Kleber Dynaxer HP5 vs Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
Across four shared 2026 tests (including two different sizes: 225/45 R17 and 245/45 R19), the pattern is remarkably consistent: the Kumho repeatedly delivers shorter braking distances and quicker handling on both dry and wet roads, while the Kleber's best counters are aquaplaning resistance, lower rolling resistance (efficiency), and generally more comfort-focused behaviour. Which one is “better” depends on whether you prioritise outright grip and safety margins in braking, or hydroplaning security and running-cost comfort factors.
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 four tests which compare both tyres directly!
| Tyre | Test Wins | Performance |
|---|---|---|
| Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 | four |
While it might look like the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 is better than the Kleber Dynaxer HP5 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
- Stronger aquaplaning resistance in 225/45 R17 results (e.g., 73.4 vs 71.4 km/h straight; 3.59 vs 3.32 m/s² curved), which helps stability in standing water
- Lower rolling resistance across tests (e.g., 6.67 vs 8.15 kg/t in Autobild; also wins 3/3 shared RR comparisons), supporting lower fuel/energy use
- More comfort-oriented subjective scores in the R17 tests (e.g., 6.9 vs 6.1 comfort points), matching its touring brief
- Better wear/abrasion metrics where measured (50,240 km vs 48,230 km; 1122 g vs 1605 g abrasion), pointing to potentially lower long-term running costs
- Consistently shorter wet braking distances (wins 4/4; up to 4.3 m better in Autobild and 2.8 m better in the 50-tyre braking test), improving real-world safety margins
- Consistently better dry braking and faster dry handling (wins all shared dry braking; dry handling advantage seen in both R17 tests and Autobild), delivering a sportier feel
- Higher subjective handling confidence (e.g., Autobild subjective dry 8.0 vs 5.3; Motor subjective dry 7.4 vs 6.3), suggesting clearer steering and control at the limit
- Stronger overall competitiveness and rankings across shared tests (typically top-6; includes a Recommended award), indicating a broader performance envelope
Dry Braking
Looking at data from four tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during four dry braking tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 stopped the vehicle in 1.92% less distance than the Kleber Dynaxer HP5.
Best In Dry Braking: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Dry Braking winner was calculated >>
Dry Handling [s]
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during two dry handling [s] tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was 1.72% faster around a lap than the Kleber Dynaxer HP5.
Best In Dry Handling [s]: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Dry Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one dry handling [km/h] tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was 1.1% faster around a lap than the Kleber Dynaxer HP5.
Best In Dry Handling [Km/H]: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Subj. Dry Handling
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during three subj. dry handling tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 scored 17.15% more points than the Kleber Dynaxer HP5.
Best In Subj. Dry Handling: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Subj. Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Braking
Looking at data from four tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during four wet braking tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 stopped the vehicle in 5.98% less distance than the Kleber Dynaxer HP5.
Best In Wet Braking: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Wet Braking winner was calculated >>
Wet Handling [s]
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during two wet handling [s] tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was 2.96% faster around a wet lap than the Kleber Dynaxer HP5.
Best In Wet Handling [s]: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one wet handling [km/h] tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was 3.87% faster around a wet lap than the Kleber Dynaxer HP5.
Best In Wet Handling [Km/H]: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Subj. Wet Handling
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during two subj. wet handling tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 scored 16.47% more points than the Kleber Dynaxer HP5.
Best In Subj. Wet Handling: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Subj. Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Circle
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one wet circle tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 had 6.58% higher lateral wet grip than the Kleber Dynaxer HP5.
Best In Wet Circle: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Wet Circle winner was calculated >>
Straight Aqua
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the Kleber Dynaxer HP5 was better during two straight aqua tests. On average the Kleber Dynaxer HP5 floated at a 0.95% higher speed than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Straight Aqua: Kleber Dynaxer HP5
See how the Straight Aqua winner was calculated >>
Curved Aquaplaning
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the Kleber Dynaxer HP5 was better during two curved aquaplaning tests. On average the Kleber Dynaxer HP5 slipped out at a 2.61% higher speed than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Curved Aquaplaning: Kleber Dynaxer HP5
See how the Curved Aquaplaning winner was calculated >>
Subj. Comfort
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the Kleber Dynaxer HP5 was better during two subj. comfort tests. On average the Kleber Dynaxer HP5 scored 7.54% more points than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Subj. Comfort: Kleber Dynaxer HP5
See how the Subj. Comfort winner was calculated >>
Noise
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the Kleber Dynaxer HP5 was better during one noise tests. On average the Kleber Dynaxer HP5 measured 0.89% quieter than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Noise: Kleber Dynaxer HP5
See how the Noise winner was calculated >>
Wear
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Kleber Dynaxer HP5 was better during one wear tests. On average the Kleber Dynaxer HP5 is predicted to cover 4% miles before reaching 1.6mm than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Wear: Kleber Dynaxer HP5
See how the Wear winner was calculated >>
Value
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one value tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 proved to have a 0.8% better value based on price/1000km than the Kleber Dynaxer HP5.
Best In Value: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Value winner was calculated >>
Rolling Resistance
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the Kleber Dynaxer HP5 was better during three rolling resistance tests. On average the Kleber Dynaxer HP5 had a 10.88% lower rolling resistance than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Rolling Resistance: Kleber Dynaxer HP5
See how the Rolling Resistance winner was calculated >>
Abrasion
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Kleber Dynaxer HP5 was better during one abrasion tests. On average the Kleber Dynaxer HP5 lost 30.09% less particle wear matter than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Abrasion: Kleber Dynaxer HP5
See how the Abrasion winner was calculated >>
Real World Driver Reviews
Tyre Reviews also collects real world driver reviews for the Kleber Dynaxer HP5 and Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
In total the Kleber Dynaxer HP5 has been reviewed 5 times and drivers have given the tyre 87% overall.
The Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 has been reviewed 25 times and drivers have given the tyre 84% overall.
This means in real world driving, people prefer the Kleber Dynaxer HP5.
They are not loud, but wouldn't they are necessarily quiet. You can hear them a bit depending on the road surface and speed.
Didn’t drive them too much in the rain, but seem to hold pretty well in wet conditions.
Mounted them in march this year and after 10-15k km I don’t see any major wear, but I would have to abstain on this one until I get them properly... Continue reading this review using the link below
Conclusion
The Kleber Dynaxer HP5's case is more about “living with it” than winning lap times. It repeatedly shows better aquaplaning resistance in the 225/45 R17 datasets (straight aquaplaning 73.4 vs 71.4 km/h and curved 3.59 vs 3.32 m/s²), plus noticeably better rolling resistance (e.g., 6.67 vs 8.15 kg/t in Autobild) and lower abrasion / slightly longer projected wear (50,240 km vs 48,230 km). In practice: if you drive lots of motorway miles, care about efficiency/EV range, and value a calmer ride, the Kleber's strengths are tangible-just be aware the consistent test story is that wet grip (especially wet braking) is not its forte, so you're trading performance safety margin for comfort/efficiency.
Practical takeaway: choose the Kumho for confident, sporty everyday driving with stronger wet/dry stopping and handling; choose the Kleber if your top priorities are hydroplaning security in standing water, lower energy consumption, and a more touring-oriented feel-while accepting the need for extra caution in wet braking scenarios.
Key Differences
- Wet braking is the biggest separating factor: Kumho leads in every test, with small gaps in R17 but large, meaningful gaps in R19 (46.7 m vs 42.4 m; 29.9 m vs 27.1 m).
- Dry performance also favours Kumho consistently (e.g., 38.0 m vs 37.1 m dry braking in R17; 34.9 m vs 34.4 m in R19; quicker dry handling in all shared handling datasets).
- Aquaplaning vs wet grip trade-off: Kleber is stronger in aquaplaning (notably in the R17 datasets), while Kumho's weakness is repeatedly noted as below-average aquaplaning resistance despite strong wet grip elsewhere.
- Efficiency/running costs: Kleber's rolling resistance advantage is substantial in Autobild (6.67 vs 8.15 kg/t), implying better fuel economy/EV range; Kumho is repeatedly described as poorer on rolling resistance.
- Comfort vs sportiness: Kleber scores higher on subjective comfort in R17 testing, whereas Kumho scores markedly higher for subjective dry and wet handling confidence, aligning with their touring vs max-performance positioning.
- Overall test outcomes strongly favour Kumho (4/4 shared overall head-to-head wins and far better placements), while Kleber tends to land mid-to-back of the field when grip is weighted heavily.
Overall Winner: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
Based on the tyre test data and user reviews we have in our database, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 has demonstrated better overall performance in this comparison. However, as you can see from the spider diagram above, each tyre has its own strengths which should be considered in your final tyre buying choice.Similar Comparisons
Looking for more tyre comparisons? Here are other direct comparisons involving these tyres:
Kleber Dynaxer HP5 Top Comparisons
No other comparisons available for this tyre.
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.
Discussion
- No comments yet — be the first.