5 tests, 2015 to 2023
- Test win
- Second
- Third
- Average 37%
Record by discipline
Where the Hifly HF201 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 | 2 | P35.5 of 51.5 | 32% | - |
| Wet | ||||
| Wet Braking | 2 | P36.5 of 51.5 | 29% | - |
| Wet Braking - Concrete | 1 | P36 of 50 | 29% | - |
| Straight Aqua | 1 | P37 of 50 | 27% | - |
| Curved Aquaplaning | 1 | P40 of 50 | 20% | - |
| Comfort | ||||
| Noise | 1 | P8 of 50 | 86% | - |
| Tire Weight | 1 | P26 of 50 | 49% | - |
| Value | ||||
| Wear | 1 | P22 of 50 | 57% | - |
| Value | 1 | P7 of 50 | 88% | - |
| Fuel Consumption | 1 | P43 of 50 | 14% | - |
| Abrasion | 1 | P17 of 50 | 67% | - |
Head-to-head record
Overall finishing position against the tires that have most often shared a test with the Hifly HF201. Only tires tested alongside it at least three times are listed.
| Rival | Shared tests | Ahead | Behind | Level | Finished ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 0 | 5 | - | 0% | |
| 4 | 2 | 2 | - | 50% | |
| 4 | 0 | 4 | - | 0% | |
| 4 | 0 | 4 | - | 0% | |
| 3 | 2 | 1 | - | 67% | |
| 3 | 1 | 2 | - | 33% | |
| 3 | 1 | 2 | - | 33% | |
| 3 | 1 | 2 | - | 33% | |
| 3 | 1 | 2 | - | 33% | |
| 3 | 0 | 3 | - | 0% | |
| 3 | 0 | 3 | - | 0% | |
| 3 | 0 | 3 | - | 0% | |
| 3 | 0 | 3 | - | 0% | |
| 3 | 0 | 3 | - | 0% | |
| 3 | 0 | 3 | - | 0% | |
| 3 | 0 | 3 | - | 0% | |
| 3 | 0 | 3 | - | 0% |
Performance Analysis
Drawn from 5 tests. Updated November 11, 2025.
Across five summer tests, the Hifly HF201 consistently places in the lower third overall, driven by weak wet and dry safety metrics. Multiple braking and aquaplaning results show sizable gaps to the best, indicating extended stopping distances and limited wet reserves. However, it offers strong purchase price/value positioning and acceptable noise, with mid-pack wear for a budget tire. Overall, it suits cost-driven use cases but compromises safety-critical performance, especially in the wet.
Performance Strengths
-
Value and Affordability
Strong
Details
- 2023 ADAC: Price position 3/50; Value 7/50 (+59.2% vs best value)
- Consistently budget-tier pricing across tests (overall 24-42/52-47 suggests entry-level positioning)
-
Comfort/Noise
Moderate
Details
- 2023 ADAC: Noise 70.3 dB, position 8/50 (+1.7% from best)
-
Wear/Longevity
Moderate
Details
- 2023 ADAC: Wear 39,100 km, position 22/50 (+45.3% from best)
- 2023 ADAC: Abrasion 73.6 mg/km/t, position 17/50 (+111.5% from best lower is better)
Performance Weaknesses
-
Wet Weather Performance
Strong
Details
- 2023 ADAC: Wet braking 44.5 m, 42/50 (+29.4% from best)
- 2021 Auto Bild: Wet braking 35.3 m, 31/53 (+19.3% from best)
- 2023 ADAC: Curved aquaplaning 3.1 m/s², 40/50 (+22.5% from best)
- 2023 ADAC: Straight aquaplaning 79.2 km/h, 37/50 (+8.7% from best)
-
Dry Braking/Stopping Distance
Moderate
Details
- 2023 ADAC: Dry braking 39.8 m, 37/50 (+10.9% from best)
- 2021 Auto Bild: Dry braking 38.1 m, 34/53 (+11.7% from best)
-
Efficiency/Fuel Consumption
Moderate
Details
- 2023 ADAC: Fuel consumption 5.9 l/100km, 43/50 (+7.3% from best)
- 2023 ADAC: Tire weight 8.6 kg, 26/50 (+13.2% from best)
-
Overall Test Standing
Strong
Details
- Average overall position ~32 across 5 tests
- 2018 Auto Bild overview: 42/47; 2016 overview: 31/50; 2023 ADAC: 32/50
Every test, newest first 5
Strong = top two of the field in that measurement. Weak = bottom two.
Back to the Hifly HF201 overview
Owner reviews, sizes and EU label data, comparisons and the Tire Reviews score. All Hifly tires

