Test Charts / Tire Reviews

The BEST All Terrain Tire for 2025

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: 35x12.5R17
Tires tested: 5
Disciplines: 16

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
1Falken Wildpeak AT4W	135 ft	Best	0 mph
2Kumho Road Venture AT52	140 ft	+5 ft	15 mph
3Toyo Open Country AT III	140 ft	+5 ft	16 mph
4Nitto Recon Grappler AT	142 ft	+7 ft	17 mph
5BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO2	146 ft	+11 ft	22 mph

The difference between best and worst was 7.9% (11 ft ≈ 0.7 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO2 would still be travelling at 22 mph when the Falken Wildpeak AT4W had stopped.

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

Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Kumho Road Venture AT52	47.72 s	Best
2Toyo Open Country AT III	47.83 s	+0.11 s
3Falken Wildpeak AT4W	47.92 s	+0.20 s
4Nitto Recon Grappler AT	48.19 s	+0.47 s
5BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO2	48.48 s	+0.76 s

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

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Kumho Road Venture AT52	10 Points	Best
2BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO2	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
2Toyo Open Country AT III	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
2Falken Wildpeak AT4W	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
2Nitto Recon Grappler AT	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points

The difference between best and worst was 5% (0.5 Points).

Subj. Road Score
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Falken Wildpeak AT4W	10 Points	Best
2BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO2	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
3Toyo Open Country AT III	9 Points	-1.00 Points
3Kumho Road Venture AT52	9 Points	-1.00 Points
3Nitto Recon Grappler AT	9 Points	-1.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 10% (1 Points).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Kumho Road Venture AT52	216 ft	Best	0 mph
2BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO2	224 ft	+8 ft	15 mph
3Falken Wildpeak AT4W	228 ft	+12 ft	18 mph
4Nitto Recon Grappler AT	235 ft	+19 ft	23 mph
5Toyo Open Country AT III	241 ft	+25 ft	26 mph

The difference between best and worst was 11.4% (25 ft ≈ 1.7 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Toyo Open Country AT III would still be travelling at 26 mph when the Kumho Road Venture AT52 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
1Kumho Road Venture AT52	55.69 s	Best
2Falken Wildpeak AT4W	56.39 s	+0.70 s
3Toyo Open Country AT III	57.15 s	+1.46 s
4BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO2	57.17 s	+1.48 s
5Nitto Recon Grappler AT	57.18 s	+1.49 s

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

Subj. Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Falken Wildpeak AT4W	10 Points	Best
2Kumho Road Venture AT52	9.75 Points	-0.25 Points
3BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO2	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
3Nitto Recon Grappler AT	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
5Toyo Open Country AT III	9.25 Points	-0.75 Points

The difference between best and worst was 7.5% (0.75 Points).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Nitto Recon Grappler AT	71.6 mph	Best
2BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO2	69.1 mph	-2.5 mph
3Falken Wildpeak AT4W	67.7 mph	-3.9 mph
4Toyo Open Country AT III	65.0 mph	-6.6 mph
5Kumho Road Venture AT52	62.3 mph	-9.3 mph

The difference between best and worst was 13% (9.3 mph).

Snow

Snow Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO2	66 ft	Best	0 mph
2Toyo Open Country AT III	72 ft	+6 ft	23 mph
3Kumho Road Venture AT52	74 ft	+8 ft	26 mph
4Falken Wildpeak AT4W	86 ft	+20 ft	38 mph

The difference between best and worst was 29.3% (20 ft ≈ 1.3 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Falken Wildpeak AT4W would still be travelling at 38 mph when the BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO2 had stopped.

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

Snow Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Toyo Open Country AT III	91.68 s	Best
2BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO2	92.02 s	+0.34 s
3Kumho Road Venture AT52	98.61 s	+6.93 s
4Falken Wildpeak AT4W	101.27 s	+9.59 s

The difference between best and worst was 10.5% (9.59 s).

Subj. Snow Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Toyo Open Country AT III	10 Points	Best
2BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO2	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
3Kumho Road Venture AT52	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points
4Falken Wildpeak AT4W	8 Points	-2.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 20% (2 Points).

Off road

Dirt Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO2	71.73 s	Best
2Falken Wildpeak AT4W	71.8 s	+0.07 s
3Kumho Road Venture AT52	72.61 s	+0.88 s
4Nitto Recon Grappler AT	73.01 s	+1.28 s
5Toyo Open Country AT III	73.11 s	+1.38 s

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

Subj. Dirt Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Falken Wildpeak AT4W	10 Points	Best
2BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO2	9.75 Points	-0.25 Points
3Kumho Road Venture AT52	9 Points	-1.00 Points
4Toyo Open Country AT III	8.75 Points	-1.25 Points
4Nitto Recon Grappler AT	8.75 Points	-1.25 Points

The difference between best and worst was 12.5% (1.25 Points).

Comfort

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Falken Wildpeak AT4W	10 Points	Best
2BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO2	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
2Nitto Recon Grappler AT	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
4Toyo Open Country AT III	9 Points	-1.00 Points
5Kumho Road Venture AT52	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points

The difference between best and worst was 15% (1.5 Points).

Subj. Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Falken Wildpeak AT4W	10 Points	Best
2BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO2	9.75 Points	-0.25 Points
3Kumho Road Venture AT52	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
4Toyo Open Country AT III	9.25 Points	-0.75 Points
5Nitto Recon Grappler AT	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points

The difference between best and worst was 15% (1.5 Points).

Value

Value
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Falken Wildpeak AT4W	0.57 Price/1000	Best
2Kumho Road Venture AT52	0.63 Price/1000	+0.06 Price/1000
3Nitto Recon Grappler AT	0.68 Price/1000	+0.11 Price/1000
4BFGoodrich All Terrain TA KO2	0.75 Price/1000	+0.18 Price/1000
5Toyo Open Country AT III	0.82 Price/1000	+0.25 Price/1000

The difference between best and worst was 43.9% (0.25 Price/1000).

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: 60 → 0 mph · 82–84 f
Wet Braking: 60 → 0 mph · 83–85 f
Snow Braking: 24.9 → 3.1 mph

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 · 25%
Dry Braking	40%	10%
Dry Handling	20%	5%
Subj. Dry Handling	10%	2.5%
Subj. Road Score	30%	7.5%
Wet · 25%
Wet Braking	40%	10%
Wet Handling	30%	7.5%
Subj. Wet Handling	20%	5%
Straight Aqua	10%	2.5%
Off road · 20%
Dirt Handling	50%	10%
Subj. Dirt Handling	50%	10%
Snow · 10%
Snow Braking	40%	4%
Snow Handling	30%	3%
Subj. Snow Handling	30%	3%
Comfort · 15%
Subj. Comfort	50%	7.5%
Subj. Noise	50%	7.5%
Value · 5%
Value	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.

Subj. Road Score

I use a broader road score to capture how a tire performs in normal real-world use across motorways, rural roads, and urban environments over an extended drive of typically 100 km or more. This assessment includes ride comfort, cruising noise, wet-weather confidence, steering feel, lane-change stability, straight-line stability, and overall predictability. It is intended to reflect the cumulative real-world impression a tire creates outside the constraints of short-format instrumented testing. Rated on a 1–10 scale.

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 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.

Read our complete testing methodology →

Tire shortlist →Read the test →

More tire tests