Kumho Ecsta PS71 vs Vredestein Ultrac Pro
- TR Score
- 8.5/10
- Owners say
- 77% · 94
- TR Score
- 9.0/10
- Owners say
- 83% · 7
In the 3 independent tests that ran both tyres, the Kumho Ecsta PS71 finished ahead 2 times and the Ultrac Pro once. The Ecsta PS71 stopped 9% shorter in the wet; the Ultrac Pro held 4.2% more grip in curved aquaplaning.
Data updated
Which should you buy?
Pick Kumho Ecsta PS71 for safety-first drivers, frequent wet-weather use, and best value. Choose Vredestein Ultrac Pro if you prioritize low noise, comfort, and a refined daily drive, accepting longer stops and higher running costs.
Where the Ecsta PS71 is stronger
- Consistently shorter dry and wet braking (up to ~12% shorter in wet)
- Strong aquaplaning resistance (notably straight-line) and wet handling pace
- Excellent value with lower cost per 1,000 km
Where the Ultrac Pro is stronger
- Lower exterior noise and better subjective comfort
- Stable, precise feel on dry roads per ADAC
- Good abrasion performance in ADAC
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.
Ecsta PS71 vs Ultrac Pro at a glance
| Category | Ecsta PS71 | Gap | Ultrac Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shared tests won3 shared tests | 2 | 1 | |
| Dry4 measurements | 4 | The Ecsta PS71 stopped 3.3% shorter in the dry (3 tests) | 0 |
| Wet10 measurements | 8 | The Ecsta PS71 stopped 9% shorter in the wet (3 tests) | 1 |
| Comfort3 measurements | 0 | The Ultrac Pro was 1.9 dB quieter (2 tests) | 3 |
| Value5 measurements | 1 | 2 | |
| Tyre Reviews Scoreevery test and review we hold | 8.5/10 | The Ultrac Pro by 0.5 | 9.0/10 |
| Owner rating94 and 7 reviews | 77% | The Ultrac Pro by 6 points | 83% |
| Would buy againshare of owners | 63% | The Ultrac Pro by 8 points | 71% |
| Pricein the 2 tests that listed prices | Cheaper | The Ultrac Pro was dearer in 2 of 2 | +12.7% |
| Sizes madeEU label registrations | 133 | 72 sizes made in both | 98 |
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 2025
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 | Ecsta PS71 | Field | Ultrac Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 Auto Bild Summer Performance Tyre Test | P4 of 20 | P13 of 20 | |
| 2025 ADAC Summer Tyre Test | P13 of 18 | P5 of 18 | |
| 2025 Summer Tyre Test Shootout | P4 of 52 | P18 of 52 |
Performance profile
6 measurements from the 3 shared tests, each tyre shown as its share of the better figure in every test.
Where each is furthest ahead
Ecsta PS71
Ultrac Pro
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. 8 measurements recorded in only one shared test are left off; every measurement is in the table further down.
Where each scores higher
Ecsta PS71
Ultrac Pro
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.
Where owners rate each higher
Ecsta PS71
Ultrac Pro
Point at or tap any spoke for both tyres' figures.
Owners rate the Ecsta PS71 77% from 94 reviews and the Ultrac Pro 83% from 7. Each spoke is one question owners answer out of 10; reviews are vetted by hand before publication.
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 | Ecsta PS71 | Gap | Ultrac Pro | Wins | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 34.37 | 3.3% | 35.53 | 3-0 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 118.6 | 1% | 117.4 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 33.47 | 9% | 37 | 3-0 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 36 | 4% | 37.5 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 73.8 | 3.5% | 71.3 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 14.73 | 3.3% | 15.24 | 1-0 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 82.5 | 3.3% | 79.9 | 2-0 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 3.05 | 4.2% | 3.18 | 0-1 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| scored | 6.4% | scored | 0-1 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 74.5 | 1.9 dB | 72.65 | 0-2 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 39,740 | 10.3% | 36,515 | 1-1 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 9.19 | = | 9.19 | 0-0 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 5.7 | = | 5.7 | 0-0 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 85.7 | 11.9% | 75.5 | 0-1 | |||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
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 Ecsta PS71 scores 8.5 and the Ultrac Pro 9 out of 10.
| Ecsta PS71 | Category | Ultrac Pro | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 73 | Dry | 86 | ||
| 92 | Wet | 82 | ||
| 11 | Comfort | 80 | ||
| 18 | Value | 27 | ||
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
| Ecsta PS71 | Category | Ultrac Pro | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8.5 | Dry Grip | 9.1 | ||
| 8 | Wet Grip | 8.9 | ||
| 8 | Road Feedback | 8.3 | ||
| 8 | Handling | 9 | ||
| 7 | Wear | 6 | ||
| 7.4 | Comfort | 8.1 | ||
Owners rate the Ecsta PS71 77% from 94 reviews and the Ultrac Pro 83% from 7. Reviews are vetted by hand before publication; ownership is not verified.
Kumho Ecsta PS71
- 77%from 94 reviews
- 63%would buy again
- 686,811 milesdriven by reviewers
Most owners rate the Kumho Ecsta PS71 as a strong budget performance tyre, with a clear majority praising its dry grip and handling and nearly half calling the wet grip confidence-inspiring. Value for money is a consistent highlight, with many feeling it runs pricier brands close for everyday road use. The main drawback is refinement: around a third of owners mention road noise, and opinions on tread life are mixed rather than conclusive. A smaller but notable group also report vibration/balancing niggles, with a few mentioning tramlining.
- Strong dry grip with plenty of confidence
- Very capable wet grip for the price
- Secure, enjoyable dry handling
- Excellent value for money versus premium rivals
- Road noise can be intrusive, especially at speed
- Tread life is inconsistent, with some reporting faster wear
- Can be hard to balance or develop vibrations
Summarised by AI from 87 vetted reviews; the reviews themselves are on the tyre page.
All 94 Ecsta PS71 reviewsJust looking around for replacements in a couple of thousand miles. Unless I hear outstanding reviews from other Elroq owners I'm going to stick with Kumho Ecsta PS71 EV and stick with the different width/ profiles front and rear. These Kumhos have completely out performed the Bridgstones I had on my ID.3 - I coudln't wait to get rid of them when they had to be replaced at 8,000miles.
Vredestein Ultrac Pro
- 83%from 7 reviews
- 71%would buy again
- 34,100 milesdriven by reviewers
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.
- dry grip
- wet grip
- handling/steering feel
- ride comfort
- reduced grip in very cold temperatures
Summarised by AI from 6 vetted reviews; the reviews themselves are on the tyre page.
All 7 Ultrac Pro reviewsI've had them for two summers and about 10k kms on a Ford Focus ST250. When I was buying them I was looking for good tires at a fair price and these were the newest model available at the time.
Dry: In the dry they have good traction, predictable handlings and good comfort for a UHP tire. Breakaway is communicated well and they don't surprise you out of nowhere. Lift of oversteer is easily achieved and controlled. They do wheelspin a bit in first gear if you are a bit more enthusiastic with the throttle but that's expected on a more powerful fwd car.
Wet: They have good and predictable grip in the wet, good aquaplaning resistance and stop quite well.
Others: Rim guard is somewhere in the middle, not as big as Bridgestone but better than Hankook. Sidewall design is good, comfort and noise are good for a uhp tire. Wear has also been good for me, I expect to change them due to age and not wear but then again I don't do that many miles a year.
It's a tire I like and would recommend. Price to performance is good. Would consider buying. I got their Wintrac Pro Plus to try this winter so I've been satisfied with Vredesteins as a whole.
Sizes, EU label and lineage
From the EU label registrations for each tyre: 133 sizes of the Ecsta PS71 and 98 of the Ultrac Pro, 72 of them made in both.
| Category | Ecsta PS71 | Ultrac Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Season | Summer | Summer |
| Sizes made | 133 sizes, 16 to 22 inch | 98 sizes, 18 to 24 inch |
| Made in both | 72 sizes 215/40 R18215/45 R18225/35 R18225/40 R18225/45 R18235/40 R18235/45 R18245/35 R18245/40 R18245/45 R18255/35 R18255/40 R18and 60 more | |
| EU label wet grip | A71%B24%C5%D0% | A97%B3% |
| EU label rolling resistance | C41%B22%D21%A17% | C73%D18%B6%A3% |
| EU label noise | 68-75 dB B96%A4% | 69-73 dB B97%A3% |
| On the market since | 2016 | 2024 |
| Replaced | - | Vredestein Ultrac Vorti+ (2020) |
| Replaced by | Kumho Ecsta Sport S PS72 | - |
| Price in the shared tests | The Ultrac Pro was the dearer tyre in 2 of the 2 tests that listed prices, by 12.7% on average. Each test priced the tyres in its own market at the time; only the gap is comparable. | |
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.
This head-to-head pits the Kumho Ecsta PS71 (UHP summer) against the newer Vredestein Ultrac Pro (max-performance summer) in the popular 225/40 R18 size across three 2025 tests. Despite the Ultrac Pro's positioning, the Kumho repeatedly delivers standout safety metrics, especially in the wet, and posts excellent value.
Across shared tests, the PS71 consistently stops shorter on dry and wet surfaces and shows stronger straight-line aquaplaning resistance, while the Ultrac Pro counters with lower noise, better subjective comfort, and competitive abrasion. The net story is a sharp safety-value play from Kumho versus a quieter, more composed Vredestein with greener abrasion credentials.
Conclusion
If braking performance and wet security are your priorities, the Kumho Ecsta PS71 is the clearer choice: it wins every shared dry and wet braking contest (often by 10-12% in the wet) and usually edges aquaplaning. It also undercuts on cost per 1,000 km and, in Auto Bild, demonstrated notably longer mileage, lifting overall value. These are meaningful, real-world advantages in emergency stops and heavy rain.
The Vredestein Ultrac Pro appeals if you value a calmer, quieter drive and precise dry-road feedback. It ranked higher in the ADAC overall due to balanced driving safety and better abrasion, and it's the more refined daily companion. However, its braking gaps versus the Kumho are material in two of the three tests. In short: choose Kumho for maximum safety-per-euro and wet grip confidence; choose Vredestein for comfort, low noise, and tidy dynamics where refinement matters most.
Ecsta PS71 vs Ultrac Pro: your questions
Is the Kumho Ecsta PS71 or the Vredestein Ultrac Pro the better tyre?
In the 3 independent tests that ran both tyres, the Kumho Ecsta PS71 finished ahead 2 times and the Ultrac Pro once. On the Tyre Reviews Score, which weighs every test and review we hold, the Ecsta PS71 scores 8.5 and the Ultrac Pro 9 out of 10.
Which is better in the wet, the Ecsta PS71 or the Ultrac Pro?
The Ecsta PS71 led 8 of the 10 wet measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it stopped 9% shorter in the wet across 3 tests.
Which is better in the dry?
The Ecsta PS71 led 4 of the 4 dry measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it stopped 3.3% shorter in the dry across 3 tests.
Which is quieter and more comfortable?
The Ultrac Pro was 1.9 dB quieter (2 tests). Owners rate comfort 7.4/10 for the Ecsta PS71 and 8.1/10 for the Ultrac Pro.
What do owners say?
Owners rate the Ecsta PS71 77% from 94 reviews and the Ultrac Pro 83% from 7. 63% of Ecsta PS71 owners would buy it again, against 71% for the Ultrac Pro.
Which is more expensive?
In the 2 tests that listed prices, the Ultrac Pro was the dearer tyre in 2 of them, by 12.7% on average. Prices are the test's own at the time, in its own market.
Are they available in the same sizes?
The Ecsta PS71 is made in 133 sizes (16 to 22 inch) and the Ultrac Pro in 98 (18 to 24 inch). 72 sizes are available in both. On the EU label the Ecsta PS71 is graded A for wet grip and C for rolling resistance in most sizes; the Ultrac Pro A and C.
Which is the newer tyre?
The Ultrac Pro is the newer design: it reached the market in 2024, the Ecsta PS71 in 2016. The Ultrac Pro replaced the Vredestein Ultrac Vorti+.
More comparisons with these tyres
vs
Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3 vs Kumho Ecsta PS71
4-3 in 7 shared tests
vs 
Kumho Ecsta PS71 vs Michelin Pilot Sport 5
0-5 in 5 shared tests
vs 
Kumho Ecsta PS71 vs Nexen N Fera Sport SU2
6-3 in 9 shared tests
vs
Continental SportContact 7 vs Vredestein Ultrac Pro
7-0 in 7 shared tests
vs
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6 vs Kumho Ecsta PS71
4-1 in 5 shared tests
vs 
Kumho Ecsta PS71 vs Yokohama Advan Sport V107
3-2 in 5 shared tests
vs
Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S vs Vredestein Ultrac Pro
4-2 in 6 shared tests
vs
Giti GitiSportS2 vs Kumho Ecsta PS71
0-5 in 5 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