Menu

The BEST Performance Winter Tires for 2024 / 2025

Jonathan Benson
Tested and written by Jonathan Benson
7 min read Updated
Contents
  1. Introduction
  2. Testing Methodology
    1. Categories Tested
  3. Snow
  4. Ice
  5. Wet
  6. Dry
  7. Comfort
  8. Value
  9. Results
  10. Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
  11. Pirelli P Zero Winter 2
  12. Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3
  13. Hankook Winter i cept evo3
  14. Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
  15. Goodride ZuperSnow Z507

In this test, we selected 6 of the best ultra-high-performance winter tires, and compared them against all-season and summer tires to reveal their true capabilities. We evaluated their performance in dry, wet, snow, and ice conditions, along with comfort, noise, and rolling resistance. The results were remarkably close, and the data from the all season and summer tires is really interesting.

The BEST Performance Winter Tyres for 2024 / 2025

Testing Methodology

Test Driver
Jonathan Benson
Tire Size
235/35 R19
Test Location
Professional Proving Ground
Test Year
2024
Tires Tested
6
Show full testing methodology Hide methodology

Every tire is tested using calibrated instrumented measurement and structured subjective assessment. Reference tires are retested throughout each session to correct for changing conditions, ensuring fair, repeatable comparisons. Multiple reference sets are used where needed so that control tire wear does not affect accuracy.

We use professional-grade testing equipment including GPS data loggers, accelerometers, and calibrated microphones. All tires are broken in and conditioned before testing begins. For full details on our equipment, preparation process, and calibration procedures, see our complete testing methodology.

Categories Tested

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 analyse 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 behaviour 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

Objective data is only part of the picture, so 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 behaviour, 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 analyse 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 Braking - Cool

This test follows the same procedure as the standard wet braking test — entry speed of 88 km/h, full ABS braking, VBOX measurement over the 80–5 km/h window — but is conducted at cooler ambient temperatures, typically below 7°C. The lower temperature allows assessment of how each tire's compound performs when cold, which is particularly relevant for all-season and winter tire evaluation. Reference tires are run at the same frequency as the standard wet braking programme.

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 behaviour 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

Objective data is only part of the picture, so 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 behaviour, 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.

Curved Aquaplaning

For curved aquaplaning, I use a circular track, typically around 100 metres 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 analyse 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

Objective data is only part of the picture, so 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 behaviour, 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.

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 analyse 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.

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.

Standards: UNECE Regulation 117 ISO 13325 ISO 28580 UNECE Regulation 117 Annex 6

Snow

Snow performance is crucial for winter tires, and this test saw a surprise victor. The Pirelli P Zero Winter 2 outperformed the traditionally dominant Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 across all snow tests, including braking, traction, and handling. Both tires offered exceptional snow performance, with the Pirelli showing a slight edge in grip and overall handling characteristics.

The Hankook Winter I*Cept Evo3 performed well in snow handling and snow braking, but was a little down in snow traction.

Naturally the summer tire struggled, and the unusually strong performance of an all season tire in the snow test is thanks to the Michelin CrossClimate 2 being the best in class.

Snow Braking

Spread: 26.71 M (152.9%)|Avg: 21.06 M
Snow braking in meters (40 - 5 km/h) [Average Temperature -6c] (Lower is better)
  1. Pirelli P Zero Winter 2
    17.47 M
  2. Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
    17.61 M
  3. Reference All Season Ref
    18.07 M
  4. Hankook Winter i cept evo3
    18.24 M
  5. Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
    18.25 M
  6. Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3
    18.32 M
  7. Goodride ZuperSnow Z507
    18.38 M
  8. Reference All Season Avg Ref
    19.01 M
  9. Reference Summer Ref
    44.18 M

Snow Traction

Spread: 24.81 s (480.8%)|Avg: 8.13 s
Snow acceleration time (5 - 35 km/h) [Average Temperature -6c] (Lower is better)
  1. Pirelli P Zero Winter 2
    5.16 s
  2. Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
    5.18 s
  3. Reference All Season Ref
    5.31 s
  4. Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3
    5.37 s
  5. Goodride ZuperSnow Z507
    5.42 s
  6. Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
    5.53 s
  7. Reference All Season Avg Ref
    5.58 s
  8. Hankook Winter i cept evo3
    5.63 s
  9. Reference Summer Ref
    29.97 s

Snow Handling

Spread: 65.02 s (83.1%)|Avg: 87.16 s
Snow handling time in seconds [Average Temperature -6c] (Lower is better)
  1. Pirelli P Zero Winter 2
    78.28 s
  2. Hankook Winter i cept evo3
    79.07 s
  3. Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
    79.28 s
  4. Reference All Season Ref
    79.65 s
  5. Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
    80.05 s
  6. Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3
    80.25 s
  7. Goodride ZuperSnow Z507
    81.53 s
  8. Reference All Season Avg Ref
    83.00 s
  9. Reference Summer Ref
    143.30 s

Ice

On ice, the Michelin, Pirelli, and Hankook demonstrated strong performance in both braking and traction tests. The Goodyear and Continental showed some weakness in these challenging conditions, highlighting the diverse demands placed on winter tires.

The all season tire you see topping the results was the budget all season tire, which almost certainly had a soft winter compound not suitable for all seasons.

Ice Braking

Spread: 23.16 M (256.5%)|Avg: 12.47 M
Ice braking in meters (25 - 5 km/h) (Lower is better)
  1. Reference All Season Ref
    9.03 M
  2. Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
    9.46 M
  3. Pirelli P Zero Winter 2
    9.51 M
  4. Hankook Winter i cept evo3
    9.57 M
  5. Goodride ZuperSnow Z507
    9.90 M
  6. Reference All Season Avg Ref
    10.36 M
  7. Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3
    11.08 M
  8. Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
    11.13 M
  9. Reference Summer Ref
    32.19 M

Ice Traction

Spread: 13.05 s (290%)|Avg: 6.21 s
Ice acceleration time (5 - 25 km/h) (Lower is better)
  1. Reference All Season Ref
    4.50 s
  2. Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
    4.50 s
  3. Pirelli P Zero Winter 2
    4.50 s
  4. Hankook Winter i cept evo3
    4.63 s
  5. Goodride ZuperSnow Z507
    4.82 s
  6. Reference All Season Avg Ref
    4.95 s
  7. Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3
    5.14 s
  8. Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
    5.32 s
  9. Reference Summer Ref
    17.55 s

Wet

Wet braking tests, conducted at both warm and cool temperatures, saw the Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3 shine, offering the shortest stopping distances. The Michelin and Pirelli also performed strongly, while the Hankook and Continental lagged slightly behind. The budget tire significantly underperformed in this crucial safety test.

Wet Braking

Spread: 10.89 M (45.6%)|Avg: 29.57 M
Wet braking in meters (80 - 5 km/h) [Average Temperature 26.5c] (Lower is better)
  1. Reference Summer Ref
    23.89 M
  2. Reference All Season Ref
    25.14 M
  3. Reference All Season Avg Ref
    28.14 M
  4. Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3
    30.47 M
  5. Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
    30.62 M
  6. Pirelli P Zero Winter 2
    30.80 M
  7. Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
    31.02 M
  8. Hankook Winter i cept evo3
    31.25 M
  9. Goodride ZuperSnow Z507
    34.78 M

Wet Braking - Cool

Spread: 7.30 M (29.1%)|Avg: 28.09 M
Wet braking at cooler temperature in meters (80 - 5 km/h) [Average Temperature 8c] (Lower is better)
  1. Reference All Season Ref
    25.10 M
  2. Reference Summer Ref
    26.31 M
  3. Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3
    27.60 M
  4. Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
    27.88 M
  5. Pirelli P Zero Winter 2
    27.93 M
  6. Reference All Season Avg Ref
    27.98 M
  7. Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
    28.74 M
  8. Hankook Winter i cept evo3
    28.90 M
  9. Goodride ZuperSnow Z507
    32.40 M

In wet handling, the Pirelli P Zero Winter 2 narrowly edged out the competition, with the Michelin and Goodyear following closely. All three offered excellent grip and predictability. The Hankook and Continental, while still good, couldn't quite match the top performers' level of sporty dynamics in wet conditions.

Wet Handling

Spread: 14.50 s (14.1%)|Avg: 109.56 s
Wet handling time in seconds [Average Temperature 21.5c] (Lower is better)
  1. Reference Summer Ref
    103.02 s
  2. Pirelli P Zero Winter 2
    107.35 s
  3. Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3
    107.94 s
  4. Reference All Season Ref
    107.96 s
  5. Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
    108.88 s
  6. Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
    109.92 s
  7. Hankook Winter i cept evo3
    110.83 s
  8. Reference All Season Avg Ref
    112.59 s
  9. Goodride ZuperSnow Z507
    117.52 s

Aquaplaning resistance tests revealed the Hankook's strength in straight-line aquaplaning, while the Pirelli showed the best overall performance when combining straight and curved aquaplaning results. This highlights the importance of tread design in managing deep water evacuation.

Straight Aqua

Spread: 10.80 Km/H (13.7%)|Avg: 73.47 Km/H
Float Speed in Km/H (Higher is better)
  1. Reference All Season Ref
    79.10 Km/H
  2. Reference Summer Ref
    76.50 Km/H
  3. Reference All Season Avg Ref
    75.95 Km/H
  4. Hankook Winter i cept evo3
    73.00 Km/H
  5. Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
    72.80 Km/H
  6. Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3
    72.00 Km/H
  7. Pirelli P Zero Winter 2
    72.00 Km/H
  8. Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
    71.60 Km/H
  9. Goodride ZuperSnow Z507
    68.30 Km/H

Curved Aquaplaning

Spread: 0.79 m/sec2 (31.1%)|Avg: 2.14 m/sec2
Remaining lateral acceleration (Higher is better)
  1. Reference Summer Ref
    2.54 m/sec2
  2. Reference All Season Avg Ref
    2.33 m/sec2
  3. Pirelli P Zero Winter 2
    2.24 m/sec2
  4. Hankook Winter i cept evo3
    2.16 m/sec2
  5. Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
    2.12 m/sec2
  6. Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
    2.10 m/sec2
  7. Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3
    2.06 m/sec2
  8. Reference All Season Ref
    1.92 m/sec2
  9. Goodride ZuperSnow Z507
    1.75 m/sec2

Dry

In dry braking, all winter tires performed well, with results within 3% of each other. The Hankook Winter i cept evo3 led the pack, showcasing the impressive capabilities of modern winter tires in dry conditions. However, it's worth noting that even the best winter tires struggled to match the average performance of the all-season tires in this test, and were way behind the summer tire.

Dry Braking

Spread: 7.06 M (20.5%)|Avg: 39.40 M
Dry braking in meters (100 - 5 km/h) [Average Temperature 23.5c] (Lower is better)
  1. Reference Summer Ref
    34.36 M
  2. Reference All Season Ref
    36.97 M
  3. Reference All Season Avg Ref
    38.87 M
  4. Hankook Winter i cept evo3
    40.19 M
  5. Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
    40.35 M
  6. Pirelli P Zero Winter 2
    40.40 M
  7. Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3
    40.87 M
  8. Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
    41.16 M
  9. Goodride ZuperSnow Z507
    41.42 M

Dry handling revealed some interesting insights. While the budget tire surprisingly performed better than expected, the premium tires showed their worth. The Pirelli P Zero Winter 2, Michelin Pilot Alpin 5, and Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3 were virtually indistinguishable in terms of lap times and offered excellent driving dynamics. However, all winter tires were outperformed by the summer tire reference, which was about 6 seconds faster per lap and sigifincatly more sporty subjectively.

Dry Handling

Spread: 6.16 s (7.3%)|Avg: 87.27 s
Dry handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
  1. Reference Summer Ref
    84.30 s
  2. Reference All Season Ref
    84.96 s
  3. Reference All Season Avg Ref
    86.76 s
  4. Pirelli P Zero Winter 2
    87.02 s
  5. Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
    87.31 s
  6. Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3
    87.79 s
  7. Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
    88.19 s
  8. Hankook Winter i cept evo3
    88.64 s
  9. Goodride ZuperSnow Z507
    90.46 s

Comfort

Comfort and noise tests revealed minor differences among the premium tires, with the Continental offering a slight edge in comfort. The Pirelli produced the lowest external noise, closely followed by the Michelin and Continental. It's worth noting that as ultra high performance winter tires in 19-inch sizes, comfort differences were minimal among the premium options.

Subj. Comfort

Spread: 3.00 Points (30%)|Avg: 8.92 Points
Subjective Comfort Score (Higher is better)
  1. Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
    10.00 Points
  2. Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
    9.50 Points
  3. Hankook Winter i cept evo3
    9.00 Points
  4. Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3
    9.00 Points
  5. Pirelli P Zero Winter 2
    9.00 Points
  6. Goodride ZuperSnow Z507
    7.00 Points

Noise

Spread: 3.60 dB (5%)|Avg: 72.70 dB
External noise in dB (Lower is better)
  1. Pirelli P Zero Winter 2
    71.40 dB
  2. Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
    71.60 dB
  3. Reference All Season Ref
    72.00 dB
  4. Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
    72.30 dB
  5. Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3
    72.50 dB
  6. Reference All Season Avg Ref
    72.70 dB
  7. Reference Summer Ref
    73.30 dB
  8. Hankook Winter i cept evo3
    73.50 dB
  9. Goodride ZuperSnow Z507
    75.00 dB

Value

Rolling resistance results were remarkably close, with all six tires spread across just a 3.8% range. While the budget tire showed the lowest rolling resistance, its poor performance in other crucial areas makes it difficult to recommend based on this factor alone.

Rolling Resistance

Spread: 2.14 kg / t (27.6%)|Avg: 8.76 kg / t
Rolling resistance in kg t (Lower is better)
  1. Reference All Season Ref
    7.76 kg / t
  2. Reference All Season Avg Ref
    8.55 kg / t
  3. Goodride ZuperSnow Z507
    8.65 kg / t
  4. Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3
    8.67 kg / t
  5. Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
    8.69 kg / t
  6. Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
    8.71 kg / t
  7. Pirelli P Zero Winter 2
    8.95 kg / t
  8. Hankook Winter i cept evo3
    8.98 kg / t
  9. Reference Summer Ref
    9.90 kg / t

Results

1st

Michelin Pilot Alpin 5

235/35 R19 91W
Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
  • EU Label: D/B/70
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Tread: 7.2 mm
  • Price: 245.74
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 2nd 40.35 M 40.19 M +0.16 M 99.6%
Dry Handling 2nd 87.31 s 87.02 s +0.29 s 99.67%
Subj. Dry Handling 1st 10 Points 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 2nd 30.62 M 30.47 M +0.15 M 99.51%
Wet Braking - Cool 2nd 27.88 M 27.6 M +0.28 M 99%
Wet Handling 3rd 108.88 s 107.35 s +1.53 s 98.59%
Subj. Wet Handling 3rd 9.5 Points 10 Points -0.5 Points 95%
Straight Aqua 5th 71.6 Km/H 73 Km/H -1.4 Km/H 98.08%
Curved Aquaplaning 3rd 2.12 m/sec2 2.24 m/sec2 -0.12 m/sec2 94.64%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 2nd 17.61 M 17.47 M +0.14 M 99.2%
Snow Traction 2nd 5.18 s 5.16 s +0.02 s 99.61%
Snow Handling 3rd 79.28 s 78.28 s +1 s 98.74%
Subj. Snow Handling 1st 10 Points 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Ice Braking 1st 9.46 M 100%
Ice Traction 1st 4.5 s 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 2nd 9.5 Points 10 Points -0.5 Points 95%
Noise 2nd 71.6 dB 71.4 dB +0.2 dB 99.72%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 4th 8.71 kg / t 8.65 kg / t +0.06 kg / t 99.31%
Test Winner 2024 Winter Test Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
1st

Pirelli P Zero Winter 2

235/35 R19 91V
Pirelli P Zero Winter 2
  • EU Label: C/A/70
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Tread: 7.5 mm
  • Price: 208.12
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 3rd 40.4 M 40.19 M +0.21 M 99.48%
Dry Handling 1st 87.02 s 100%
Subj. Dry Handling 2nd 9.5 Points 10 Points -0.5 Points 95%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 3rd 30.8 M 30.47 M +0.33 M 98.93%
Wet Braking - Cool 3rd 27.93 M 27.6 M +0.33 M 98.82%
Wet Handling 1st 107.35 s 100%
Subj. Wet Handling 1st 10 Points 100%
Straight Aqua 3rd 72 Km/H 73 Km/H -1 Km/H 98.63%
Curved Aquaplaning 1st 2.24 m/sec2 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 1st 17.47 M 100%
Snow Traction 1st 5.16 s 100%
Snow Handling 1st 78.28 s 100%
Subj. Snow Handling 1st 10 Points 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Ice Braking 2nd 9.51 M 9.46 M +0.05 M 99.47%
Ice Traction 1st 4.5 s 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 3rd 9 Points 10 Points -1 Points 90%
Noise 1st 71.4 dB 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 5th 8.95 kg / t 8.65 kg / t +0.3 kg / t 96.65%
Test Winner 2024 Winter Test Pirelli P Zero Winter 2
Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3
  • EU Label: C/B/72
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Tread: 7.6 mm
  • Price: 227.39
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 4th 40.87 M 40.19 M +0.68 M 98.34%
Dry Handling 3rd 87.79 s 87.02 s +0.77 s 99.12%
Subj. Dry Handling 3rd 9 Points 10 Points -1 Points 90%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 1st 30.47 M 100%
Wet Braking - Cool 1st 27.6 M 100%
Wet Handling 2nd 107.94 s 107.35 s +0.59 s 99.45%
Subj. Wet Handling 1st 10 Points 100%
Straight Aqua 3rd 72 Km/H 73 Km/H -1 Km/H 98.63%
Curved Aquaplaning 5th 2.06 m/sec2 2.24 m/sec2 -0.18 m/sec2 91.96%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 5th 18.32 M 17.47 M +0.85 M 95.36%
Snow Traction 3rd 5.37 s 5.16 s +0.21 s 96.09%
Snow Handling 5th 80.25 s 78.28 s +1.97 s 97.55%
Subj. Snow Handling 3rd 9.5 Points 10 Points -0.5 Points 95%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Ice Braking 5th 11.08 M 9.46 M +1.62 M 85.38%
Ice Traction 5th 5.14 s 4.5 s +0.64 s 87.55%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 3rd 9 Points 10 Points -1 Points 90%
Noise 4th 72.5 dB 71.4 dB +1.1 dB 98.48%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 2nd 8.67 kg / t 8.65 kg / t +0.02 kg / t 99.77%
Highly Recommended 2024 Winter Test Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3
4th

Hankook Winter i cept evo3

235/35 R19 81W
Hankook Winter i cept evo3
  • EU Label: D/B/72
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Tread: 8.2 mm
  • Price: 153.17
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 1st 40.19 M 100%
Dry Handling 5th 88.64 s 87.02 s +1.62 s 98.17%
Subj. Dry Handling 4th 8.5 Points 10 Points -1.5 Points 85%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 5th 31.25 M 30.47 M +0.78 M 97.5%
Wet Braking - Cool 5th 28.9 M 27.6 M +1.3 M 95.5%
Wet Handling 5th 110.83 s 107.35 s +3.48 s 96.86%
Subj. Wet Handling 5th 8.5 Points 10 Points -1.5 Points 85%
Straight Aqua 1st 73 Km/H 100%
Curved Aquaplaning 2nd 2.16 m/sec2 2.24 m/sec2 -0.08 m/sec2 96.43%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 3rd 18.24 M 17.47 M +0.77 M 95.78%
Snow Traction 6th 5.63 s 5.16 s +0.47 s 91.65%
Snow Handling 2nd 79.07 s 78.28 s +0.79 s 99%
Subj. Snow Handling 3rd 9.5 Points 10 Points -0.5 Points 95%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Ice Braking 3rd 9.57 M 9.46 M +0.11 M 98.85%
Ice Traction 3rd 4.63 s 4.5 s +0.13 s 97.19%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 3rd 9 Points 10 Points -1 Points 90%
Noise 5th 73.5 dB 71.4 dB +2.1 dB 97.14%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 6th 8.98 kg / t 8.65 kg / t +0.33 kg / t 96.33%
Recommended 2024 Winter Test Hankook Winter i cept evo3
Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
  • EU Label: C/B/71
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Tread: 8.2 mm
  • Price: 230.05
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 5th 41.16 M 40.19 M +0.97 M 97.64%
Dry Handling 4th 88.19 s 87.02 s +1.17 s 98.67%
Subj. Dry Handling 5th 8 Points 10 Points -2 Points 80%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 4th 31.02 M 30.47 M +0.55 M 98.23%
Wet Braking - Cool 4th 28.74 M 27.6 M +1.14 M 96.03%
Wet Handling 4th 109.92 s 107.35 s +2.57 s 97.66%
Subj. Wet Handling 4th 9 Points 10 Points -1 Points 90%
Straight Aqua 2nd 72.8 Km/H 73 Km/H -0.2 Km/H 99.73%
Curved Aquaplaning 4th 2.1 m/sec2 2.24 m/sec2 -0.14 m/sec2 93.75%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 4th 18.25 M 17.47 M +0.78 M 95.73%
Snow Traction 5th 5.53 s 5.16 s +0.37 s 93.31%
Snow Handling 4th 80.05 s 78.28 s +1.77 s 97.79%
Subj. Snow Handling 5th 9 Points 10 Points -1 Points 90%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Ice Braking 6th 11.13 M 9.46 M +1.67 M 85%
Ice Traction 6th 5.32 s 4.5 s +0.82 s 84.59%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 1st 10 Points 100%
Noise 3rd 72.3 dB 71.4 dB +0.9 dB 98.76%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 3rd 8.69 kg / t 8.65 kg / t +0.04 kg / t 99.54%
Recommended 2024 Winter Test Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
6th

Goodride ZuperSnow Z507

235/35 R19 91V
Goodride ZuperSnow Z507
  • EU Label: C/C/72
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Tread: 7.5 mm
  • Price: 62.85
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 6th 41.42 M 40.19 M +1.23 M 97.03%
Dry Handling 6th 90.46 s 87.02 s +3.44 s 96.2%
Subj. Dry Handling 6th 4 Points 10 Points -6 Points 40%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 6th 34.78 M 30.47 M +4.31 M 87.61%
Wet Braking - Cool 6th 32.4 M 27.6 M +4.8 M 85.19%
Wet Handling 6th 117.52 s 107.35 s +10.17 s 91.35%
Subj. Wet Handling 6th 6 Points 10 Points -4 Points 60%
Straight Aqua 6th 68.3 Km/H 73 Km/H -4.7 Km/H 93.56%
Curved Aquaplaning 6th 1.75 m/sec2 2.24 m/sec2 -0.49 m/sec2 78.13%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 6th 18.38 M 17.47 M +0.91 M 95.05%
Snow Traction 4th 5.42 s 5.16 s +0.26 s 95.2%
Snow Handling 6th 81.53 s 78.28 s +3.25 s 96.01%
Subj. Snow Handling 5th 9 Points 10 Points -1 Points 90%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Ice Braking 4th 9.9 M 9.46 M +0.44 M 95.56%
Ice Traction 4th 4.82 s 4.5 s +0.32 s 93.36%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 6th 7 Points 10 Points -3 Points 70%
Noise 6th 75 dB 71.4 dB +3.6 dB 95.2%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 1st 8.65 kg / t 100%

comments powered by Disqus