Menu

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 vs Nokian Powerproof 2

This matchup pits two modern, sporty summer tyres aimed at fast road driving in common performance sizes: the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 (marketed as a max-performance option) versus the Nokian Powerproof 2 (ultra-high-performance positioning). Across three shared 2026 group tests, they repeatedly land in the upper mid-pack rather than the outright premium-leader tier, but they get there in very different ways.

The consistent theme is that the Kumho builds its result on wet-surface confidence and strong cost-per-performance, while the Nokian leans on refinement and efficiency (noise and rolling resistance) plus solid braking. If you drive in frequent rain, the data shows clearer separation than it does in the dry, where the two are often very close on outright stopping distances.
Ecsta-Sport-PS72 VS Powerproof-2

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!

Summary of three total tests comparing both tyres directly
TyreTest WinsPerformance
Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72two
two wins
Nokian Powerproof 2one
one wins

While it might look like the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 is better than the Nokian Powerproof 2 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 wet braking across shared tests (e.g., 42.4 m vs 44.0 m in Autobild; 27.1 m vs 28.1 m in the 50-tyre braking test)
  • More convincing wet handling and subjective wet control (82.6 vs 81.7 km/h; 8.7 vs 7.3 subjective points in Autobild)
  • Better aquaplaning resistance in Autobild (91.0 vs 89.7 km/h straight; 3.43 vs 3.10 m/sec² curved)
  • Stronger value proposition in Autobild cost metric (12.44 vs 15.18 price/1000) while remaining competitive in the dry
  • Lower external noise in Autobild (71.7 dB vs 74.1 dB), improving day-to-day refinement
  • Better rolling resistance/efficiency in Autobild (7.48 vs 8.15 kg/t) and strong economy scoring noted by ACE
  • Slightly better measured wear indicators (50,080 vs 48,230 km; lower abrasion 1386 g vs 1605 g in Autobild)
  • Dry performance remains competitive (matches 34.4 m dry braking; marginally best dry handling speed in Autobild by 0.1 km/h)

Dry Braking

Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 and Nokian Powerproof 2 performed equally well in dry braking tests.

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
34.4M
Nokian Powerproof 2
34.4M
Dry braking in meters, lower is better

Best In Dry Braking: Both tyres performed equally well

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
34.4M
Nokian Powerproof 2
34.4M
Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
34.4M
Nokian Powerproof 2
34.4M

Dry Handling [Km/H]

Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Nokian Powerproof 2 was better during one dry handling [km/h] tests. On average the Nokian Powerproof 2 was 0.1% faster around a lap than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
100Km/H
Nokian Powerproof 2
100.1Km/H
Dry Handling Average Speed, higher is better

Best In Dry Handling [Km/H]: Nokian Powerproof 2

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
100Km/H (-0.1Km/H)
Nokian Powerproof 2
100.1Km/H

Subj. Dry Handling

Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 and Nokian Powerproof 2 performed equally well in subj. dry handling tests.

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
8 Points
Nokian Powerproof 2
8 Points
Subjective Dry Handling Score, higher is better

Best In Subj. Dry Handling: Both tyres performed equally well

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
8 Points
Nokian Powerproof 2
8 Points

Wet Braking

Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during two wet braking tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 stopped the vehicle in 3.61% less distance than the Nokian Powerproof 2.

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
34.75M
Nokian Powerproof 2
36.05M
Wet braking in meters, lower is better

Best In Wet Braking: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
27.1M
Nokian Powerproof 2
28.1M (+1M)
Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
42.4M
Nokian Powerproof 2
44M (+1.6M)

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 1.09% faster around a wet lap than the Nokian Powerproof 2.

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
82.6Km/H
Nokian Powerproof 2
81.7Km/H
Wet Handling Average Speed, higher is better

Best In Wet Handling [Km/H]: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
82.6Km/H
Nokian Powerproof 2
81.7Km/H (-0.9Km/H)

Subj. Wet Handling

Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one subj. wet handling tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 scored 16.09% more points than the Nokian Powerproof 2.

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
8.7 Points
Nokian Powerproof 2
7.3 Points
Subjective Wet Handling Score, higher is better

Best In Subj. Wet Handling: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
8.7 Points
Nokian Powerproof 2
7.3 Points (-1.4 Points)

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 was 2.01% faster around a wet circle than the Nokian Powerproof 2.

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
14.6s
Nokian Powerproof 2
14.9s
Wet Circle Lap Time in seconds, lower is better

Best In Wet Circle: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
14.6s
Nokian Powerproof 2
14.9s (+0.3s)

Straight Aqua

Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one straight aqua tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 floated at a 1.43% higher speed than the Nokian Powerproof 2.

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
91Km/H
Nokian Powerproof 2
89.7Km/H
Float Speed in Km/H, higher is better

Best In Straight Aqua: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
91Km/H
Nokian Powerproof 2
89.7Km/H (-1.3Km/H)

Curved Aquaplaning

Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one curved aquaplaning tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 slipped out at a 9.62% higher speed than the Nokian Powerproof 2.

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
3.43m/sec2
Nokian Powerproof 2
3.1m/sec2
Remaining lateral acceleration, higher is better

Best In Curved Aquaplaning: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
3.43m/sec2
Nokian Powerproof 2
3.1m/sec2 (-0.33m/sec2)

Subj. Comfort

Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 and Nokian Powerproof 2 performed equally well in subj. comfort tests.

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
7.3 Points
Nokian Powerproof 2
7.3 Points
Subjective Comfort Score, higher is better

Best In Subj. Comfort: Both tyres performed equally well

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
7.3 Points
Nokian Powerproof 2
7.3 Points

Noise

Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Nokian Powerproof 2 was better during one noise tests. On average the Nokian Powerproof 2 measured 3.24% quieter than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
74.1dB
Nokian Powerproof 2
71.7dB
External noise in dB, lower is better

Best In Noise: Nokian Powerproof 2

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
74.1dB (+2.4dB)
Nokian Powerproof 2
71.7dB

Wear

Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Nokian Powerproof 2 was better during one wear tests. On average the Nokian Powerproof 2 is predicted to cover 3.69% miles before reaching 1.6mm than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
48230KM
Nokian Powerproof 2
50080KM
Predicted tread life in KM, higher is better

Best In Wear: Nokian Powerproof 2

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
48230KM (-1850KM)
Nokian Powerproof 2
50080KM

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 18.05% better value based on price/1000km than the Nokian Powerproof 2.

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
12.44Price/1000
Nokian Powerproof 2
15.18Price/1000
Euros/1000km based on cost/wear, lower is better

Best In Value: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
12.44Price/1000
Nokian Powerproof 2
15.18Price/1000 (+2.74Price/1000)

Rolling Resistance

Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Nokian Powerproof 2 was better during one rolling resistance tests. On average the Nokian Powerproof 2 had a 8.22% lower rolling resistance than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
8.15kg / t
Nokian Powerproof 2
7.48kg / t
Rolling resistance in kg t, lower is better

Best In Rolling Resistance: Nokian Powerproof 2

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
8.15kg / t (+0.67kg / t)
Nokian Powerproof 2
7.48kg / t

Abrasion

Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Nokian Powerproof 2 was better during one abrasion tests. On average the Nokian Powerproof 2 lost 13.64% less particle wear matter than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
1605g
Nokian Powerproof 2
1386g
Total weight loss after wear test in grams, lower is better

Best In Abrasion: Nokian Powerproof 2

Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
1605g (+219g)
Nokian Powerproof 2
1386g

Real World Driver Reviews

Tyre Reviews also collects real world driver reviews for the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 and Nokian Powerproof 2.

In total the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 has been reviewed 27 times and drivers have given the tyre 84% overall.

The Nokian Powerproof 2 has been reviewed 1 times and drivers have given the tyre 95% overall.

This means in real world driving, people prefer the Nokian Powerproof 2.

Best Review for the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
Given 87% 245/40 R18 on a combination of roads for 10,000 average miles
Bought these tyres dur to the very good reviews of ps71. I do not have a sporty car, but the dry grip and braking it’s excellent. Never felt the tyres struggling for grip.

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
Helpful 1171 - tyre reviewed on June 22, 2025
View all Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 driver reviews >>
Best Review for the Nokian Powerproof 2
Given 95% 235/65 R17 on for 1,500 miles
The initial impression is excellent, both in wet and dry conditions. For me, it's the ideal combination of feedback, directness (despite the high cross-section! - thanks to aramid-reinforced sidewalls), strong grip, and high comfort.
I was already quite satisfied with the Powerproof SUV. In between, I briefly used the Wetproof 1: the grip was also very good, but in direct comparison, it had significantly less direct steering.
Helpful 32 - tyre reviewed on April 21, 2026
View all Nokian Powerproof 2 driver reviews >>

Conclusion

Across the shared tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 is the more convincing “all-weather summer” performer, especially in the wet. In Autobild's 245/45 R19 test it decisively outperformed the Nokian in key wet metrics: wet braking (42.4 m vs 44.0 m), wet handling (82.6 vs 81.7 km/h), and aquaplaning resistance (91.0 vs 89.7 km/h straight aquaplaning; 3.43 vs 3.10 m/sec² curved). That wet advantage is reinforced by the large subjective wet-handling gap (8.7 vs 7.3 points). It also repeats a wet-braking win in the 50-tyre braking-only test (27.1 m vs 28.1 m). Put simply: when conditions are slippery, the Kumho gives you more margin.

The Nokian Powerproof 2's case is strongest if your priorities are lower noise, better efficiency, and respectable durability. It's quieter in Autobild (71.7 dB vs 74.1 dB), rolls easier (7.48 vs 8.15 kg/t), and shows slightly better wear/mileage (50,080 vs 48,230 km) with lower measured abrasion. However, its performance profile is spikier: ACE highlighted excellent wet handling/traction for its class, but also the earliest straight-line aquaplaning onset in that test (80.1 km/h) and the only explicit criticism for rear-axle support in a lane-change stability assessment-practical drawbacks if you drive briskly in heavy rain or encounter standing water.

Value also tilts the decision. The Kumho's Autobild cost-per-distance metric is meaningfully better (12.44 vs 15.18 price/1000), and it still matches the Nokian on dry braking in the shared data (both at 34.4 m in the 245/45 R19 tests). The takeaway: choose Kumho for wet safety headroom and price/performance; choose Nokian if you want a quieter, more efficient tyre and can accept more conditional wet/aquaplaning confidence depending on circumstances and size.
Key Differences
  • Wet stopping distance consistently favors Kumho: +1.0 m advantage in the 50-tyre wet braking test (27.1 m vs 28.1 m) and +1.6 m in Autobild wet braking (42.4 m vs 44.0 m)
  • Wet handling and driver confidence lean Kumho in Autobild (82.6 vs 81.7 km/h; subjective wet 8.7 vs 7.3), while ACE credits Nokian with strong wet traction out of bends
  • Aquaplaning is a split story: Autobild favors Kumho (91.0 vs 89.7 km/h straight; 3.43 vs 3.10 curved), but ACE flags Nokian as the earliest straight-aquaplaning tyre at 80.1 km/h in that test
  • Refinement/comfort: Nokian is notably quieter (71.7 dB vs 74.1 dB), while comfort scores were equal in Autobild (7.3/7.3)
  • Efficiency and running costs: Nokian has better rolling resistance (7.48 vs 8.15 kg/t) and better wear metrics, but Kumho delivers clearly better purchase/value metric (12.44 vs 15.18 price/1000)
  • Stability at the limit: ACE specifically criticises Nokian for weaker rear-axle support in a fast lane-change (evasive manoeuvre) assessment; Kumho is described more as a consistent, drama-free mid-pack performer
Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72

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:

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

  1. No comments yet — be the first.