Menu

Test Charts / Tire Reviews

The Best All Season Tires for 2024

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

Tested size
205/55 R16
Tires tested
7
Disciplines
20

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

3

Dry Braking

Dry braking in feet (62 - 3 mph) [Average Temperature 64°F]

Lower is better ↓
Dry Braking
Position / TireResultGap to bestResidual speed
124 ft Best 0 mph
128 ft +4 ft 14 mph
129 ft +5 ft 16 mph
136 ft +12 ft 24 mph
141 ft +17 ft 28 mph
143 ft +19 ft 29 mph
145 ft +21 ft 31 mph

The difference between best and worst was 17.5% (21 ft ≈ 1.5 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Yokohama BluEarth 4S AW21 would still be travelling at 31 mph when the Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF3 had stopped.

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

Dry Handling

Dry handling time in seconds

Lower is better ↓
Dry Handling
Position / TireResultGap to best
55.4 s Best
55.8 s +0.40 s
55.8 s +0.40 s
56 s +0.60 s
56.4 s +1.00 s
56.6 s +1.20 s
58.1 s +2.70 s

The difference between best and worst was 4.9% (2.7 s).

Subj. Dry Handling

Subjective Dry Handling Score

Higher is better ↑
Subj. Dry Handling
Position / TireResultGap to best
100 Points Best
95 Points -5.00 Points
95 Points -5.00 Points
92 Points -8.00 Points
92 Points -8.00 Points
92 Points -8.00 Points
85 Points -15.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 15% (15 Points).

Wet

6

Wet Braking

Wet braking in feet (50 - 3 mph) [Average Temperature 64°F]

Lower is better ↓
Wet Braking
Position / TireResultGap to bestResidual speed
109 ft Best 0 mph
112 ft +3 ft 13 mph
116 ft +7 ft 20 mph
121 ft +12 ft 25 mph
122 ft +13 ft 27 mph
125 ft +16 ft 28 mph
160 ft +51 ft 45 mph

The difference between best and worst was 46.7% (51 ft ≈ 3.4 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Fronway Fronwing AS would still be travelling at 45 mph when the Bridgestone Turanza All Season 6 had stopped.

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

Wet Handling

Wet handling time in seconds [Average Temperature 70°F]

Lower is better ↓
Wet Handling
Position / TireResultGap to best
86.1 s Best
86.2 s +0.10 s
87 s +0.90 s
87.2 s +1.10 s
87.9 s +1.80 s
88.7 s +2.60 s
99.7 s +13.60 s

The difference between best and worst was 15.8% (13.6 s).

Subj. Wet Handling

Subjective Wet Handling Score

Higher is better ↑
Subj. Wet Handling
Position / TireResultGap to best
100 Points Best
100 Points Best
95 Points -5.00 Points
95 Points -5.00 Points
90 Points -10.00 Points
88 Points -12.00 Points
10 Points -90.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 90% (90 Points).

Wet Circle

Wet Circle Lap Time in seconds

Lower is better ↓
Wet Circle
Position / TireResultGap to best
11.86 s Best
12 s +0.14 s
12.01 s +0.15 s
12.03 s +0.17 s
12.18 s +0.32 s
12.23 s +0.37 s
13.1 s +1.24 s

The difference between best and worst was 10.5% (1.24 s).

Straight Aqua

Float Speed in mph

Higher is better ↑
Straight Aqua
Position / TireResultGap to best
52.3 mph Best
50.5 mph -1.8 mph
49.8 mph -2.5 mph
48.8 mph -3.5 mph
47.5 mph -4.8 mph
46.9 mph -5.4 mph
43.6 mph -8.7 mph

The difference between best and worst was 16.6% (8.7 mph).

Curved Aquaplaning

Remaining lateral acceleration

Higher is better ↑
Curved Aquaplaning
Position / TireResultGap to best
11.3 ft/s² Best
10.6 ft/s² -0.7 ft/s²
10.2 ft/s² -1.1 ft/s²
9.8 ft/s² -1.5 ft/s²
9.6 ft/s² -1.7 ft/s²
8.9 ft/s² -2.4 ft/s²
7.0 ft/s² -4.3 ft/s²

The difference between best and worst was 37.6% (4.3 ft/s²).

Snow

5

Snow Braking

Snow braking in feet (25 - 0 mph) [Average Temperature 30°F]

Lower is better ↓
Snow Braking
Position / TireResultGap to bestResidual speed
58 ft Best 0 mph
58 ft Best 0 mph
59 ft +1 ft 10 mph
59 ft +1 ft 12 mph
59 ft +1 ft 12 mph
60 ft +2 ft 15 mph
62 ft +4 ft 20 mph

The difference between best and worst was 6.8% (4 ft). From 80 mph, the Pirelli Cinturato All Season SF3 would still be travelling at 20 mph when the Yokohama BluEarth 4S AW21 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)

Lower is better ↓
Snow Traction
Position / TireResultGap to best
8.04 s Best
8.04 s Best
8.46 s +0.42 s
8.46 s +0.42 s
8.57 s +0.53 s
8.69 s +0.65 s
9.11 s +1.07 s

The difference between best and worst was 13.3% (1.07 s).

Snow Handling

Snow handling time in seconds [Average Temperature 23°F]

Lower is better ↓
Snow Handling
Position / TireResultGap to best
90.68 s Best
91.99 s +1.31 s
92.16 s +1.48 s
92.18 s +1.50 s
93.51 s +2.83 s
95.01 s +4.33 s
95.45 s +4.77 s

The difference between best and worst was 5.3% (4.77 s).

Subj. Snow Handling

Subjective Snow Handling Score

Higher is better ↑
Subj. Snow Handling
Position / TireResultGap to best
100 Points Best
98 Points -2.00 Points
98 Points -2.00 Points
92 Points -8.00 Points
92 Points -8.00 Points
90 Points -10.00 Points
88 Points -12.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 12% (12 Points).

Snow Circle

Lateral snow grip in m/s squared

Higher is better ↑
Snow Circle
Position / TireResultGap to best
1.3 ft/s² Best
1.2 ft/s² -0.1 ft/s²
1.2 ft/s² -0.1 ft/s²
1.2 ft/s² -0.1 ft/s²
1.2 ft/s² -0.1 ft/s²
1.1 ft/s² -0.2 ft/s²
1.1 ft/s² -0.2 ft/s²

The difference between best and worst was 10.3% (0.2 ft/s²).

Ice

2

Ice Braking

Ice braking in feet (12 - 0 mph) [Average Temperature 23°F]

Lower is better ↓
Ice Braking
Position / TireResultGap to bestResidual speed
21 ft Best 0 mph
22 ft +1 ft 14 mph
22 ft +1 ft 17 mph
22 ft +1 ft 17 mph
23 ft +2 ft 20 mph
23 ft +2 ft 24 mph
25 ft +4 ft 29 mph

The difference between best and worst was 15.3% (4 ft). From 80 mph, the Dunlop Sport All Season would still be travelling at 29 mph when the Yokohama BluEarth 4S AW21 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 23°F]

Lower is better ↓
Ice Traction
Position / TireResultGap to best
4.68 s Best
4.78 s +0.10 s
4.88 s +0.20 s
4.94 s +0.26 s
4.97 s +0.29 s
5.44 s +0.76 s
5.56 s +0.88 s

The difference between best and worst was 18.8% (0.88 s).

Comfort

1

Noise

External noise in dB

Lower is better ↓
Noise
Position / TireResultGap to best
70.9 dB Best
71 dB +0.10 dB
71.1 dB +0.20 dB
71.6 dB +0.70 dB
71.7 dB +0.80 dB
72 dB +1.10 dB
73.5 dB +2.60 dB

The difference between best and worst was 3.7% (2.6 dB).

Value

3

Wear

Predicted tread life in KM

Higher is better ↑
Wear
Position / TireResultGap to best
30,385 miles Best
27,650 miles -2,735 miles
24,612 miles -5,773 miles
24,004 miles -6,381 miles
22,485 miles -7,900 miles
20,966 miles -9,419 miles
1 miles -30,384 miles

The difference between best and worst was 100% (30,384 miles).

Value

Euros/1000km based on cost/wear

Lower is better ↓
Value
Position / TireResultGap to bestcost per 1,000 miles
1 Price/1000 Best —
1.88 Price/1000 +0.88 Price/1000 £15.54
1.97 Price/1000 +0.97 Price/1000 £26.93
2.04 Price/1000 +1.04 Price/1000 £24.54
2.12 Price/1000 +1.12 Price/1000 £16.77
2.54 Price/1000 +1.54 Price/1000 £18.79
2.75 Price/1000 +1.75 Price/1000 £25.27

The difference between best and worst was 175% (1.75 Price/1000). Over 25,000 miles the cheapest tire to own (Continental AllSeasonContact 2) works out £285 cheaper than the most expensive (Yokohama BluEarth 4S AW21).

How this is calculated

Assumes a typical car doing 29 mpg (rolling resistance causing 20% of fuel use), fuel at £5.49 per gallon and £60 fitting per set of four. Purchase prices are from the time of the 2024 test; financing costs are excluded.

Rolling Resistance

Rolling resistance in kg t

Lower is better ↓
Rolling Resistance
Position / TireResultGap to bestExtra fuel / year
6.98 kg/t Best $0
7.06 kg/t +0.08 kg/t $3
7.25 kg/t +0.27 kg/t $11
7.62 kg/t +0.64 kg/t $27
7.86 kg/t +0.88 kg/t $37
8.71 kg/t +1.73 kg/t $73
9.18 kg/t +2.20 kg/t $93

The difference between best and worst was 31.5% (2.2 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Yokohama BluEarth 4S AW21 uses about 26 gal ($93) more fuel than the Michelin CrossClimate 2.

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.

12,000 mi
$3.60/gal
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 → 3.1 mph · 59–68 °F
Wet Braking
49.7 → 3.1 mph · 63–64 °F
Wet Handling
66–73 °F
Snow Braking
24.9 → 0.0 mph · 28–32 °F
Snow Traction
0.0 → 12.4 mph
Snow Handling
21–25 °F
Ice Braking
12.4 → 0.0 mph · 21–25 °F
Ice Traction
0.0 → 12.4 mph · 21–25 °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.

TestWithin categoryShare of overall score
Dry · 30%
Dry Braking55%16.5%
Dry Handling35%10.5%
Subj. Dry Handling10%3%
Wet · 40%
Wet Braking40%16%
Wet Handling30%12%
Subj. Wet Handling10%4%
Wet Circle5%2%
Straight Aqua10%4%
Curved Aquaplaning5%2%
Snow · 10%
Snow Braking30%3%
Snow Traction20%2%
Snow Handling30%3%
Subj. Snow Handling10%1%
Snow Circle10%1%
Ice · 5%
Ice Braking60%3%
Ice Traction40%2%
Comfort · 5%
Noise100%5%
Value · 10%
Wear30%3%
Value30%3%
Rolling Resistance40%4%

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 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 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.

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 specialized 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.

More tire tests

Cross-check this test

All tire tests

Where these tires were tested again, and how the verdict held up.

Rate your tires

My tires

Saved in this browser on this site. No account needed. Clearing browser data removes your choices.

Vehicle and size

Check the size, load and speed ratings on your vehicle. Saving a size does not confirm fitment.

Saved tires

Save tires from a tire page, test or comparison to keep them here.

Select 2–8 saved tires. Ranked comparisons require at least two shared tests.