Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 vs Vredestein Ultrac plus
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.
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 two tests which compare both tyres directly!
| Tyre | Test Wins | Performance |
|---|---|---|
| Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 | two |
While it might look like the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 is better than the Vredestein Ultrac plus 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 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
- Strong overall competitiveness in group tests (4th place finishes and a Recommended award)
- Stronger aquaplaning resistance in both straight-line and curved tests (≈5.5% and ≈13% advantages)
- Better rolling resistance/efficiency (≈5% lower rolling resistance in both tests)
- Slightly better comfort scoring, aligning with its touring intent
- Generally stable in deeper water with decent communication at normal road speeds (per test notes), even if not the sharpest
Dry Braking
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during two dry braking tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 stopped the vehicle in 5.62% less distance than the Vredestein Ultrac plus.
Best In Dry Braking: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Dry Braking winner was calculated >>
Dry Handling [s]
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during two dry handling [s] tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was 1.71% faster around a lap than the Vredestein Ultrac plus.
Best In Dry Handling [s]: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Subj. Dry Handling
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during two subj. dry handling tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 scored 13.92% more points than the Vredestein Ultrac plus.
Best In Subj. Dry Handling: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Subj. Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
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 6.1% less distance than the Vredestein Ultrac plus.
Best In Wet Braking: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Wet Braking winner was calculated >>
Wet Handling [s]
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during two wet handling [s] tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was 2.88% faster around a wet lap than the Vredestein Ultrac plus.
Best In Wet Handling [s]: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
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 6.02% more points than the Vredestein Ultrac plus.
Best In Subj. Wet Handling: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Subj. Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
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 had 6.58% higher lateral wet grip than the Vredestein Ultrac plus.
Best In Wet Circle: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Wet Circle winner was calculated >>
Straight Aqua
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac plus was better during two straight aqua tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac plus floated at a 5.25% higher speed than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Straight Aqua: Vredestein Ultrac plus
See how the Straight Aqua winner was calculated >>
Curved Aquaplaning
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac plus was better during two curved aquaplaning tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac plus slipped out at a 11.7% higher speed than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Curved Aquaplaning: Vredestein Ultrac plus
See how the Curved Aquaplaning winner was calculated >>
Subj. Comfort
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac plus was better during two subj. comfort tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac plus scored 4.69% more points than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Subj. Comfort: Vredestein Ultrac plus
See how the Subj. Comfort winner was calculated >>
Noise
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one noise tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 measured 0.22% quieter than the Vredestein Ultrac plus.
Best In Noise: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Noise winner was calculated >>
Rolling Resistance
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac plus was better during two rolling resistance tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac plus had a 4.92% lower rolling resistance than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Rolling Resistance: Vredestein Ultrac plus
See how the Rolling Resistance winner was calculated >>
Real World Driver Reviews
Tyre Reviews also collects real world driver reviews for the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 and Vredestein Ultrac plus.
In total the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 has been reviewed 27 times and drivers have given the tyre 84% overall.
The Vredestein Ultrac plus has been reviewed 6 times and drivers have given the tyre 79% overall.
This means in real world driving, people prefer the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
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
They are much quieter than All Season Pirellis, the noise is mainly a low hum, which is nicer to the ear than the alternatives.
I feel more comfortable when cornering at speed with them. Been driving some forest/field roads and they held up nicely. The tread doesn't seem as deep as other brands, will update how things are looking after 10k km.
Conclusion
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.
Key Differences
- Overall ranking gap: Kumho 4th in both shared tests vs Vredestein 9th/9 and 10th/13, indicating a substantial overall performance deficit for the Ultrac+ in these groups
- Braking safety margin: Kumho stops ~2.2 m shorter from the same dry test (37.1 m vs 39.3 m) and shows a similar ~6% edge in wet braking across both tests
- Handling/driver confidence: Kumho is faster in dry and wet handling and scores notably higher subjectively (e.g., 7.4 vs 6.1 points in Motor subjective dry handling)
- Wet cornering grip vs standing-water security: Kumho leads wet circle/lateral grip, while Vredestein leads straight and curved aquaplaning by clear margins
- Touring efficiency vs sporty grip: Vredestein consistently posts ~5% better rolling resistance, while Kumho trades efficiency for higher grip and performance
- Hard-driving resilience: Vredestein is described as understeering and overheating quickly when pushed, whereas Kumho is described as sporty, predictable and confidence-inspiring (but with weaker aquaplaning)
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
- No comments yet — be the first.