Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 vs Vredestein Ultrac+
- TR Score
- 9.2/10
- Owners say
- 84% · 41
- TR Score
- 8.4/10
- Owners say
- 83% · 8
In the 2 independent tests that ran both tyres, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 finished ahead 2 times and the Ultrac+ not once. The Ecsta Sport PS72 stopped 6.1% shorter in the wet; the Ultrac+ had 5.1% lower rolling resistance.
Data updated
Which should you buy?
For drivers who prioritise grip, shorter braking distances and precise handling (including spirited road driving), the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 is the better buy. Choose the Vredestein Ultrac+ if you mainly cruise/commute, want slightly more comfort and better efficiency, and you regularly encounter standing water where aquaplaning resistance is the top concern.
Where the Ecsta Sport PS72 is stronger
- Consistently shorter braking distances in both dry and wet (≈5-6% advantage in shared tests)
- Stronger dry and wet handling performance with higher subjective confidence/steering scores
- Better lateral wet grip (wet circle) in both tests, supporting more secure cornering in the rain
Where the Ultrac+ is stronger
- Comfort 2/4
- Value 2/2 Had 5.1% lower rolling resistance (2 tests)
The measured tallies (wins out of measurements in the shared tests) come straight from the tables below. The written verdict and bullet points are analysis of those tests and of owner reviews; where they and the figures disagree, the figures are right.
Ecsta Sport PS72 vs Ultrac+ at a glance
| Category | Ecsta Sport PS72 | Gap | Ultrac+ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shared tests won2 shared tests | 2 | 0 | |
| Dry6 measurements | 6 | The Ecsta Sport PS72 stopped 5.6% shorter in the dry (2 tests) | 0 |
| Wet11 measurements | 7 | The Ecsta Sport PS72 stopped 6.1% shorter in the wet (2 tests) | 4 |
| Comfort4 measurements | 1 | 2 | |
| Value2 measurements | 0 | The Ultrac+ had 5.1% lower rolling resistance (2 tests) | 2 |
| Tyre Reviews Scoreevery test and review we hold | 9.2/10 | The Ecsta Sport PS72 by 0.8 | 8.4/10 |
| Owner rating41 and 8 reviews | 84% | Too close to call | 83% |
| Would buy againshare of owners | 82% | The Ecsta Sport PS72 by 11 points | 71% |
| Sizes madeEU label registrations | 86 | 22 sizes made in both | 57 |
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 2 tests in 2026
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 Sport PS72 | Field | Ultrac+ |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 Motor Summer Tyre Test | P4 of 9 | P9 of 9 | |
| The BEST Summer Tyres for 2026 Tested and Rated | P4 of 12 | P10 of 12 |
Performance profile
10 measurements from the 2 shared tests, each tyre shown as its share of the better figure in every test.
Where each is furthest ahead
Ecsta Sport PS72
Ultrac+
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. The scale stops at 92%: a point further in sits on the hub's edge, hollow. 3 measurements recorded in only one shared test are left off; every measurement is in the table further down.
Where each scores higher
Ecsta Sport PS72
Ultrac+
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 Sport PS72
Ultrac+
Point at or tap any spoke for both tyres' figures.
Owners rate the Ecsta Sport PS72 84% from 41 reviews and the Ultrac+ 83% from 8. 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 Sport PS72 | Gap | Ultrac+ | Wins | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 37.11 | 5.6% | 39.32 | 2-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 73.68 | 1.7% | 74.96 | 2-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| scored | 16.7% | scored | 2-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 36.34 | 6.1% | 38.7 | 2-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 70.73 | 2.9% | 72.83 | 2-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| scored | 6.4% | scored | 1-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 0.76 | 7% | 0.71 | 1-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 12.22 | 3.9% | 12.72 | 1-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 71.42 | 5.6% | 75.38 | 0-2 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 3.32 | 13.3% | 3.76 | 0-2 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| scored | 4.9% | scored | 0-2 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 68.75 | 0.2 dB | 68.9 | 1-0 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 4.47 | 5.1% | 4.25 | 0-2 | |||||||||
|
||||||||||||
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 Sport PS72 scores 9.2 and the Ultrac+ 8.4 out of 10.
| Ecsta Sport PS72 | Category | Ultrac+ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 92 | Dry | 60 | ||
| 88 | Wet | 74 | ||
| 35 | Comfort | 92 | ||
| 49 | Value | 53 | ||
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 Sport PS72 | Category | Ultrac+ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | Dry Grip | 8.9 | ||
| 8.8 | Wet Grip | 9.1 | ||
| 8.6 | Road Feedback | 7.9 | ||
| 8.6 | Handling | 7.9 | ||
| 8.3 | Wear | 7.7 | ||
| 7.7 | Comfort | 8.5 | ||
Owners rate the Ecsta Sport PS72 84% from 41 reviews and the Ultrac+ 83% from 8. Reviews are vetted by hand before publication; ownership is not verified.
Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
- 84%from 41 reviews
- 82%would buy again
- 160,312 milesdriven by reviewers
Owners rate the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 highly overall (average 81.6%), most often praising its strong value for money and genuinely impressive dry performance, with confident handling and high-speed stability. Wet grip also comes through as a notable strength for around a third of reviewers, helping it feel safe and predictable in poor weather. Comfort and road noise are generally seen as good for a performance tyre, though a smaller but meaningful group find it noisier or less refined than expected. The main recurring downside is vibration or balancing/out-of-round issues mentioned by around one in six owners, with tread life only getting mixed, limited commentary so far.
- Excellent value for money versus premium rivals
- Strong dry grip with lots of confidence
- Sharp, capable dry handling through corners
- Stable and planted at motorway/high speeds
- Vibration/balancing or out-of-round issues at speed
- Can be noisy on some surfaces or at higher speeds
- Tread life concerns from a minority (seems to wear quickly for some)
Summarised by AI from 38 vetted reviews; the reviews themselves are on the tyre page.
All 41 Ecsta Sport PS72 reviewsBought them to replace Hankook ventus prime 4 (Touring type of tyres), did a bunch of research before buying, they were really cheap ! So i bought them, you notice the difference in handling and cornering immediately, yes they are UHP and they deliver on that, not that the hankook's were inferior but the Kumhos are a different experience during fast cornering. I drive mainly on mountain passes, they stick like glue on the tarmac they hold well on the wet, haven't drove hard yet on really heavy rain but they seem to do great, no aquaplaning as of now. Sidewalls are not hard as a rock but they aren't soft, they don't deform during cornering, riding on them is nice and comfortable. The only negative as a first impression is this, went from a 68db tyre to a 71db on the highway noise is significant worse with those Kumho, you can feel and hear every imperfection of the road, if you care about the noise buy the version with the foam inside I think they call it K version or something.
Vredestein Ultrac+
- 83%from 8 reviews
- 71%would buy again
- 35,000 milesdriven by reviewers
Across seven reviews, the Vredestein Ultrac+ is described as a strong all-rounder with standout wet-weather security, including very high confidence in heavy rain and good resistance to aquaplaning. Drivers also commonly praise its comfortable ride, generally low cabin noise, and precise, planted handling/steering. Value for money is repeatedly highlighted as a major strength. A smaller subset of users report slightly worse fuel economy/rolling resistance versus some alternatives, and isolated feedback notes higher noise at high motorway speeds on coarse surfaces.
- Excellent wet grip and high-speed rain stability/aquaplaning resistance
- Comfortable ride and good bump absorption
- Generally quiet/low noise (often described as a low hum)
- Precise steering and stable handling
- Slight fuel economy/rolling resistance penalty versus some competitors
Summarised by AI from 7 vetted reviews; the reviews themselves are on the tyre page.
All 8 Ultrac+ reviewsI xannot recommend these vrederstein tyres higly enough. On safety ,fuel economy and dry and wet weather handling and safety . If they have any weakness it would be on tred wear. But at 90 pounds a tyre i wil never drive on anything else.
Sizes, EU label and lineage
From the EU label registrations for each tyre: 86 sizes of the Ecsta Sport PS72 and 57 of the Ultrac+, 22 of them made in both.
| Category | Ecsta Sport PS72 | Ultrac+ |
|---|---|---|
| Season | Summer | Summer |
| Sizes made | 86 sizes, 17 to 21 inch | 57 sizes, 15 to 20 inch |
| Made in both | 22 sizes 205/40 R17205/45 R17205/50 R17215/40 R17215/45 R17215/50 R17215/55 R17225/45 R17225/50 R17225/55 R17235/45 R17235/55 R17and 10 more | |
| EU label wet grip | A95%B5% | A100% |
| EU label rolling resistance | C77%B10%A8%D5% | B50%C45%A3%D1% |
| EU label noise | 70-74 dB B100% | 69-70 dB B100% |
| On the market since | - | 2024 |
| Replaced | Kumho Ecsta PS91 | - |
| Awards | Winner: Summer Value Performer (17in and above) (WhatTyre, 2026/27) | - |
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 is an interesting matchup because the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 and Vredestein Ultrac+ aim at different “summer tyre” priorities. The Kumho is a max-performance summer tyre built to deliver sharper grip, braking and steering precision, while the Vredestein is a premium-touring summer tyre that typically targets comfort, efficiency and secure everyday behaviour.
Across the two shared 225/45 R17 summer tests (Motor 2026 and a 2026 multi-tyre group test), the pattern is consistent: the Kumho repeatedly leads on dry and wet grip metrics (braking, handling and lateral grip), while the Vredestein's standout advantages are aquaplaning resistance, comfort and rolling resistance. The result is a clear “sport vs. touring” split with real-world implications depending on whether you value handling confidence or motorway composure and efficiency.
Conclusion
On pure performance, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 is the stronger tyre in these head-to-heads. It finishes 4th in both shared tests (4/9 and 4/13, with a “Recommended” award), and it beats the Ultrac+ in every key grip and control discipline: dry braking (37.1 m vs 39.3 m, ~5.6% shorter), wet braking (44.3 m vs 47.2 m in Motor; 28.38 m vs 30.2 m in the other test, ~6% shorter), plus quicker dry and wet handling times and stronger subjective steering/feedback scores. If your priority is confident stopping distances, predictable cornering, and a more “sport tyre” response on both dry roads and typical wet roads, the Kumho is the clear pick.
The Vredestein Ultrac+'s case is narrower but still valid: it is consistently better in aquaplaning resistance (straight aquaplaning ~5.5-5.6% higher speed; curved aquaplaning ~13.25% stronger), it scores slightly better for comfort, and it has meaningfully lower rolling resistance (~5% better in both tests). Professional notes also flag that its wet performance is “inconsistent” because despite good aquaplaning stability, its wet braking and lateral wet grip are among the weakest in the group; add comments about understeer and overheating when pushed, and it's not the tyre to choose for enthusiastic driving.
Practical takeaway: choose the Kumho if you care about grip-led safety margins (especially braking) and engaging handling; choose the Vredestein if your driving is predominantly steady-state commuting/motorway use, you frequently face standing water, and you value efficiency and comfort more than ultimate grip.
Ecsta Sport PS72 vs Ultrac+: your questions
Is the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 or the Vredestein Ultrac+ the better tyre?
In the 2 independent tests that ran both tyres, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 finished ahead 2 times and the Ultrac+ not once. On the Tyre Reviews Score, which weighs every test and review we hold, the Ecsta Sport PS72 scores 9.2 and the Ultrac+ 8.4 out of 10.
Which is better in the wet, the Ecsta Sport PS72 or the Ultrac+?
The Ecsta Sport PS72 led 7 of the 11 wet measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it stopped 6.1% shorter in the wet across 2 tests.
Which is better in the dry?
The Ecsta Sport PS72 led 6 of the 6 dry measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it stopped 5.6% shorter in the dry across 2 tests.
Which lasts longer and costs less to run?
The Ultrac+ had 5.1% lower rolling resistance (2 tests). Owners rate wear 8.3/10 for the Ecsta Sport PS72 and 7.7/10 for the Ultrac+.
Which is quieter and more comfortable?
Owners rate comfort 7.7/10 for the Ecsta Sport PS72 and 8.5/10 for the Ultrac+.
What do owners say?
Owners rate the Ecsta Sport PS72 84% from 41 reviews and the Ultrac+ 83% from 8. 82% of Ecsta Sport PS72 owners would buy it again, against 71% for the Ultrac+.
Are they available in the same sizes?
The Ecsta Sport PS72 is made in 86 sizes (17 to 21 inch) and the Ultrac+ in 57 (15 to 20 inch). 22 sizes are available in both. On the EU label the Ecsta Sport PS72 is graded A for wet grip and C for rolling resistance in most sizes; the Ultrac+ A and B.
More comparisons with these tyres
vs
Hankook Ventus Evo vs Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
6-2 in 8 shared tests
vs
Continental SportContact 7 vs Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
1-2 in 3 shared tests
vs
Bridgestone Potenza Sport vs Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
1-1 in 2 shared tests
vs
Michelin Primacy 5 vs Vredestein Ultrac+
3-1 in 4 shared tests
vs 
Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 vs Michelin Pilot Sport 5
3-3 in 6 shared tests
vs
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6 vs Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
2-2 in 4 shared tests
vs
Falken Azenis FK520 vs Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
1-3 in 4 shared tests
vs 
Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 vs Yokohama Advan Sport V107
3-0 in 3 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