Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 vs Nokian Powerproof 2
Across the three shared 2026 tests, the headline pattern is that Nexen more often wins the objective safety metrics (especially braking and aquaplaning), whereas Nokian's better results are more about dry driving feel/handling ratings in Autobild, plus longer projected wear and lower rolling resistance. The complication is that the Nexen's braking reputation swings dramatically between tests-excellent in the 245/45 R19 datasets, but notably weak in the 225/40 R18 ACE test-so size/fitment sensitivity looks like a real part of this story.
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!
| Tyre | Test Wins | Performance |
|---|---|---|
| Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 | two | |
| Nokian Powerproof 2 | one |
While it might look like the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 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
- Consistently strong braking in the 245/45 R19 tests (33.9 m dry; 27.1 m wet) and beats Nokian in both wet and dry stopping distances in shared braking datasets
- Stronger wet safety margins in Autobild: better straight and curved aquaplaning (92.9 km/h straight; 3.38 m/s² curved) plus slight edges in wet handling/circle
- Better value proposition in Autobild (12.13 vs 15.18 price/1000), making its performance-per-cost particularly compelling
- Low external noise and good comfort impressions in Autobild (70.6 dB; comfort tied)
- Better efficiency indicators: lower rolling resistance in Autobild (7.48 vs 8.04 kg/t) and strong economy scoring in ACE
- Longer projected wear/mileage in Autobild (50,080 km vs 47,810 km) and lower abrasion (1386 g vs 1719 g)
- Stronger dry driving feel in Autobild (subjective dry handling 8.0 vs 6.7) and marginally higher dry handling speed (100.1 vs 99.4 km/h)
- Competitive braking baseline overall, and a balanced 'recommended' performance in ACE despite some specific weak areas
Dry Braking
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 was better during two dry braking tests. On average the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 stopped the vehicle in 1.45% less distance than the Nokian Powerproof 2.
Best In Dry Braking: Nexen N Fera Sport SU2
See how the Dry Braking winner was calculated >>
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 0.7% faster around a lap than the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2.
Best In Dry Handling [Km/H]: Nokian Powerproof 2
See how the Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Subj. Dry Handling
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Nokian Powerproof 2 was better during one subj. dry handling tests. On average the Nokian Powerproof 2 scored 16.25% more points than the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2.
Best In Subj. Dry Handling: Nokian Powerproof 2
See how the Subj. Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Braking
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 was better during two wet braking tests. On average the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 stopped the vehicle in 3.74% less distance than the Nokian Powerproof 2.
Best In Wet Braking: Nexen N Fera Sport SU2
See how the Wet Braking winner was calculated >>
Wet Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 was better during one wet handling [km/h] tests. On average the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 was 0.37% faster around a wet lap than the Nokian Powerproof 2.
Best In Wet Handling [Km/H]: Nexen N Fera Sport SU2
See how the Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Subj. Wet Handling
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 and Nokian Powerproof 2 performed equally well in subj. wet handling tests.
Best In Subj. Wet Handling: Both tyres performed equally well
See how the Subj. Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Circle
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 was better during one wet circle tests. On average the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 was 0.54% faster around a wet circle than the Nokian Powerproof 2.
Best In Wet Circle: Nexen N Fera Sport SU2
See how the Wet Circle winner was calculated >>
Straight Aqua
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 was better during one straight aqua tests. On average the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 floated at a 3.44% higher speed than the Nokian Powerproof 2.
Best In Straight Aqua: Nexen N Fera Sport SU2
See how the Straight Aqua winner was calculated >>
Curved Aquaplaning
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 was better during one curved aquaplaning tests. On average the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 slipped out at a 8.28% higher speed than the Nokian Powerproof 2.
Best In Curved Aquaplaning: Nexen N Fera Sport SU2
See how the Curved Aquaplaning winner was calculated >>
Subj. Comfort
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 and Nokian Powerproof 2 performed equally well in subj. comfort tests.
Best In Subj. Comfort: Both tyres performed equally well
See how the Subj. Comfort winner was calculated >>
Noise
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 was better during one noise tests. On average the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 measured 1.53% quieter than the Nokian Powerproof 2.
Best In Noise: Nexen N Fera Sport SU2
See how the Noise winner was calculated >>
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 4.53% miles before reaching 1.6mm than the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2.
Best In Wear: Nokian Powerproof 2
See how the Wear winner was calculated >>
Value
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 was better during one value tests. On average the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 proved to have a 20.09% better value based on price/1000km than the Nokian Powerproof 2.
Best In Value: Nexen N Fera Sport SU2
See how the Value winner was calculated >>
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 6.97% lower rolling resistance than the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2.
Best In Rolling Resistance: Nokian Powerproof 2
See how the Rolling Resistance winner was calculated >>
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 19.37% less particle wear matter than the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2.
Best In Abrasion: Nokian Powerproof 2
See how the Abrasion winner was calculated >>
Real World Driver Reviews
Tyre Reviews also collects real world driver reviews for the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 and Nokian Powerproof 2.
In total the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 has been reviewed 17 times and drivers have given the tyre 70% 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.
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.
Conclusion
Choose the Nokian Powerproof 2 if your use case is more about long-run ownership costs and efficiency-Autobild shows longer wear (50,080 km vs 47,810 km) and better rolling resistance (7.48 vs 8.04 kg/t), supported by lower abrasion (1386 g vs 1719 g). It also looks like the better “driver's tyre” in dry subjective scoring in Autobild (8.0 vs 6.7) and a tiny edge in dry handling speed (100.1 vs 99.4 km/h). That said, Nokian's wet package is more mixed: ACE flags very early straight-line aquaplaning onset (80.1 km/h, worst in that test) and reduced stability support in fast lane-change manoeuvres.
The practical takeaway: in the common large-size test context (245/45 R19), the Nexen is the smarter buy if you want maximum wet braking/aquaplaning safety per euro. The Nokian is the more logical pick if you value efficiency and mileage and prefer a more confidence-inspiring dry “feel”-but pay close attention to wet aquaplaning performance and your typical weather/road conditions.
Key Differences
- Braking trend: Nexen outstops Nokian in the 245/45 R19 datasets (e.g., 27.1 m vs 28.1 m wet), but Nexen's braking collapses in the 225/40 R18 ACE test (longest stops), indicating potential size/fitment sensitivity
- Aquaplaning: Nexen leads clearly in Autobild (92.9 vs 89.7 km/h straight; 3.38 vs 3.10 m/s² curved), while Nokian is flagged for very early aquaplaning onset in ACE (80.1 km/h, worst in test)
- Dry behavior: Nokian is rated more satisfying/precise in Autobild's subjective dry handling (8.0 vs 6.7) and slightly quicker on dry handling (100.1 vs 99.4 km/h); Nexen is noted for slightly delayed turn-in
- Ownership costs: Nexen wins on price/value in Autobild (12.13 vs 15.18 price/1000), while Nokian counters with better efficiency and longevity metrics
- Efficiency/energy: Nokian's rolling resistance advantage (7.48 vs 8.04 kg/t) points to better fuel/EV consumption potential, reinforced by good economy scoring in ACE
- Longevity mechanics: Nokian shows lower abrasion (1386 g vs 1719 g) and higher mileage (50,080 vs 47,810 km), suggesting it should hold performance longer under comparable use
Overall Winner: Nexen N Fera Sport SU2
Based on the tyre test data and user reviews we have in our database, the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 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:
Nokian Powerproof 2 Top Comparisons
No other comparisons available for this tyre.
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.