For the 2025/26 Tire Reviews Nordic Studless Winter Tire Test, I have tested five friction winter tires plus two reference sets (a studded tire and a Central European winter tire) across 21 tests in 6 categories: snow, ice, wet, dry, comfort/noise, and rolling resistance. If you drive in regions with frequent snow and ice, this is the group test you need. All these tires are available to buy in North America and Europe!
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 → 3.1 mph · 37–39 °F
- Wet Braking
- 49.7 → 3.1 mph
- Snow Braking
- 24.9 → 3.1 mph · 30–25 °F
- Snow Traction
- 0.0 → 12.4 mph · 30–25 °F
- Snow Slalom
- 9–10 °F
- Ice Braking
- 12.4 → 3.1 mph · 27–21 °F
- Ice Traction
- 0.0 → 12.4 mph · 27–21 °F
- Ice Handling
- 10–5 °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 | 50% | 5% |
| Dry Handling | 40% | 4% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 10% | 1% |
| Wet · 15% | ||
| Wet Braking | 40% | 6% |
| Wet Handling | 30% | 4.5% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 10% | 1.5% |
| Wet Circle | 5% | 0.75% |
| Straight Aqua | 10% | 1.5% |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 5% | 0.75% |
| Snow · 35% | ||
| Snow Braking | 27.8% | 9.72% |
| Snow Traction | 27.8% | 9.72% |
| Snow Handling | 22.2% | 7.78% |
| Subj. Snow Handling | 11.1% | 3.89% |
| Snow Slalom | 11.1% | 3.89% |
| Ice · 25% | ||
| Ice Braking | 25% | 6.25% |
| Ice Traction | 25% | 6.25% |
| Ice Handling | 40% | 10% |
| Subj. Ice Handling | 10% | 2.5% |
| Comfort · 10% | ||
| Subj. Comfort | 50% | 5% |
| Noise | 50% | 5% |
| Value · 5% | ||
| Rolling Resistance | 100% | 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.
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 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. 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
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.
Wet Circle
For wet lateral grip testing, I use a circular track of fixed radius, typically between 30 and 50 meters, 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 meters 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 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.
Snow Slalom
My slalom layout is variable rather than fixed, with cone count and spacing adjusted to suit the vehicle, tire category, and objective of the programme. On snow, the test is designed to evaluate transient response, lateral grip recovery, body control during rapid load transfer, and steering precision on a low-friction surface. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. Timing is usually recorded using VBOX rather than light gates. I average the valid runs and, where appropriate, disable ESC so the result reflects the tire's behavior rather than the intervention strategy of the vehicle.
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 analyze 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.
Ice Handling
For ice handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated ice handling circuit with ESC disabled where possible. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tire set, excluding laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Surface temperature is continuously monitored. Control runs are carried out frequently — typically every two candidate test sets — to account for changing ice surface conditions.
Subj. Ice Handling
I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment on a prepared ice circuit. I score steering response, predictability, grip progression, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence on ice using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. Surface temperature is monitored throughout. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary.
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.
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.
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.
Snow
Snow and ice performance is really important for these types of winter tires. Yes, it's important for all winter tires, however these are the types of winter tires you fit if you live in a region that gets a lot of snow and ice, and they sacrifice dry and wet performance to give the best grip possible in winter conditions.
So are any of them bad in the snow? Not really. The Marshal was the slowest around the lap, but just 4.1% off the best. Subjectively you really did notice the tire taking a little longer to respond to steering inputs, and sliding a little longer once you started sliding, but it was certainly an acceptable level of grip.
Then you had the Michelin and Nokian. The Michelin had great grip but its window between grip and no grip was rather abrupt, meaning it was a little trickier than the best to get around the lap. But let me emphasize: it is still an excellent tire in the snow. The Nokian felt a little more drivable, really nice to drive and a tire that works very well around the lap.
The Continental was the second fastest around the lap and had the best turn-in and steering reaction of all the tires. I found the front to be so sharp it brought the rear of the car in more, but you could really attack the corners and feel confident. The fastest tire by a tiny margin was the Goodyear, which had lots of grip and was very controllable.
How did the studded tire compare? Midpack. Studded tires generally have a slightly harder compound and/or construction than their friction counterparts in order to keep the studs in and pointing in the correct direction, so when you're driving in snow, you can be at a slight disadvantage.
The Continental WinterContact TS 870, which is what's called a Central European winter tire and is meant to be a step down in snow performance, was actually faster than the Marshal—an impressive result for a tire that should, in theory, be quite a lot better than the rest in the dry and wet.
Snow Handling
Snow handling time in seconds
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 79.64 s | Best | |
| 80.2 s | +0.56 s | |
| 80.64 s | +1.00 s | |
| 81.06 s | +1.42 s | |
RefNokian Hakkapeliitta 10 |
81.44 s | +1.80 s |
RefContinental WinterContact TS 870 |
81.91 s | +2.27 s |
| 82.94 s | +3.30 s |
The difference between best and worst was 4.1% (3.3 s).
Snow Braking
Snow braking in feet (25 - 3 mph) [Average Temperature 28°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 54 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
RefNokian Hakkapeliitta 10 |
54 ft | 0 ft | 5 mph |
| 55 ft | +1 ft | 9 mph | |
| 55 ft | +1 ft | 9 mph | |
| 55 ft | +1 ft | 12 mph | |
RefContinental WinterContact TS 870 |
56 ft | +2 ft | 15 mph |
| 56 ft | +2 ft | 16 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 4.1% (2 ft). From 80 mph, the Marshal iZen KW31 would still be travelling at 16 mph when the Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3 had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Snow Traction
Snow acceleration time (0 - 12 mph) [Average Temperature 28°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
RefNokian Hakkapeliitta 10 |
2.79 s | -0.21 s |
| 3 s | Best | |
| 3.08 s | +0.08 s | |
| 3.12 s | +0.12 s | |
| 3.13 s | +0.13 s | |
| 3.18 s | +0.18 s | |
RefContinental WinterContact TS 870 |
3.23 s | +0.23 s |
The difference between best and worst was 15.8% (0.44 s).
Ice
Ice is hard. Really hard. Did you know that there are many different types of ice? Smooth ice, which you find at places like junctions and is the hardest type to grip on; rough ice, which is actually pretty grippy; rough ice with light snow, which is slippy; and of course ice can be anywhere between freezing and -40°C, which also totally changes the grip.
Why am I telling you this? So you understand why the handling results are different from traction and braking. Handling was tested on rough ice; traction and braking on smooth ice.
Once again the Marshal was the slowest, but like in the snow, it had acceptable levels of grip. The grip was super peaky, so not the most friendly to drive, but it was fine. The Michelin X-Ice Snow suffered the same fate—great grip, in fact really great grip—but it had a little delay on the steering, and you had to be super smooth compared to the other tires to get a time. Once you'd lost that grip, it dropped off quickly and took a while to recover.
Then, essentially, the final three tires were all excellent. The Continental, Nokian, and Goodyear were all super easy to drive and had really good grip—an outstanding job for these three in terms of blending grip and drivability.
The TS 870 once again surprisingly overperformed, but how about the studs? This is ice, surely the studs were the fastest?! Well, no. On rough ice, the softer compound of the friction tires can be a benefit as they flex more and key into the surface better than the studded tire. The studded tire was the most controllable though. Once it was sliding, you had so much reserve to keep the car going where you wanted it to - it was a pure joy.
The ice traction and braking testing was performed on smooth ice, and this is where the studs really flex - or don't flex, I guess. The studs were over 30% better than the best winter tire, and the TS 870 over 60% worse. This is a huge gap and really shows how a compound designed with ice in mind makes all the difference. It also put the Marshal pretty far back, highlighting the cheaper compounding of that product.
Ice Handling
Ice handling time in seconds [Average Temperature 8°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 54.53 s | Best | |
| 54.76 s | +0.23 s | |
| 54.99 s | +0.46 s | |
| 56.59 s | +2.06 s | |
| 57.31 s | +2.78 s | |
RefNokian Hakkapeliitta 10 |
58.77 s | +4.24 s |
RefContinental WinterContact TS 870 |
59.24 s | +4.71 s |
The difference between best and worst was 8.6% (4.71 s).
Ice Braking
Ice braking in feet (12 - 3 mph) [Average Temperature 24°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
RefNokian Hakkapeliitta 10 |
20 ft | -3 ft | 0 mph |
| 23 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 24 ft | +1 ft | 17 mph | |
| 24 ft | +1 ft | 17 mph | |
| 28 ft | +5 ft | 33 mph | |
| 28 ft | +5 ft | 35 mph | |
RefContinental WinterContact TS 870 |
38 ft | +15 ft | 51 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 90% (18 ft ≈ 1.2 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Marshal iZen KW31 would still be travelling at 35 mph when the Michelin X Ice Snow had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Ice Traction
Ice acceleration time (0 - 12 mph) [Average Temperature 24°F]
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
RefNokian Hakkapeliitta 10 |
4.49 s | -1.97 s |
| 6.46 s | Best | |
| 6.48 s | +0.02 s | |
| 6.5 s | +0.04 s | |
| 7.54 s | +1.08 s | |
| 8.2 s | +1.74 s | |
RefContinental WinterContact TS 870 |
10.52 s | +4.06 s |
The difference between best and worst was 134.3% (6.03 s).
Wet
Wet performance is certainly an important quality of a winter tire, but as this category of winter tire is designed to spend most of its life on snow and ice, and as it's currently impossible to make a tire that does amazingly well on both ice and the wet, it's fair to say the wet performance of these tires has taken a second place in development.
That said, there is quite a spread of grip, and very surprisingly - even to me as I was testing blind - it was the Michelin that was the slowest around the lap. It was a safely balanced tire but just lacked grip on the front axle. I was so shocked by this I pulled up all the recent tests of the X-Ice Snow, and yes, it seems the Michelin has fallen behind in the wet. It was one of the best on ice, so I guess they've traded wet performance for ice grip.
The Marshal was next, a little ahead on time, and pushed the balance of the Golf more towards oversteer, which you don't really want on the road. But the steering feel was good, so I'll give it a break.
Then there was quite a big gap to the third-placed Goodyear, which was really lovely to drive. Every time I use a Goodyear tire on a Golf, it's a really lovely experience. Sure, it didn't quite have the most grip, but the balance was there.
The new Continental was second overall, getting around the lap in a really easy, stable way. A little understeer is what you want, and that's what you got.
And finally, the Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 was, quite frankly, unbelievable. Again, total surprise to me when discovering which was which, as historically the R5 has been more biased towards ice grip. But this time, it was in a class of its own in the wet.
Usually I can guess pretty accurately what tire I was on, but in this test everything seems a surprise.
Sadly, due to proving grounds being incredibly expensive and the surfaces of handling tracks incredibly important to keep consistent, I can't test the studded tire any further. But I can tell you that our Central European winter tire, the TS 870, is on a totally different level. If you've ever switched from a regular all-season or winter tire to a summer tire, you'll know how much tighter the car feels, and that's how it feels switching from one of these soft compound friction snow tires to a regular winter tire. But that's the benefit you get from lower ice performance.
Wet braking perfectly tracked wet handling, which always makes me so happy. Nokian had an even bigger advantage in the braking test, 12.5% better than the next best, the Continental.
Wet handling time in seconds The difference between best and worst was 13.6% (11.71 s). Wet braking in feet (50 - 3 mph) The difference between best and worst was 38.3% (42 ft ≈ 2.8 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Michelin X Ice Snow would still be travelling at 34 mph when the Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 had stopped. Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement. Float Speed in mph The difference between best and worst was 34.7% (18.5 mph). Remaining lateral acceleration The difference between best and worst was 55.1% (6 ft/s²).Wet Handling
Position / Tire Result Gap to best
86.3 s
-4.34 s
90.64 s
Best
93.12 s
+2.48 s
93.51 s
+2.87 s
97.2 s
+6.56 s
98.01 s
+7.37 s Wet Braking
Position / Tire Result Gap to best Residual speed
110 ft
-14 ft 0 mph
124 ft
Best 0 mph
139 ft
+15 ft 27 mph
143 ft
+19 ft 30 mph
146 ft
+22 ft 31 mph
152 ft
+28 ft 34 mph Straight Aqua
Position / Tire Result Gap to best
53.4 mph
+15.9 mph
37.5 mph
Best
36.4 mph
-1.1 mph
35.6 mph
-1.9 mph
35.2 mph
-2.3 mph
34.9 mph
-2.6 mph Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tire Result Gap to best
11.0 ft/s²
+4.4 ft/s²
6.6 ft/s²
Best
5.9 ft/s²
-0.7 ft/s²
5.5 ft/s²
-1.1 ft/s²
5.3 ft/s²
-1.3 ft/s²
5.0 ft/s²
-1.6 ft/s²
Dry
While in some regions these tires will barely see dry tarmac, I've of course still tested it.
In dry braking, the Nokian stopped the car the best, but just 1 foot ahead of the Continental, which were both a couple of meters ahead of the Marshal. Goodyear was fourth, and surprisingly the Michelin was last, which is unusual for the French tire. Unsurprisingly, the milder winter tire was the best overall, but not by as much as I expected.
The dry handling testing was the usual mix of steering testing and lane changes to assess stability and safety, and I did a lap time.
The Nokian was once again the best. This time Goodyear was in second and Continental in third, but as always the gaps were very close. All of the tires felt a little sloppy during high-speed lane changes, but that's part of being an extreme winter tire.
Dry braking in feet (62 - 3 mph) [Average Temperature 38°F] The difference between best and worst was 12% (17 ft ≈ 1.2 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Michelin X Ice Snow would still be travelling at 21 mph when the Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 had stopped. Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement. Dry handling time in seconds The difference between best and worst was 3.9% (2.2 s).Dry Braking
Position / Tire Result Gap to best Residual speed
142 ft
-7 ft 0 mph
149 ft
Best 0 mph
150 ft
+1 ft 6 mph
156 ft
+7 ft 18 mph
159 ft
+10 ft 21 mph
159 ft
+10 ft 21 mph Dry Handling
Position / Tire Result Gap to best
56.8 s
-1.30 s
58.1 s
Best
58.4 s
+0.30 s
58.5 s
+0.40 s
59 s
+0.90 s
59 s
+0.90 s
Comfort
Surprisingly, the comfort testing was again incredibly close, but Goodyear and Nokian had the best comfort levels by a small margin. The Continental had the lowest external noise.
Subj. Comfort
Subjective Comfort Score
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 10 Points | Best | |
| 10 Points | Best | |
| 9.75 Points | -0.25 Points | |
| 9.75 Points | -0.25 Points | |
| 9.25 Points | -0.75 Points |
The difference between best and worst was 7.5% (0.75 Points).
Noise
External noise in dB
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 69.1 dB | Best | |
| 69.3 dB | +0.20 dB | |
| 69.6 dB | +0.50 dB | |
RefContinental WinterContact TS 870 |
70.5 dB | +1.40 dB |
| 71.5 dB | +2.40 dB | |
| 71.8 dB | +2.70 dB |
The difference between best and worst was 3.9% (2.7 dB).
Value
Finally, Continental had the lowest rolling resistance, and Nokian and Goodyear also performed well. The Michelin had what I would call a moderate rolling resistance, and the Marshal was at the level you'd probably start to notice at the fuel pumps.
Rolling Resistance
Rolling resistance in kg t
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Extra fuel / year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7.29 kg/t | Best | $0 | |
| 7.48 kg/t | +0.19 kg/t | $8 | |
| 7.59 kg/t | +0.30 kg/t | $12 | |
| 8.14 kg/t | +0.85 kg/t | $34 | |
RefContinental WinterContact TS 870 |
8.29 kg/t | +1.00 kg/t | $40 |
| 9.55 kg/t | +2.26 kg/t | $91 |
The difference between best and worst was 31% (2.26 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Marshal iZen KW31 uses about 25 gal ($91) more fuel than the Continental VikingContact 8.
Adjust the assumptions
Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions.
Results
The Best Snow Tires for 2025/26Watch the full video of this test on YouTube Watch on YouTube
Continental VikingContact 8
205/55 R16 94T XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (21)
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 | 2nd / 5 | 150 ft | +1 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 3rd / 5 | 58.5 s | +0.40 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 5 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 2nd / 5 | 139 ft | +15 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 2nd / 5 | 93.12 s | +2.48 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 3rd / 5 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 2nd / 5 | 13.44 s | +0.42 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 4th / 5 | 35.2 mph | -2.3 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 5th / 5 | 5.0 ft/s² | -1.6 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 4th / 5 | 55 ft | +1 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 1st / 5 | 3 s | Best in this discipline |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 2nd / 5 | 80.2 s | +0.56 s |
| Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 5 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Snow SlalomHigher is better | 1st / 5 | 11.1 ft/s² | Best in this discipline |
| Ice BrakingLower is better | 3rd / 5 | 24 ft | +1 ft |
| Ice TractionLower is better | 2nd / 5 | 6.48 s | +0.02 s |
| Ice HandlingLower is better | 3rd / 5 | 54.99 s | +0.46 s |
| Subj. Ice HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 5 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 3rd / 5 | 9.75 Points | -0.25 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 1st / 5 | 69.1 dB | Best in this discipline |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 1st / 5 | 7.29 kg/t | Best in this discipline |
- EU Label
- B/D/69
- 3PMSF
- Yes
- Price
- 154.47
Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3
205/55 R16 94T XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (21)
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 | 4th / 5 | 159 ft | +10 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 2nd / 5 | 58.4 s | +0.30 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 5 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 3rd / 5 | 143 ft | +19 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 3rd / 5 | 93.51 s | +2.87 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 2nd / 5 | 9.75 Points | -0.25 Points |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 3rd / 5 | 13.64 s | +0.62 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 1st / 5 | 37.5 mph | Best in this discipline |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 1st / 5 | 6.6 ft/s² | Best in this discipline |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 1st / 5 | 54 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 2nd / 5 | 3.08 s | +0.08 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 1st / 5 | 79.64 s | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 5 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Snow SlalomHigher is better | 2nd / 5 | 10.9 ft/s² | -0.2 ft/s² |
| Ice BrakingLower is better | 2nd / 5 | 24 ft | +1 ft |
| Ice TractionLower is better | 3rd / 5 | 6.5 s | +0.04 s |
| Ice HandlingLower is better | 1st / 5 | 54.53 s | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. Ice HandlingHigher is better | 3rd / 5 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 1st / 5 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| NoiseLower is better | 2nd / 5 | 69.3 dB | +0.20 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 3rd / 5 | 7.59 kg/t | +0.30 kg/t |
- EU Label
- B/E/69
- 3PMSF
- Yes
- Price
- 108.89
Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
205/55 R16 94R XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (21)
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 | 1st / 5 | 149 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 1st / 5 | 58.1 s | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 5 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 1st / 5 | 124 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 1st / 5 | 90.64 s | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 5 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 1st / 5 | 13.02 s | Best in this discipline |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 2nd / 5 | 36.4 mph | -1.1 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 4th / 5 | 5.3 ft/s² | -1.3 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 2nd / 5 | 55 ft | +1 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 4th / 5 | 3.13 s | +0.13 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 3rd / 5 | 80.64 s | +1.00 s |
| Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 5 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Snow SlalomHigher is better | 4th / 5 | 10.7 ft/s² | -0.4 ft/s² |
| Ice BrakingLower is better | 4th / 5 | 28 ft | +5 ft |
| Ice TractionLower is better | 4th / 5 | 7.54 s | +1.08 s |
| Ice HandlingLower is better | 2nd / 5 | 54.76 s | +0.23 s |
| Subj. Ice HandlingHigher is better | 1st / 5 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 1st / 5 | 10 Points | Best in this discipline |
| NoiseLower is better | 4th / 5 | 71.5 dB | +2.40 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 2nd / 5 | 7.48 kg/t | +0.19 kg/t |
- EU Label
- B/D/67
- 3PMSF
- Yes
- Price
- 149.73
Michelin X Ice Snow
205/55 R16 94H XL
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (21)
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 | 5th / 5 | 159 ft | +10 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 4th / 5 | 59 s | +0.90 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 5th / 5 | 9.25 Points | -0.75 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 5th / 5 | 152 ft | +28 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 5th / 5 | 98.01 s | +7.37 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 4th / 5 | 9 Points | -1.00 Points |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 5th / 5 | 14.32 s | +1.30 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 3rd / 5 | 35.6 mph | -1.9 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 3rd / 5 | 5.5 ft/s² | -1.1 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 2nd / 5 | 55 ft | +1 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 3rd / 5 | 3.12 s | +0.12 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 4th / 5 | 81.06 s | +1.42 s |
| Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better | 4th / 5 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| Snow SlalomHigher is better | 3rd / 5 | 10.7 ft/s² | -0.4 ft/s² |
| Ice BrakingLower is better | 1st / 5 | 23 ft | Best in this discipline |
| Ice TractionLower is better | 1st / 5 | 6.46 s | Best in this discipline |
| Ice HandlingLower is better | 4th / 5 | 56.59 s | +2.06 s |
| Subj. Ice HandlingHigher is better | 4th / 5 | 9 Points | -1.00 Points |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 3rd / 5 | 9.75 Points | -0.25 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 3rd / 5 | 69.6 dB | +0.50 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 4th / 5 | 8.14 kg/t | +0.85 kg/t |
- EU Label
- C/E/69
- 3PMSF
- Yes
- Price
- 135.75
Marshal iZen KW31
205/55 R16 91R
Category scores (% of best)
All discipline results (21)
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 | 3rd / 5 | 156 ft | +7 ft |
| Dry HandlingLower is better | 4th / 5 | 59 s | +0.90 s |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 4th / 5 | 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 4th / 5 | 146 ft | +22 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 4th / 5 | 97.2 s | +6.56 s |
| Subj. Wet HandlingHigher is better | 4th / 5 | 9 Points | -1.00 Points |
| Wet CircleLower is better | 4th / 5 | 14.08 s | +1.06 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 5th / 5 | 34.9 mph | -2.6 mph |
| Curved AquaplaningHigher is better | 2nd / 5 | 5.9 ft/s² | -0.7 ft/s² |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 5th / 5 | 56 ft | +2 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 5th / 5 | 3.18 s | +0.18 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 5th / 5 | 82.94 s | +3.30 s |
| Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better | 5th / 5 | 8.5 Points | -1.50 Points |
| Snow SlalomHigher is better | 5th / 5 | 10.4 ft/s² | -0.7 ft/s² |
| Ice BrakingLower is better | 5th / 5 | 28 ft | +5 ft |
| Ice TractionLower is better | 5th / 5 | 8.2 s | +1.74 s |
| Ice HandlingLower is better | 5th / 5 | 57.31 s | +2.78 s |
| Subj. Ice HandlingHigher is better | 5th / 5 | 8.5 Points | -1.50 Points |
| Subj. ComfortHigher is better | 5th / 5 | 9.25 Points | -0.75 Points |
| NoiseLower is better | 5th / 5 | 71.8 dB | +2.70 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 5th / 5 | 9.55 kg/t | +2.26 kg/t |
- EU Label
- D/E/70
- 3PMSF
- Yes
- Price
- 115.64
I was a bit suprised that Nokian updated the compond and it made me hesitate to buy them this year (last year I had a set of Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5, they were excelent tires.
So after a couple of weeks, i ordered a set of Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3.
The price were good in my region.
Looking forward to see how they are.
Thanks for a great winter review!
Marketing is all this is. Look around, shop around. Read personal reviews. There are other brands at much cheaper prices. Stopped buying these ripoff brands long ago.
Would love to see the WS90 in this comparo as well for the north americans
Me too sadly we buy the tires in europe where it's not sold.
The dry test comments & graphs seem out of alignment.
Which part, in the final results or the text around the dry graphs?
The latter.
I had a re-read and it seems to make sense to me, which bit don't you like?
My bungle, I was forgetting that the Conti TS 870 wasn't part of the test proper.