BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 vs Hankook Winter i cept evo3
The data show a consistent split: BFGoodrich dominates snow performance and often comfort, noise, and efficiency metrics, while Hankook repeatedly leads on dry and especially wet roads, with sharper handling and shorter braking. Overall rankings tend to favor Hankook in UHP sizes, but snow-specific disciplines and value over life can tilt toward BFGoodrich.
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 eight tests which compare both tyres directly!
| Tyre | Test Wins | Performance |
|---|---|---|
| BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 | five | |
| Hankook Winter i cept evo3 | three |
While it might look like the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 is better than the Hankook Winter i cept evo3 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
- Class-leading snow performance (braking, traction, handling, slalom) across multiple tests
- Often lower rolling resistance and quieter pass-by noise
- Competitive wear and solid value over life in several tests
- Good straight-line aquaplaning resistance
- Consistent advantage on wet and dry braking and handling
- Strong curved aquaplaning safety margins
- Sportier, more precise road feel with high overall test placements
- Attractive pricing/value in UHP sizes
Dry Braking
Looking at data from four tyre tests, the Hankook Winter i cept evo3 was better during four dry braking tests. On average the Hankook Winter i cept evo3 stopped the vehicle in 1.94% less distance than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Dry Braking: Hankook Winter i cept evo3
See how the Dry Braking winner was calculated >>
Dry Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from four tyre tests, the Hankook Winter i cept evo3 was better during four dry handling [km/h] tests. On average the Hankook Winter i cept evo3 was 1.1% faster around a lap than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Dry Handling [Km/H]: Hankook Winter i cept evo3
See how the Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Braking
Looking at data from eight tyre tests, the Hankook Winter i cept evo3 was better during six wet braking tests. On average the Hankook Winter i cept evo3 stopped the vehicle in 3.32% less distance than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Wet Braking: Hankook Winter i cept evo3
See how the Wet Braking winner was calculated >>
Wet Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from four tyre tests, the Hankook Winter i cept evo3 was better during four wet handling [km/h] tests. On average the Hankook Winter i cept evo3 was 1.89% faster around a wet lap than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Wet Handling [Km/H]: Hankook Winter i cept evo3
See how the Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Circle
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the Hankook Winter i cept evo3 was better during two wet circle tests. On average the Hankook Winter i cept evo3 was 1.17% faster around a wet circle than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Wet Circle: Hankook Winter i cept evo3
See how the Wet Circle winner was calculated >>
Straight Aqua
Looking at data from four tyre tests, the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was better during two straight aqua tests. On average the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 floated at a 0.15% higher speed than the Hankook Winter i cept evo3.
Best In Straight Aqua: BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2
See how the Straight Aqua winner was calculated >>
Curved Aquaplaning
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the Hankook Winter i cept evo3 was better during three curved aquaplaning tests. On average the Hankook Winter i cept evo3 slipped out at a 12.23% higher speed than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Curved Aquaplaning: Hankook Winter i cept evo3
See how the Curved Aquaplaning winner was calculated >>
Snow Braking
Looking at data from eight tyre tests, the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was better during eight snow braking tests. On average the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 stopped the vehicle in 3.06% less distance than the Hankook Winter i cept evo3.
Best In Snow Braking: BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2
See how the Snow Braking winner was calculated >>
Snow Traction
Looking at data from four tyre tests, the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was better during four snow traction tests. On average the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 had 4.03% better snow traction than the Hankook Winter i cept evo3.
Best In Snow Traction: BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2
See how the Snow Traction winner was calculated >>
Snow Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from four tyre tests, the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was better during four snow handling [km/h] tests. On average the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was 1.33% faster around a lap than the Hankook Winter i cept evo3.
Best In Snow Handling [Km/H]: BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2
See how the Snow Handling winner was calculated >>
Snow Slalom
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was better during three snow slalom tests. On average the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was 3.23% faster through a slalom than the Hankook Winter i cept evo3.
Best In Snow Slalom: BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2
See how the Snow Slalom winner was calculated >>
Subj. Comfort
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 and Hankook Winter i cept evo3 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 four tyre tests, the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was better during three noise tests. On average the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 measured 3.07% quieter than the Hankook Winter i cept evo3.
Best In Noise: BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2
See how the Noise winner was calculated >>
Wear
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was better during two wear tests. On average the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 is predicted to cover 2.23% miles before reaching 1.6mm than the Hankook Winter i cept evo3.
Best In Wear: BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2
See how the Wear winner was calculated >>
Value
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the Hankook Winter i cept evo3 was better during one value tests. On average the Hankook Winter i cept evo3 proved to have a 2.91% better value based on price/1000km than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Value: Hankook Winter i cept evo3
See how the Value winner was calculated >>
Price
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Hankook Winter i cept evo3 was better during one price tests. On average the Hankook Winter i cept evo3 cost 11.61% less than the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2.
Best In Price: Hankook Winter i cept evo3
See how the Price winner was calculated >>
Rolling Resistance
Looking at data from four tyre tests, the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 was better during four rolling resistance tests. On average the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 had a 2.51% lower rolling resistance than the Hankook Winter i cept evo3.
Best In Rolling Resistance: BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2
See how the Rolling Resistance winner was calculated >>
Real World Driver Reviews
BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 Driver Reviews
Drivers largely praise the BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 for outstanding snow and ice traction, strong wet grip and aquaplaning resistance, good comfort, and value, with many saying they'd buy again. Dry performance is acceptable for a winter tyre but less responsive with softer handling and modest on-center feel. Wear is generally viewed as good, though a few sporty drivers report faster wear. Noise is mostly low, with occasional reports of wet-road noise.
Based on 28 reviews with an average rating of 88%
Hankook Winter i cept evo3 Driver Reviews
Most drivers report that the Hankook Winter i cept evo3 delivers excellent grip and confident handling in wet, dry, and snow, with many praising stability, aquaplaning resistance, and overall comfort/noise at highway speeds. Snow traction is frequently highlighted as a strong point, and several users note good value for money. A minority mention average/longer dry braking, modest sportiness, faster wear in harsh use, and occasional comfort/noise concerns. Overall sentiment is strongly positive given the high share of 80%+ reviews.
Based on 20 reviews with an average rating of 85%
Conclusion
For mixed winter climates with frequent wet and dry roads, the Hankook Winter i*Cept evo3 is the more rounded, dynamic option. It consistently stops shorter and steers with more precision on wet and dry surfaces, offers strong aquaplaning safety (curved), and delivers compelling overall test finishes and price positioning in UHP fitments. In short: pick BFGoodrich for snow-dominant use; choose Hankook for all-round winter road use with a performance edge.
Key Differences
- Snow dominance: BFGoodrich wins every snow category head-to-head (braking/traction/handling/slalom) across the dataset
- Wet advantage: Hankook leads wet braking and handling in most tests (e.g., up to ~10% shorter wet braking in 2021)
- Dry road edge: Hankook typically stops shorter and handles faster on dry
- Aquaplaning split: BFGoodrich slightly better in straight-line; Hankook notably stronger in curved aquaplaning
- Noise/efficiency: BFGoodrich often quieter with lower rolling resistance
- Wear/value balance: BFGoodrich frequently shows better mileage; Hankook often offers lower purchase price and strong overall value in performance sizes
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.