Test Charts / Tire Reviews

The BEST All Terrain Tires for 2026 Tested and Rated

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: 265/70 R17
Tires tested: 7
Disciplines: 17

Read the measurements, not just the rank

Lower is better for braking distances and lap times; higher is better for subjective scores and aquaplaning speed. Bars start at zero. Read the gap alongside the position: adjacent tires can be separated by very different margins.

Positions and gaps always refer to the full test field within each group. Selecting tires does not recalculate rankings or change the best-in-test benchmark.

Dry

Dry Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
RefPirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3	132 ft	-2 ft	0 mph
1Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT	134 ft	Best	0 mph
2Falken Wildpeak AT4W	145 ft	+11 ft	21 mph
3Westlake SL369	148 ft	+14 ft	24 mph
4Nitto Recon Grappler AT	148 ft	+14 ft	25 mph
5Nokian Outpost nAT	149 ft	+15 ft	25 mph
6Goodyear Wrangler DuraTrac RT	152 ft	+18 ft	27 mph
7BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO3	154 ft	+20 ft	29 mph

The difference between best and worst was 16.8% (22 ft ≈ 1.5 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO3 would still be travelling at 29 mph when the Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT 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
RefPirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3	11 Points	+1.00 Points
1Nokian Outpost nAT	10 Points	Best
2Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT	9.75 Points	-0.25 Points
3Falken Wildpeak AT4W	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
4Westlake SL369	9 Points	-1.00 Points
4Goodyear Wrangler DuraTrac RT	9 Points	-1.00 Points
4BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO3	9 Points	-1.00 Points
4Nitto Recon Grappler AT	9 Points	-1.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 18.2% (2 Points).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
RefPirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3	110 ft	-7 ft	0 mph
1Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT	117 ft	Best	0 mph
2Westlake SL369	122 ft	+5 ft	16 mph
3BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO3	132 ft	+15 ft	27 mph
4Goodyear Wrangler DuraTrac RT	136 ft	+19 ft	30 mph
5Nokian Outpost nAT	139 ft	+22 ft	31 mph
6Falken Wildpeak AT4W	139 ft	+22 ft	32 mph
7Nitto Recon Grappler AT	149 ft	+32 ft	37 mph

The difference between best and worst was 35.5% (39 ft ≈ 2.6 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Nitto Recon Grappler AT would still be travelling at 37 mph when the Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT 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
RefPirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3	117.67 s	-2.31 s
1Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT	119.98 s	Best
2Westlake SL369	124.12 s	+4.14 s
3Nokian Outpost nAT	129.07 s	+9.09 s
4BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO3	129.16 s	+9.18 s
5Goodyear Wrangler DuraTrac RT	129.7 s	+9.72 s
6Falken Wildpeak AT4W	131.17 s	+11.19 s
7Nitto Recon Grappler AT	133.82 s	+13.84 s

The difference between best and worst was 13.7% (16.15 s).

Subj. Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT	8.9 Points	Best
RefPirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3	8.4 Points	-0.50 Points
2Westlake SL369	8.3 Points	-0.60 Points
3Nokian Outpost nAT	8.2 Points	-0.70 Points
4BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO3	8 Points	-0.90 Points
5Goodyear Wrangler DuraTrac RT	7.8 Points	-1.10 Points
6Falken Wildpeak AT4W	7.5 Points	-1.40 Points
7Nitto Recon Grappler AT	6.6 Points	-2.30 Points

The difference between best and worst was 25.8% (2.3 Points).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Nokian Outpost nAT	65.7 mph	Best
2Westlake SL369	63.5 mph	-2.2 mph
RefPirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3	63.5 mph	-2.2 mph
3BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO3	63.4 mph	-2.3 mph
4Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT	63.1 mph	-2.6 mph
5Goodyear Wrangler DuraTrac RT	63.0 mph	-2.7 mph
6Nitto Recon Grappler AT	60.3 mph	-5.4 mph
7Falken Wildpeak AT4W	59.3 mph	-6.4 mph

The difference between best and worst was 9.8% (6.4 mph).

Snow

Snow Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Goodyear Wrangler DuraTrac RT	43 ft	Best	0 mph
2Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT	44 ft	+1 ft	13 mph
3Nokian Outpost nAT	44 ft	+1 ft	14 mph
4BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO3	45 ft	+2 ft	16 mph
5Nitto Recon Grappler AT	45 ft	+2 ft	19 mph
6Westlake SL369	48 ft	+5 ft	25 mph
RefPirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3	48 ft	+5 ft	27 mph
7Falken Wildpeak AT4W	53 ft	+10 ft	35 mph

The difference between best and worst was 23.9% (10 ft ≈ 0.7 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Falken Wildpeak AT4W would still be travelling at 35 mph when the Goodyear Wrangler DuraTrac RT 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
1Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT	5.26 s	Best
RefPirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3	5.37 s	+0.11 s
2Goodyear Wrangler DuraTrac RT	5.41 s	+0.15 s
3BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO3	5.44 s	+0.18 s
4Nokian Outpost nAT	5.5 s	+0.24 s
5Nitto Recon Grappler AT	6.23 s	+0.97 s
6Westlake SL369	6.83 s	+1.57 s
7Falken Wildpeak AT4W	7.25 s	+1.99 s

The difference between best and worst was 37.8% (1.99 s).

Snow Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear Wrangler DuraTrac RT	81.05 s	Best
2Nokian Outpost nAT	81.61 s	+0.56 s
RefPirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3	81.64 s	+0.59 s
3Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT	81.91 s	+0.86 s
4BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO3	82.69 s	+1.64 s
5Westlake SL369	83.41 s	+2.36 s
6Nitto Recon Grappler AT	84.03 s	+2.98 s
7Falken Wildpeak AT4W	88.92 s	+7.87 s

The difference between best and worst was 9.7% (7.87 s).

Subj. Snow Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT	8.7 Points	Best
2Nokian Outpost nAT	8.6 Points	-0.10 Points
3Goodyear Wrangler DuraTrac RT	8.4 Points	-0.30 Points
4BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO3	8.3 Points	-0.40 Points
4Nitto Recon Grappler AT	8.3 Points	-0.40 Points
RefPirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3	8.2 Points	-0.50 Points
6Westlake SL369	8 Points	-0.70 Points
7Falken Wildpeak AT4W	7.7 Points	-1.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 11.5% (1 Points).

Off road

Dirt Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT	74.05 s	Best
RefPirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3	74.56 s	+0.51 s
2Goodyear Wrangler DuraTrac RT	74.68 s	+0.63 s
3BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO3	74.87 s	+0.82 s
4Falken Wildpeak AT4W	75.18 s	+1.13 s
5Westlake SL369	75.35 s	+1.30 s
6Nokian Outpost nAT	75.43 s	+1.38 s
7Nitto Recon Grappler AT	75.59 s	+1.54 s

All the tires in the Dirt Handling test finished less than 3% apart.

Subj. Dirt Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT	8.6 Points	Best
2Nokian Outpost nAT	8.5 Points	-0.10 Points
3BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO3	8.4 Points	-0.20 Points
RefPirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3	8.3 Points	-0.30 Points
4Goodyear Wrangler DuraTrac RT	8.3 Points	-0.30 Points
4Falken Wildpeak AT4W	8.3 Points	-0.30 Points
6Nitto Recon Grappler AT	8.1 Points	-0.50 Points
7Westlake SL369	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
RefPirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3	11 Points	+1.00 Points
1Nokian Outpost nAT	10 Points	Best
1BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO3	10 Points	Best
3Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
4Falken Wildpeak AT4W	9 Points	-1.00 Points
5Goodyear Wrangler DuraTrac RT	8.75 Points	-1.25 Points
6Nitto Recon Grappler AT	8 Points	-2.00 Points
7Westlake SL369	7 Points	-3.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 36.4% (4 Points).

Subj. Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
RefPirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3	10 Points	0.00 Points
1Nokian Outpost nAT	10 Points	Best
2BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO3	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
3Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT	9 Points	-1.00 Points
4Goodyear Wrangler DuraTrac RT	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points
4Falken Wildpeak AT4W	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points
6Nitto Recon Grappler AT	7 Points	-3.00 Points
7Westlake SL369	6 Points	-4.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 40% (4 Points).

Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
RefPirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3	52.79 dB	-1.83 dB
1Westlake SL369	54.62 dB	Best
2Nokian Outpost nAT	54.83 dB	+0.21 dB
3Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT	54.95 dB	+0.33 dB
4Falken Wildpeak AT4W	55.05 dB	+0.43 dB
5Nitto Recon Grappler AT	55.75 dB	+1.13 dB
6Goodyear Wrangler DuraTrac RT	56.01 dB	+1.39 dB
7BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO3	57.72 dB	+3.10 dB

The difference between best and worst was 9.3% (4.93 dB).

Value

Value
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	cost per 1,000 miles
RefPirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3	3.41 Price/1000	-0.59 Price/1000	$14.77
1Westlake SL369	4 Price/1000	Best	$23.07
2Nokian Outpost nAT	4.87 Price/1000	+0.87 Price/1000	—
3Falken Wildpeak AT4W	4.95 Price/1000	+0.95 Price/1000	$25.91
4Nitto Recon Grappler AT	5.33 Price/1000	+1.33 Price/1000	$22.76
5Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT	5.39 Price/1000	+1.39 Price/1000	$26.30
6BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO3	5.8 Price/1000	+1.80 Price/1000	$28.08
7Goodyear Wrangler DuraTrac RT	6.24 Price/1000	+2.24 Price/1000	$31.63

The difference between best and worst was 83% (2.83 Price/1000). Over 25,000 miles the cheapest tire to own (Pirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3) works out $422 cheaper than the most expensive (Goodyear Wrangler DuraTrac RT).

How this is calculated

Tire life here is the manufacturer's treadwear warranty, NOT measured wear - treat it as the maker's promise, not a test result.

Tire life is the manufacturer's treadwear warranty, not measured wear. Assumes a typical car doing 29 mpg (rolling resistance causing 20% of fuel use), fuel at $3.60 per gallon and $80 fitting per set of four. US prices are from the time of the 2026 test; financing costs are excluded.

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
RefPirelli Scorpion AS Plus 3	8.2 kg/t	0.00 kg/t	$0
1Nitto Recon Grappler AT	8.2 kg/t	Best	$0
2BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO3	9.3 kg/t	+1.10 kg/t	$39
2Pirelli Scorpion XTM AT	9.3 kg/t	+1.10 kg/t	$39
4Falken Wildpeak AT4W	9.8 kg/t	+1.60 kg/t	$57
5Westlake SL369	9.9 kg/t	+1.70 kg/t	$61
5Goodyear Wrangler DuraTrac RT	9.9 kg/t	+1.70 kg/t	$61

The difference between best and worst was 20.7% (1.7 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Westlake SL369 uses about 17 gal ($61) more fuel than the Nitto Recon Grappler AT.

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 · 57–63 °F
Wet Braking: 49.7 → 6.2 mph · 54–59 °F
Wet Handling: 50–54 °F
Snow Braking: 18.6 → 6.2 mph · 21–25 °F
Snow Traction: 3.1 → 21.7 mph · 21–25 °F
Snow Handling: 27–28 °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 · 30%
Dry Braking	75%	22.5%
Subj. Dry Handling	25%	7.5%
Wet · 35%
Wet Braking	50%	17.5%
Wet Handling	30%	10.5%
Subj. Wet Handling	10%	3.5%
Straight Aqua	10%	3.5%
Off road · 12.5%
Dirt Handling	50%	6.25%
Subj. Dirt Handling	50%	6.25%
Snow · 10%
Snow Braking	35%	3.5%
Snow Traction	35%	3.5%
Snow Handling	20%	2%
Subj. Snow Handling	10%	1%
Comfort · 10%
Subj. Comfort	50%	5%
Subj. Noise	25%	2.5%
Noise	25%	2.5%
Value · 2.5%
Value	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.

Subj. Wet Handling

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 behavior, 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.

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.

Dirt Handling

For dirt handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated dirt handling course with ESC typically disabled. I complete multiple timed laps per tire set, excluding laps affected by driver error or environmental inconsistency. Because natural surfaces are inherently variable, I place particular emphasis on repeat runs, careful reference tracking, and averaged results. The control tire is retested at regular intervals.

Subj. Dirt Handling

I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment on a dedicated dirt course. I score steering feel, traction, stability, 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.

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