Test Charts / Tire Reviews

The BEST Winter Tires for 2026/27

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

Tested size: 205/55 R17
Tires tested: 9
Disciplines: 13

Dry

Dry Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Nokian Snowproof 3P	130 ft	Best	0 mph
2Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3	131 ft	+1 ft	5 mph
3Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	132 ft	+2 ft	10 mph
4Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	133 ft	+3 ft	11 mph
5Michelin Alpin 7	134 ft	+4 ft	14 mph
6Hankook Winter I cept RS3	136 ft	+6 ft	17 mph
7Bridgestone Blizzak 6	137 ft	+7 ft	18 mph
8Triangle WinterX TW401	138 ft	+8 ft	19 mph
9Vredestein Wintrac Pro+	138 ft	+8 ft	19 mph

The difference between best and worst was 6.3% (8 ft ≈ 0.6 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Vredestein Wintrac Pro+ would still be travelling at 19 mph when the Nokian Snowproof 3P had stopped.

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

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Alpin 7	9.2 Points	Best
2Bridgestone Blizzak 6	9 Points	-0.20 Points
3Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3	8.8 Points	-0.40 Points
4Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	8.5 Points	-0.70 Points
5Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	8.2 Points	-1.00 Points
5Vredestein Wintrac Pro+	8.2 Points	-1.00 Points
7Hankook Winter I cept RS3	8.1 Points	-1.10 Points
8Nokian Snowproof 3P	7.8 Points	-1.40 Points
9Triangle WinterX TW401	7.3 Points	-1.90 Points

The difference between best and worst was 20.7% (1.9 Points).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	95 ft	Best	0 mph
2Nokian Snowproof 3P	95 ft	0 ft	4 mph
3Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3	96 ft	+1 ft	6 mph
4Michelin Alpin 7	96 ft	+1 ft	9 mph
5Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	97 ft	+2 ft	11 mph
6Bridgestone Blizzak 6	97 ft	+2 ft	12 mph
7Hankook Winter I cept RS3	98 ft	+3 ft	13 mph
8Vredestein Wintrac Pro+	99 ft	+4 ft	15 mph
9Triangle WinterX TW401	110 ft	+15 ft	29 mph

The difference between best and worst was 15.7% (15 ft ≈ 1 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Triangle WinterX TW401 would still be travelling at 29 mph when the Continental WinterContact TS 870 P had stopped.

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

Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	107.44 s	Best
2Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3	107.75 s	+0.31 s
3Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	108.38 s	+0.94 s
4Bridgestone Blizzak 6	108.73 s	+1.29 s
5Nokian Snowproof 3P	109.02 s	+1.58 s
6Vredestein Wintrac Pro+	109.15 s	+1.71 s
7Michelin Alpin 7	109.58 s	+2.14 s
8Hankook Winter I cept RS3	110.03 s	+2.59 s
9Triangle WinterX TW401	116.78 s	+9.34 s

The difference between best and worst was 8.7% (9.34 s).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Hankook Winter I cept RS3	56.4 mph	Best
2Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3	54.6 mph	-1.8 mph
3Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	53.8 mph	-2.6 mph
4Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	53.3 mph	-3.1 mph
5Bridgestone Blizzak 6	52.6 mph	-3.8 mph
6Nokian Snowproof 3P	52.4 mph	-4.0 mph
7Michelin Alpin 7	51.6 mph	-4.8 mph
8Vredestein Wintrac Pro+	50.1 mph	-6.3 mph
9Triangle WinterX TW401	47.1 mph	-9.3 mph

The difference between best and worst was 16.5% (9.3 mph).

Snow

Snow Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	45 ft	Best	0 mph
2Michelin Alpin 7	45 ft	0 ft	6 mph
3Bridgestone Blizzak 6	45 ft	0 ft	6 mph
4Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3	45 ft	0 ft	7 mph
5Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	46 ft	+1 ft	9 mph
6Nokian Snowproof 3P	46 ft	+1 ft	12 mph
7Vredestein Wintrac Pro+	46 ft	+1 ft	12 mph
8Hankook Winter I cept RS3	46 ft	+1 ft	13 mph
9Triangle WinterX TW401	46 ft	+1 ft	14 mph

The difference between best and worst was 3.1% (1 ft). From 80 mph, the Triangle WinterX TW401 would still be travelling at 14 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.

Snow Traction
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	5.15 s	Best
2Michelin Alpin 7	5.17 s	+0.02 s
3Bridgestone Blizzak 6	5.19 s	+0.04 s
4Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3	5.21 s	+0.06 s
5Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	5.24 s	+0.09 s
6Hankook Winter I cept RS3	5.25 s	+0.10 s
7Nokian Snowproof 3P	5.31 s	+0.16 s
8Vredestein Wintrac Pro+	5.32 s	+0.17 s
9Triangle WinterX TW401	5.44 s	+0.29 s

The difference between best and worst was 5.6% (0.29 s).

Snow Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	76.15 s	Best
2Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	76.93 s	+0.78 s
3Nokian Snowproof 3P	77.3 s	+1.15 s
4Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3	77.79 s	+1.64 s
5Vredestein Wintrac Pro+	77.99 s	+1.84 s
6Hankook Winter I cept RS3	78.1 s	+1.95 s
7Bridgestone Blizzak 6	78.17 s	+2.02 s
8Michelin Alpin 7	78.2 s	+2.05 s
9Triangle WinterX TW401	78.69 s	+2.54 s

The difference between best and worst was 3.3% (2.54 s).

Subj. Snow Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	8.6 Points	Best
2Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	8.5 Points	-0.10 Points
3Hankook Winter I cept RS3	8.4 Points	-0.20 Points
4Bridgestone Blizzak 6	8.3 Points	-0.30 Points
4Michelin Alpin 7	8.3 Points	-0.30 Points
4Nokian Snowproof 3P	8.3 Points	-0.30 Points
7Vredestein Wintrac Pro+	8.2 Points	-0.40 Points
7Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3	8.2 Points	-0.40 Points
9Triangle WinterX TW401	7.9 Points	-0.70 Points

The difference between best and worst was 8.1% (0.7 Points).

Comfort

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Vredestein Wintrac Pro+	8.6 Points	Best
2Triangle WinterX TW401	8.3 Points	-0.30 Points
3Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	8.1 Points	-0.50 Points
3Hankook Winter I cept RS3	8.1 Points	-0.50 Points
3Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	8.1 Points	-0.50 Points
3Bridgestone Blizzak 6	8.1 Points	-0.50 Points
3Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3	8.1 Points	-0.50 Points
3Nokian Snowproof 3P	8.1 Points	-0.50 Points
9Michelin Alpin 7	7.9 Points	-0.70 Points

The difference between best and worst was 8.1% (0.7 Points).

Subj. Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Triangle WinterX TW401	8.5 Points	Best
1Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	8.5 Points	Best
1Hankook Winter I cept RS3	8.5 Points	Best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	8.5 Points	Best
1Bridgestone Blizzak 6	8.5 Points	Best
1Michelin Alpin 7	8.5 Points	Best
1Vredestein Wintrac Pro+	8.5 Points	Best
1Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3	8.5 Points	Best
1Nokian Snowproof 3P	8.5 Points	Best

All the tires in the Subj. Noise test finished less than 3% apart.

Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	54.21 dB	Best
2Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	54.3 dB	+0.09 dB
3Bridgestone Blizzak 6	55.39 dB	+1.18 dB
4Michelin Alpin 7	55.6 dB	+1.39 dB
5Nokian Snowproof 3P	55.78 dB	+1.57 dB
6Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3	56.35 dB	+2.14 dB
7Triangle WinterX TW401	56.84 dB	+2.63 dB
8Vredestein Wintrac Pro+	57.7 dB	+3.49 dB
9Hankook Winter I cept RS3	58.48 dB	+4.27 dB

The difference between best and worst was 7.9% (4.27 dB).

Value

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Bridgestone Blizzak 6	7.4 kg/t	Best	$0
2Michelin Alpin 7	7.6 kg/t	+0.20 kg/t	$8
3Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	7.7 kg/t	+0.30 kg/t	$12
4Nokian Snowproof 3P	7.8 kg/t	+0.40 kg/t	$16
5Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	7.9 kg/t	+0.50 kg/t	$20
6Hankook Winter I cept RS3	8 kg/t	+0.60 kg/t	$24
7Vredestein Wintrac Pro+	8.1 kg/t	+0.70 kg/t	$28
8Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3	8.3 kg/t	+0.90 kg/t	$36
9Triangle WinterX TW401	9 kg/t	+1.60 kg/t	$64

The difference between best and worst was 21.6% (1.6 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Triangle WinterX TW401 uses about 18 gal ($64) more fuel than the Bridgestone Blizzak 6.

Adjust the assumptions

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

Gas/Diesel Electric

Annual Mileage

12,000 mi

km (L)

miles (US gal)

Fuel Price

$3.60/gal

GBP (£)

EUR (€)

USD ($)

Set my vehicle consumption

Estimates based on typical driving conditions. Rolling resistance accounts for approximately 20% of IC vehicle fuel consumption and 25% of EV energy consumption. Actual savings vary based on driving style, vehicle weight, road conditions, and tire age. For comparative purposes only. Lifetime savings based on a 40,000km / 25,000 mile tread life.

Test setup & methodology

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

Show full testing methodology

Recorded test conditions

Dry Braking: 62.1 → 6.2 mph
Wet Braking: 49.7 → 6.2 mph
Wet Handling: 50–55 °F
Snow Braking: 21.7 → 6.2 mph
Snow Traction: 6.2 → 18.6 mph
Snow Handling: 25–27 °F

Score Weighting

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

Test	Within category	Share of overall score
Dry · 10%
Dry Braking	80%	8%
Subj. Dry Handling	20%	2%
Wet · 40%
Wet Braking	50%	20%
Wet Handling	40%	16%
Straight Aqua	10%	4%
Snow · 37.5%
Snow Braking	40%	15%
Snow Traction	30%	11.25%
Snow Handling	20%	7.5%
Subj. Snow Handling	10%	3.75%
Comfort · 10%
Subj. Comfort	40%	4%
Subj. Noise	20%	2%
Noise	40%	4%
Value · 2.5%
Rolling Resistance	100%	2.5%

Our standard methods

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

Dry Braking

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

Subj. Dry Handling

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

Wet Braking

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

Wet Handling

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

Straight Aqua

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

Snow Braking

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

Snow Traction

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

Snow Handling

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

Subj. Snow Handling

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

Subj. Comfort

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

Subj. Noise

For subjective noise assessment, I drive at constant speeds across multiple surface types with the windows closed, ventilation off, and audio system off. I assess overall noise level, tonal quality, cavity boom, pattern noise, broadband roar, and sensitivity to both speed and road texture. Each tire is rated on a 1–10 scale and supported by written observations on noise character and annoyance.

Noise

For cabin noise assessment, I drive at controlled speeds, typically 50, 80, 100, and 120 km/h, on NVH test surfaces with defined texture characteristics. Calibrated microphones are positioned at ear height within the cabin. Measurements are taken using A-weighting, with one-third octave analysis where required to identify tonal features such as cavity resonance. Windows remain closed, ventilation is off, and ambient conditions are controlled so the data reflects the tire rather than external interference.

Rolling Resistance

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

Read our complete testing methodology →

Tire shortlist →Read the test →

More tire tests