Kumho Ecsta PS71 vs Vredestein Ultrac Pro
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.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Kumho Ecsta PS71 | two | |
| Vredestein Ultrac Pro | one |
While it might look like the Kumho Ecsta PS71 is better than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro 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
- 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
- Competitive to strong mileage in key tests
- Lower exterior noise and better subjective comfort
- Stable, precise feel on dry roads per ADAC
- Good abrasion performance in ADAC
- Balanced overall behavior with a 'good' rating at ADAC
Dry Braking
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta PS71 was better during three dry braking tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta PS71 stopped the vehicle in 3.26% less distance than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Dry Braking: Kumho Ecsta PS71
See how the Dry Braking winner was calculated >>
Dry Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta PS71 was better during one dry handling [km/h] tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta PS71 was 1.01% faster around a lap than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Dry Handling [Km/H]: Kumho Ecsta PS71
See how the Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Braking
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta PS71 was better during three wet braking tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta PS71 stopped the vehicle in 9.54% less distance than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Wet Braking: Kumho Ecsta PS71
See how the Wet Braking winner was calculated >>
Wet Braking - Concrete
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta PS71 was better during one wet braking - concrete tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta PS71 stopped the vehicle in 4% less distance than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Wet Braking - Concrete: Kumho Ecsta PS71
See how the Wet Braking - Concrete winner was calculated >>
Wet Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta PS71 was better during one wet handling [km/h] tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta PS71 was 3.39% faster around a wet lap than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Wet Handling [Km/H]: Kumho Ecsta PS71
See how the Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Circle
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta PS71 was better during one wet circle tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta PS71 was 3.35% faster around a wet circle than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Wet Circle: Kumho Ecsta PS71
See how the Wet Circle winner was calculated >>
Straight Aqua
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta PS71 was better during two straight aqua tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta PS71 floated at a 3.15% higher speed than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Straight Aqua: Kumho Ecsta PS71
See how the Straight Aqua winner was calculated >>
Curved Aquaplaning
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during one curved aquaplaning tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro slipped out at a 4.09% higher speed than the Kumho Ecsta PS71.
Best In Curved Aquaplaning: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Curved Aquaplaning winner was calculated >>
Subj. Comfort
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during one subj. comfort tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro scored 6% more points than the Kumho Ecsta PS71.
Best In Subj. Comfort: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Subj. Comfort winner was calculated >>
Noise
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during two noise tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro measured 2.48% quieter than the Kumho Ecsta PS71.
Best In Noise: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Noise winner was calculated >>
Wear
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta PS71 was better during one wear tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta PS71 is predicted to cover 8.12% miles before reaching 1.6mm than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Wear: Kumho Ecsta PS71
See how the Wear winner was calculated >>
Value
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta PS71 was better during two value tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta PS71 proved to have a 18.54% better value based on price/1000km than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Value: Kumho Ecsta PS71
See how the Value winner was calculated >>
Rolling Resistance
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta PS71 and Vredestein Ultrac Pro performed equally well in rolling resistance tests.
Best In Rolling Resistance: Both tyres performed equally well
See how the Rolling Resistance winner was calculated >>
Fuel Consumption
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta PS71 and Vredestein Ultrac Pro performed equally well in fuel consumption tests.
Best In Fuel Consumption: Both tyres performed equally well
See how the Fuel Consumption winner was calculated >>
Abrasion
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during one abrasion tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro emitted 11.9% less particle wear matter than the Kumho Ecsta PS71.
Best In Abrasion: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Abrasion winner was calculated >>
Real World Driver Reviews
Kumho Ecsta PS71 Driver Reviews
Most drivers rate the Kumho Ecsta PS71 positively for strong wet and dry grip, predictable handling, and good value, often comparing it favorably to pricier premium options. Noise and faster wear appear as the main trade-offs, with several reports of increased road noise over time and below-average tread life for some vehicles. A minority report balancing/'egg-shaped' defects and tramlining, but these are not universal. Overall, the PS71 is a well-liked mid-range UHP tyre focused on grip and value.
Based on 82 reviews with an average rating of 78%
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%
I've always used kumho because the price well reflects in proformance if only they didn't need constant rebalencing.
I've had 4 duff pairs, ku31 x 2 pair, ku 39 x 2 pair that had to come off in the end they were so bad.
No amount of balencing can sort an egg shape tyre.
These new ps71 are very soft, squishy, feel like running on 20psi with 30g wheel wobble even after twice rebalencing them & 1 of them is egg shape.
I am worn out with trying to get them right & think after years of kumho on... Continue reading this review using the link below
Conclusion
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.
Key Differences
- Braking: Kumho wins all shared dry and wet braking metrics, often by meaningful margins
- Wet handling/circle: Kumho quicker; stronger confidence in rain
- Aquaplaning: Kumho better in straight-line; Vredestein slightly better in curved in Auto Bild
- Noise/comfort: Vredestein is quieter and subjectively more comfortable
- Value: Kumho has significantly lower cost per 1,000 km and, in Auto Bild, longer mileage
- Environmental/abrasion: Vredestein posts better abrasion in ADAC, aiding overall rating there
Overall Winner: Kumho Ecsta PS71
Based on the tyre test data and user reviews we have in our database, the Kumho Ecsta PS71 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:
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.