Tested 21 times by independent publications, the Firestone Winterhawk 4 averages a finish of 11th. Its strongest discipline is Noise, beating 71% of the field across 12 tests; its weakest is Dry Braking, at 10% across 13 tests.
2026 Auto Bild Winter Tire Test P16 of 20
The Firestone Winterhawk 4 shares 16th place with a 'satisfactory' verdict. It is dependable on snow but weak in the wet and on dry roads.
Where the Firestone Winterhawk 4 finished in each measured discipline, across every test that measured it against at least two other tires. Field beaten is the share of the other tires it outranked in that measurement.
| Discipline | Tests | Avg finish | Field beaten | Firsts |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dry | ||||
| Dry Braking Weak | 13 | P16.3 of 18.2 | 10% | - |
| Dry Handling | 10 | P15.3 of 17.4 | 17% | - |
| Wet | ||||
| Wet Braking | 19 | P7.5 of 29.1 | 68% | - |
| Wet Braking - Concrete | 3 | P6.3 of 21 | 76% | - |
| Wet Handling | 10 | P9.6 of 17.3 | 45% | - |
| Wet Circle | 10 | P11.8 of 19.5 | 41% | - |
| Straight Aqua | 13 | P6.7 of 18.2 | 68% | 1 |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 11 | P10.2 of 17.7 | 46% | 1 |
| Snow | ||||
| Snow Braking | 19 | P10.7 of 22.5 | 57% | 1 |
| Snow Traction | 13 | P7 of 18.2 | 64% | - |
| Snow Handling | 10 | P6.8 of 16.6 | 68% | 1 |
| Snow Circle | 1 | P8 of 8 | 0% | - |
| Snow Slalom | 7 | P6.7 of 19.1 | 73% | 1 |
| Ice | ||||
| Ice Braking | 3 | P6.7 of 21 | 68% | - |
| Comfort | ||||
| Subj. Comfort | 2 | P10.5 of 20 | 50% | - |
| Noise Strong | 12 | P6.8 of 18.3 | 71% | - |
| Value | ||||
| Wear | 9 | P13.4 of 20.3 | 35% | - |
| Value | 6 | P7.2 of 20 | 68% | - |
| Rolling Resistance | 10 | P7.8 of 16.8 | 52% | - |
| Fuel Consumption | 2 | P7 of 23.5 | 72% | - |
| Abrasion | 3 | P17.7 of 21 | 13% | - |
Overall finishing position against the tires that have most often shared a test with the Firestone Winterhawk 4. Only tires tested alongside it at least three times are listed.
| Rival | Shared tests | Ahead | Behind | Level | Finished ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Kleber Krisalp HP3
15 shared: 5 ahead, 10 behind
Compare with Krisalp HP3 |
15 | 5 | 10 | - | 33% |
 BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2
14 shared: 5 ahead, 9 behind
Compare with gForce Winter 2 |
14 | 5 | 9 | - | 36% |
 Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
14 shared: 2 ahead, 12 behind
Compare with WinterContact TS 870 P |
14 | 2 | 12 | - | 14% |
 Fulda Kristall Control HP2
13 shared: 10 ahead, 2 behind
Compare with Kristall Control HP2 |
13 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 83% |
 Semperit Speed Grip 5
13 shared: 2 ahead, 11 behind
Compare with Speed Grip 5 |
13 | 2 | 11 | - | 15% |
 Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
13 shared: 0 ahead, 13 behind
Compare with Blizzak LM005 |
13 | 0 | 13 | - | 0% |
 Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6
12 shared: 8 ahead, 4 behind
Compare with Premitra Snow WP6 |
12 | 8 | 4 | - | 67% |
 Dunlop Winter Sport 5
12 shared: 2 ahead, 10 behind
Compare with Winter Sport 5 |
12 | 2 | 10 | - | 17% |
 Uniroyal WinterExpert
11 shared: 5 ahead, 6 behind
Compare with WinterExpert |
11 | 5 | 6 | - | 45% |
 Vredestein Wintrac Pro
10 shared: 2 ahead, 8 behind
Compare with Wintrac Pro |
10 | 2 | 8 | - | 20% |
 Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3
10 shared: 0 ahead, 10 behind
Compare with UltraGrip Performance 3 |
10 | 0 | 10 | - | 0% |
 Barum Polaris 5
9 shared: 7 ahead, 2 behind
|
9 | 7 | 2 | - | 78% |
 Giti GitiWinterW2
9 shared: 4 ahead, 5 behind
|
9 | 4 | 5 | - | 44% |
 Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2
9 shared: 2 ahead, 7 behind
|
9 | 2 | 7 | - | 22% |
 Michelin Alpin 6
9 shared: 1 ahead, 8 behind
|
9 | 1 | 8 | - | 11% |
 Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
9 shared: 0 ahead, 9 behind
Compare with Pilot Alpin 5 |
9 | 0 | 9 | - | 0% |
 Yokohama BluEarth Winter V906
7 shared: 6 ahead, 1 behind
|
7 | 6 | 1 | - | 86% |
 Kumho Winter Craft WP52
7 shared: 4 ahead, 3 behind
|
7 | 4 | 3 | - | 57% |
 Hankook Winter i cept evo3
7 shared: 2 ahead, 5 behind
Compare with Winter i cept evo3 |
7 | 2 | 5 | - | 29% |
 Bridgestone Blizzak 6
7 shared: 0 ahead, 7 behind
Compare with Blizzak 6 |
7 | 0 | 7 | - | 0% |
The same record for the tire it replaced and the tire that replaced it.
| Tire | Tests | Wins | Avg finish | Field beaten |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Firestone Winterhawk 3 Predecessor | 18 | 0 | 14th | 49% |
| Firestone Winterhawk 4 This tire | 21 | 0 | 11th | 45% |
Drawn from 20 tests. Updated October 13, 2026.
Across 20 independent winter tests, the Firestone Winterhawk 4 most consistently comes across as a snow-biased Central European winter tire: it can be genuinely competitive for traction and control on snow, while repeatedly giving away safety margin on dry roads (especially braking and precision). The strongest pattern is snow performance, with standout results such as 3rd of 22 for snow traction (+1.6% from best) in the 2025 Auto Bild winter test, 1st of 10 for snow handling in the 2023 Auto Bild SUV test, and 1st of 8 for snow braking in the 2022 Auto Motor und Sport test. Testers regularly describe it as a “snow specialist” with “precise control and sufficient reserves” in winter conditions, and the tagged write-ups strongly reinforce this (snow traction praised 8 times vs 1 criticised; snow handling praised 6 times vs 0 criticised).
The recurring trade-off is dry-road performance, where the Winterhawk 4 is often near the bottom of the field and criticised for a soft, imprecise feel: 21st of 22 for dry braking (+24.9%) and 21st of 22 for dry handling in the 2025 Auto Bild test, 16th of 16 for dry braking in the 2024 ADAC 17" test, and 21st of 22 for dry braking (+30.1%) in the 2021 Auto Bild test. Several testers explicitly call out “spongy, imprecise handling on dry pavement” and “poor precision and steering feedback requiring frequent corrections”. Wet performance is more mixed than the snow story: it can brake very well in some tests (e.g. 2nd of 16 in wet braking, +1.2%, ADAC 2024 17"; 3rd of 55, +2.6%, Auto Bild 2024 braking test), but it is not consistently strong across all wet disciplines (e.g. 20th of 50 for wet braking, +22.4%, Auto Bild 2026 braking test; and weaker lateral aquaplaning / wet circle results in some ADAC/Auto Bild datasets). Overall placings therefore tend to sit in the lower half of full tests (e.g. 16th/20 Auto Bild 2025; 18th/20 Auto Bild 2024; 20th/20 Auto Bild 2023), even though it can look good in braking qualifiers (e.g. 5th/50 Auto Bild 2021 market overview; 7th/51 Auto Bild 2025 braking test).
was upper mid-field for snow braking and traction- 2026 Auto Bild Winter Tire Test (2026)
snow specialist with very high traction on snow-covered surfaces, making it confident and reassuring- 2025 Autobild Winter Tire Test (2025)
good ratings across all criteria including snow and ice braking, snow traction, and handling with precise control and sufficient reserves- 2025 ADAC Winter Tire Test (2025)
On snow, it offers good braking, traction, and handling- 2024 ADAC 17 inch Winter Tire Test (2024)
Good winter suitability and safe driving characteristics on dry roads- 2024 Auto Bild Winter Tire Test (2024)
shared fourth place in the slalom- 2026 Auto Bild Winter Tire Test (2026)
good ratings across all criteria including snow and ice braking, snow traction, and handling with precise control and sufficient reserves- 2025 ADAC Winter Tire Test (2025)
On snow, it offers good braking, traction, and handling- 2024 ADAC 17 inch Winter Tire Test (2024)
Winter specialist with good aquaplaning qualities- 2023 Auto Bild SUV Winter Tire Test (2023)
Balanced driving behavior on snow and wet tracks- 2023 Auto Bild Winter Tire Test (2023)
good braking and longitudinal aquaplaning performance- 2025 ADAC Winter Tire Test (2025)
very good ratings in longitudinal aquaplaning and above-average results in lateral aquaplaning- 2023 ADAC 16 Inch Tire Test (2023)
good aquaplaning qualities- 2023 Auto Bild SUV Winter Tire Test (2023)
good aquaplaning properties- 2022 Auto Bild SUV Winter Tire Test (2022)
achieving good braking- 2025 ADAC Winter Tire Test (2025)
performs well on wet surfaces with good braking and handling- 2024 ADAC 17 inch Winter Tire Test (2024)
the tire performs well in braking- 2023 ADAC 16 Inch Tire Test (2023)
short snow and wet braking- 2021 Auto Bild Winter Tire Test (2021)
had low rolling resistance- 2026 Auto Bild Winter Tire Test (2026)
good efficiency thanks to low weight and fuel consumption- 2025 ADAC Winter Tire Test (2025)
scores well in fuel efficiency and weight- 2023 ADAC 16 Inch Tire Test (2023)
Good on wet roads, snow and ice, low fuel consumption (top marks.)- 2022 ADAC Winter Tire Test - 185/65 R15 (2022)
was upper mid-field for snow braking and traction- 2026 Auto Bild Winter Tire Test (2026)
good ratings across all criteria including snow and ice braking, snow traction, and handling with precise control and sufficient reserves- 2025 ADAC Winter Tire Test (2025)
On snow, it offers good braking, traction, and handling- 2024 ADAC 17 inch Winter Tire Test (2024)
short snow and wet braking- 2021 Auto Bild Winter Tire Test (2021)
performs well on wet surfaces with good braking and handling- 2024 ADAC 17 inch Winter Tire Test (2024)
Balanced driving behavior on snow and wet tracks- 2023 Auto Bild Winter Tire Test (2023)
stable handling in all weather conditions- 2022 Auto Bild SUV Winter Tire Test (2022)
It also delivers respectable performance on wet roads, maintaining acceptable safety margins- 2025 Autobild Winter Tire Test (2025)
Good on wet roads, snow and ice, low fuel consumption (top marks.)- 2022 ADAC Winter Tire Test - 185/65 R15 (2022)
Good results in the snow and wet- 2021 AZ SUV Winter Tire Test (2021)
braking distances that just miss good ratings- 2025 ADAC Winter Tire Test (2025)
Extended dry braking distances also raise some safety concerns- 2025 Autobild Winter Tire Test (2025)
extended wet and dry braking distances- 2023 Auto Bild SUV Winter Tire Test (2023)
extended dry braking distances- 2023 Auto Bild Winter Tire Test (2023)
longer wet and dry braking distances- 2022 Auto Bild Winter Tire Test (2022)
poor precision and steering feedback requiring frequent corrections- 2025 ADAC Winter Tire Test (2025)
spongy, imprecise handling on dry pavement, where the soft compound and flexible tread blocks compromise steering response- 2025 Autobild Winter Tire Test (2025)
lacks precision and feedback on dry roads- 2024 ADAC 17 inch Winter Tire Test (2024)
delayed steering response- 2023 Auto Bild SUV Winter Tire Test (2023)
had the slowest dry handling of the ranked tires- 2026 Auto Bild Winter Tire Test (2026)
spongy, imprecise handling on dry pavement- 2025 Autobild Winter Tire Test (2025)
lacks precision and feedback on dry roads, requiring frequent steering corrections and exhibiting a tendency to oversteer- 2024 ADAC 17 inch Winter Tire Test (2024)
Strongly understeering dry handling- 2023 Auto Bild SUV Winter Tire Test (2023)
Strongly understeering dry handling- 2023 Auto Bild Winter Tire Test (2023)
misses a good rating due to its below-average projected lifespan- 2023 ADAC 16 Inch Tire Test (2023)
low levels of comfort- 2022 AMS Winter Tire Test (2022)
moderate driving comfort- 2022 Auto Bild Winter Tire Test (2022)
the second-longest wet braking- 2026 Auto Bild Winter Tire Test (2026)
Limited grip and extended braking distances on wet roads- 2024 Auto Bild Winter Tire Test (2024)
extended wet and dry braking distances- 2023 Auto Bild SUV Winter Tire Test (2023)
Weak braking and limited liability reserves- 2022 AMS Winter Tire Test (2022)
longer wet and dry braking distances- 2022 Auto Bild Winter Tire Test (2022)
Weaknesses on dry roads (devaluation.)- 2022 ADAC Winter Tire Test - 185/65 R15 (2022)
Only satisfactory dry qualities- 2022 Auto Bild Winter Tire Test (2022)
Understeer in the dry with long dry braking- 2021 Auto Bild Winter Tire Test (2021)
Strong = top two of the field in that measurement. Weak = bottom two.
The Firestone Winterhawk 4 shares 16th place with a 'satisfactory' verdict. It is dependable on snow but weak in the wet and on dry roads.
The Firestone Winterhawk 4, as Bridgestone's budget brand, positions itself as a snow specialist with very high traction on snow-covered surfaces, making it confident and reassuring when winter conditions are at their worst. It also delivers respectable performance on wet roads, maintaining acceptable safety margins. However, the tire shows its budget orientation and snow-focused design through spongy, imprecise handling on dry pavement, where the soft compound and flexible tread blocks compromise steering response and cornering stability. Extended dry braking distances also raise some safety concerns. At approximately €450 per set, it's positioned in the mid-range price bracket, though the handling compromises make competitors at similar prices more appealing for balanced performance. The Firestone is best suited for drivers in consistently snowy climates who prioritize winter grip and can tolerate vague dry handling, particularly those who drive conservatively and value the Bridgestone connection for quality assurance.
The Firestone Winterhawk 4 receives only adequate ratings on dry roads and narrowly misses satisfactory on wet surfaces, but achieves good winter performance, though overall driving safety is rated as adequate due to dry road weaknesses. It also misses good environmental ratings, resulting in an adequate overall judgment. On dry roads, it shows poor precision and steering feedback requiring frequent corrections, with oversteering tendencies and adequate limit behavior, plus braking distances that just miss good ratings. On wet surfaces, it narrowly misses good overall ratings despite achieving good braking and longitudinal aquaplaning performance, but only satisfactory lateral aquaplaning and handling due to moderate grip levels. In winter conditions, it clearly earns good ratings across all criteria including snow and ice braking, snow traction, and handling with precise control and sufficient reserves. This Italian-manufactured tire misses good environmental ratings due to satisfactory predicted mileage, though it shows low tire wear and good efficiency thanks to low weight and fuel consumption.
The Firestone Winterhawk 4 performs well in winter conditions and offers safe handling on dry roads. However, its poor performance on wet roads, including limited grip and extended braking distances, is a significant drawback. This tire might be suitable for areas with predominantly dry, cold winters but could be problematic in regions with frequent wet conditions during winter.
The Firestone Winterhawk 4 achieves a satisfactory rating for driving safety, with good performance on wet and wintery roads but significant weaknesses on dry surfaces. It lacks precision and feedback on dry roads, requiring frequent steering corrections and exhibiting a tendency to oversteer. However, it performs well on wet surfaces with good braking and handling, although its lateral aquaplaning performance is only average. On snow, it offers good braking, traction, and handling. Its environmental performance is average, with satisfactory lifespan and wear, but good fuel efficiency.
The Firestone WINTERHAWK 4 provides satisfactory steering feedback on dry roads and remains stable at the limit, earning a good overall rating for dry conditions due to its good braking performance. On wet roads, the tire performs well in braking and handling, with very good ratings in longitudinal aquaplaning and above-average results in lateral aquaplaning. On winter roads, it scores well for braking and handling but falls short in traction and ice braking, receiving only a satisfactory rating for these criteria. Environmentally, the tire misses a good rating due to its below-average projected lifespan and satisfactory wear. However, it scores well in fuel efficiency and weight.
Even if the Firestone WINTERHAWK 4 achieves good results in the wet, on snow and ice, as well as in terms of fuel consumption and wear, its performance in the dry is no longer sufficient for a good rating. At the same time, its satisfactory performance in the dry led to a devaluation of the overall rating - the Firestone was thus classified as "recommended".
Good results in the snow and wet, however only average in the dry.
Owner reviews, sizes and EU label data, comparisons and the Tire Reviews score. All Firestone tires