Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 vs Michelin Pilot Sport 5
What makes this head-to-head interesting is that some of the most important safety numbers are either extremely close (dry braking was identical at 34.4 m in two tests) or even tilt toward the cheaper Kumho (wet braking wins in 3 of 4 shared tests). Meanwhile, Michelin's advantage shows up more in the “big picture” ownership metrics-higher projected mileage (59,670 km vs 48,230 km in Autobild) and consistently stronger aquaplaning margins-helping explain why it places 3rd in Autobild's 20-tyre test while the Kumho lands 6th despite strong dynamic scores.
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 | two | |
| Michelin Pilot Sport 5 | two |
The Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 and Michelin Pilot Sport 5 have an equal number of test wins. However, 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 strong wet braking across multiple tests (wins 3/4; e.g., 27.1 m vs 27.7 m, and 23.07 m vs 24.37 m)
- Competitive dry braking with parity in headline results (34.4 m vs 34.4 m in two shared tests; slight win in Die Reifentester)
- Strong value proposition with notably lower cost metric in Autobild (12.44 vs 15.42 price/1000)
- Balanced, confidence-inspiring handling feel in several reports, including strong subjective wet scores (e.g., 8.7 vs 8 points in Autobild; 5 vs 3 in Die Reifentester)
- Stronger overall test placements in the largest field (3/20 vs 6/20 in Autobild), reflecting broader all-round capability
- Clear aquaplaning advantage (wins straight and curved aquaplaning consistently; e.g., 92 vs 91 km/h straight aqua and 3.72 vs 3.43 m/s² curved in Autobild)
- Superior longevity and lower wear/abrasion (59,670 km vs 48,230 km in Autobild; lower abrasion 1353 g vs 1605 g)
- Lower rolling resistance trend across tests (wins 2/3 shared RR comparisons including Die Reifentester; helps fuel economy)
Dry Braking
Looking at data from four tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one dry braking tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 stopped the vehicle in 0.23% less distance than the Michelin Pilot Sport 5.
Best In Dry Braking: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Dry Braking winner was calculated >>
Dry Handling [s]
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one dry handling [s] tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was 0.36% faster around a lap than the Michelin Pilot Sport 5.
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 Michelin Pilot Sport 5 was better during one dry handling [km/h] tests. On average the Michelin Pilot Sport 5 was 1.28% faster around a lap than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Dry Handling [Km/H]: Michelin Pilot Sport 5
See how the Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Subj. Dry Handling
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Michelin Pilot Sport 5 was better during one subj. dry handling tests. On average the Michelin Pilot Sport 5 scored 7.14% more points than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Subj. Dry Handling: Michelin Pilot Sport 5
See how the Subj. Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Braking
Looking at data from four tyre tests, the Michelin Pilot Sport 5 was better during one wet braking tests. On average the Michelin Pilot Sport 5 stopped the vehicle in 1.18% less distance than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Wet Braking: Michelin Pilot Sport 5
See how the Wet Braking winner was calculated >>
Wet Handling [s]
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one wet handling [s] tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was 0.22% faster around a wet lap than the Michelin Pilot Sport 5.
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 Michelin Pilot Sport 5 was better during one wet handling [km/h] tests. On average the Michelin Pilot Sport 5 was 0.12% faster around a wet lap than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Wet Handling [Km/H]: Michelin Pilot Sport 5
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 19.71% more points than the Michelin Pilot Sport 5.
Best In Subj. Wet Handling: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Subj. Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Circle
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Michelin Pilot Sport 5 was better during one wet circle tests. On average the Michelin Pilot Sport 5 was 0.6% faster around a wet circle than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Wet Circle: Michelin Pilot Sport 5
See how the Wet Circle winner was calculated >>
Straight Aqua
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the Michelin Pilot Sport 5 was better during three straight aqua tests. On average the Michelin Pilot Sport 5 floated at a 2.21% higher speed than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Straight Aqua: Michelin Pilot Sport 5
See how the Straight Aqua winner was calculated >>
Curved Aquaplaning
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Michelin Pilot Sport 5 was better during two curved aquaplaning tests. On average the Michelin Pilot Sport 5 slipped out at a 9.61% higher speed than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Curved Aquaplaning: Michelin Pilot Sport 5
See how the Curved Aquaplaning winner was calculated >>
Subj. Comfort
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 and Michelin Pilot Sport 5 performed equally well in subj. comfort tests.
Best In Subj. Comfort: Both tyres performed equally well
See how the Subj. Comfort winner was calculated >>
Subj. Noise
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one subj. noise tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 scored 9.29% more points than the Michelin Pilot Sport 5.
Best In Subj. Noise: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Subj. Noise winner was calculated >>
Noise
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one noise tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 measured 0.27% quieter than the Michelin Pilot Sport 5.
Best In Noise: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Noise winner was calculated >>
Wear
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Michelin Pilot Sport 5 was better during one wear tests. On average the Michelin Pilot Sport 5 is predicted to cover 19.17% miles before reaching 1.6mm than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Wear: Michelin Pilot Sport 5
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 19.33% better value based on price/1000km than the Michelin Pilot Sport 5.
Best In Value: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Value winner was calculated >>
Rolling Resistance
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the Michelin Pilot Sport 5 was better during two rolling resistance tests. On average the Michelin Pilot Sport 5 had a 1.46% lower rolling resistance than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Rolling Resistance: Michelin Pilot Sport 5
See how the Rolling Resistance winner was calculated >>
Abrasion
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Michelin Pilot Sport 5 was better during one abrasion tests. On average the Michelin Pilot Sport 5 lost 15.7% less particle wear matter than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Abrasion: Michelin Pilot Sport 5
See how the Abrasion winner was calculated >>
Real World Driver Reviews
Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 Driver Reviews
Drivers generally report the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 as a highly grippy, confidence-inspiring tyre with strong wet and dry performance, good braking and stable, predictable handling at speed. Many also highlight excellent value versus premium rivals, often describing performance close to top-tier tyres for much less money. The main recurring complaint is highway-speed vibration (often linked to balancing or possible out-of-round tyres), with a smaller set noting it can be a bit noisier or firmer than some competitors.
Based on 23 reviews with an average rating of 84%
Michelin Pilot Sport 5 Driver Reviews
Across 89 reviews, the Michelin Pilot Sport 5 is widely described as an excellent all-round UHP summer tyre with standout wet performance, strong dry grip, and high driver confidence at speed. Many drivers also praise its comfort/refinement and generally low road noise versus rival sporty tyres, with a large portion reporting very good tread life for the category. The most repeated drawback is a less engaging steering feel (softer sidewalls, mild understeer, and reduced feedback) compared with sharper alternatives like Pilot Sport 4S/Continental SportContact 7, while price is a smaller but recurring complaint.
Based on 97 reviews with an average rating of 85%
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 Ecsta Sport PS72, however, is not a consolation prize-it repeatedly delivers real performance where it matters day-to-day and in emergency stops. It matches Michelin on dry braking in multiple tests (34.4 m vs 34.4 m) and beats it on wet braking in three of four shared results (including 27.1 m vs 27.7 m in the 52-tyre braking test, and 23.07 m vs 24.37 m in Die Reifentester). Add the lower cost-per-performance (Autobild “value” 12.44 vs 15.42 price/1000) and it becomes the smart buy for drivers who prioritize braking confidence and sharp handling per euro-accepting that Michelin is likely to last longer and resist aquaplaning better.
Practical takeaway: if you want the safest “all-rounder” over a long ownership cycle, the Michelin's wear + aquaplaning edge is hard to argue with; if you want maximum objective braking performance and strong dynamics for the money, the Kumho is one of the clearest value disruptors in this category.
Key Differences
- Wet braking trends favor Kumho strongly (wins 3 of 4), but Michelin's best-case wet braking can be significantly better in some setups (Auto Express: 31.6 m vs 35.9 m).
- Aquaplaning resistance is Michelin's most consistent dynamic edge (straight aqua wins 3/3; curved aquaplaning wins 2/2, including a large +21% margin in Auto Express).
- Longevity is a meaningful Michelin advantage: Autobild projects ~23.7% more mileage (59,670 km vs 48,230 km) and lower abrasion (1353 g vs 1605 g).
- Dry braking is effectively a draw in headline measurements (34.4 m vs 34.4 m in two tests), so the choice is less about dry stopping and more about wet safety vs aquaplaning/wear balance.
- Subjective sportiness splits by test: Michelin is rated higher for dry handling feel in Autobild (10 vs 8), while Kumho is rated higher for wet handling feel in Autobild and Die Reifentester.
- Value proposition diverges: Kumho is clearly cheaper on Autobild's value metric (12.44 vs 15.42 price/1000), while Michelin aims to repay higher price through longer life and efficiency.
Overall Winner: Michelin Pilot Sport 5
Based on the tyre test data and user reviews we have in our database, the Michelin Pilot Sport 5 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.