Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo vs Nexen N Fera Sport SU2
Across three shared 2026 tests, the picture isn't a simple “premium wins” story. Nexen repeatedly posts excellent braking numbers in the large 50-tyre braking test and looks like a strong mid-range safety pick in Autobild, yet it also collapses to last place in the ACE group test due mainly to braking and dry safety deficits. Bridgestone is the inverse: less headline-grabbing in Autobild and hampered by cost/efficiency metrics, but extremely convincing in the ACE test with top-tier braking and no major safety holes.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo | one | |
| Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 | two |
While it might look like the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 is better than the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo 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
- More consistent high-end safety performance across categories, highlighted by podium result in ACE (3/10)
- Excellent braking capability in at least one major comparative test (ACE: 32.85 m dry braking; near-top wet braking score)
- Stronger wet dynamics in Autobild: better wet handling (82.4 vs 82.0 km/h), wet circle (14.73 s vs 14.82 s) and curved aquaplaning (3.54 vs 3.38 m/sec²)
- Better longevity and robustness indicators: longer projected wear (51,860 km) and lower abrasion (1533 g)
- Strong braking showing in Autobild and especially the large braking test: 3rd/50 overall with 33.9 m dry and 27.1 m wet braking
- Better value proposition: lower cost index (12.13 vs 16.39 price/1000) and described as a solid mid-range choice in Autobild
- Lower noise and better efficiency: 70.6 dB vs 73.8 dB, and lower rolling resistance (8.04 vs 8.74 kg/t)
- Good straight-line aquaplaning resistance in Autobild (92.9 vs 91.1 km/h) and generally safe margins noted there
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 1.74% less distance than the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo.
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 Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during one dry handling [km/h] tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was 0.4% faster around a lap than the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2.
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 Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo and Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 performed equally well in subj. dry handling tests.
Best In Subj. Dry Handling: Both tyres performed equally well
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 4.01% less distance than the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo.
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 Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during one wet handling [km/h] tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was 0.49% faster around a wet lap than the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2.
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 Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during one subj. wet handling tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo scored 8.75% more points than the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2.
Best In Subj. Wet Handling: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
See how the Subj. Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Circle
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during one wet circle tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was 0.61% faster around a wet circle than the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2.
Best In Wet Circle: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
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 1.94% higher speed than the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo.
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 Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during one curved aquaplaning tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo slipped out at a 4.52% higher speed than the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2.
Best In Curved Aquaplaning: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
See how the Curved Aquaplaning 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 Nexen N Fera Sport SU2.
Best In Subj. Comfort: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
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 4.34% quieter than the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo.
Best In Noise: Nexen N Fera Sport SU2
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 7.81% miles before reaching 1.6mm than the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2.
Best In Wear: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
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 25.99% better value based on price/1000km than the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo.
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 Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 was better during one rolling resistance tests. On average the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 had a 8.01% lower rolling resistance than the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo.
Best In Rolling Resistance: Nexen N Fera Sport SU2
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 10.82% less particle wear matter than the Nexen N Fera Sport SU2.
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 Nexen N Fera Sport SU2.
In total the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo has been reviewed 9 times and drivers have given the tyre 88% overall.
The Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 has been reviewed 17 times and drivers have given the tyre 70% 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.
Conclusion
Nexen N Fera Sport SU2 is the higher-variance choice: it can be brilliant on braking in some contexts (3rd of 50 in the Autobild braking-only mega test; and it beat Bridgestone in Autobild's wet and dry braking by 1.74% and 4.08%), while also being quieter (70.6 dB vs 73.8 dB) and far better value (12.13 vs 16.39 price/1000) with lower rolling resistance (8.04 vs 8.74). However, the ACE test flags a meaningful risk: it recorded the longest braking distances there and finished last overall despite strong economy, suggesting compound/sizing sensitivity or a narrower operating window. The practical takeaway: Nexen can be a smart budget performance buy if your priority is cost, noise and efficiency-just be mindful that its outright safety performance appears less consistent across different test formats and sizes.
Key Differences
- Overall consistency vs variability: Bridgestone ranges from 3/10 (ACE) to 11/20 (Autobild), while Nexen ranges from 3/50 (braking test) to 10/10 (ACE), indicating a wider performance swing.
- Braking story is test-dependent: Nexen beats Bridgestone in Autobild braking (dry 33.9 vs 34.5 m; wet 42.3 vs 44.1 m) and ranks 3/50 in the braking mega-test, but in ACE Nexen posts the longest stopping distances while Bridgestone is near-best.
- Wet cornering/control edge: Bridgestone is better in Autobild wet handling, subjective wet handling, wet circle and curved aquaplaning-suggesting more confidence when the road is wet and twisty.
- Cost and running efficiency: Nexen clearly leads on value (12.13 vs 16.39 price/1000), rolling resistance (8.04 vs 8.74) and noise (70.6 vs 73.8 dB).
- Steering/response character: Autobild notes Nexen's slightly delayed turn-in, while Bridgestone's results and subjective scores imply a more precise, confidence-inspiring front end.
- Wear vs economy trade-off: Bridgestone lasts longer (51,860 vs 47,810 km) and has lower abrasion (1533 g vs 1719 g), but Nexen offsets with lower energy loss (rolling resistance) and typically lower purchase price.
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:
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.