For the longest time the Michelin CrossClimate 2 has been the best all season / all weather tire on the market, winning more tests than any other tires in its category, including my tests for the last 3 years!
However, since last year's test there have been not one, not two, but three new premium all season tires launched, all looking to dethrone the CrossClimate 2 from its category top spot.
Naturally I had to find out whether any of these new tires from Bridgestone, Continental and Pirelli can match the Michelin, so as usual I'll be testing everything, including wear, to see which is best! And I've also thrown in a couple of tires Dunlop and Yokohama, because why not.
Can any of these new tires really challenge the CrossClimate 2, or are they all going to be left wanting for more? Read on to find out!
Testing Methodology
Test Driver
Jonathan Benson
Tire Size
205/55 R16
Test Location
Professional Proving Ground
Test Year
2024
Tires Tested
7
Show full testing methodologyHide methodology
Every tire is tested using calibrated instrumented measurement and structured subjective assessment. Reference tires are retested throughout each session to correct for changing conditions, ensuring fair, repeatable comparisons. Multiple reference sets are used where needed so that control tire wear does not affect accuracy.
We use professional-grade testing equipment including GPS data loggers, accelerometers, and calibrated microphones. All tires are broken in and conditioned before testing begins. For full details on our equipment, preparation process, and calibration procedures, see our complete testing methodology.
Categories Tested
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 analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. Reference tires are run repeatedly throughout the session to correct for changing conditions.
Dry Handling
For dry handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated handling circuit with ESC disabled where possible so I can assess the tire's natural balance, transient response, and limit behaviour 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. For more track-focused products, I also do endurance testing, which is a set number of laps at race pace to determine tire wear patterns and heat resistance over longer driving.
Subj. Dry Handling
Objective data is only part of the picture, so 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 behaviour, 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 analyse 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 behaviour 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.
Subj. Wet Handling
Objective data is only part of the picture, so I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated wet handling circuit. I score steering precision, steering response, turn-in behaviour, mid-corner balance, aquaplaning resistance, 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 Circle
For wet lateral grip testing, I use a circular track of fixed radius, typically between 30 and 50 metres, broadly aligned with ISO 4138 principles. The surface is wetted in a controlled and repeatable manner. I progressively increase speed until the maximum sustainable cornering speed is reached. I normally record multiple laps in both clockwise and counterclockwise directions to reduce the influence of camber, banking, or directional track bias. I then calculate average lateral acceleration and compare the result with the reference tire.
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.
Curved Aquaplaning
For curved aquaplaning, I use a circular track, typically around 100 metres in diameter, with a flooded arc of controlled water depth, usually about 7 mm. The vehicle is instrumented with GPS telemetry and a tri-axial accelerometer. I drive through the flooded section at progressively increasing speed, typically in 5 km/h increments, and record the minimum sustained lateral acceleration at each step. The test continues until lateral acceleration collapses, indicating complete aquaplaning. The result is expressed as remaining lateral acceleration in m/s² as speed rises.
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 analyse 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
Objective data is only part of the picture, so 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 behaviour, 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.
Snow Circle
For snow lateral grip testing, I use a circular snow track of fixed radius, broadly aligned with ISO 4138 principles. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. I progressively increase speed until the maximum sustainable cornering speed is reached. I normally record multiple laps in both clockwise and counterclockwise directions to reduce the influence of surface bias. Because snow surfaces degrade more rapidly, the control tire is retested at regular intervals and I often use multiple sets of control tires.
Ice Braking
For ice braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 35 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on a prepared ice surface. Surface temperature is continuously monitored as ice friction properties vary substantially with temperature. My standard programme is twelve runs per tire set but with ice testing, you often do many more. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. Reference tires are run typically every two candidate test sets to correct for changing surface conditions.
Ice Traction
For ice traction, I accelerate the vehicle from rest on a prepared ice 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. 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 ice twice. Surface temperature is continuously monitored. I complete multiple runs per tire set and average the valid results, with reference tires run typically every two candidate test sets.
Noise
I measure external pass-by noise in accordance with UNECE Regulation 117 and ISO 13325 using the coast-by method on a compliant test surface. Calibrated microphones are positioned beside the test lane, and the vehicle coasts through the measurement zone under controlled conditions. I record the maximum A-weighted sound pressure level in dB(A), complete multiple runs over the relevant speed range, and normalise the result to the reference speed required by the procedure.
Wear
I do not conduct tread wear testing myself; where wear is included in a programme, it is carried out by a contracted specialist test provider using either an on-road convoy method or an accelerated machine-based method. In convoy wear testing, multiple vehicles run a defined public-road route over an extended distance, with tread depth measured at intervals and tires rotated methodically to reduce positional and vehicle-specific effects. In accelerated machine wear testing, the tire is run on a specialised roadwheel or rough-surfaced drum system designed to simulate real-world wear under controlled load, speed, alignment, and force inputs. I then use the contracted provider's measured wear rate relative to the reference tire to estimate projected tread life.
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.
I say it every year, but the wet performance of an all season tire is the most important performance.
As always I've thrown in a budget tire , and this time it's exceptionally bad. I don't recall ever having to concentrate so hard to stay on the track, and this is on a 1.4 golf. On a RWD vehicle this would be fully impossible.
As for the rest, they were all pretty good in wet handling. Yokohama and Michelin were the slowest of the bunch, both exhibiting quite a lot of understeer and the yokohama having a particularly soft steering feel, but they were fine.
A small amount ahead was the Bridgestone and dunlop, and it turns out not only does the Bridgestone look like the Michelin, but at least in wet handling it behaves like the Michelin too as it had more understeer than the tires ahead. Great levels of grip, but just not the best balance for track, but nice and safe for the road.
The Dunlop is the only asymmetric tire of the group, and it has the word sport in its name so it's is noticeable different to the rest? Well, not really. It was lovely to drive, and predictable, but didn't feel like the sports tire of the group.
The final two essentially tied for the win, which was the new Pirelli and Continental. The Pirelli did feel like the sports tire of hte group, but by tiny margins. It was a great steering tire with a nice neutral balance, the negative compare to the Conti was it just didn't have quite the detail at the very limit.
The Conti was excellent, a really well rounded tire around the lap, and while it wasn't as quick to steer as the pirelli it did give you a little more notice of where things were.
Wet Handling
Spread: 13.60 s (15.8%)|Avg: 88.97 s
Wet handling time in seconds [Average Temperature 21c] (Lower is better)
Continental AllSeasonContact 2
86.10 s
Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF3
86.20 s
Dunlop Sport All Season
87.00 s
Bridgestone Turanza All Season 6
87.20 s
Michelin CrossClimate 2
87.90 s
Yokohama BluEarth 4S AW21
88.70 s
Fronway Fronwing AS
99.70 s
What about the all important braking? Bridgestone performed extremely well, with nearly a meter to second place, which was the new Continental, which was over a meter to third placed Pirelli. Very impressive from Bridgestone.
The budget was again terrifyingly bad, and where the Bridgestone had you stopped, you were still doing 45.1 km/h, that's braking from JUST 80 km/h. Over half the speed.
Wet Braking
Spread: 15.50 M (46.7%)|Avg: 37.66 M
Wet braking in meters (80 - 5 km/h) [Average Temperature 17.5c] (Lower is better)
Bridgestone Turanza All Season 6
33.20 M
Continental AllSeasonContact 2
34.10 M
Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF3
35.50 M
Dunlop Sport All Season
36.80 M
Michelin CrossClimate 2
37.30 M
Yokohama BluEarth 4S AW21
38.00 M
Fronway Fronwing AS
48.70 M
None of the tires really had any aquaplaning issues during wet handling, but once again Pirelli was at the front in the aquaplaning test with a clear margin, followed by Bridgestone and Michelin.
Straight Aqua
Spread: 14.00 Km/H (16.6%)|Avg: 78.03 Km/H
Float Speed in Km/H (Higher is better)
Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF3
84.20 Km/H
Bridgestone Turanza All Season 6
81.30 Km/H
Michelin CrossClimate 2
80.10 Km/H
Continental AllSeasonContact 2
78.50 Km/H
Dunlop Sport All Season
76.40 Km/H
Yokohama BluEarth 4S AW21
75.50 Km/H
Fronway Fronwing AS
70.20 Km/H
Dry
As these are 16" all season tires, out and out laptime isn't the most important factory for them in the dry, braking is way more important, but I have spent a lot of time doing steering response testing and aggressive lane changes to see how they handle in more normal use. Plus of course the dry handling lap as it's fun.
The slowest on the lap was the fronway. During the lane changes it actually felt pretty good, feeling more direct than the others but once you got it on track it had some wonderfully comical noisy understeer.
The rest of the tires were pretty close in handling and lane changes. Yokohama and Michelin were a little more understeer bias around the lap, but the michelin did have some of the best sub limit steering.
The Bridgestone was a little vague around centre which I didn't like, but once you were turning it felt reactive and sporty, which I liked. I'm not sure if overall it was my favourite but a very good tire, and fast around the lap with good brakes.
The Continental and Dunlop matched overall on laptime. The Asymmetric pattern of the Dunlop reacted quickly which was lovely, but the tire seemed to take a second to settle on the sidewall. The Continental was a joy to drive, one of only two tires you felt like you were really in control on the handling lap as the car reacted well to steering and throttle inputs well, really impressive lap and good during sublimit too.
But the quickest, and my favorite around sublimit was the Pirelli. Not only was this the most stable during the lane change and has some of the nicest steering, it also felt the most summer like during the lap, which is what I really want from an all season tire. Great job Pirelli, this new SF3 is shaping up really nicely, but also great job to Conti, Dunlop and Bridgestone.
Dry Handling
Spread: 2.70 s (4.9%)|Avg: 56.30 s
Dry handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF3
55.40 s
Dunlop Sport All Season
55.80 s
Continental AllSeasonContact 2
55.80 s
Bridgestone Turanza All Season 6
56.00 s
Michelin CrossClimate 2
56.40 s
Yokohama BluEarth 4S AW21
56.60 s
Fronway Fronwing AS
58.10 s
Dry braking reconfirmed the Pirelli was the best in the dry as it had over a meter lead to the next best, which was the Bridgestone. This meant the usual dry braking master, the Michelin could only place third, with a bit of a gap to the last four tires. Like in the wet, the residual speed calculation told a stark story, with the worst tire of the group still going nearly 40 km/h when the best had stopped.
Dry Braking
Spread: 6.60 M (17.5%)|Avg: 41.16 M
Dry braking in meters (100 - 5 km/h) [Average Temperature 17.5c] (Lower is better)
Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF3
37.70 M
Bridgestone Turanza All Season 6
38.90 M
Michelin CrossClimate 2
39.20 M
Continental AllSeasonContact 2
41.40 M
Dunlop Sport All Season
43.00 M
Fronway Fronwing AS
43.60 M
Yokohama BluEarth 4S AW21
44.30 M
Snow
The good news is that once again all the all season tires performed well in the snow, apart from maybe the Dunlop. It wasn't terrible, but as I've already mentioned it's the only non-directional tire of the group you can really see why all these tires are going directional now - asymmetric tires struggle in the snow. It was the slowest around the lap and gave the usually very stable golf a quite wandery rear end. It was the most fun if you want a challenge but not the best balance for the road.
Next up was the Bridgestone. This felt very comfortable over the snow which is weird, and once again the steering was very light. The balance was very good, the rear was planted, but it just didn't quite have the grip of the best. Snow and wet are VERY hard to do well in a single tire, and the big advantage it has in wet braking seems to have cost it some snow performance.
The Yokohama was another step up in grip. You never really felt like you were going quickly as it was all undramatic, but it felt really good during traction and braking. A good tire in the snow.
Fourth and third places were tied by the new Continental and the budget Fronway! While the times were all but identical, the Continental was the more predictable to drive and felt better out of the corners. Obviously the big difference is that the Conti worked well in the dry and wet too, whereas the fronway was simply horrible, THIS is the difference between a cheap tire that does one thing well and a premium tire that does everything well.
Second place went to the new Pirelli, and like in the dry and wet it was really fun to drive. It was the happiest when turning, but also did a really good job of traction and braking while turning. I really enjoyed this tire, it was second best in lap time and almost my favourite to drive in the snow.
However, once again the Michelin CrossClimate 2 was the best in snow handling. As always I was testing blind and about half way round lap 1 of set 4 I was wondering if it was the Michelin as it was just awesome in the snow. Strong braking, very good transient grip, safe balance, it did it all. While it might have been surpassed in the dry and the wet, it seems the Michelin is still the king of the snow.
Snow Handling
Snow Handling
Spread: 4.77 s (5.3%)|Avg: 93.00 s
Snow handling time in seconds [Average Temperature -5c] (Lower is better)
Michelin CrossClimate 2
90.68 s
Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF3
91.99 s
Fronway Fronwing AS
92.16 s
Continental AllSeasonContact 2
92.18 s
Yokohama BluEarth 4S AW21
93.51 s
Bridgestone Turanza All Season 6
95.01 s
Dunlop Sport All Season
95.45 s
How does all this line up with the objective tests, traction, braking and snow circle? Pretty well. The Conti and Yoko were joint best in snow traction, the Michelin and Yoko were joint best in snow braking, and of course the Michelin was the best in snow circle.
Snow Braking
Spread: 1.20 M (6.8%)|Avg: 18.01 M
Snow braking in meters (40 - 0 km/h) [Average Temperature -1c] (Lower is better)
Yokohama BluEarth 4S AW21
17.60 M
Michelin CrossClimate 2
17.60 M
Fronway Fronwing AS
17.90 M
Dunlop Sport All Season
18.00 M
Continental AllSeasonContact 2
18.00 M
Bridgestone Turanza All Season 6
18.20 M
Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF3
18.80 M
Snow Traction
Spread: 1.07 s (13.3%)|Avg: 8.48 s
Snow acceleration time (0 - 20 km/h) (Lower is better)
Yokohama BluEarth 4S AW21
8.04 s
Continental AllSeasonContact 2
8.04 s
Dunlop Sport All Season
8.46 s
Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF3
8.46 s
Bridgestone Turanza All Season 6
8.57 s
Michelin CrossClimate 2
8.69 s
Fronway Fronwing AS
9.11 s
Ice
In a rare change of pace, I actually had the time to test ice. The Pirelli was the best in ice traction with the Continental very close behind, and the budget Fronway again doing well. At this point I'm assuming the Fronway as simply a winter compound molded into an all season pattern.
Ice braking had the Yokohama performing very well, with the Continental again extremely close, and the Michelin third. That means on average, the Continental was the best on ice, though none of these tires will have been designed with ice in mind.
Ice Traction
Spread: 0.88 s (18.8%)|Avg: 5.04 s
Ice acceleration time (0 - 20 km/h) [Average Temperature -5c] (Lower is better)
Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF3
4.68 s
Continental AllSeasonContact 2
4.78 s
Bridgestone Turanza All Season 6
4.88 s
Fronway Fronwing AS
4.94 s
Michelin CrossClimate 2
4.97 s
Yokohama BluEarth 4S AW21
5.44 s
Dunlop Sport All Season
5.56 s
Ice Braking
Spread: 0.99 M (15.3%)|Avg: 6.89 M
Ice braking in meters (20 - 0 km/h) [Average Temperature -5c] (Lower is better)
Yokohama BluEarth 4S AW21
6.48 M
Continental AllSeasonContact 2
6.67 M
Michelin CrossClimate 2
6.79 M
Fronway Fronwing AS
6.79 M
Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF3
6.89 M
Bridgestone Turanza All Season 6
7.11 M
Dunlop Sport All Season
7.47 M
Value
The wear results for this test again come from a real world convoy test, which is the gold standard in wear testing and provides more accurate results compared to machine testing. Sadly it's also very expensive, so the budget tire wasn't included.
The results had the new Continental as best of the group, projected to cover nearly 50,000 kilometers before reading 1.6mm. When you consider how good the grip of the tire has been thats very impressive. The surprise result was the new Bridgestone in second place! In recent years Bridgestone have nearly always underperformed in wear tests, but this new tire did incredibly well and hopefully a trend that will continue. If you're from north america you might be confused at the Michelin CrossClimate 2 in third as your tire has a 60,000 mile warranty, don't fret, this is the EU version that has much lower rolling resistance, but a lower starting tread depth.
When you compare wear against purchase price you get a value metric, which the Continental also led, with the Yokohama sliding into second place thanks to good wear and a low purchase price. The real losers were the Michelin thanks to its high purchase price, and the Pirelli as it underperformed in the wear test.
Michelin had the lowest rolling resistance, closely followed by the Dunlop, and the Yokohama lost some of its value points with the highest rolling resistance, over 30% more than the best.
Rolling Resistance
Spread: 2.20 kg / t (31.5%)|Avg: 7.81 kg / t
Rolling resistance in kg t (Lower is better)
Michelin CrossClimate 2
6.98 kg / t
Dunlop Sport All Season
7.06 kg / t
Continental AllSeasonContact 2
7.25 kg / t
Fronway Fronwing AS
7.62 kg / t
Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF3
7.86 kg / t
Bridgestone Turanza All Season 6
8.71 kg / t
Yokohama BluEarth 4S AW21
9.18 kg / t
Comfort
Finally I didn't get a chance to properly dig into comfort, but these are a 16" tire and they were all pretty smooth. The external noise test was all very close, and my gut says the Bridgestone, Dunlop or Michelin would be the most comfortable in general.
Very good in dry handling, best in wet handling with short wet braking, best snow traction, best in ice overall, lowest wear on test, best value tire on test, low rolling resistance.
Extended dry braking, low aquaplaning resistance.
The new Continental AllSeasonContact 2 was the tire that does everything well. The only negative point I can really mention is that it wasn't that great in curved aquaplaning, and ideally I'd like to see it better in dry braking, but in all the other tests it was just great. And it had the lowest wear which made it the cheapest tire per 1000km. And it had low rolling resistance. And excellent snow grip, and was the best in the wet. And the best overall on ice. You get the idea. Outstanding product from Continental.
Good in the dry and wet, good aquaplaning resistance, low wear, good value.
Below average snow performance (but still way ahead of a summer tire), average rolling resistance.
The new Bridgestone Turanza All Season 6 is a well balanced mild climate all season tire. Bridgestone has clearly focused on improving the treadlife of the tire, which historically has been a weak point, while retaining the excellent dry and wet performance. The snow performance wasn't great compared to the best, but it's going to be way better than a summer tire so if you're in a region that rarely gets snow, this is a really great tire. The only thing it seems to have reduced in order to improve the wear is rolling resistance, as that was relatively high, but overall the new Bridgestone is an excellent product.
Best in dry with shortest braking distance and fastest lap time, very good in wet, best aquaplaning resistance on test, very good in snow traction and snow handling, best ice traction, low noise.
The Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF3 would have been the test winner if I hadn't tested wear, and honestly, was my favorite tire to drive on. It was the best in the dry, one of the best in the wet, very good around snow handling and its rolling resistance was plenty good enough too. The fact it has high wear might not be an issue for some, plus it's not much higher cost per 1000km than the Michelin, but if wear is important to you, then this is not the tire to buy. Certainly the most summer feeling of all season tire which will be appealing to some
Good grip in the dry, high aquaplaning resistance, best in snow, lowest noise in test, lowest rolling resistance on test.
Long wet braking, high purchase price with average wear means expensive per km.
The Michelin CrossClimate 2, the tire that's won every test I've featured it in, dropped down to fourth behind the new trio of tires. I think the biggest surprise wasn't that it was the best in the snow, I've said this tire is too good in the snow many times, or had the lowest rolling resistance on test, it's always done that well, but the fact it wasn't best in dry braking which is historically the Michelins party piece. I really hope Michelin can bring wet improvements to the next product, even if that means sacrificing a little snow. The CrossClimate 2 is still a great all season tire, but according to this test, it's no longer the greatest
Good handling in the dry and wet, good snow braking, low rolling resistance.
Extended braking distances in the dry and wet, lowest grip on ice, increased wear resulting in average value.
The Dunlop Sport All Season is another good tire, but another tire that was out classed by the new breed. Its asymmetric pattern left it vulnerable in snow handling, and while it was good in the dry and wet handling tests, it struggled in braking. It did have a low rolling resistance and its wear result was ok, plus is had a low rolling resistance making it cheap at the pumps.
Very high levels of grip in snow, best ice braking, lower purchase price.
Low levels of grip in the wet, long dry braking, very high rolling resistance.
The Yokohama BluEarth 4S AW21 is another tire that is better in the snow and ice than the dry and wet. It's not a bad product, and it was very good in the snow, but perhaps a bit too good for an all season tire as it was firmly outclassed when not in winter conditions.
For the price, the Fronway Fronwing AS was awesome in the snow. But as this is an all season tire test, and it it had extremely low wet grip, it does not make it a good all season purchase. The Fronway is one of the worst tires I've had in the wet for a while.