall by winning the braking, acceleration, and traction tests and placing second in handling. On dry surfaces, it was rated second-best, largely due to having the lowest rolling resistance and being the quietest tire at both tested speeds. Its performance in wet conditions was also solid, placing fourth in that category with strong results in handling and aquaplaning resistance, showcasing its excellent all-around capabilities for winter driving.

Dry97.8%

Wet94.5%

Snow99.8%

Comfort100%

Rolling Resistance100%

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 / 7	151 ft	+4 ft
Dry HandlingLower is better	5^th / 7	51.8 s	+1.00 s
Wet BrakingLower is better	4^th / 7	185 ft	+13 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 7	90.3 s	+1.80 s
Wet CircleHigher is better	5^th / 7	28.4 mph	-2.0 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	4^th / 7	49.6 mph	-2.8 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	6^th / 7	296.3 ft/s²	-33.1 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	1^st / 7	81 ft	Best in this discipline
Snow TractionLower is better	1^st / 7	9 s	Best in this discipline
Snow HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 7	76.6 s	+0.50 s
NoiseLower is better	1^st / 7	70.4 dB	Best in this discipline
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	1^st / 7	6.99 kg/t	Best in this discipline

Weight: Romania kgs
Tread: 10.64 mm

The Ceat WinterDrive SUV was a very balanced and capable tire, securing a well-deserved third place in the overall ranking. It demonstrated consistent performance across all surfaces, ranking third on snow, third on wet, and fourth on dry. Key strengths included tying for the shortest braking distance on dry pavement and achieving the best time in the wet track guidance test. Furthermore, it was the second-best tire in both the snow acceleration and snow traction tests, proving it to be a reliable and strong contender in all key performance areas.

Dry99.4%

Wet94.8%

Snow97.5%

Comfort99.6%

Rolling Resistance79.8%

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	1^st / 7	147 ft	Best in this discipline
Dry HandlingLower is better	4^th / 7	51.4 s	+0.60 s
Wet BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 7	181 ft	+9 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	4^th / 7	90.6 s	+2.10 s
Wet CircleHigher is better	7^th / 7	28.2 mph	-2.2 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	3^rd / 7	49.8 mph	-2.6 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	4^th / 7	297.2 ft/s²	-32.2 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 7	84 ft	+3 ft
Snow TractionLower is better	2^nd / 7	9.25 s	+0.25 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	4^th / 7	77.1 s	+1.00 s
NoiseLower is better	2^nd / 7	70.7 dB	+0.30 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	6^th / 7	8.76 kg/t	+1.77 kg/t

Weight: India kgs
Tread: 12.68 mm

The Lassa Competus Winter 2+ earned fourth place overall, with its most impressive results occurring in wet conditions. It was the second-best tire in the wet category, achieving a second-place finish in longitudinal aquaplaning and third-place results in wet braking and handling. Its performance on other surfaces was mixed; on dry pavement, it had the longest braking distance and was the loudest tire, yet it managed the third-fastest handling time. The tire's weakness was on snow, where it placed sixth, held back by poor results in the acceleration and braking tests.

Dry96.1%

Wet95.1%

Snow95.4%

Comfort95.4%

Rolling Resistance87.4%

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	7^th / 7	158 ft	+11 ft
Dry HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 7	51.2 s	+0.40 s
Wet BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 7	182 ft	+10 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 7	90.5 s	+2.00 s
Wet CircleHigher is better	4^th / 7	28.5 mph	-1.9 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	2^nd / 7	50.8 mph	-1.6 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	5^th / 7	296.9 ft/s²	-32.5 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	6^th / 7	86 ft	+5 ft
Snow TractionLower is better	7^th / 7	9.67 s	+0.67 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	4^th / 7	77.1 s	+1.00 s
NoiseLower is better	7^th / 7	73.8 dB	+3.40 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	4^th / 7	8 kg/t	+1.01 kg/t

Weight: Turkey kgs
Tread: 11.11 mm

The Kormoran SUV Snow, which shares an identical tread design with the Riken tire, performed best in snowy conditions, where it ranked third overall. It demonstrated strong capabilities on snow with a second-place finish in braking and a shared second place in handling. However, its performance on clear roads was lacking; it ranked seventh in the dry category, with the slowest handling time and sixth-longest braking distance. In wet conditions, it consistently placed in the lower half of the group, which contributed to its final overall position being tied for fifth place.

Dry96.9%

Wet92.8%

Snow98.3%

Comfort96.3%

Rolling Resistance80.3%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	6^th / 7	152 ft	+5 ft
Dry HandlingLower is better	7^th / 7	52.4 s	+1.60 s
Wet BrakingLower is better	6^th / 7	199 ft	+27 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	5^th / 7	93.4 s	+4.90 s
Wet CircleHigher is better	3^rd / 7	29.7 mph	-0.7 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	5^th / 7	47.8 mph	-4.6 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	2^nd / 7	306.4 ft/s²	-23.0 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 7	82 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionLower is better	3^rd / 7	9.27 s	+0.27 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 7	76.6 s	+0.50 s
NoiseLower is better	5^th / 7	73.1 dB	+2.70 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	5^th / 7	8.71 kg/t	+1.72 kg/t

Weight: Serbia kgs
Tread: 12.27 mm

The Riken SUV Snow finished the test tied for fifth place overall, delivering a performance profile nearly identical to its twin, the Kormoran tire. The tire did not stand out in any particular area, generally placing in the middle or lower end of the results across all conditions. It finished sixth in the dry category and fifth in the wet, with results for braking, handling, and noise that were consistently behind the leading competitors. Its snow performance was also mid-pack, ultimately defining it as a tire with average capabilities but no distinct advantages.

Dry97.2%

Wet93%

Snow96.6%

Comfort95.8%

Rolling Resistance79.8%

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	5^th / 7	152 ft	+5 ft
Dry HandlingLower is better	6^th / 7	52.3 s	+1.50 s
Wet BrakingLower is better	5^th / 7	198 ft	+26 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	5^th / 7	93.4 s	+4.90 s
Wet CircleHigher is better	2^nd / 7	29.8 mph	-0.6 mph
Straight AquaHigher is better	6^th / 7	47.6 mph	-4.8 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	2^nd / 7	306.4 ft/s²	-23.0 ft/s²
Snow BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 7	84 ft	+3 ft
Snow TractionLower is better	6^th / 7	9.46 s	+0.46 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	6^th / 7	77.6 s	+1.50 s
NoiseLower is better	6^th / 7	73.5 dB	+3.10 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	6^th / 7	8.76 kg/t	+1.77 kg/t

Weight: Serbia kgs
Tread: 12.17 mm

The Tomket Snowroad SUV 3 had a very poor showing, finishing last overall with a "not recommended" rating from the testers. Although it achieved a respectable third-place rank on dry surfaces, primarily due to a second-place finish in the handling test, its performance in adverse weather was a significant concern. The tire finished last in both the snow and wet categories, consistently recording the longest braking distances and slowest handling times. This critical weakness in winter and wet conditions led to its low final ranking.

Dry99%

Wet89.3%

Snow95.4%

Comfort97.6%

Rolling Resistance90%

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 / 7	150 ft	+3 ft
Dry HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 7	51 s	+0.20 s
Wet BrakingLower is better	7^th / 7	220 ft	+48 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	7^th / 7	100.4 s	+11.90 s
Wet CircleHigher is better	1^st / 7	30.4 mph	Best in this discipline
Straight AquaHigher is better	7^th / 7	45.7 mph	-6.7 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	1^st / 7	329.4 ft/s²	Best in this discipline
Snow BrakingLower is better	7^th / 7	86 ft	+5 ft
Snow TractionLower is better	4^th / 7	9.43 s	+0.43 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	7^th / 7	78.7 s	+2.60 s
NoiseLower is better	4^th / 7	72.1 dB	+1.70 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	3^rd / 7	7.77 kg/t	+0.78 kg/t

Weight: China kgs
Tread: 11.49 mm

Tire	Michelin Alpin 7	Barum Polaris 6	Ceat WinterDrive SUV	Lassa Competus Winter 2	Kormoran Kormoran SUV Snow	Riken Riken SUV Snow	Tomket Snowroad SUV 3
Position	1^st	2^nd	3^rd	4^th	Joint 5^th	Joint 5^th	7^th
Category scores (% of best)
Dry	100%	97.8%	99.4%	96.1%	96.9%	97.2%	99%
Wet	97.2%	94.5%	94.8%	95.1%	92.8%	93%	89.3%
Snow	97%	99.8%	97.5%	95.4%	98.3%	96.6%	95.4%
Comfort	98.5%	100%	99.6%	95.4%	96.3%	95.8%	97.6%
Rolling Resistance	96.4%	100%	79.8%	87.4%	80.3%	79.8%	90%
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

Menu

Tire shortlist

The evidence behind the verdict

Test setup & methodology

Recorded test conditions

Dry

Wet

Snow

Comfort

Value

Results

Cross-check this test