Menu

The 7 BEST All Weather Tires Tested

Jonathan Benson
Tested and written by Jonathan Benson
11 min read
Contents
  1. Introduction
  2. Testing Methodology
    1. Categories Tested
  3. Wet
  4. Dry
  5. Snow
  6. Comfort
  7. Value
  8. Results
  9. Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW
  10. Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2
  11. Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive
  12. Nokian Remedy WRG5
  13. Bridgestone WeatherPeak
  14. Firestone WeatherGrip
  15. Toyo Celsius 2

The all weather category of tires is quickly growing in popularity, as a tire that can be used in all weathers is a big advantage for people living in snowy climates, it saves changing tires twice a year between an all season and a winter product.

To find out which of these new all weather category tires is best, I have tested them in the dry, wet, snow and ice to give you a really good overview of their abilities, and also looked into the the rolling resistance, comfort, noise levels and value, to find out which tire is best in all conditions.

Best all weather tyres tested

Testing Methodology

Test Driver
Jonathan Benson
Tire Size
225/65 R17
Test Location
Professional Proving Ground
Test Year
2025
Tires Tested
7
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 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.

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.

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

Wet

All weather tires are a bunch of compromises by default - no tire can be the best in every condition. This leaves the manufacturer with the ability to choose whether to go for an even balance of performance in the dry, wet and snow, or priorities one area more than others. Based on this wet testing it seems we have some differing opinions on how important wet is.

The results give us essentially three groups of tires. None of them are budget tires, so none have been horrific, however it is quite a big spread of wet abilities.

The Toyo, Firestone and Bridgestone were in one group, and perhaps this is the group that want the best snow and ice performance as they all struggled in the wet, offering almost minimal feedback and lots of understeer. Snow and wet are performance trade offs in tire development, so we will find out later in the test if these tires are more snow focused.

Then you have Nokian, Michelin and Pirelli. The Nokian felt more towards the first group subjectively but it did offer decent lateral grip. The Michelin turned out to be one of the most fun tires as it actually let the car rotate, something to do with the sharp front end but braking was better than turning which helped the time, and the Pirelli was another step on, feeling sharp on the front end but taking longer than its peers to recover from slides. 

Finally, there was the new Goodyear, the easiest and most consistent to drive fast, and the closest to a summer tire in terms of handling.

Speaking of a summer tire, I did have one in the test as reference. Just a touring suv summer tire but it felt like a race tire in comparison, the steering felt heavier, the brakes were sharper, and the grip was a good step on, even in these cooler test conditions.

Wet Handling

Spread: 4.01 s (5.6%)|Avg: 74.35 s
Wet handling time in seconds [Average Temperature 9c] (Lower is better)
  1. Reference Summer Ref
    71.53 s
  2. Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2
    73.78 s
  3. Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive
    74.48 s
  4. Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW
    74.65 s
  5. Nokian Remedy WRG5
    74.72 s
  6. Bridgestone WeatherPeak
    75.02 s
  7. Firestone WeatherGrip
    75.10 s
  8. Toyo Celsius 2
    75.54 s

Wet braking is one of those things where a tire can really make a safety different in the real world the difference, and the wet braking results almost track wet handling perfectly, with the Goodyear once again having the best stopping distance and the Toyo the worse.  The Pirelli and Michelin also perform well, but then the gap to 4th was over 10% worse, around 13ft, which is quite the difference and nearly the length of a car.

Wet Braking

Spread: 9.01 M (30.8%)|Avg: 34.96 M
Wet braking in meters (80 - 5 km/h) [Average Temperature 14.5c] (Lower is better)
  1. Reference Summer Ref
    29.23 M
  2. Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2
    32.85 M
  3. Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive
    33.83 M
  4. Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW
    34.41 M
  5. Bridgestone WeatherPeak
    36.15 M
  6. Nokian Remedy WRG5
    37.32 M
  7. Firestone WeatherGrip
    37.64 M
  8. Toyo Celsius 2
    38.24 M

The Goodyear didn't so as well in the deeper water of the aquaplaning tests, with the Nokian, Michelin and Bridgestone all performing well.

Straight Aqua

Spread: 5.80 Km/H (6.9%)|Avg: 80.33 Km/H
Float Speed in Km/H (Higher is better)
  1. Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW
    83.70 Km/H
  2. Nokian Remedy WRG5
    82.90 Km/H
  3. Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive
    80.10 Km/H
  4. Bridgestone WeatherPeak
    79.60 Km/H
  5. Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2
    79.50 Km/H
  6. Firestone WeatherGrip
    78.60 Km/H
  7. Toyo Celsius 2
    77.90 Km/H

Curved Aquaplaning

Spread: 2.40 m/sec2 (25.3%)|Avg: 8.24 m/sec2
Remaining lateral acceleration (Higher is better)
  1. Nokian Remedy WRG5
    9.50 m/sec2
  2. Bridgestone WeatherPeak
    9.20 m/sec2
  3. Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW
    8.80 m/sec2
  4. Firestone WeatherGrip
    8.30 m/sec2
  5. Toyo Celsius 2
    7.50 m/sec2
  6. Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive
    7.30 m/sec2
  7. Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2
    7.10 m/sec2

Dry

The differences between these tires in the dry is small. It ended up as Bridgestone, Toyo and Firestone having too little front grip to post a fast time, Michelin, Nokian and Pirelli all doing great, and Goodyear again feeling the most summer like with the quickest most direct steering. Sub limit, doing lane changes, they were all fine, but again the Bridgestone and Firestone just seemed a little less controlled when doing aggressive lane changes.

Dry Handling

Spread: 2.30 s (3.2%)|Avg: 73.65 s
Dry handling time in seconds [Average Temperature 9c] (Lower is better)
  1. Reference Summer Ref
    72.46 s
  2. Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2
    73.12 s
  3. Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive
    73.29 s
  4. Nokian Remedy WRG5
    73.63 s
  5. Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW
    73.85 s
  6. Firestone WeatherGrip
    74.04 s
  7. Toyo Celsius 2
    74.08 s
  8. Bridgestone WeatherPeak
    74.76 s

Dry braking did spread things out. The Michelin Crossclimate 2 pulled its usual party piece by being the best at stopping the car, with the Goodyear second, but not what I'd call a close second as it was 2 meters back. Then Pirelli and Nokian almost tied for third another meter back, it was almost another 2 meters to the toyo then ANOTHER 2 meters to the Bridgestone and Firestone. As an illustration, from 80 mph the Michelin would take 63 meters and the firestone 75 meters, Another way of looking at it, when you're stopped from 80 mph on the Michelin, you're still doing over 30 mph on the Firestone.

Dry Braking

Spread: 9.96 M (29%)|Avg: 40.49 M
Dry braking in meters (100 - 5 km/h) [Average Temperature 14.5c] (Lower is better)
  1. Reference Summer Ref
    34.36 M
  2. Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW
    37.33 M
  3. Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2
    39.50 M
  4. Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive
    40.86 M
  5. Nokian Remedy WRG5
    40.96 M
  6. Toyo Celsius 2
    42.41 M
  7. Bridgestone WeatherPeak
    44.18 M
  8. Firestone WeatherGrip
    44.32 M

Snow

The good news for tire shoppers is that all these tires are very good in the snow! The bad news is for the Bridgestone and Firestone, which i'd hoped had traded some wet grip for class leading snow grip, but sadly that's not the case. They were very good, but not the best.

The slowest tires around the lap were the Toyo and Goodyear, and I say slowest, both under 3% off the fastest lap time. Subjectively they were noticeably the 'worst' too, in that the steering inputs took slightly longer to register, and they felt a tiny bit down on traction but honestly, still good tires in the snow. 

Then you have the Pirelli, Bridgestone and Firestone, all under 2% off the best. I liked how the Bridgestone and Firestone felt once you had them turning, they dug in nicely and held on well, and the Pirelli was probably the most fun with a playful rear, but the rear took slightly longer to recover when sliding which slowed it down.

Finally it was the Nokian and Michelin. The Nokian was a nicely balanced tire, I don't think it had as much grip overall as the Michelin but as it was a really rounded grip circle and everything happened exactly as you would expect, I found it easy to do consistently fast laps on.

And then of course we have the Michelin CrossClimate 2. The European version of this tire, which is slightly different, is always one of the best in the snow and once again the US version proves it is the king in winter by having the fastest lap. Like the European version it's balance was a little understeer heavy, nice and safe, but also slow so I'm sure it has even more grip than this tiny advantage shows.

And finally, instead of including a summer tire, I included one of the best, if not the best, winter tire, the Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5. While there was just 3% between the best and worst all weather tires, the R5 was nearly 10% ahead and you could feel it. Just a delight to drive. Keep that in mind if you live in a heavy snow climate.

Snow Handling

Spread: 6.98 s (8.7%)|Avg: 84.76 s
Snow handling time in seconds [Average Temperature -5.5c] (Lower is better)
  1. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 SUV Ref
    79.80 s
  2. Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW
    84.26 s
  3. Nokian Remedy WRG5
    84.28 s
  4. Firestone WeatherGrip
    85.24 s
  5. Bridgestone WeatherPeak
    85.30 s
  6. Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive
    85.81 s
  7. Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2
    86.62 s
  8. Toyo Celsius 2
    86.78 s

The traction and braking data backed up the handling, with the Michelin CrossClimate 2 being the best in snow traction, closely followed by the Firestone and Nokian. Bridgestone jumped to the front in snow braking, with the Michelin in second and Nokian third. In both tests, the full winter tire had a significant advantage over the pack

Snow Braking

Spread: 1.67 M (11.1%)|Avg: 16.39 M
Snow braking in meters (40 - 5 km/h) [Average Temperature -8.5c] (Lower is better)
  1. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 SUV Ref
    15.10 M
  2. Bridgestone WeatherPeak
    16.32 M
  3. Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW
    16.38 M
  4. Nokian Remedy WRG5
    16.52 M
  5. Toyo Celsius 2
    16.57 M
  6. Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2
    16.67 M
  7. Firestone WeatherGrip
    16.77 M
  8. Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive
    16.77 M

Snow Traction

Spread: 0.27 s (8.8%)|Avg: 3.23 s
Snow acceleration time (5 - 40 km/h) [Average Temperature -8.5c] (Lower is better)
  1. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 SUV Ref
    3.08 s
  2. Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW
    3.21 s
  3. Firestone WeatherGrip
    3.22 s
  4. Nokian Remedy WRG5
    3.24 s
  5. Toyo Celsius 2
    3.24 s
  6. Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive
    3.25 s
  7. Bridgestone WeatherPeak
    3.26 s
  8. Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2
    3.35 s

As promised I got ice data on smooth ice, which is the hardest type of ice to get grip on, and where compound really does make the difference. The Pirelli proved to be best overall, having the best ice traction and the second best ice braking, but the Michelin was again also excellent. Nokian finished third with very good traction, but lost out a little in braking, and as we saw in snow, the Goodyear, Firestone and Toyo struggled. The full winter tire had its biggest advantage yet, finishing in a totally different class to the all weathers.

Ice Braking

Spread: 2.77 M (31.1%)|Avg: 10.70 M
Ice braking in meters (20 - 5 km/h) [Average Temperature -10.5c] (Lower is better)
  1. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 SUV Ref
    8.90 M
  2. Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW
    10.20 M
  3. Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive
    10.50 M
  4. Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2
    10.96 M
  5. Firestone WeatherGrip
    11.05 M
  6. Bridgestone WeatherPeak
    11.10 M
  7. Nokian Remedy WRG5
    11.25 M
  8. Toyo Celsius 2
    11.67 M

Ice Traction

Spread: 5.10 s (79.7%)|Avg: 9.79 s
Ice acceleration time (5 - 20 km/h) [Average Temperature -10.5c] (Lower is better)
  1. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 SUV Ref
    6.40 s
  2. Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive
    9.39 s
  3. Nokian Remedy WRG5
    9.61 s
  4. Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW
    9.79 s
  5. Bridgestone WeatherPeak
    10.10 s
  6. Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2
    10.42 s
  7. Firestone WeatherGrip
    11.14 s
  8. Toyo Celsius 2
    11.50 s

Comfort

Comfort and noise is very intricate, I've been driving on all sorts of surfaces and don't have a single solution for those of you who want comfort beyond everything else. 

The Firestone did have the best subjective comfort overall, but of all the tires, it was the only one that had a bit of a tread pattern whine in the cabin, which could be really annoying if it got worse as it wore. Then you had the Toyo that was excellent in noise, but firm over all the bumps. Then you had the goodyear which was composed over the stones, it had reassuring control of what it was doing, but hit pretty hard over the big impacts. Every tire had it's positives and negatives, however there was one tire that had a small lead in terms of manners, and that was the Pirelli. Not only did it have the lowest external noise, I also rated it the best for subjective noise, and the second best overall on all the surfaces. So there's your answer, if you want the ultimate refinement, it's the Pirelli. But really, they were so close you'll be happy with any of them.

Subj. Comfort

Spread: 1.50 Points (15%)|Avg: 9.07 Points
Subjective Comfort Score (Higher is better)
  1. Firestone WeatherGrip
    10.00 Points
  2. Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive
    9.50 Points
  3. Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2
    9.50 Points
  4. Nokian Remedy WRG5
    9.00 Points
  5. Bridgestone WeatherPeak
    8.50 Points
  6. Toyo Celsius 2
    8.50 Points
  7. Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW
    8.50 Points

Noise

Spread: 2.60 dB (3.7%)|Avg: 72.00 dB
External noise in dB (Lower is better)
  1. Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive
    70.30 dB
  2. Bridgestone WeatherPeak
    71.70 dB
  3. Toyo Celsius 2
    71.80 dB
  4. Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW
    72.00 dB
  5. Firestone WeatherGrip
    72.50 dB
  6. Nokian Remedy WRG5
    72.80 dB
  7. Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2
    72.90 dB

Value

There is quite a spread in the rolling resistance levels of the tires, in fact over 30%, with the Michelin the best and the Goodyear the worst. As a tire uses around a fifth of the energy for a gas powered vehicle and around a quarter in an electric car, that means in theory, you could be using around 4-8% more gas / electricity. Not massive, but also significant.

Rolling Resistance

Spread: 2.19 kg / t (31.1%)|Avg: 7.82 kg / t
Rolling resistance in kg t (Lower is better)
  1. Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW
    7.05 kg / t
  2. Bridgestone WeatherPeak
    7.14 kg / t
  3. Nokian Remedy WRG5
    7.31 kg / t
  4. Firestone WeatherGrip
    7.65 kg / t
  5. Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive
    7.78 kg / t
  6. Toyo Celsius 2
    8.55 kg / t
  7. Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2
    9.24 kg / t

Finally, I couldn't do a wear test this time to work out which tire offers the best cost per mile in the real world, but as these all have treadwear warranties I CAN work out the warranted cost per mile, which I think is worth looking at. There's a 40% difference in cost per mile between the most expensive, the Michelin, and the cheapest, the toyo, however, if you take the time to compare that to the final results, you will see that more expensive generally means more better. Donut Media would be proud.

Value

Spread: 4.34 Price/1000 (42%)|Avg: 12.65 Price/1000
Dollars/1000 miles based on mileage warranty (Lower is better)
  1. Toyo Celsius 2
    10.33 Price/1000
  2. Firestone WeatherGrip
    11.08 Price/1000
  3. Bridgestone WeatherPeak
    12.06 Price/1000
  4. Nokian Remedy WRG5
    13.00 Price/1000
  5. Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2
    13.20 Price/1000
  6. Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive
    14.20 Price/1000
  7. Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW
    14.67 Price/1000

Results

1st

Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW

225/65 R17 102H
Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Weight: 12.30 kgs
  • Tread: 8.1 mm
  • Price: 220.00
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 1st 37.33 M 100%
Dry Handling 4th 73.85 s 73.12 s +0.73 s 99.01%
Subj. Dry Handling 2nd 9.75 Points 10 Points -0.25 Points 97.5%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 3rd 34.41 M 32.85 M +1.56 M 95.47%
Wet Handling 3rd 74.65 s 73.78 s +0.87 s 98.83%
Subj. Wet Handling 2nd 9.5 Points 10 Points -0.5 Points 95%
Straight Aqua 1st 83.7 Km/H 100%
Curved Aquaplaning 3rd 8.8 m/sec2 9.5 m/sec2 -0.7 m/sec2 92.63%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 2nd 16.38 M 16.32 M +0.06 M 99.63%
Snow Traction 1st 3.21 s 100%
Snow Handling 1st 84.26 s 100%
Subj. Snow Handling 4th 9.5 Points 10 Points -0.5 Points 95%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Ice Braking 1st 10.2 M 100%
Ice Traction 3rd 9.79 s 9.39 s +0.4 s 95.91%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 5th 8.5 Points 10 Points -1.5 Points 85%
Subj. Noise 5th 9 Points 10 Points -1 Points 90%
Noise 4th 72 dB 70.3 dB +1.7 dB 97.64%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Value 7th 14.67 Price/1000 10.33 Price/1000 +4.34 Price/1000 70.42%
Rolling Resistance 1st 7.05 kg / t 100%
Test Winner 2025 All Weather Test Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW
2nd

Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2

225/65 R17 102H
Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Weight: 14.05 kgs
  • Tread: 8.8 mm
  • Price: 198.00
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 2nd 39.5 M 37.33 M +2.17 M 94.51%
Dry Handling 1st 73.12 s 100%
Subj. Dry Handling 1st 10 Points 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 1st 32.85 M 100%
Wet Handling 1st 73.78 s 100%
Subj. Wet Handling 1st 10 Points 100%
Straight Aqua 5th 79.5 Km/H 83.7 Km/H -4.2 Km/H 94.98%
Curved Aquaplaning 7th 7.1 m/sec2 9.5 m/sec2 -2.4 m/sec2 74.74%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 5th 16.67 M 16.32 M +0.35 M 97.9%
Snow Traction 7th 3.35 s 3.21 s +0.14 s 95.82%
Snow Handling 6th 86.62 s 84.26 s +2.36 s 97.28%
Subj. Snow Handling 6th 9 Points 10 Points -1 Points 90%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Ice Braking 3rd 10.96 M 10.2 M +0.76 M 93.07%
Ice Traction 5th 10.42 s 9.39 s +1.03 s 90.12%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 2nd 9.5 Points 10 Points -0.5 Points 95%
Subj. Noise 5th 9 Points 10 Points -1 Points 90%
Noise 7th 72.9 dB 70.3 dB +2.6 dB 96.43%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Value 5th 13.2 Price/1000 10.33 Price/1000 +2.87 Price/1000 78.26%
Rolling Resistance 7th 9.24 kg / t 7.05 kg / t +2.19 kg / t 76.3%
Highly Recommended 2025 All Weather Test Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2
2nd

Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive

225/65 R17 102H
Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Weight: 13.30 kgs
  • Tread: 9.1 mm
  • Price: 213.00
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 3rd 40.86 M 37.33 M +3.53 M 91.36%
Dry Handling 2nd 73.29 s 73.12 s +0.17 s 99.77%
Subj. Dry Handling 2nd 9.75 Points 10 Points -0.25 Points 97.5%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 2nd 33.83 M 32.85 M +0.98 M 97.1%
Wet Handling 2nd 74.48 s 73.78 s +0.7 s 99.06%
Subj. Wet Handling 2nd 9.5 Points 10 Points -0.5 Points 95%
Straight Aqua 3rd 80.1 Km/H 83.7 Km/H -3.6 Km/H 95.7%
Curved Aquaplaning 6th 7.3 m/sec2 9.5 m/sec2 -2.2 m/sec2 76.84%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 6th 16.77 M 16.32 M +0.45 M 97.32%
Snow Traction 5th 3.25 s 3.21 s +0.04 s 98.77%
Snow Handling 5th 85.81 s 84.26 s +1.55 s 98.19%
Subj. Snow Handling 6th 9 Points 10 Points -1 Points 90%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Ice Braking 2nd 10.5 M 10.2 M +0.3 M 97.14%
Ice Traction 1st 9.39 s 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 2nd 9.5 Points 10 Points -0.5 Points 95%
Subj. Noise 1st 10 Points 100%
Noise 1st 70.3 dB 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Value 6th 14.2 Price/1000 10.33 Price/1000 +3.87 Price/1000 72.75%
Rolling Resistance 5th 7.78 kg / t 7.05 kg / t +0.73 kg / t 90.62%
Highly Recommended 2025 All Weather Test Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive
4th

Nokian Remedy WRG5

225/65 R17 106H
Nokian Remedy WRG5
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Weight: 12.1 kgs
  • Tread: 8.4 mm
  • Price: 195.00
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 4th 40.96 M 37.33 M +3.63 M 91.14%
Dry Handling 3rd 73.63 s 73.12 s +0.51 s 99.31%
Subj. Dry Handling 2nd 9.75 Points 10 Points -0.25 Points 97.5%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 5th 37.32 M 32.85 M +4.47 M 88.02%
Wet Handling 4th 74.72 s 73.78 s +0.94 s 98.74%
Subj. Wet Handling 4th 9 Points 10 Points -1 Points 90%
Straight Aqua 2nd 82.9 Km/H 83.7 Km/H -0.8 Km/H 99.04%
Curved Aquaplaning 1st 9.5 m/sec2 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 3rd 16.52 M 16.32 M +0.2 M 98.79%
Snow Traction 3rd 3.24 s 3.21 s +0.03 s 99.07%
Snow Handling 2nd 84.28 s 84.26 s +0.02 s 99.98%
Subj. Snow Handling 1st 10 Points 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Ice Braking 6th 11.25 M 10.2 M +1.05 M 90.67%
Ice Traction 2nd 9.61 s 9.39 s +0.22 s 97.71%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 4th 9 Points 10 Points -1 Points 90%
Subj. Noise 2nd 9.5 Points 10 Points -0.5 Points 95%
Noise 6th 72.8 dB 70.3 dB +2.5 dB 96.57%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Value 4th 13 Price/1000 10.33 Price/1000 +2.67 Price/1000 79.46%
Rolling Resistance 3rd 7.31 kg / t 7.05 kg / t +0.26 kg / t 96.44%
Recommended 2025 All Weather Test Nokian Remedy WRG5
5th

Bridgestone WeatherPeak

225/65 R17 102H
Bridgestone WeatherPeak
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Weight: 10.5 kgs
  • Tread: 7.8 mm
  • Price: 211.00
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 6th 44.18 M 37.33 M +6.85 M 84.5%
Dry Handling 7th 74.76 s 73.12 s +1.64 s 97.81%
Subj. Dry Handling 6th 9.5 Points 10 Points -0.5 Points 95%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 4th 36.15 M 32.85 M +3.3 M 90.87%
Wet Handling 5th 75.02 s 73.78 s +1.24 s 98.35%
Subj. Wet Handling 5th 8.5 Points 10 Points -1.5 Points 85%
Straight Aqua 4th 79.6 Km/H 83.7 Km/H -4.1 Km/H 95.1%
Curved Aquaplaning 2nd 9.2 m/sec2 9.5 m/sec2 -0.3 m/sec2 96.84%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 1st 16.32 M 100%
Snow Traction 6th 3.26 s 3.21 s +0.05 s 98.47%
Snow Handling 4th 85.3 s 84.26 s +1.04 s 98.78%
Subj. Snow Handling 1st 10 Points 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Ice Braking 5th 11.1 M 10.2 M +0.9 M 91.89%
Ice Traction 4th 10.1 s 9.39 s +0.71 s 92.97%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 5th 8.5 Points 10 Points -1.5 Points 85%
Subj. Noise 2nd 9.5 Points 10 Points -0.5 Points 95%
Noise 2nd 71.7 dB 70.3 dB +1.4 dB 98.05%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Value 3rd 12.06 Price/1000 10.33 Price/1000 +1.73 Price/1000 85.66%
Rolling Resistance 2nd 7.14 kg / t 7.05 kg / t +0.09 kg / t 98.74%
6th

Firestone WeatherGrip

225/65 R17 102H
Firestone WeatherGrip
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Weight: 11.45 kgs
  • Tread: 8.2 mm
  • Price: 180.00
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 7th 44.32 M 37.33 M +6.99 M 84.23%
Dry Handling 5th 74.04 s 73.12 s +0.92 s 98.76%
Subj. Dry Handling 7th 9.25 Points 10 Points -0.75 Points 92.5%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 6th 37.64 M 32.85 M +4.79 M 87.27%
Wet Handling 6th 75.1 s 73.78 s +1.32 s 98.24%
Subj. Wet Handling 5th 8.5 Points 10 Points -1.5 Points 85%
Straight Aqua 6th 78.6 Km/H 83.7 Km/H -5.1 Km/H 93.91%
Curved Aquaplaning 4th 8.3 m/sec2 9.5 m/sec2 -1.2 m/sec2 87.37%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 6th 16.77 M 16.32 M +0.45 M 97.32%
Snow Traction 2nd 3.22 s 3.21 s +0.01 s 99.69%
Snow Handling 3rd 85.24 s 84.26 s +0.98 s 98.85%
Subj. Snow Handling 1st 10 Points 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Ice Braking 4th 11.05 M 10.2 M +0.85 M 92.31%
Ice Traction 6th 11.14 s 9.39 s +1.75 s 84.29%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 1st 10 Points 100%
Subj. Noise 7th 8.5 Points 10 Points -1.5 Points 85%
Noise 5th 72.5 dB 70.3 dB +2.2 dB 96.97%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Value 2nd 11.08 Price/1000 10.33 Price/1000 +0.75 Price/1000 93.23%
Rolling Resistance 4th 7.65 kg / t 7.05 kg / t +0.6 kg / t 92.16%
7th

Toyo Celsius 2

225/65 R17 102H
Toyo Celsius 2
  • 3PMSF: yes
  • Weight: 13.10 kgs
  • Tread: 8.7 mm
  • Price: 155.00
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 5th 42.41 M 37.33 M +5.08 M 88.02%
Dry Handling 6th 74.08 s 73.12 s +0.96 s 98.7%
Subj. Dry Handling 2nd 9.75 Points 10 Points -0.25 Points 97.5%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 7th 38.24 M 32.85 M +5.39 M 85.9%
Wet Handling 7th 75.54 s 73.78 s +1.76 s 97.67%
Subj. Wet Handling 5th 8.5 Points 10 Points -1.5 Points 85%
Straight Aqua 7th 77.9 Km/H 83.7 Km/H -5.8 Km/H 93.07%
Curved Aquaplaning 5th 7.5 m/sec2 9.5 m/sec2 -2 m/sec2 78.95%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 4th 16.57 M 16.32 M +0.25 M 98.49%
Snow Traction 3rd 3.24 s 3.21 s +0.03 s 99.07%
Snow Handling 7th 86.78 s 84.26 s +2.52 s 97.1%
Subj. Snow Handling 4th 9.5 Points 10 Points -0.5 Points 95%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Ice Braking 7th 11.67 M 10.2 M +1.47 M 87.4%
Ice Traction 7th 11.5 s 9.39 s +2.11 s 81.65%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 5th 8.5 Points 10 Points -1.5 Points 85%
Subj. Noise 2nd 9.5 Points 10 Points -0.5 Points 95%
Noise 3rd 71.8 dB 70.3 dB +1.5 dB 97.91%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Value 1st 10.33 Price/1000 100%
Rolling Resistance 6th 8.55 kg / t 7.05 kg / t +1.5 kg / t 82.46%

comments powered by Disqus