Falken Azenis FK520 vs Vredestein Ultrac Pro
The numbers paint a clear pattern: Falken dominates dry braking in all tests and leads wear, value, and efficiency. Vredestein typically edges wet braking and wet handling, plus straight-line aquaplaning and cabin refinement. If you prize day-to-day economy and long life, the FK520 is compelling; if you want confidence and precision when it's damp or actively raining, the Ultrac Pro is the safer bet.
Test Results
Independent comparison tyre tests are the best source of data to get tyre information from, and the good news is there have been three tests which compare both tyres directly!
| Tyre | Test Wins | Performance |
|---|---|---|
| Vredestein Ultrac Pro | three |
While it might look like the Vredestein Ultrac Pro is better than the Falken Azenis FK520 purely based on the higher number of test wins, tyres are very complicated objects which means where one tyre is better than the other can be more important in real world use.
Let's look at how the two tyres compare across multiple tyre test categories.
Key Strengths
- Best-in-test dry braking across all shared tests
- Excellent longevity, lower abrasion, and strong value
- Lower rolling resistance and slightly better fuel use
- Good curved aquaplaning resistance and comfort in some tests
- Stronger wet handling and typically better wet braking
- Superior straight-line aquaplaning resistance
- Quieter and more composed subjectively
- Balanced dynamics with predictable limit behavior
Dry Braking
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during three dry braking tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 stopped the vehicle in 3.09% less distance than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Dry Braking: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Dry Braking winner was calculated >>
Dry Handling [s]
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during one dry handling [s] tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was 0.66% faster around a lap than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Dry Handling [s]: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Subj. Dry Handling
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during one subj. dry handling tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro scored 10.53% more points than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Subj. Dry Handling: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Subj. Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Braking
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during two wet braking tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro stopped the vehicle in 1.86% less distance than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Wet Braking: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Wet Braking winner was calculated >>
Wet Braking - Concrete
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during one wet braking - concrete tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro stopped the vehicle in 0.53% less distance than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Wet Braking - Concrete: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Wet Braking - Concrete winner was calculated >>
Wet Handling [s]
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during two wet handling [s] tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was 1.98% faster around a wet lap than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Wet Handling [s]: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Subj. Wet Handling
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during one subj. wet handling tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro scored 17.54% more points than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Subj. Wet Handling: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Subj. Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Circle
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during one wet circle tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 was 1.71% faster around a wet circle than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Wet Circle: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Wet Circle winner was calculated >>
Straight Aqua
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during three straight aqua tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro floated at a 0.9% higher speed than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Straight Aqua: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Straight Aqua winner was calculated >>
Curved Aquaplaning
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during one curved aquaplaning tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 slipped out at a 4.16% higher speed than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Curved Aquaplaning: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Curved Aquaplaning winner was calculated >>
Subj. Comfort
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during one subj. comfort tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 scored 12.5% more points than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Subj. Comfort: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Subj. Comfort winner was calculated >>
Subj. Noise
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during one subj. noise tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro scored 10.64% more points than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Subj. Noise: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Subj. Noise winner was calculated >>
Noise
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during one noise tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro measured 0.64% quieter than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Noise: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Noise winner was calculated >>
Wear
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during two wear tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 is predicted to cover 16.26% miles before reaching 1.6mm than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Wear: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Wear winner was calculated >>
Value
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during two value tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 proved to have a 19.1% better value based on price/1000km than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Value: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Value winner was calculated >>
Rolling Resistance
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during two rolling resistance tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 had a 1.92% lower rolling resistance than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Rolling Resistance: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Rolling Resistance winner was calculated >>
Fuel Consumption
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during one fuel consumption tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 used 1.75% less fuel than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Fuel Consumption: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Fuel Consumption winner was calculated >>
Abrasion
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during one abrasion tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 emitted 18.01% less particle wear matter than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Abrasion: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Abrasion winner was calculated >>
Real World Driver Reviews
Falken Azenis FK520 Driver Reviews
Drivers report the Falken Azenis FK520 delivers excellent dry grip, very strong wet braking/traction, and predictable, progressive handling, while remaining comfortable and relatively quiet. Value for money is a standout, with several users comparing its performance favorably to premium brands, and wear generally viewed as good for a UHP tyre. A minority note that steering precision/feedback isn't as sharp as top-tier UUHP options, and it's not the best choice for track days or prolonged hard driving due to some heat fade. Overall sentiment is strongly positive given the performance-to-price ratio.
Based on 37 reviews with an average rating of 84%
Vredestein Ultrac Pro Driver Reviews
Drivers largely praise the Vredestein Ultrac Pro for strong dry and wet grip, confident handling, and notably good ride comfort, with several noting premium feel and value. High-scoring reviews highlight short braking distances, stability, and decent wear for aggressive or heavy vehicles. A minority report concerns include poor performance in very cold (sub-5°C) conditions and one case of premature wear/delamination. Overall, the Ultrac Pro delivers balanced performance with comfort-focused tuning and attractive design.
Based on 6 reviews with an average rating of 81%
Conclusion
Falken's Azenis FK520 trades outright wet pace for exceptional value: class-leading dry braking in these matchups, superior projected mileage (roughly 16-23% advantage), lower abrasion, and better fuel/rolling resistance. It's a smart choice for drier climates and budget-minded drivers who want long service life without sacrificing dry safety. For mixed or wet-leaning climates, frequent spirited driving, or drivers who prioritize surefooted wet control, the Ultrac Pro is the clearer pick.
Key Differences
- Overall results: Vredestein wins all 3 shared tests (positions 5-6 vs Falken 7-8)
- Dry braking: Falken consistently shorter (e.g., 33.4 m vs 35.1 m in EVO; 35.8 m vs 36.6 m in ADAC)
- Wet performance: Vredestein leads wet handling and often wet braking; Falken shows occasional wet braking wins but trails on lap pace
- Aquaplaning: Vredestein leads straight aquaplaning in all tests; Falken stronger in curved aquaplaning once
- Refinement: Vredestein generally quieter; Falken sometimes more comfortable
- Ownership costs: Falken markedly better wear, abrasion, value, and rolling resistance
Similar Comparisons
Looking for more tyre comparisons? Here are other direct comparisons involving these tyres:
Footnote
This page has been developed using tyre industry testing best practices. This means we are only comparing tests which have had both tyres in the same test.
Why is this important? Tyre testing is heavily affected by things like surface grip levels and surface temperature, which means you can only compare values from the same day. During a tyre test external condition changes are calculated into the overall results, but it is not possible to calculate this between tyre tests performed on different days or at different locations.
As a result you will see other tests on Tyre Reviews which feature both the %s and %s, but as they weren't conducted on the same day, the results are not comparable.
Lots of other websites do this sort of tyre comparison, Tyre Reviews doesn't.