The 2025 evo tire test evaluated nine ultra-high performance tires in the 235/35 R19 size. The field comprised eight premium brand offerings alongside one budget and used an AWD BMW 135i X-Drive.

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: 50 → 12 mph

As always, it's an excellent tire test so I suggest using the link above to view the full test at the EVO website.

The Bridgestone Potenza Sport dominated proceedings with six category wins, marking a remarkable turnaround from its last-place wet braking finish in the previous test of this size.

The Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport and Continental SportContact 7 completed the podium; all three featured in the top three previously, though the Continental has dropped from first to third and Bridgestone has risen from joint third to winner.

The Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S, previously second, fell to fifth despite retaining the best road manners.

The mid-field was extraordinarily tight, with fourth through sixth separated by just half a percentage point; Yokohama's new Advan Sport V107 proved the strongest newcomer with excellent wet performance, while the Pirelli P Zero PZ5 showed good consistency without topping any test.

Both the Maxxis Victra Sport 6 and Falken Azenis RS820 delivered ok performances that nonetheless couldn't match the leading brands.

The budget Kormoran Ultra High Performance finished a distant last, requiring nearly 39 feet more to stop in wet braking than the Bridgestone and feeling, according to testers, like driving on ice – a stark reminder that a £30 per tire saving on safety-critical equipment brings severe consequences.

Dry

Continental took the win by half a meter, with the top five separated by less than a meter. Kormoran trailed significantly, needing over 11ft more than the leader.

Dry Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Continental SportContact 7	103 ft	Best	0 mph
2Yokohama Advan Sport V107	105 ft	+2 ft	10 mph
3Bridgestone Potenza Sport	106 ft	+3 ft	12 mph
4Pirelli P Zero PZ5	106 ft	+3 ft	12 mph
5Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	106 ft	+3 ft	13 mph
6Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	108 ft	+5 ft	16 mph
7Falken Azenis RS820	108 ft	+5 ft	17 mph
8Maxxis Victra Sport 6	109 ft	+6 ft	18 mph
9Kormoran Ultra High Performance	115 ft	+12 ft	26 mph

The difference between best and worst was 11.6% (12 ft ≈ 0.8 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Kormoran Ultra High Performance would still be travelling at 26 mph when the Continental SportContact 7 had stopped.

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

Bridgestone set the fastest lap, though just 0.03 seconds separated the top two. The top five were within 0.14 seconds of each other – an exceptionally close result.

Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Bridgestone Potenza Sport	66.85 s	Best
2Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	66.88 s	+0.03 s
3Continental SportContact 7	66.96 s	+0.11 s
3Pirelli P Zero PZ5	66.96 s	+0.11 s
5Yokohama Advan Sport V107	66.99 s	+0.14 s
6Falken Azenis RS820	67.47 s	+0.62 s
7Maxxis Victra Sport 6	67.48 s	+0.63 s
8Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	67.96 s	+1.11 s
9Kormoran Ultra High Performance	69.47 s	+2.62 s

The difference between best and worst was 3.9% (2.62 s).

Goodyear topped the subjective assessment despite narrowly missing the fastest lap time, with Bridgestone and Continental tied for second.

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	66 Points	Best
2Bridgestone Potenza Sport	64 Points	-2.00 Points
2Continental SportContact 7	64 Points	-2.00 Points
4Pirelli P Zero PZ5	62 Points	-4.00 Points
5Yokohama Advan Sport V107	59 Points	-7.00 Points
5Maxxis Victra Sport 6	59 Points	-7.00 Points
7Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	56 Points	-10.00 Points
8Falken Azenis RS820	52 Points	-14.00 Points
9Kormoran Ultra High Performance	36 Points	-30.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 45.5% (30 Points).

Michelin led comfortably on road refinement and steering feel, a standout result given its mid-table performance elsewhere.

Subj. Road Score
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	22.7 Points	Best
2Bridgestone Potenza Sport	21.6 Points	-1.10 Points
3Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	21 Points	-1.70 Points
3Yokohama Advan Sport V107	21 Points	-1.70 Points
3Maxxis Victra Sport 6	21 Points	-1.70 Points
6Continental SportContact 7	20.5 Points	-2.20 Points
7Falken Azenis RS820	19.2 Points	-3.50 Points
8Pirelli P Zero PZ5	19 Points	-3.70 Points
9Kormoran Ultra High Performance	18.7 Points	-4.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 17.6% (4 Points).

Wet

Bridgestone stopped shortest, reversing its last-place finish in the previous test. Kormoran required nearly 39 feet more – a 43% deficit.

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Bridgestone Potenza Sport	90 ft	Best	0 mph
2Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	91 ft	+1 ft	7 mph
3Yokohama Advan Sport V107	94 ft	+4 ft	15 mph
4Continental SportContact 7	95 ft	+5 ft	18 mph
5Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	96 ft	+6 ft	19 mph
6Pirelli P Zero PZ5	97 ft	+7 ft	21 mph
7Maxxis Victra Sport 6	100 ft	+10 ft	25 mph
8Falken Azenis RS820	110 ft	+20 ft	34 mph
9Kormoran Ultra High Performance	129 ft	+39 ft	44 mph

The difference between best and worst was 43.1% (39 ft ≈ 2.6 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Kormoran Ultra High Performance would still be travelling at 44 mph when the Bridgestone Potenza Sport had stopped.

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

Bridgestone continued its wet dominance with the fastest lap, followed closely by Goodyear. Kormoran was over 8 seconds off the pace.

Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Bridgestone Potenza Sport	77.39 s	Best
2Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	77.73 s	+0.34 s
3Pirelli P Zero PZ5	77.88 s	+0.49 s
4Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	78.03 s	+0.64 s
5Continental SportContact 7	78.67 s	+1.28 s
6Yokohama Advan Sport V107	78.95 s	+1.56 s
7Maxxis Victra Sport 6	79.45 s	+2.06 s
8Falken Azenis RS820	81.73 s	+4.34 s
9Kormoran Ultra High Performance	85.53 s	+8.14 s

The difference between best and worst was 10.5% (8.14 s).

Consistent with the objective times, Bridgestone led subjectively with Continental and Goodyear close behind.

Subj. Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Bridgestone Potenza Sport	63 Points	Best
2Continental SportContact 7	61 Points	-2.00 Points
3Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	60 Points	-3.00 Points
4Yokohama Advan Sport V107	58 Points	-5.00 Points
4Pirelli P Zero PZ5	58 Points	-5.00 Points
6Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	56 Points	-7.00 Points
7Falken Azenis RS820	54 Points	-9.00 Points
7Maxxis Victra Sport 6	54 Points	-9.00 Points
9Kormoran Ultra High Performance	32 Points	-31.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 49.2% (31 Points).

Goodyear led with Michelin close behind. Pirelli finished last among the premium tires, one of its weaker results.

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	47.0 mph	Best
2Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	46.7 mph	-0.3 mph
3Bridgestone Potenza Sport	46.6 mph	-0.4 mph
4Falken Azenis RS820	46.5 mph	-0.5 mph
5Continental SportContact 7	46.4 mph	-0.6 mph
6Yokohama Advan Sport V107	46.0 mph	-1.0 mph
7Kormoran Ultra High Performance	45.1 mph	-1.9 mph
8Pirelli P Zero PZ5	44.4 mph	-2.6 mph
9Maxxis Victra Sport 6	44.4 mph	-2.6 mph

The difference between best and worst was 5.6% (2.6 mph).

Bridgestone won again, adding to its wet-weather dominance. Maxxis and Continental were weakest here despite solid performances elsewhere.

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Bridgestone Potenza Sport	55.3 ft/s²	Best
2Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	54.5 ft/s²	-0.8 ft/s²
3Yokohama Advan Sport V107	52.6 ft/s²	-2.7 ft/s²
4Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	51.7 ft/s²	-3.6 ft/s²
5Falken Azenis RS820	50.2 ft/s²	-5.1 ft/s²
6Pirelli P Zero PZ5	50.1 ft/s²	-5.2 ft/s²
7Continental SportContact 7	48.2 ft/s²	-7.1 ft/s²
8Kormoran Ultra High Performance	47.3 ft/s²	-8.0 ft/s²
9Maxxis Victra Sport 6	43.5 ft/s²	-11.8 ft/s²

The difference between best and worst was 21.4% (11.8 ft/s²).

Value

Kormoran's only category win. The top performers Bridgestone and Goodyear placed near the bottom – the trade-off for their grip advantage.

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Kormoran Ultra High Performance	7.9 kg/t	Best	$0
2Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	8.3 kg/t	+0.40 kg/t	$15
2Maxxis Victra Sport 6	8.3 kg/t	+0.40 kg/t	$15
4Continental SportContact 7	8.6 kg/t	+0.70 kg/t	$26
5Pirelli P Zero PZ5	9.1 kg/t	+1.20 kg/t	$45
6Falken Azenis RS820	9.4 kg/t	+1.50 kg/t	$56
7Bridgestone Potenza Sport	9.5 kg/t	+1.60 kg/t	$60
8Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	9.7 kg/t	+1.80 kg/t	$67
9Yokohama Advan Sport V107	9.8 kg/t	+1.90 kg/t	$71

The difference between best and worst was 24.1% (1.9 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Yokohama Advan Sport V107 uses about 20 gal ($71) more fuel than the Kormoran Ultra High Performance.

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 Bridgestone Potenza Sport delivered an emphatic victory in this year's test, with six table-topping performances. Within the first couple of hundred meters on the wet handling circuit, the grip was immediately apparent, encouraging early commitment and early throttle in corners. The BMW exited turns with the perfect attitude, just a hint of oversteer, following the ideal line precisely. The way it pivoted into the best balance quickly for each turn without overshooting gave the sensation of gaining lap time, and it remained very stable despite carrying more speed than most others. In the dry, it felt fast, confident and precise – a reassuringly capable and rewarding tire with excellent steering feel. It also proved pretty refined on the road. This represents a major turnaround since the last test of this size, which saw the Bridgestone finish last in wet braking.

Dry98.4%

Wet99.9%

Rolling Resistance83.2%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (10)

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 / 9	106 ft	+3 ft
Dry HandlingLower is better	1^st / 9	66.85 s	Best in this discipline
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	2^nd / 9	64 Points	-2.00 Points
Subj. Road ScoreHigher is better	2^nd / 9	21.6 Points	-1.10 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	1^st / 9	90 ft	Best in this discipline
Wet HandlingLower is better	1^st / 9	77.39 s	Best in this discipline
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 9	63 Points	Best in this discipline
Straight AquaHigher is better	3^rd / 9	46.6 mph	-0.4 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	1^st / 9	55.3 ft/s²	Best in this discipline
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	7^th / 9	9.5 kg/t	+1.60 kg/t

EU Label: D/A/72
Weight: 9.92 kgs
Price: 130.00

The Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport earned a strong second place through superb performances across both objective and subjective tests. On the wet handling circuit it was deeply impressive, turning keenly into tighter turns to allow really early throttle application, sitting the BMW into corners and firing it out with all the torque in harness. It demonstrated a lovely dynamic balance, delivering precise amounts of lift-off oversteer on demand to arrive at the exact clipping point. It felt like the Goodyear was getting the very best out of the M135i. In the dry, it carried speed everywhere, homing in on late clipping points with unerring precision to deliver an inspiring performance. The steering felt connected, linear and reasonably tactile, while road noise over coarse surfaces was low. Perhaps its only weakness was rolling resistance, but this fails to take the shine off an accomplished tire that's wonderful to drive.

Dry97.7%

Wet99%

Rolling Resistance81.4%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (10)

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 / 9	108 ft	+5 ft
Dry HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 9	66.88 s	+0.03 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 9	66 Points	Best in this discipline
Subj. Road ScoreHigher is better	3^rd / 9	21 Points	-1.70 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 9	91 ft	+1 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 9	77.73 s	+0.34 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 9	60 Points	-3.00 Points
Straight AquaHigher is better	1^st / 9	47.0 mph	Best in this discipline
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	2^nd / 9	54.5 ft/s²	-0.8 ft/s²
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	8^th / 9	9.7 kg/t	+1.80 kg/t

EU Label: D/A/72
Weight: 9.96 kgs
Price: 147.00

The Continental SportContact 7, a previous champion in this size, again delivered a strong performance to claim a solid podium place. It ranked second subjectively on both the wet and dry handling circuits. A strong front end got it into tight turns quickly and provided some useful, exploitable lift-off rotation, particularly into the tight right-hander. It felt great on the brakes and remained pinned and poised through the sweeps – the only surprise was that the lap time wasn't even better. On the hot, dry asphalt it felt superb: positive and abundantly grippy, a ruthless apex hunter that was particularly impressive in the first late-apex right. It genuinely felt like the fastest tire and very nearly was. On the road route it was good but not outstanding, being loud over coarse sections but decent over transverse challenges, while its steering delivered good feel.

Dry98.9%

Wet95.7%

Rolling Resistance91.9%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (10)

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 / 9	103 ft	Best in this discipline
Dry HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 9	66.96 s	+0.11 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	2^nd / 9	64 Points	-2.00 Points
Subj. Road ScoreHigher is better	6^th / 9	20.5 Points	-2.20 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	4^th / 9	95 ft	+5 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	5^th / 9	78.67 s	+1.28 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	2^nd / 9	61 Points	-2.00 Points
Straight AquaHigher is better	5^th / 9	46.4 mph	-0.6 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	7^th / 9	48.2 ft/s²	-7.1 ft/s²
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	4^th / 9	8.6 kg/t	+0.70 kg/t

EU Label: D/A/72
Weight: 10.12 kgs
Price: 152.00

The Yokohama Advan Sport V107 is a strong new contender that claimed numerous podium spots across the tests, proving particularly impressive in the wet. Around the wet lap it was very handy, with crisp turn-in allowing early throttle application. It showed impressive stability into sweeps and then, off the throttle for the downhill tight right, it rotated progressively and proportionately, allowing the perfect line to be found. It was great on the brakes too; all that was missing was a bit more outright grip. In the dry, the Yokohama was neat and biddable, feeling light, clean and keen, giving the BMW a nimble, precise demeanour. It just needed to be hustled a little to make the late apex of the first corner. On the road route it suppressed noise well and softened impacts with aplomb, though the steering was a little sticky around center at B-road speeds.

Dry97.8%

Wet96.6%

Rolling Resistance80.6%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (10)

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 / 9	105 ft	+2 ft
Dry HandlingLower is better	5^th / 9	66.99 s	+0.14 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	5^th / 9	59 Points	-7.00 Points
Subj. Road ScoreHigher is better	3^rd / 9	21 Points	-1.70 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 9	94 ft	+4 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	6^th / 9	78.95 s	+1.56 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	4^th / 9	58 Points	-5.00 Points
Straight AquaHigher is better	6^th / 9	46.0 mph	-1.0 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	3^rd / 9	52.6 ft/s²	-2.7 ft/s²
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	9^th / 9	9.8 kg/t	+1.90 kg/t

EU Label: D/A/71
Weight: 10.18 kgs
Price: 159.00

The Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S dropped from second in the previous test of this size to fifth here, though it finished just a fraction off fourth place. Around the wet lap it was well balanced with useful, exploitable rotation, and felt strong on the brakes. However, on turn-in it needed a moment to key into the surface before you could pour on the power and settle the car onto its rear for the exit. In the dry it was a similar story – a bit noisy, droning under load, but capable with good feel and decent precision. It didn't put a wheel wrong; it just lacked the brightness and sharp focus of the very best. Where the Michelin truly excelled was on the road route, where superb steering connection, feel and linearity helped it achieve the top ranking, along with low road noise and good rolling comfort. An accomplished all-rounder.

Dry97%

Wet96%

Rolling Resistance95.2%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (10)

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 / 9	106 ft	+3 ft
Dry HandlingLower is better	8^th / 9	67.96 s	+1.11 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 9	56 Points	-10.00 Points
Subj. Road ScoreHigher is better	1^st / 9	22.7 Points	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	5^th / 9	96 ft	+6 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	4^th / 9	78.03 s	+0.64 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	6^th / 9	56 Points	-7.00 Points
Straight AquaHigher is better	2^nd / 9	46.7 mph	-0.3 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	4^th / 9	51.7 ft/s²	-3.6 ft/s²
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	2^nd / 9	8.3 kg/t	+0.40 kg/t

EU Label: C/A/71
Weight: 10.98 kgs
Price: 199.00

The Pirelli P Zero PZ5 finished sixth but was so close to the mid-field pack that it could easily have been fourth. It didn't top any individual test but scored well pretty much across the board. On the wet handling circuit it was excellent, with positive turn-in and terrific traction allowing throttle early in turns. It was solidly composed in the sweeps, very stable braking slightly downhill for the tight right, and proved agile, able and very reassuring overall. In the dry it felt willing and capable, with strong grip, easy precision and confident agility in direction changes. It was also much quieter than many others while delivering its strong, rewarding performance. Where it unravels slightly is in refinement – on the road route its steering feel was only acceptable, and it proved quite boomy and tactile, with troughs and ridges feeling abrupt. Overall though, a great driver's tire.

Dry97.1%

Wet94.8%

Rolling Resistance86.8%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (10)

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 / 9	106 ft	+3 ft
Dry HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 9	66.96 s	+0.11 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	4^th / 9	62 Points	-4.00 Points
Subj. Road ScoreHigher is better	8^th / 9	19 Points	-3.70 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	6^th / 9	97 ft	+7 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 9	77.88 s	+0.49 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	4^th / 9	58 Points	-5.00 Points
Straight AquaHigher is better	8^th / 9	44.4 mph	-2.6 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	6^th / 9	50.1 ft/s²	-5.2 ft/s²
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	5^th / 9	9.1 kg/t	+1.20 kg/t

EU Label: D/A/70
Weight: 9.84 kgs
Price: 172.00

The Maxxis Victra Sport 6 picks up where its predecessor left off, with mostly decent performances across the board, but fails to break into the top half against such a quality field. Its star performances were in rolling resistance and the road route, where its refinement earned joint third place. On the wet handling circuit, while it lacked the outright grip of the best, it did everything right with superb traction and a useful dynamic balance. It found a settled poise to tackle tricky infield sweeps confidently and offered useful fine adjustment via the throttle to tailor lines precisely elsewhere – it just lacked the bite to climb higher. In the dry it was arguably more impressive, feeling really confident: poised, grippy and accurate, locking onto late clipping points from a long way out, accepting the hustle and providing useful adjustability. It rolled quietly over rough surfaces and took the sting out of ridges. A good tire that found itself up against a whole heap of excellent tires.

Dry96.1%

Wet91.1%

Rolling Resistance95.2%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (10)

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 / 9	109 ft	+6 ft
Dry HandlingLower is better	7^th / 9	67.48 s	+0.63 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	5^th / 9	59 Points	-7.00 Points
Subj. Road ScoreHigher is better	3^rd / 9	21 Points	-1.70 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	7^th / 9	100 ft	+10 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	7^th / 9	79.45 s	+2.06 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 9	54 Points	-9.00 Points
Straight AquaHigher is better	9^th / 9	44.4 mph	-2.6 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	9^th / 9	43.5 ft/s²	-11.8 ft/s²
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	2^nd / 9	8.3 kg/t	+0.40 kg/t

EU Label: D/A/72
Weight: 10.78 kgs
Price: 132.00

The Falken Azenis RS820 is Falken's new contender that feels good but whose performance remains a little way behind the bigger brands. On the wet handling circuit it wasn't far off the pace and felt genuinely good. Positive, clean turn-in allowed early throttle to load the rear and punch onto straights with full traction, and it was easy to find and tread the limit in the quick inner sweeps. Generally there was good composure and adjustability, making it biddable and fun. In the dry its steering was encouraging, with a keen, connected feel. Around the handling circuit it was smooth and quiet but struggled to make late clipping points convincingly. There was some heaviness and delay through transitions, though it delivered solid traction out of hairpins and felt strong on the brakes. It wasn't the most refined on the road, with a bassy rumble over coarse surfaces and a sharp response to ridges. While it lacked the sharpness and bite of the best in the dry, it had keen steering feel and was good to drive, especially in the wet.

Dry94.8%

Wet89.9%

Rolling Resistance84%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (10)

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 / 9	108 ft	+5 ft
Dry HandlingLower is better	6^th / 9	67.47 s	+0.62 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	8^th / 9	52 Points	-14.00 Points
Subj. Road ScoreHigher is better	7^th / 9	19.2 Points	-3.50 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	8^th / 9	110 ft	+20 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	8^th / 9	81.73 s	+4.34 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 9	54 Points	-9.00 Points
Straight AquaHigher is better	4^th / 9	46.5 mph	-0.5 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	5^th / 9	50.2 ft/s²	-5.1 ft/s²
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	6^th / 9	9.4 kg/t	+1.50 kg/t

EU Label: D/A/70
Weight: 10.96 kgs
Price: 163.00

The Kormoran Ultra High Performance may say "Ultra High Performance" on the sidewall, but that is not what it delivers. While it offers the lowest price and the lowest rolling resistance, fitting a set of these will ruin the handling of any car. Around the wet handling circuit it was more than eight seconds off the pace, which was no surprise given that, compared to the others, it felt like driving on ice. The BMW's limited-slip differential was quickly overwhelmed at the rear, resulting in four-wheel drifts out of most corners where other tires showed only a hint of oversteer. In the dry it was equally poor – it simply did not grip as hard as other tires, felt less precise and squealed under load. Less confident and less enjoyable in the dry than all rivals, and treacherous in the wet, this is a tire with few redeeming features. At only £30 per tire less than the test winner, false economy has never been so clear. Definitely not recommended.

Dry89%

Wet80.4%

Rolling Resistance100%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (10)

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 / 9	115 ft	+12 ft
Dry HandlingLower is better	9^th / 9	69.47 s	+2.62 s
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	9^th / 9	36 Points	-30.00 Points
Subj. Road ScoreHigher is better	9^th / 9	18.7 Points	-4.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	9^th / 9	129 ft	+39 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	9^th / 9	85.53 s	+8.14 s
Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better	9^th / 9	32 Points	-31.00 Points
Straight AquaHigher is better	7^th / 9	45.1 mph	-1.9 mph
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	8^th / 9	47.3 ft/s²	-8.0 ft/s²
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	1^st / 9	7.9 kg/t	Best in this discipline

EU Label: C/C/72
Weight: 9.96 kgs
Price: 100.00

Discussion

7 comments

max Apr 14, 2026 archived

Hey, I’m driving a 2021 M235i xDrive (F44), basically the same platform as the M135i in this test. These cars tend to understeer quite a bit due to the heavy front. I’m running 225/40 R18 all around without adaptive dampers. It’s mostly a daily here in Germany, but I also do quite a bit of high-speed Autobahn driving and some spirited runs on country roads.
Currently I’m still on the OEM Goodyear F1 Asymmetric 3 (*), but I’m planning to upgrade this month. After last years “Best Performance Tires” test I was pretty set on the Pirelli PZ5, but with these results I’m not so sure anymore.
What would you go for in my case? Appreciate any input!

#10604
JM Jan 27, 2026 archived

Did the Bridgestone get an update? Pirelli is a little bit disappointing, Michelin shows its age and Goodyear is a surprise.

#10492
1. TireReviews JM Jan 27, 2026 archived
  
  Yes, interesting test all round. The Bridgestone proving ground where these were tested often mixes up the results, I think they have quite a high grip wet circuit.
  There is a Potenza Sport EVO now available but that's just a wear and RR update. I'm not sure which they tested but it seems like the regular version.
  
  #10493
  1. JM TireReviews Jan 28, 2026 archived
    
    I think you're right, the weight of the Bridgestone is equal to its measured value in '2023 AZ UHP Summer Tire Test'. The new EVO version should be lighter.
    According to the press release https://press.bridgestone-emea.com/en/bridgestone-unveils-potenza-sport-evo-with-enliten-technology/ it's a big update, not just RR.
    
    #10495
    1. TireReviews JM Jan 28, 2026 archived
      
      Obviously a tire manufacturer will hype up their new product in press releases. I've already tested the EVO version, and it doesn't seem to be quite as spectacular as the press department will suggest, but it's still a very good tire. If it does have vastly improved wear, that would be a big win.
      
      #10497
      1. Matej TireReviews Feb 27, 2026 archived
        
        I'm going to buy new tires next week in 19inch size, and thinking between Sportcontact 7 and new Potenza Sport Evo.
        Is Evo as good at handling and wet as previous model?
        
        #10540
        
        TireReviews Matej Feb 27, 2026 archived
        
        Yes. I have a test out with them in a few weeks. If you are an enthusiast driver, the Potenza Sport Evo is compelling although I want to see more data as to whether they've actually fixed the wear issue on track.
        
        #10541

Menu

Tire shortlist

The evidence behind the verdict

Test setup & methodology

Recorded test conditions

Dry

Wet

Value

Results

Cross-check this test