Falken Azenis FK520 vs Nokian Powerproof 2
- TR Score
- 9.1/10
- Owners say
- 82% · 55
- TR Score
- 8.8/10
- Owners say
- 95% · 1
In the 3 independent tests that ran both tyres, the Nokian Powerproof 2 finished ahead 2 times and the Azenis FK520 once. The Azenis FK520 stopped 1.2% shorter in the wet; the Powerproof 2 stopped 2.5% shorter in the dry.
Data updated
Which should you buy?
Choose the Nokian Powerproof 2 if you want the more consistently “sorted” sporty summer tyre with stronger dry braking and generally better wet-circuit handling balance. Choose the Falken Azenis FK520 if you prioritize wet braking plus aquaplaning resistance and want better cost-per-kilometre and wear-while accepting that wet handling feel/precision may be the limiting factor when driving hard in the rain.
Where the Azenis FK520 is stronger
- Stronger wet braking in shared tests (e.g., 27.8 m vs 28.1 m; 43.4 m vs 44.0 m)
- Better aquaplaning resistance in shared Autobild data (91.6 vs 89.7 km/h straight; better curved-aqua metric) and best-in-test curved aquaplaning threshold in ACE (71.5 km/h)
- Better projected wear and abrasion results in Autobild (52,080 vs 50,080 km; 1305 g vs 1386 g)
Where the Powerproof 2 is stronger
- Consistently shorter dry braking distances in shared measurements (34.4 m vs 35.3 m, ~2.6% advantage)
- Higher dry handling pace in Autobild (100.1 vs 98.5 km/h) and stronger subjective dry handling score there
- Generally stronger wet handling balance in the shared results (wins wet handling and wet circle in Autobild; 17/20 wet handling in ACE)
The bullet points are analysis of the shared tests and of owner reviews; the measured wins in each discipline are in the tables below. Where the two disagree, the figures are right.
Azenis FK520 vs Powerproof 2 at a glance
| Category | Azenis FK520 | Gap | Powerproof 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shared tests won3 shared tests | 1 | 2 | |
| Dry4 measurements | 0 | The Powerproof 2 stopped 2.5% shorter in the dry (2 tests) | 4 |
| Wet7 measurements | 4 | The Azenis FK520 stopped 1.2% shorter in the wet (2 tests) | 2 |
| Comfort2 measurements | 0 | 1 | |
| Value3 measurements | 2 | 1 | |
| Tyre Reviews Scoreevery test and review we hold | 9.1/10 | The Azenis FK520 by 0.3 | 8.8/10 |
| Owner rating55 and 1 reviews | 82% | The Powerproof 2 by 13 points | 95% |
| Sizes madeEU label registrations | 133 | 61 sizes made in both | 77 |
Wins count every measurement the shared tests recorded for both tyres; a tick marks the tyre ahead on that line. Subjective driver scores count as wins but are never averaged, because each test uses its own scale.
Head to head in 3 tests in 2026
Each row is one published test in which both tyres ran on the same car, in the same size, on the same day. The line is the whole field, winner on the left.
| Test | Azenis FK520 | Field | Powerproof 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 Autobild Summer Tyre Test | P13 of 20 | P11 of 20 | |
| 2026 Summer Braking Super Tyre Test - How do 52 Tyres Perform in Wet and Dry Braking? | P14 of 50 | P10 of 50 | |
| 2026 ACE Summer Tyre Test | P4 of 10 | P6 of 10 |
Performance profile
14 measurements from the 3 shared tests, each tyre shown as its share of the better figure in every test.
Where each is furthest ahead
Azenis FK520
Powerproof 2
Point at or tap any spoke for both tyres' figures.
In each test the better of the two figures counts as 100% and the other as its share of it, so a 36 m stop against 34.2 m is 95%; each spoke averages the shared tests that recorded it. The scale stops at 92%: a point further in sits on the hub's edge, hollow.
Where each scores higher
Azenis FK520
Powerproof 2
Point at or tap any spoke for both tyres' figures.
Category scores are percentiles among tyres of the same season and class: 90 means this tyre out-performs 90% of them, measured across every test we hold, not only the ones it appeared in.
Every measurement, side by side
Averages of the figures both tyres posted in the same tests. The gap is the average of each test's own gap, so figures from different cars and years are never mixed. Open a discipline for its measurements, and a measurement for every test's figure.
| Measurement | Azenis FK520 | Gap | Powerproof 2 | Wins | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 35.3 | 2.5% | 34.4 | 0-2 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 98.5 | 1.6% | 100.1 | 0-1 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| scored | 50.9% | scored | 0-1 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 35.6 | 1.2% | 36.05 | 2-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 81.3 | 0.5% | 81.7 | 0-1 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| scored | = | scored | 0-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 15 | 0.7% | 14.9 | 0-1 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 91.6 | 2.1% | 89.7 | 1-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 3.3 | 6.5% | 3.1 | 1-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| scored | = | scored | 0-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 72 | 0.3 dB | 71.7 | 0-1 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 52,080 | 4% | 50,080 | 1-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 7.71 | 3% | 7.48 | 0-1 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 1,305 | 5.8% | 1,386 | 1-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Braking distances and lap times are better when lower; speeds, wear and grip figures when higher. A test's figures are its own: sizes, cars, surfaces and temperatures differ from one to the next, which is why the averages here are only ever of tests the two tyres shared. "Scored" rows are subjective driver ratings: each test uses its own scale, so only the wins are counted.
Scores beyond the shared tests
On the Tyre Reviews Score, which weighs every test and review we hold, the Azenis FK520 scores 9.1 and the Powerproof 2 8.8 out of 10.
| Azenis FK520 | Category | Powerproof 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 90 | Dry | 90 | ||
| 83 | Wet | 67 | ||
| 57 | Comfort | 24 | ||
| 54 | Value | 55 | ||
Category scores are percentiles among tyres of the same season and class: 90 means this tyre out-performs 90% of them, measured across every test we hold, not only the ones it appeared in.
What owners say
| Azenis FK520 | Category | Powerproof 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8.8 | Dry Grip | 10 | ||
| 8.3 | Wet Grip | 10 | ||
| 7.9 | Road Feedback | 9 | ||
| 8.4 | Handling | 9 | ||
| 7.7 | Wear | - | ||
| 8.1 | Comfort | 9 | ||
Owners rate the Azenis FK520 82% from 55 reviews and the Powerproof 2 95% from 1. Reviews are vetted by hand before publication; ownership is not verified.
Falken Azenis FK520
- 82%from 55 reviews
- 76%would buy again
- 403,489 milesdriven by reviewers
Owners generally rate the Falken Azenis FK520 highly (average 79.6%), most often praising its strong dry grip and capable wet grip for the money. Comfort and refinement also come through well, with many describing it as quiet and compliant for a UHP-style tyre, and around one in five explicitly calling it great value. The main recurring drawbacks are mixed steering feel (some find it sharp, others a bit numb) and a smaller but notable group reporting vibration/balance issues; wet handling is also more divided than outright wet grip.
- Strong dry grip, comparable to premium brands
- Reassuring wet grip
- Comfortable ride despite sporty intent
- Low road noise on motorway speeds
- Occasional vibration or balancing issues at speed
- Steering feel can be a bit numb or lacking feedback
- Wet handling feels less confidence-inspiring for some
Summarised by AI from 49 vetted reviews; the reviews themselves are on the tyre page.
All 55 Azenis FK520 reviewsFalken Azenis fk520 have been a great tyre, noise level is not intrusive and they give a good return on fuel economy. These tyres are very progressive and give good feed back. Having watched a back to back comparison with the Michelin PS4, the Falkens are punching way above their price range. If you want near PS4 performance at kumho prices, you won't go far wrong...will definitely try out the latest incarnation, Falken azenis R820 when the fk520's are done.
Nokian Powerproof 2
- 95%from 1 reviews
- 1,500 milesdriven by reviewers
All 1 Powerproof 2 reviewsThe initial impression is excellent, both in wet and dry conditions. For me, it's the ideal combination of feedback, directness (despite the high cross-section! - thanks to aramid-reinforced sidewalls), strong grip, and high comfort.
I was already quite satisfied with the Powerproof SUV. In between, I briefly used the Wetproof 1: the grip was also very good, but in direct comparison, it had significantly less direct steering.
Sizes, EU label and lineage
From the EU label registrations for each tyre: 133 sizes of the Azenis FK520 and 77 of the Powerproof 2, 61 of them made in both.
| Category | Azenis FK520 | Powerproof 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Season | Summer | Summer |
| Sizes made | 133 sizes, 17 to 22 inch | 77 sizes, 16 to 21 inch |
| Made in both | 61 sizes 205/45 R17205/50 R17215/45 R17225/45 R17225/50 R17225/55 R17235/45 R17235/55 R17235/65 R17245/45 R17215/50 R18225/40 R18and 49 more | |
| EU label wet grip | A95%B5% | A100% |
| EU label rolling resistance | C68%A12%B12%D8% | B70%C30% |
| EU label noise | 68-72 dB B51%A49% | 69-73 dB B66%A34% |
| On the market since | - | 2025 |
| Replaced | Falken Azenis FK510 (2016) | - |
Label grades are shown as the share of registered sizes carrying each grade, so "B (88%), C (12%)" means most sizes are B. Grades vary by size; check the label for yours.
Reading the results
Written from the test results and owner reviews above. It is analysis, not a measurement: where it and the tables disagree, the tables are right.
Falken's Azenis FK520 and Nokian's Powerproof 2 sit in the “sporty summer road tyre” space, but the shared testing shows they chase performance in different ways. Across three independent 2026 tests (two in 245/45 R19 and one in 225/40 R18), Nokian tends to score higher on objective dry metrics and overall balance, while Falken repeatedly shows strong aquaplaning resistance and surprisingly good value per kilometre.
The trade-off is that both tyres have a distinct “split personality” depending on conditions and test format. The FK520 can look very convincing on dry handling and aquaplaning thresholds, yet gets marked down for imprecise steering/turn-in and-most importantly-wet handling confidence. The Powerproof 2 brings stronger dry braking and generally tidier dynamics, but has a notable weakness in straight-line aquaplaning in at least one test, which is a real-world risk factor on deeply waterlogged motorways.
Conclusion
On pure dry performance, Nokian Powerproof 2 is the more consistently convincing option in the shared data: it beats the Falken in dry braking in both Autobild braking measurements (34.4 m vs 35.3 m, about 2.6% shorter) and also leads on dry handling speed in Autobild (100.1 vs 98.5 km/h). That said, the ACE test adds an important caveat: Nokian's dry safety score was among the weakest in that group, with a specific criticism for rear-axle support in fast lane-change manoeuvres-so its dry advantage is more about braking and clean lap pace than being the most stable “emergency manoeuvre” tyre.
In wet conditions, the story splits. Falken repeatedly stops shorter in wet braking (27.8 m vs 28.1 m in the 52-tyre braking test; 43.4 m vs 44.0 m in Autobild), and it clearly leads in aquaplaning resistance in Autobild (91.6 vs 89.7 km/h straight aquaplaning; higher curved aquaplaning metric too). ACE reinforces that strength: Falken posted the best curved-aquaplaning threshold (71.5 km/h). However, multiple sources flag a meaningful handling-confidence penalty for Falken in the wet (ACE wet handling only 12/20 with under/oversteer comments; Autobild also notes vague/imprecise turn-in), whereas Nokian is generally better on wet handling/circle despite its straight-aqua vulnerability in ACE (earliest loss of contact at 80.1 km/h).
If you want the safest “all-rounder feel” and prioritize dry braking/handling precision, the Powerproof 2 is the cleaner pick overall (it finished ahead in 2 of 3 shared tests: 11th vs 13th in Autobild; 10th vs 14th in the braking shootout). If your driving includes frequent standing water, heavy rain motorways, and you care about cost-per-km, the FK520 makes a strong case: it combines slightly better wet braking, better aquaplaning margins in the shared Autobild metrics, longer projected wear (52,080 vs 50,080 km), and materially better value (12.86 vs 15.18 price/1000 in Autobild). The practical takeaway: Nokian is the more “sorted” sporty summer tyre day-to-day, but Falken can be the smarter, more hydroplaning-resistant value buy-provided you can live with its wet-handling subjectivity.
Azenis FK520 vs Powerproof 2: your questions
Is the Falken Azenis FK520 or the Nokian Powerproof 2 the better tyre?
In the 3 independent tests that ran both tyres, the Nokian Powerproof 2 finished ahead 2 times and the Azenis FK520 once. On the Tyre Reviews Score, which weighs every test and review we hold, the Azenis FK520 scores 9.1 and the Powerproof 2 8.8 out of 10.
Which is better in the wet, the Azenis FK520 or the Powerproof 2?
The Azenis FK520 led 4 of the 7 wet measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it stopped 1.2% shorter in the wet across 2 tests.
Which is better in the dry?
The Powerproof 2 led 4 of the 4 dry measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it stopped 2.5% shorter in the dry across 2 tests.
Which is quieter and more comfortable?
Owners rate comfort 8.1/10 for the Azenis FK520 and 9/10 for the Powerproof 2.
What do owners say?
Owners rate the Azenis FK520 82% from 55 reviews and the Powerproof 2 95% from 1.
Are they available in the same sizes?
The Azenis FK520 is made in 133 sizes (17 to 22 inch) and the Powerproof 2 in 77 (16 to 21 inch). 61 sizes are available in both. On the EU label the Azenis FK520 is graded A for wet grip and C for rolling resistance in most sizes; the Powerproof 2 A and B.
More comparisons with these tyres
vs 
Falken Azenis FK520 vs Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6
0-14 in 14 shared tests
vs 
Falken Azenis FK520 vs Michelin Pilot Sport 5
1-8 in 9 shared tests
vs 
Falken Azenis FK520 vs Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
0-4 in 4 shared tests
vs
Bridgestone Turanza 6 vs Falken Azenis FK520
2-2 in 4 shared tests
vs
Continental SportContact 7 vs Falken Azenis FK520
9-0 in 9 shared tests
vs 
Falken Azenis FK520 vs Hankook Ventus Evo
0-3 in 3 shared tests
vs 
Falken Azenis FK520 vs Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
1-3 in 4 shared tests
vs 
Falken Azenis FK520 vs Toyo Proxes Sport 2
5-2 in 8 shared tests
Run either of these?
Your review is the part of this page no test can supply: how the tyre wore, how it aged, what it was like in the rain in year three. It takes about five minutes.
Where this data comes from
Finishing positions and measurements are transcribed from each published test. A test only counts here when both tyres ran in it, so every figure was recorded on the same car, size and day as the one it is compared to.
About the TR Score
The Tyre Reviews Score rates each tyre out of 10 from every independent test result and vetted owner review we hold, so two tyres can be compared even before a test has run them together.
Who does the testing
Every test published as a Tyre Reviews test is run by Jonathan Benson, who has been testing tyres independently since 2007.
Discussion