Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo vs Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
Kumho, meanwhile, consistently looks like the value-driven disruptor: it can match or beat the Bridgestone on key wet and dry braking metrics in the Autobild and braking mega-test, and it repeatedly wins on rolling resistance and cost-per-km/value. The trade-off is that its performance can be more test-dependent-particularly in the SUV-oriented test where wet metrics dropped into the lower half and the Bridgestone's dynamic advantage was obvious.
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 four tests which compare both tyres directly!
| Tyre | Test Wins | Performance |
|---|---|---|
| Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo | two | |
| Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 | two |
The Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo and Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 have an equal number of test wins. However, 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
- Sharper, more dynamic handling character with strong objective dry/wet handling results in the SUV test (dry handling 106.6 vs 104.6 km/h; wet handling 88.9 vs 86.5 km/h)
- Strong braking credibility and top-tier safety scoring in ACE (best dry safety; very strong wet safety), with notable wet/dry braking wins in the SUV test
- Better comfort/refinement indicators where measured (comfort win in Autobild; lower noise in both measured tests: 72.4 vs 72.9 dB and 73.8 vs 74.1 dB)
- Longer projected wear and lower abrasion in Autobild (51,860 km vs 48,230 km; 1,533 g vs 1,605 g)
- Better value proposition (cheapest/among lowest priced; Autobild value 12.44 vs 16.39 price/1000) with competitive performance
- Stronger wet-braking performance in key road-focused tests (Autobild 42.4 vs 44.1 m; braking mega-test 27.1 vs 28.2 m)
- Lower rolling resistance in both tests that measured it (7.62 vs 8.57 kg/t; 8.15 vs 8.74 kg/t) supporting fuel/EV efficiency
- Capable dry performance and good subjective feel in Autobild (wins dry handling and subjective dry handling), plus strong off-road traction metrics in the SUV test (gravel and sand traction wins)
Dry Braking
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during one dry braking tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo stopped the vehicle in 1.08% less distance than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Dry Braking: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
See how the Dry Braking winner was calculated >>
Dry Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during one dry handling [km/h] tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was 0.87% faster around a lap than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Dry Handling [Km/H]: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
See how the Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Subj. Dry Handling
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one subj. dry handling tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 scored 16.25% more points than the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo.
Best In Subj. Dry Handling: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Subj. Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Braking
Looking at data from three 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 0.55% less distance than the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo.
Best In Wet Braking: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Wet Braking winner was calculated >>
Wet Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during one wet handling [km/h] tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was 1.28% faster around a wet lap than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Wet Handling [Km/H]: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
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 8.05% more points than the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo.
Best In Subj. Wet Handling: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Subj. Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Circle
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during one wet circle tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was 2.15% faster around a wet circle than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Wet Circle: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
See how the Wet Circle winner was calculated >>
Straight Aqua
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during two straight aqua tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo floated at a 0.11% higher speed than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Straight Aqua: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
See how the Straight Aqua winner was calculated >>
Curved Aquaplaning
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during one curved aquaplaning tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo slipped out at a 1.68% higher speed than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Curved Aquaplaning: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
See how the Curved Aquaplaning winner was calculated >>
Gravel Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during one gravel handling [km/h] tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was 0.62% faster around a lap than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Gravel Handling [Km/H]: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
See how the Gravel Handling winner was calculated >>
Gravel Traction
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one gravel traction tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 had 5.65% better traction on gravel than the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo.
Best In Gravel Traction: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Gravel Traction winner was calculated >>
Sand Traction
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during one sand traction tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 had 11.2% better traction in sand than the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo.
Best In Sand Traction: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Sand Traction winner was calculated >>
Grass Traction
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during one grass traction tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo had 10.25% better traction on grass than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Grass Traction: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
See how the Grass Traction winner was calculated >>
Subj. Comfort
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during one subj. comfort tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo scored 8.75% more points than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Subj. Comfort: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
See how the Subj. Comfort winner was calculated >>
Noise
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during two noise tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo measured 0.54% quieter than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Noise: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
See how the Noise winner was calculated >>
Wear
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during one wear tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo is predicted to cover 7% miles before reaching 1.6mm than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Wear: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
See how the Wear winner was calculated >>
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 24.1% better value based on price/1000km than the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo.
Best In Value: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Value winner was calculated >>
Rolling Resistance
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 was better during two rolling resistance tests. On average the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 had a 8.89% lower rolling resistance than the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo.
Best In Rolling Resistance: Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72
See how the Rolling Resistance winner was calculated >>
Abrasion
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during one abrasion tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo lost 4.49% less particle wear matter than the Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
Best In Abrasion: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
See how the Abrasion winner was calculated >>
Real World Driver Reviews
Tyre Reviews also collects real world driver reviews for the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo and Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72.
In total the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo has been reviewed 4 times and drivers have given the tyre 90% overall.
The Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 has been reviewed 24 times and drivers have given the tyre 84% overall.
This means in real world driving, people prefer the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo.
They absorb potholes and speed bumps wonderfully. Paid £129.99 a corner from Asda tyres, they were nearly £30 a corner cheaper than Michelin which my 19inch wheels are PS4S. I prefer the Bridgestones.
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
Conclusion
The Ecsta Sport PS72 makes the strongest case for performance-per-euro. In Autobild it finished higher overall (6th vs 11th) and beat the Bridgestone on both wet braking (42.4 m vs 44.1 m) and subjective handling scores, and it backed that up in the 50-tyre braking comparison with a meaningful wet-braking advantage (27.1 m vs 28.2 m). Combine that with better rolling resistance and a markedly stronger value score (12.44 vs 16.39 price/1000), and it's easy to recommend for fast road driving where budget and efficiency matter. The practical takeaway: if you want the sharper, more consistently “premium” dynamic feel and don't mind paying for it, Bridgestone is the safer bet; if you want near-premium stopping power and handling at a lower purchase and energy cost, Kumho is the smarter buy.
Key Differences
- Test-to-test consistency: Bridgestone is stronger in the SUV-style mixed-surface evaluation (2nd vs 6th) while Kumho is stronger in Autobild's road test ranking (6th vs 11th).
- Wet braking split by context: Kumho leads in Autobild and the 50-tyre braking test (42.4 vs 44.1 m; 27.1 vs 28.2 m), but Bridgestone clearly wins in the SUV test (52.3 vs 54.4 m).
- Handling character: Bridgestone shows a higher ceiling for outright handling speed in the SUV test (dry 106.6 vs 104.6 km/h; wet 88.9 vs 86.5 km/h), whereas Kumho scores better for subjective handling feel in Autobild (dry 8.0 vs 6.7; wet 8.7 vs 8.0).
- Efficiency and running costs: Kumho repeatedly posts lower rolling resistance (up to ~11% advantage in the SUV test: 7.62 vs 8.57 kg/t) while Bridgestone is repeatedly described/measured as higher resistance.
- Price/value positioning: Bridgestone is identified as the most expensive in the SUV test and loses the value metric in Autobild, while Kumho is among the cheapest and wins value decisively.
- Longevity/refinement tilt: Bridgestone shows better wear and slightly lower measured noise, while Kumho's main comfort limitation noted is slightly higher rolling noise.
Overall Winner: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
Based on the tyre test data and user reviews we have in our database, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo 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:
Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo Top Comparisons
No other comparisons available for this tyre.
Kumho Ecsta Sport PS72 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.