Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 vs Kumho Ecsta HS52
In the 8 independent tests that ran both tyres, the Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 finished ahead 4 times and the Ecsta HS52 3 times, with one level. The EfficientGrip Performance 2 was stronger in comfort and value, the Ecsta HS52 in dry.
Performance profile
13 measurements from the 8 shared tests, each tyre shown as its share of the better figure in every test.
Where each is furthest ahead
EfficientGrip Performance 2
Ecsta HS52
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. 7 measurements recorded in only one shared test are left off; every measurement is in the table further down.
Where each scores higher
EfficientGrip Performance 2
Ecsta HS52
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
EfficientGrip Performance 2
Ecsta HS52
Point at or tap any spoke for both tyres' figures.
Owners rate the EfficientGrip Performance 2 85% from 129 reviews and the Ecsta HS52 82% from 30. 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. Wins count the tests in which each tyre did better.
| Measurement | EfficientGrip Performance 2 | Gap | Ecsta HS52 | Wins |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Ecsta HS52 ahead | ||||
| Dry Braking m | 36.83 | 2% | 36.08 | 1-7 |
| Dry Handling (s) | 51.85 | 0.5% | 51.58 | 0-1 |
| Dry Handling (km/h) | 105.1 | 0.2% | 105.4 | 1-1 |
| Subj. Dry Handling pts | scored | 5.6% | scored | 0-1 |
| Wet Level | ||||
| Wet Braking m | 35.91 | 3.5% | 34.61 | 2-6 |
| Wet Braking - Concrete m | 37.47 | 2.7% | 36.43 | 1-2 |
| Wet Handling (s) | 84.81 | 2.5% | 87 | 1-0 |
| Wet Handling (km/h) | 74.25 | 0.2% | 74.15 | 1-1 |
| Subj. Wet Handling pts | scored | 5.6% | scored | 1-0 |
| Wet Circle (m/s) | 6.28 | 0.9% | 6.22 | 1-1 |
| Wet Circle (s) | 11.57 | 0.9% | 11.68 | 1-0 |
| Straight Aqua km/h | 78.25 | 1.2% | 79.2 | 1-5 |
| Curved Aquaplaning m/sec2 | 3.74 | 7.3% | 3.47 | 6-0 |
| Comfort EfficientGrip Performance 2 ahead | ||||
| Subj. Comfort pts | scored | 5.6% | scored | 1-0 |
| Noise dB | 70.7 | 0.6 dB | 71.32 | 4-1 |
| Tyre Weight kg | 8.3 | 8.8% | 9.1 | 1-0 |
| Value EfficientGrip Performance 2 ahead | ||||
| Wear km | 57,778 | 36.2% | 44,518 | 4-1 |
| Rolling Resistance kg / t | 7.41 | 12.6% | 8.48 | 3-0 |
| Fuel Consumption l/100km | 5.67 | 3.4% | 5.87 | 3-0 |
| Abrasion mg/km/t | 58.4 | 20.1% | 75.1 | 3-0 |
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.
Head to head in 8 tests, 2022 to 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 | EfficientGrip Performance 2 | Field | Ecsta HS52 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 ADAC Summer Tyre Test | P3 of 16 | P9 of 16 | |
| 2024 AutoBild Summer Tyre Test | P4 of 20 | P4 of 20 | |
| 2024 ADAC Summer Tyre Test | P9 of 16 | P3 of 16 | |
| 2024 Summer Tyre Market Overview | P13 of 55 | P2 of 55 | |
| 2023 ADAC Summer Tyre Test | P1 of 50 | P8 of 50 | |
| Tyre Reviews Best Summer Touring Tyres | P4 of 13 | P8 of 13 | |
| 2022 Auto Bild Summer Tyre Test | P1 of 21 | P6 of 21 | |
| 2022 Summer Tyre Market Overview | P16 of 50 | P3 of 50 |
EfficientGrip Performance 2 vs Ecsta HS52: your questions
Is the Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 or the Kumho Ecsta HS52 the better tyre?
In the 8 independent tests that ran both tyres, the Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 finished ahead 4 times and the Ecsta HS52 3 times, with one level. On the Tyre Reviews Score, which weighs every test and review we hold, the EfficientGrip Performance 2 scores 9 and the Ecsta HS52 9 out of 10.
Which is better in the wet, the EfficientGrip Performance 2 or the Ecsta HS52?
Across the shared tests the wet measurements are split 15-15 between the EfficientGrip Performance 2 and the Ecsta HS52.
Which is better in the dry?
The Ecsta HS52 led 10 of the 12 dry measurements the shared tests recorded. On average it stopped 2% shorter in the dry across 8 tests.
Which lasts longer and costs less to run?
The EfficientGrip Performance 2 lasted 36.2% longer in the wear tests (5 tests), had 12.6% lower rolling resistance (3 tests), used 3.4% less fuel (3 tests) and shed 20.1% less rubber in the abrasion test (3 tests). Owners rate wear 9.1/10 for the EfficientGrip Performance 2 and 7.8/10 for the Ecsta HS52.
Which is quieter and more comfortable?
The EfficientGrip Performance 2 was 0.6 dB quieter (5 tests). Owners rate comfort 8.5/10 for the EfficientGrip Performance 2 and 7.1/10 for the Ecsta HS52.
What do owners say?
Owners rate the EfficientGrip Performance 2 85% from 129 reviews and the Ecsta HS52 82% from 30. 81% of EfficientGrip Performance 2 owners would buy it again, against 75% for the Ecsta HS52.
Which is more expensive?
In the 5 tests that listed prices, the EfficientGrip Performance 2 was the dearer tyre in 5 of them, by 34.1% on average. Prices are the test's own at the time, in its own market.
Are they available in the same sizes?
The EfficientGrip Performance 2 is made in 37 sizes (15 to 21 inch) and the Ecsta HS52 in 54 (14 to 20 inch). 26 sizes are available in both. On the EU label the EfficientGrip Performance 2 is graded A for wet grip and A for rolling resistance in most sizes; the Ecsta HS52 A and C.
More comparisons with these tyres
vs 
Bridgestone Turanza 6 vs Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2
5-2 in 7 shared tests
vs 
Hankook Ventus Prime 4 vs Kumho Ecsta HS52
3-5 in 8 shared tests
vs
Continental PremiumContact 7 vs Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2
9-0 in 9 shared tests
vs
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 vs Hankook Ventus Prime 4
7-4 in 11 shared tests
vs 
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 vs Michelin Primacy 4+
2-5 in 7 shared tests
vs 
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 vs Michelin Primacy 5
2-2 in 4 shared tests
vs 
Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 vs Michelin Primacy 4
5-8 in 14 shared tests
vs
Falken ZIEX ZE310 EcoRun vs Kumho Ecsta HS52
3-4 in 7 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.
Review the EfficientGrip Performance 2 Review the Ecsta HS52
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.