Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo vs Nokian Powerproof 2
The shared results highlight an important buyer trade-off. If your priority is confidence when conditions deteriorate-especially aquaplaning resistance and wet stability-the Bridgestone tends to build a stronger “safety margin” in the wet dynamics measures. If you care most about braking metrics and operating costs (rolling resistance/value), the Nokian frequently looks more compelling, albeit with some test-noted dynamic weaknesses that can matter in emergency manoeuvres.
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 | |
| Nokian Powerproof 2 | one | |
| one draws in one tests | ||
The Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo and Nokian Powerproof 2 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
- Stronger wet dynamics and aquaplaning resistance in Autobild: straight aquaplaning 91.1 vs 89.7 km/h and curved aquaplaning 3.54 vs 3.10 m/sec²
- Slightly better wet handling in Autobild (82.4 vs 81.7 km/h) with higher subjective wet handling (8.0 vs 7.3)
- Higher comfort rating in Autobild (8.0 vs 7.3) and noted as above-average for rolling comfort by the test team
- Good longevity in Autobild (51,860 vs 50,080 km) and strong overall safety showing in ACE (3rd/10, "very recommended", standout braking results)
- Marginally better braking in the shared numbers: Autobild dry 34.4 vs 34.5 m; Autobild wet 44.0 vs 44.1 m; braking test wet 28.1 vs 28.2 m
- Better efficiency: lower rolling resistance in Autobild (7.48 vs 8.74 kg/t) and better value metric (15.18 vs 16.39 price/1000)
- Lower measured pass-by/road noise in Autobild (71.7 vs 73.8 dB)
- Competitive dry capability in Autobild including slight dry handling advantage (100.1 vs 99.8 km/h) and higher subjective dry handling (8.0 vs 6.7)
Dry Braking
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Nokian Powerproof 2 was better during two dry braking tests. On average the Nokian Powerproof 2 stopped the vehicle in 0.29% less distance than the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo.
Best In Dry Braking: Nokian Powerproof 2
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 0.3% faster around a lap than the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo.
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 Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo.
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 Nokian Powerproof 2 was better during two wet braking tests. On average the Nokian Powerproof 2 stopped the vehicle in 0.28% less distance than the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo.
Best In Wet Braking: Nokian Powerproof 2
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 0.85% faster around a wet lap than the Nokian Powerproof 2.
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 Nokian Powerproof 2.
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 1.14% faster around a wet circle than the Nokian Powerproof 2.
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 Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo was better during one straight aqua tests. On average the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo floated at a 1.54% higher speed than the Nokian Powerproof 2.
Best In Straight Aqua: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
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 12.43% higher speed than the Nokian Powerproof 2.
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 Nokian Powerproof 2.
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 Nokian Powerproof 2 was better during one noise tests. On average the Nokian Powerproof 2 measured 2.85% quieter than the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo.
Best In Noise: Nokian Powerproof 2
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 3.43% miles before reaching 1.6mm than the Nokian Powerproof 2.
Best In Wear: Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo
See how the Wear winner was calculated >>
Value
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Nokian Powerproof 2 was better during one value tests. On average the Nokian Powerproof 2 proved to have a 7.38% better value based on price/1000km than the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo.
Best In Value: Nokian Powerproof 2
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 14.42% lower rolling resistance than the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo.
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 9.59% less particle wear matter than the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo.
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 Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo and Nokian Powerproof 2.
In total the Bridgestone Potenza Sport Evo has been reviewed 9 times and drivers have given the tyre 88% 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.
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.
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
Where Bridgestone pulls ahead is in wet “control” and resilience when water depth and stability matter: it wins wet handling (82.4 vs 81.7 km/h) and dominates the aquaplaning measures in Autobild-straight aquaplaning (91.1 vs 89.7 km/h) and especially curved aquaplaning (3.54 vs 3.10 m/sec²). That picture also fits the qualitative test commentary: Potenza Sport Evo is repeatedly described as solid and balanced with above-average comfort, while the Powerproof 2 can deliver strong wet handling traction yet is flagged for early straight-line aquaplaning (80.1 km/h in ACE) and rear-axle instability in a lane-change scenario-exactly the kind of edge-case behaviour that can decide real-world “save or spin” moments.
Practical takeaway: if you want the more confidence-inspiring wet package and a safer-feeling tyre when conditions are unpredictable, the Bridgestone is the more reassuring choice-even if it costs more to buy and run. If your driving is mostly in the dry or light rain and you prioritise efficiency/value with consistently strong braking numbers, the Nokian is attractive-but it's the one I'd scrutinize most carefully for your typical heavy-rain/aquaplaning exposure and for high-speed evasive stability expectations.
Key Differences
- Wet security split: Bridgestone is clearly stronger in aquaplaning resistance (curved aquaplaning +14.2% in Autobild) while Nokian is flagged in ACE for very early straight-line aquaplaning (80.1 km/h, lowest score in that test).
- Braking is extremely close but tends to favor Nokian by tenths of a metre across shared datasets (e.g., 34.4 vs 34.5 m dry; 44.0 vs 44.1 m wet).
- Handling character differs: Bridgestone leads wet handling metrics in Autobild, while Nokian can score highly for wet handling/traction in ACE but with reported rear-axle support/stability concerns in fast lane-change manoeuvres.
- Running costs/efficiency favor Nokian: substantially lower rolling resistance (7.48 vs 8.74 kg/t) and better value metric in Autobild, whereas Bridgestone is repeatedly described as expensive with above-average rolling resistance.
- Comfort favors Bridgestone in Autobild (8.0 vs 7.3) and is called out as among the best for rolling comfort; Nokian is not highlighted for comfort.
- Overall standings vary by test: they tie in Autobild (both 11/20), Nokian edges the braking-only mega-test (10/50 vs 11/50), but Bridgestone is much stronger in ACE's broader assessment (3/10 vs 6/10).
Overall Winner: Nokian Powerproof 2
Based on the tyre test data and user reviews we have in our database, the Nokian Powerproof 2 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.