Test source ADAC

2025 ADAC Winter Tyre Test

Overall test winnerGoodyear UltraGrip Performance 3

ADAC are one of the most respected sources of tyres tests for a good reason, they are fully independent, and do things most others cannot do such as wear tests, real world fuel usage tests instead of a machine measurement of rolling…

Data analyzed and reviewed byJonathan Benson

September 26, 2025 13 min read

Tyre shortlist Read the test

Tyres tested: 31
Tested size: 225/40 R18
Disciplines: 12

At a glance

Tyre shortlist

31 Tyres tested

Published finishing positions, with the strengths and considerations from this test. Owner reviews cover other sizes and driving conditions.

Tyre shortlist

Compare selected tyres

2025 ADAC Winter Tyre Test · 225/40 R18

Tyre	Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	Bridgestone Blizzak 6	Dunlop Winter Sport 5	Hankook Winter i cept evo3	Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	Kleber Krisalp HP3	Momo North Pole W 20 EUROPA	Nokian Snowproof P	Ceat WinterDrive	Matador MP93 Nordicca	Uniroyal WinterExpert	Fulda Kristall Control HP2	GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	Semperit Speed Grip 5	Giti GitiWinterW2	Firestone Winterhawk 4	Point S Winter S	Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6	Apollo Aspire XP Winter	Radar Dimax Winter	Nankang Winter Activa SV 4	Landsail Winter Lander	Petlas SnowMaster 2 Sport	Imperial Snowdragon UHP	Goodride SW608	CST Medallion Winter WCP1	Evergreen Winter EW66	Star Performer Stratos UHP	Syron Everest 2	Tomket Snowroad Pro 3
Position	1^st	2^nd	3^rd	Joint 4^th	Joint 4^th	6^th	7^th	Joint 8^th	Joint 8^th	10^th	Joint 11^th	Joint 11^th	13^th	14^th	15^th	16^th	Joint 17^th	Joint 17^th	19^th	20^th	21^st	22^nd	Joint 23^rd	Joint 23^rd	25^th	26^th	Joint 27^th	Joint 27^th	Joint 27^th	Joint 27^th	Joint 27^th
Category scores (% of best)
Dry	97.9%	100%	94.5%	94.1%	94.7%	97.2%	93.7%	96.1%	98.1%	98.6%	91.8%	94.3%	91.4%	92%	93.5%	91.6%	91.6%	93%	91.6%	94.5%	93.9%	92.4%	97.4%	94.3%	92.8%	92%	95.6%	89.6%	93.2%	90%	92.4%
Wet	98.3%	89%	95.8%	94.2%	94.9%	92.1%	88.4%	86.3%	80.7%	86.9%	85.1%	90.4%	91.2%	85.1%	90.2%	96.1%	86.3%	85.1%	87.9%	87.4%	83.8%	85.6%	89%	77.9%	73%	81.2%	86.4%	43.9%	76.3%	57.4%	80.2%
Snow	95.1%	97.1%	94.9%	95.8%	94.2%	93.4%	98%	92.9%	90.8%	95.7%	95.1%	93.6%	95.3%	94%	94%	91.4%	95.3%	94.2%	93.2%	92.1%	96.4%	86.2%	74%	87.9%	89.3%	87.7%	80.9%	93.8%	93.6%	100%	92.9%
Ice	91%	93.3%	93.8%	90.5%	87.4%	84%	90.5%	91%	95%	98.1%	90.5%	87.4%	89.4%	89.4%	89.4%	85.4%	94.4%	91%	86.9%	91.6%	96.2%	79.6%	91%	89.9%	87.4%	83.5%	78.8%	72%	87.4%	100%	95.6%
Comfort	98.7%	98.3%	97.1%	94.9%	93.4%	97.9%	97.8%	98.5%	99.2%	98.2%	98.9%	96%	94.6%	96.6%	94.7%	97%	96.4%	100%	96.3%	95%	97.2%	97.6%	98.2%	95.9%	97.1%	95.8%	93.1%	96.7%	97.8%	97.5%	98.2%
Value	96.7%	92.4%	82.9%	83.5%	92.5%	82.8%	80.5%	83.7%	81.1%	85.4%	77.9%	78.5%	80.3%	72.7%	77.1%	70.4%	76.4%	79.5%	87.4%	77%	97.2%	65.1%	75.6%	76.2%	85.5%	75.5%	79.3%	74.9%	85.2%	70.3%	89.7%
Keep researching	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results

Explore the complete results →

The full test

The evidence behind the verdict

For their 2025 winter tyre test, ADAC have tested a huge 32 patterns in 225/40 R18. Below is the summary data, be sure to check out the full details on their site.

Test setup & methodology

The test setting, the conditions recorded and how the results contribute to the score.

Recorded test conditions

Dry Braking: 100 → 0 km/h
Wet Braking: 80 → 0 km/h
Wet Braking - Concrete: 80 → 0 km/h
Snow Braking: 30 → 0 km/h
Ice Braking: 20 → 0 km/h

The stand out results include

The Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3 winning the test overall, beating the excellent Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 and Bridgestone Blizzak 6
The Hankook Winter I*Cept Evo3 once again performing well
The Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3 having a predicted treadlife of over 75,000km, but still having grip!
Real world fuel consumption being relatively close between all the tyres
Snow braking not really lining up with ice braking

ADAC are also known for being brutally honest with their tyre notes, keep that in mind when reading the summary of their assessment for each tyre.

We respect it.

Dry

Dry Braking

Dry Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	41.4 m	Best	0 km/h
2Ceat WinterDrive	42 m	+0.60 m	16 km/h
3Nokian Snowproof P	42.2 m	+0.80 m	18 km/h
4Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	42.3 m	+0.90 m	19 km/h
5Landsail Winter Lander	42.5 m	+1.10 m	21 km/h
6Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	42.6 m	+1.20 m	22 km/h
7Momo North Pole W 20 EUROPA	43.1 m	+1.70 m	26 km/h
8CST Medallion Winter WCP1	43.3 m	+1.90 m	27 km/h
9Hankook Winter i cept evo3	43.7 m	+2.30 m	30 km/h
10Apollo Aspire XP Winter	43.8 m	+2.40 m	30 km/h
10Bridgestone Blizzak 6	43.8 m	+2.40 m	30 km/h
12Petlas SnowMaster 2 Sport	43.9 m	+2.50 m	31 km/h
12Uniroyal WinterExpert	43.9 m	+2.50 m	31 km/h
14Dunlop Winter Sport 5	44 m	+2.60 m	32 km/h
15Radar Dimax Winter	44.1 m	+2.70 m	32 km/h
16Kleber Krisalp HP3	44.2 m	+2.80 m	33 km/h
17Semperit Speed Grip 5	44.3 m	+2.90 m	33 km/h
18Star Performer Stratos UHP	44.4 m	+3.00 m	34 km/h
19Point S Winter S	44.5 m	+3.10 m	34 km/h
20Imperial Snowdragon UHP	44.6 m	+3.20 m	35 km/h
21Tomket Snowroad Pro 3	44.8 m	+3.40 m	36 km/h
21Nankang Winter Activa SV 4	44.8 m	+3.40 m	36 km/h
23GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	45 m	+3.60 m	37 km/h
23Goodride SW608	45 m	+3.60 m	37 km/h
25Matador MP93 Nordicca	45.1 m	+3.70 m	37 km/h
26Giti GitiWinterW2	45.2 m	+3.80 m	38 km/h
26Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6	45.2 m	+3.80 m	38 km/h
26Firestone Winterhawk 4	45.2 m	+3.80 m	38 km/h
29Fulda Kristall Control HP2	45.3 m	+3.90 m	38 km/h
30Syron Everest 2	46 m	+4.60 m	41 km/h
31Evergreen Winter EW66	46.2 m	+4.80 m	42 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 11.6% (4.8 m ≈ 1.1 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Evergreen Winter EW66 would still be travelling at 42 km/h when the Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

Wet

Wet Braking

Wet Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	31.7 m	Best	0 km/h
2Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	32.2 m	+0.50 m	16 km/h
3Bridgestone Blizzak 6	32.3 m	+0.60 m	18 km/h
4Momo North Pole W 20 EUROPA	32.7 m	+1.00 m	23 km/h
5Landsail Winter Lander	32.8 m	+1.10 m	24 km/h
6Uniroyal WinterExpert	32.9 m	+1.20 m	25 km/h
6Hankook Winter i cept evo3	32.9 m	+1.20 m	25 km/h
8Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	33 m	+1.30 m	26 km/h
8Firestone Winterhawk 4	33 m	+1.30 m	26 km/h
10Semperit Speed Grip 5	33.3 m	+1.60 m	28 km/h
11Nokian Snowproof P	33.4 m	+1.70 m	29 km/h
12Apollo Aspire XP Winter	34.2 m	+2.50 m	35 km/h
13Dunlop Winter Sport 5	34.4 m	+2.70 m	36 km/h
14Ceat WinterDrive	34.5 m	+2.80 m	37 km/h
15Giti GitiWinterW2	34.7 m	+3.00 m	38 km/h
16Matador MP93 Nordicca	34.9 m	+3.20 m	39 km/h
17Kleber Krisalp HP3	35 m	+3.30 m	40 km/h
17Point S Winter S	35 m	+3.30 m	40 km/h
19CST Medallion Winter WCP1	35.3 m	+3.60 m	42 km/h
20Petlas SnowMaster 2 Sport	35.5 m	+3.80 m	43 km/h
21Nankang Winter Activa SV 4	35.6 m	+3.90 m	43 km/h
22Fulda Kristall Control HP2	35.9 m	+4.20 m	44 km/h
23GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	36.3 m	+4.60 m	46 km/h
24Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6	36.4 m	+4.70 m	47 km/h
25Radar Dimax Winter	36.7 m	+5.00 m	48 km/h
26Imperial Snowdragon UHP	37.8 m	+6.10 m	52 km/h
27Goodride SW608	38.5 m	+6.80 m	55 km/h
28Star Performer Stratos UHP	39.9 m	+8.20 m	59 km/h
29Tomket Snowroad Pro 3	40.4 m	+8.70 m	60 km/h
30Evergreen Winter EW66	42.3 m	+10.60 m	65 km/h
31Syron Everest 2	47.1 m	+15.40 m	74 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 48.6% (15.4 m ≈ 3.4 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Syron Everest 2 would still be travelling at 74 km/h when the Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3 had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

Wet Braking - Concrete

Wet Braking - Concrete
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Bridgestone Blizzak 6	36.5 m	Best	0 km/h
2Momo North Pole W 20 EUROPA	36.6 m	+0.10 m	7 km/h
2Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	36.6 m	+0.10 m	7 km/h
4Landsail Winter Lander	36.9 m	+0.40 m	14 km/h
4Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	36.9 m	+0.40 m	14 km/h
6Hankook Winter i cept evo3	37.5 m	+1.00 m	21 km/h
7Semperit Speed Grip 5	37.6 m	+1.10 m	22 km/h
8Nokian Snowproof P	37.7 m	+1.20 m	23 km/h
9Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	38 m	+1.50 m	26 km/h
10Uniroyal WinterExpert	38.1 m	+1.60 m	27 km/h
11Firestone Winterhawk 4	38.2 m	+1.70 m	27 km/h
12Apollo Aspire XP Winter	38.9 m	+2.40 m	32 km/h
12Dunlop Winter Sport 5	38.9 m	+2.40 m	32 km/h
14Ceat WinterDrive	39.7 m	+3.20 m	37 km/h
15Fulda Kristall Control HP2	40 m	+3.50 m	38 km/h
15Giti GitiWinterW2	40 m	+3.50 m	38 km/h
17CST Medallion Winter WCP1	40.2 m	+3.70 m	39 km/h
18Point S Winter S	40.4 m	+3.90 m	40 km/h
19Kleber Krisalp HP3	40.7 m	+4.20 m	42 km/h
20GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	40.8 m	+4.30 m	42 km/h
21Matador MP93 Nordicca	40.9 m	+4.40 m	43 km/h
22Petlas SnowMaster 2 Sport	41 m	+4.50 m	43 km/h
22Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6	41 m	+4.50 m	43 km/h
24Nankang Winter Activa SV 4	41.4 m	+4.90 m	45 km/h
25Radar Dimax Winter	41.7 m	+5.20 m	46 km/h
26Imperial Snowdragon UHP	43.6 m	+7.10 m	52 km/h
27Goodride SW608	44.7 m	+8.20 m	56 km/h
28Star Performer Stratos UHP	47.1 m	+10.60 m	62 km/h
29Tomket Snowroad Pro 3	47.3 m	+10.80 m	62 km/h
30Evergreen Winter EW66	47.7 m	+11.20 m	63 km/h
31Syron Everest 2	53 m	+16.50 m	73 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 45.2% (16.5 m ≈ 3.7 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Syron Everest 2 would still be travelling at 73 km/h when the Bridgestone Blizzak 6 had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

Wet Circle

Wet Circle
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Giti GitiWinterW2	3.1 m/s	Best
2Dunlop Winter Sport 5	3 m/s	-0.10 m/s
2Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	3 m/s	-0.10 m/s
4Fulda Kristall Control HP2	2.9 m/s	-0.20 m/s
4Bridgestone Blizzak 6	2.9 m/s	-0.20 m/s
4Hankook Winter i cept evo3	2.9 m/s	-0.20 m/s
7Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6	2.7 m/s	-0.40 m/s
7Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	2.7 m/s	-0.40 m/s
9Kleber Krisalp HP3	2.6 m/s	-0.50 m/s
9Uniroyal WinterExpert	2.6 m/s	-0.50 m/s
9Semperit Speed Grip 5	2.6 m/s	-0.50 m/s
12Nankang Winter Activa SV 4	2.5 m/s	-0.60 m/s
12Radar Dimax Winter	2.5 m/s	-0.60 m/s
12Ceat WinterDrive	2.5 m/s	-0.60 m/s
12CST Medallion Winter WCP1	2.5 m/s	-0.60 m/s
12GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	2.5 m/s	-0.60 m/s
12Tomket Snowroad Pro 3	2.5 m/s	-0.60 m/s
12Apollo Aspire XP Winter	2.5 m/s	-0.60 m/s
12Landsail Winter Lander	2.5 m/s	-0.60 m/s
20Goodride SW608	2.4 m/s	-0.70 m/s
20Matador MP93 Nordicca	2.4 m/s	-0.70 m/s
20Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	2.4 m/s	-0.70 m/s
20Point S Winter S	2.4 m/s	-0.70 m/s
24Firestone Winterhawk 4	2.3 m/s	-0.80 m/s
24Momo North Pole W 20 EUROPA	2.3 m/s	-0.80 m/s
26Star Performer Stratos UHP	2.2 m/s	-0.90 m/s
27Nokian Snowproof P	2 m/s	-1.10 m/s
27Petlas SnowMaster 2 Sport	2 m/s	-1.10 m/s
29Imperial Snowdragon UHP	1.8 m/s	-1.30 m/s
30Syron Everest 2	1.3 m/s	-1.80 m/s

The difference between best and worst was 58.1% (1.8 m/s).

Straight Aqua

Straight Aqua
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Giti GitiWinterW2	78.9 km/h	Best
2Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	77.1 km/h	-1.80 km/h
3Kleber Krisalp HP3	76.9 km/h	-2.00 km/h
4Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	75.2 km/h	-3.70 km/h
4Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	75.2 km/h	-3.70 km/h
6CST Medallion Winter WCP1	75.1 km/h	-3.80 km/h
7Bridgestone Blizzak 6	74.9 km/h	-4.00 km/h
8Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6	74.6 km/h	-4.30 km/h
9Semperit Speed Grip 5	74.2 km/h	-4.70 km/h
10Fulda Kristall Control HP2	74 km/h	-4.90 km/h
10Hankook Winter i cept evo3	74 km/h	-4.90 km/h
12Firestone Winterhawk 4	73.8 km/h	-5.10 km/h
13Point S Winter S	73.5 km/h	-5.40 km/h
14GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	73.4 km/h	-5.50 km/h
15Dunlop Winter Sport 5	73.2 km/h	-5.70 km/h
16Apollo Aspire XP Winter	72.6 km/h	-6.30 km/h
17Matador MP93 Nordicca	72.3 km/h	-6.60 km/h
18Uniroyal WinterExpert	72.1 km/h	-6.80 km/h
18Goodride SW608	72.1 km/h	-6.80 km/h
20Nankang Winter Activa SV 4	71.9 km/h	-7.00 km/h
21Ceat WinterDrive	71.5 km/h	-7.40 km/h
22Momo North Pole W 20 EUROPA	71.1 km/h	-7.80 km/h
22Landsail Winter Lander	71.1 km/h	-7.80 km/h
24Evergreen Winter EW66	70.8 km/h	-8.10 km/h
25Imperial Snowdragon UHP	68.7 km/h	-10.20 km/h
26Tomket Snowroad Pro 3	67.9 km/h	-11.00 km/h
27Nokian Snowproof P	67.8 km/h	-11.10 km/h
28Radar Dimax Winter	67.7 km/h	-11.20 km/h
29Star Performer Stratos UHP	66.8 km/h	-12.10 km/h
30Petlas SnowMaster 2 Sport	65.8 km/h	-13.10 km/h
31Syron Everest 2	61.6 km/h	-17.30 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 21.9% (17.3 Km/H).

Snow

Snow Braking

Snow Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Syron Everest 2	9.2 m	Best	0 km/h
2Kleber Krisalp HP3	9.4 m	+0.20 m	19 km/h
2Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	9.4 m	+0.20 m	19 km/h
4Dunlop Winter Sport 5	9.5 m	+0.30 m	23 km/h
4Radar Dimax Winter	9.5 m	+0.30 m	23 km/h
6Semperit Speed Grip 5	9.6 m	+0.40 m	27 km/h
6Bridgestone Blizzak 6	9.6 m	+0.40 m	27 km/h
8Firestone Winterhawk 4	9.7 m	+0.50 m	30 km/h
8Uniroyal WinterExpert	9.7 m	+0.50 m	30 km/h
8Matador MP93 Nordicca	9.7 m	+0.50 m	30 km/h
8Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	9.7 m	+0.50 m	30 km/h
8Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6	9.7 m	+0.50 m	30 km/h
8Hankook Winter i cept evo3	9.7 m	+0.50 m	30 km/h
8GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	9.7 m	+0.50 m	30 km/h
8Ceat WinterDrive	9.7 m	+0.50 m	30 km/h
8Point S Winter S	9.7 m	+0.50 m	30 km/h
8Fulda Kristall Control HP2	9.7 m	+0.50 m	30 km/h
8Evergreen Winter EW66	9.7 m	+0.50 m	30 km/h
19Momo North Pole W 20 EUROPA	9.8 m	+0.60 m	32 km/h
19Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	9.8 m	+0.60 m	32 km/h
19Apollo Aspire XP Winter	9.8 m	+0.60 m	32 km/h
22Star Performer Stratos UHP	9.9 m	+0.70 m	35 km/h
23Giti GitiWinterW2	10 m	+0.80 m	37 km/h
23Nokian Snowproof P	10 m	+0.80 m	37 km/h
23Tomket Snowroad Pro 3	10 m	+0.80 m	37 km/h
26Nankang Winter Activa SV 4	10.3 m	+1.10 m	42 km/h
26Imperial Snowdragon UHP	10.3 m	+1.10 m	42 km/h
28Petlas SnowMaster 2 Sport	10.4 m	+1.20 m	44 km/h
29Goodride SW608	10.5 m	+1.30 m	46 km/h
30CST Medallion Winter WCP1	10.9 m	+1.70 m	51 km/h
31Landsail Winter Lander	12.2 m	+3.00 m	64 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 32.6% (3 m ≈ 0.7 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Landsail Winter Lander would still be travelling at 64 km/h when the Syron Everest 2 had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

Snow Traction

Snow Traction
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Syron Everest 2	254 N	Best
2Kleber Krisalp HP3	249 N	-5.00 N
3Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	245 N	-9.00 N
3Ceat WinterDrive	245 N	-9.00 N
5Radar Dimax Winter	244 N	-10.00 N
6Fulda Kristall Control HP2	243 N	-11.00 N
6Firestone Winterhawk 4	243 N	-11.00 N
8Matador MP93 Nordicca	242 N	-12.00 N
8Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	242 N	-12.00 N
10Dunlop Winter Sport 5	241 N	-13.00 N
11Star Performer Stratos UHP	239 N	-15.00 N
11Bridgestone Blizzak 6	239 N	-15.00 N
13Hankook Winter i cept evo3	238 N	-16.00 N
13Point S Winter S	238 N	-16.00 N
13Tomket Snowroad Pro 3	238 N	-16.00 N
16GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	237 N	-17.00 N
17Evergreen Winter EW66	236 N	-18.00 N
17Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	236 N	-18.00 N
19Semperit Speed Grip 5	235 N	-19.00 N
19Uniroyal WinterExpert	235 N	-19.00 N
21Momo North Pole W 20 EUROPA	234 N	-20.00 N
22Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6	233 N	-21.00 N
23Giti GitiWinterW2	231 N	-23.00 N
24Apollo Aspire XP Winter	230 N	-24.00 N
25Nokian Snowproof P	228 N	-26.00 N
26Imperial Snowdragon UHP	227 N	-27.00 N
27Goodride SW608	223 N	-31.00 N
28Petlas SnowMaster 2 Sport	222 N	-32.00 N
29Nankang Winter Activa SV 4	212 N	-42.00 N
30CST Medallion Winter WCP1	198 N	-56.00 N
31Landsail Winter Lander	185 N	-69.00 N

The difference between best and worst was 27.2% (69 N).

Ice

Ice Braking

Ice Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Syron Everest 2	15.2 m	Best	0 km/h
2Ceat WinterDrive	15.5 m	+0.30 m	18 km/h
3Radar Dimax Winter	15.8 m	+0.60 m	25 km/h
4Tomket Snowroad Pro 3	15.9 m	+0.70 m	27 km/h
5Nokian Snowproof P	16 m	+0.80 m	29 km/h
6Firestone Winterhawk 4	16.1 m	+0.90 m	31 km/h
7Bridgestone Blizzak 6	16.2 m	+1.00 m	32 km/h
8Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	16.3 m	+1.10 m	34 km/h
9Apollo Aspire XP Winter	16.6 m	+1.40 m	38 km/h
10Momo North Pole W 20 EUROPA	16.7 m	+1.50 m	39 km/h
10Point S Winter S	16.7 m	+1.50 m	39 km/h
10Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	16.7 m	+1.50 m	39 km/h
10Landsail Winter Lander	16.7 m	+1.50 m	39 km/h
14Matador MP93 Nordicca	16.8 m	+1.60 m	40 km/h
14Kleber Krisalp HP3	16.8 m	+1.60 m	40 km/h
14Dunlop Winter Sport 5	16.8 m	+1.60 m	40 km/h
17Petlas SnowMaster 2 Sport	16.9 m	+1.70 m	41 km/h
18GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	17 m	+1.80 m	42 km/h
18Semperit Speed Grip 5	17 m	+1.80 m	42 km/h
18Fulda Kristall Control HP2	17 m	+1.80 m	42 km/h
21Hankook Winter i cept evo3	17.4 m	+2.20 m	46 km/h
21Imperial Snowdragon UHP	17.4 m	+2.20 m	46 km/h
21Star Performer Stratos UHP	17.4 m	+2.20 m	46 km/h
21Uniroyal WinterExpert	17.4 m	+2.20 m	46 km/h
25Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6	17.5 m	+2.30 m	47 km/h
26Giti GitiWinterW2	17.8 m	+2.60 m	50 km/h
27Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	18.1 m	+2.90 m	52 km/h
28Goodride SW608	18.2 m	+3.00 m	53 km/h
29Nankang Winter Activa SV 4	19.1 m	+3.90 m	59 km/h
30CST Medallion Winter WCP1	19.3 m	+4.10 m	60 km/h
31Evergreen Winter EW66	21.1 m	+5.90 m	69 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 38.8% (5.9 m ≈ 1.3 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Evergreen Winter EW66 would still be travelling at 69 km/h when the Syron Everest 2 had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

Comfort

Noise

Noise
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Point S Winter S	70.3 dB	Best
2Nokian Snowproof P	70.9 dB	+0.60 dB
3Matador MP93 Nordicca	71.1 dB	+0.80 dB
4Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	71.2 dB	+0.90 dB
5Momo North Pole W 20 EUROPA	71.4 dB	+1.10 dB
6Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	71.5 dB	+1.20 dB
7Ceat WinterDrive	71.6 dB	+1.30 dB
7Landsail Winter Lander	71.6 dB	+1.30 dB
7Tomket Snowroad Pro 3	71.6 dB	+1.30 dB
10Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	71.8 dB	+1.50 dB
11Star Performer Stratos UHP	71.9 dB	+1.60 dB
11Kleber Krisalp HP3	71.9 dB	+1.60 dB
13Nankang Winter Activa SV 4	72 dB	+1.70 dB
14Syron Everest 2	72.1 dB	+1.80 dB
15Radar Dimax Winter	72.3 dB	+2.00 dB
16Imperial Snowdragon UHP	72.4 dB	+2.10 dB
16Bridgestone Blizzak 6	72.4 dB	+2.10 dB
18Giti GitiWinterW2	72.5 dB	+2.20 dB
19Evergreen Winter EW66	72.7 dB	+2.40 dB
20GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	72.8 dB	+2.50 dB
21Firestone Winterhawk 4	72.9 dB	+2.60 dB
22Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6	73 dB	+2.70 dB
23Uniroyal WinterExpert	73.2 dB	+2.90 dB
24Petlas SnowMaster 2 Sport	73.3 dB	+3.00 dB
25Goodride SW608	73.4 dB	+3.10 dB
26Apollo Aspire XP Winter	74 dB	+3.70 dB
27Dunlop Winter Sport 5	74.1 dB	+3.80 dB
28Semperit Speed Grip 5	74.2 dB	+3.90 dB
29Fulda Kristall Control HP2	74.3 dB	+4.00 dB
30Hankook Winter i cept evo3	75.3 dB	+5.00 dB
31CST Medallion Winter WCP1	75.5 dB	+5.20 dB

The difference between best and worst was 7.4% (5.2 dB).

Value

Wear

Wear
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Radar Dimax Winter	81,000 KM	Best
2Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	76,500 KM	-4,500 KM
3Hankook Winter i cept evo3	72,400 KM	-8,600 KM
4Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	67,000 KM	-14,000 KM
5Tomket Snowroad Pro 3	66,500 KM	-14,500 KM
6Ceat WinterDrive	64,600 KM	-16,400 KM
7Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6	62,400 KM	-18,600 KM
8Dunlop Winter Sport 5	61,300 KM	-19,700 KM
9Momo North Pole W 20 EUROPA	61,200 KM	-19,800 KM
10Star Performer Stratos UHP	60,000 KM	-21,000 KM
11Imperial Snowdragon UHP	59,300 KM	-21,700 KM
12Bridgestone Blizzak 6	57,700 KM	-23,300 KM
13Fulda Kristall Control HP2	56,900 KM	-24,100 KM
14CST Medallion Winter WCP1	55,400 KM	-25,600 KM
15Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	53,100 KM	-27,900 KM
16Uniroyal WinterExpert	53,000 KM	-28,000 KM
16Point S Winter S	53,000 KM	-28,000 KM
18Kleber Krisalp HP3	52,700 KM	-28,300 KM
19Apollo Aspire XP Winter	51,900 KM	-29,100 KM
20Nokian Snowproof P	51,600 KM	-29,400 KM
21Landsail Winter Lander	51,000 KM	-30,000 KM
22Matador MP93 Nordicca	50,100 KM	-30,900 KM
23Firestone Winterhawk 4	48,800 KM	-32,200 KM
24Goodride SW608	48,400 KM	-32,600 KM
25Semperit Speed Grip 5	47,900 KM	-33,100 KM
26Evergreen Winter EW66	47,700 KM	-33,300 KM
27Petlas SnowMaster 2 Sport	46,300 KM	-34,700 KM
28GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	44,600 KM	-36,400 KM
29Giti GitiWinterW2	43,700 KM	-37,300 KM
30Syron Everest 2	41,800 KM	-39,200 KM
31Nankang Winter Activa SV 4	34,200 KM	-46,800 KM

The difference between best and worst was 57.8% (46,800 KM).

Fuel Consumption

Fuel Consumption
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Star Performer Stratos UHP	5.6 l/100km	Best	£0
1Point S Winter S	5.6 l/100km	Best	£0
1Petlas SnowMaster 2 Sport	5.6 l/100km	Best	£0
1Matador MP93 Nordicca	5.6 l/100km	Best	£0
1Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	5.6 l/100km	Best	£0
1Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6	5.6 l/100km	Best	£0
1Tomket Snowroad Pro 3	5.6 l/100km	Best	£0
8Evergreen Winter EW66	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	£28
8Syron Everest 2	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	£28
8Hankook Winter i cept evo3	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	£28
8Nokian Snowproof P	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	£28
8Firestone Winterhawk 4	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	£28
8Goodride SW608	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	£28
8Dunlop Winter Sport 5	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	£28
8Kleber Krisalp HP3	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	£28
16GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
16Radar Dimax Winter	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
16Fulda Kristall Control HP2	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
16Ceat WinterDrive	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
16Bridgestone Blizzak 6	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
16Landsail Winter Lander	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
16Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
16Uniroyal WinterExpert	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
16Semperit Speed Grip 5	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
16Giti GitiWinterW2	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
16Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
16Imperial Snowdragon UHP	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
16Apollo Aspire XP Winter	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
29CST Medallion Winter WCP1	5.9 l/100km	+0.30 l/100km	£83
29Nankang Winter Activa SV 4	5.9 l/100km	+0.30 l/100km	£83
31Momo North Pole W 20 EUROPA	6 l/100km	+0.40 l/100km	£110

The difference between best and worst was 7.1% (0.4 l/100km). Over 19,000 km a year at £1.45/L, the Momo North Pole W 20 EUROPA uses about 76 L (£110) more fuel than the Star Performer Stratos UHP.

Adjust the assumptions

Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions.

Petrol/Diesel Electric

Annual Mileage

19,000 km

km (L)

miles (US gal)

Fuel Price

£1.45/L

GBP (£)

EUR (€)

USD ($)

Set my vehicle consumption

Estimates based on typical driving conditions. Rolling resistance accounts for approximately 20% of IC vehicle fuel consumption and 25% of EV energy consumption. Actual savings vary based on driving style, vehicle weight, road conditions, and tyre age. For comparative purposes only. Lifetime savings based on a 40,000km / 25,000 mile tread life.

Abrasion

Abrasion
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	50 mg/km/t	Best
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	50 mg/km/t	Best
3Radar Dimax Winter	53 mg/km/t	+3.00 mg/km/t
4Hankook Winter i cept evo3	56 mg/km/t	+6.00 mg/km/t
5Imperial Snowdragon UHP	57 mg/km/t	+7.00 mg/km/t
6Tomket Snowroad Pro 3	58 mg/km/t	+8.00 mg/km/t
7Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6	59 mg/km/t	+9.00 mg/km/t
8Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	60 mg/km/t	+10.00 mg/km/t
9Momo North Pole W 20 EUROPA	61 mg/km/t	+11.00 mg/km/t
9Nokian Snowproof P	61 mg/km/t	+11.00 mg/km/t
11Star Performer Stratos UHP	62 mg/km/t	+12.00 mg/km/t
11Bridgestone Blizzak 6	62 mg/km/t	+12.00 mg/km/t
13Kleber Krisalp HP3	64 mg/km/t	+14.00 mg/km/t
13Ceat WinterDrive	64 mg/km/t	+14.00 mg/km/t
15Semperit Speed Grip 5	66 mg/km/t	+16.00 mg/km/t
16Dunlop Winter Sport 5	67 mg/km/t	+17.00 mg/km/t
17CST Medallion Winter WCP1	68 mg/km/t	+18.00 mg/km/t
18Fulda Kristall Control HP2	69 mg/km/t	+19.00 mg/km/t
18Uniroyal WinterExpert	69 mg/km/t	+19.00 mg/km/t
20Point S Winter S	70 mg/km/t	+20.00 mg/km/t
21Matador MP93 Nordicca	71 mg/km/t	+21.00 mg/km/t
21Petlas SnowMaster 2 Sport	71 mg/km/t	+21.00 mg/km/t
23Firestone Winterhawk 4	72 mg/km/t	+22.00 mg/km/t
24Apollo Aspire XP Winter	73 mg/km/t	+23.00 mg/km/t
25Goodride SW608	75 mg/km/t	+25.00 mg/km/t
26Evergreen Winter EW66	76 mg/km/t	+26.00 mg/km/t
27Landsail Winter Lander	77 mg/km/t	+27.00 mg/km/t
27GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	77 mg/km/t	+27.00 mg/km/t
29Syron Everest 2	85 mg/km/t	+35.00 mg/km/t
30Giti GitiWinterW2	86 mg/km/t	+36.00 mg/km/t
31Nankang Winter Activa SV 4	88 mg/km/t	+38.00 mg/km/t

The difference between best and worst was 76% (38 mg/km/t).

Results

The Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3 receives a good overall rating due to its combination of solid driving safety and environmental performance. In terms of driving safety, the tyre provides good handling on dry roads with effective braking distances, though it could be slightly less prone to oversteering during evasive maneuvers. On wet roads, it achieves the best test score with the shortest braking distances, excellent aquaplaning resistance, and superior grip that makes the vehicle easy to control on wet handling courses. For winter conditions, the tyre performs well across all criteria including snow traction, braking on snow and ice, and snow handling, offering good reserves and precise maneuverability. Regarding environmental impact, this German-manufactured tyre earns high marks with very good ratings for predicted mileage and low tyre wear, while also demonstrating low weight and fuel consumption, contributing to its good overall environmental score.

Dry97.9%

Wet98.3%

Snow95.1%

Ice91%

Comfort98.7%

Value96.7%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	4^th / 31	42.3 m	+0.90 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	1^st / 31	31.7 m	Best in this discipline
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	2^nd / 31	36.6 m	+0.10 m
Wet CircleHigher is better	2^nd / 30	3 m/s	-0.10 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	2^nd / 31	77.1 km/h	-1.80 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 31	9.7 m	+0.50 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	8^th / 31	242 N	-12.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	10^th / 31	16.7 m	+1.50 m
NoiseLower is better	4^th / 31	71.2 dB	+0.90 dB
WearHigher is better	2^nd / 31	76500 KM	-4,500.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	16^th / 31	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	1^st / 31	50 mg/km/t	Best in this discipline

EU Label: D/B/71
Origin: Germany
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 171.00

The Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 achieves good ratings in both driving safety and environmental impact, securing a good overall test score. For driving safety, the tyre provides excellent dry road performance with good steering feel, precise response to commands, and outstanding braking distances from 100 km/h that earned it the best score in testing. On wet roads, it excels in braking performance and delivers good handling with adequate safety reserves, though it only receives a satisfactory rating for lateral aquaplaning resistance. In winter conditions, the Michelin performs well across all criteria, offering good traction and braking on snow, effective handling that combines both elements with lateral forces, and good braking distances on ice with precise steering control throughout. Regarding environmental performance, this Spanish-manufactured tyre scores well with very high predicted mileage, very low tyre wear, and good fuel efficiency due to low consumption. However, a negative point is noted regarding production residues on new tyres that unnecessarily end up in the environment during the first kilometers of driving.

Dry100%

Wet89%

Snow97.1%

Ice93.3%

Comfort98.3%

Value92.4%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	1^st / 31	41.4 m	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 31	32.2 m	+0.50 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	4^th / 31	36.9 m	+0.40 m
Wet CircleHigher is better	20^th / 30	2.4 m/s	-0.70 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	4^th / 31	75.2 km/h	-3.70 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 31	9.4 m	+0.20 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	3^rd / 31	245 N	-9.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	8^th / 31	16.3 m	+1.10 m
NoiseLower is better	6^th / 31	71.5 dB	+1.20 dB
WearHigher is better	4^th / 31	67000 KM	-14,000.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	16^th / 31	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	1^st / 31	50 mg/km/t	Best in this discipline

EU Label: D/B/70
Origin: Spain
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 177.00

The Bridgestone Blizzak 6 delivers good performance in both driving safety and environmental impact, earning a good overall rating. For driving safety, the tyre provides good steering feel and feedback on dry roads with spontaneous and precise response to steering commands, allowing for accurate vehicle control and achieving good braking distances from 100 km/h. On wet surfaces, it also receives good ratings, particularly for braking performance, and scores well in longitudinal aquaplaning resistance and handling with good safety reserves and precise control, though it only achieves a satisfactory rating for lateral aquaplaning resistance. In winter conditions, the Blizzak 6 earns good ratings with effective braking distances on both snow and ice and good traction performance, but narrowly misses a good rating for snow handling as it could better combine longitudinal and lateral forces, offering satisfactory reserves and adequate precision on the handling course. Regarding environmental performance, this Polish-manufactured tyre scores well with good predicted mileage, low tyre wear, and good efficiency thanks to its low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry94.5%

Wet95.8%

Snow94.9%

Ice93.8%

Comfort97.1%

Value82.9%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	10^th / 31	43.8 m	+2.40 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 31	32.3 m	+0.60 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	1^st / 31	36.5 m	Best in this discipline
Wet CircleHigher is better	4^th / 30	2.9 m/s	-0.20 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	7^th / 31	74.9 km/h	-4.00 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	6^th / 31	9.6 m	+0.40 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	11^th / 31	239 N	-15.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	7^th / 31	16.2 m	+1.00 m
NoiseLower is better	16^th / 31	72.4 dB	+2.10 dB
WearHigher is better	12^th / 31	57700 KM	-23,300.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	16^th / 31	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	11^th / 31	62 mg/km/t	+12.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: C/B/70
Origin: Poland
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 167.00

The Hankook Winter i*cept evo3 W330 narrowly misses a good rating for driving safety but achieves a good overall score thanks to its strong environmental performance. For driving safety, the tyre demonstrates good precision and responsiveness to steering commands on dry roads, with safe and controllable behavior during sudden evasive maneuvers and good braking distances from 100 km/h. On wet surfaces, it earns good ratings overall, achieving good scores for longitudinal aquaplaning resistance, braking distances, and handling with good grip levels and reserves that allow largely precise control, though it only receives a satisfactory rating for lateral aquaplaning resistance. In winter conditions, the Hankook narrowly misses good results, showing slightly above-average performance for braking and acceleration on snow, but falls short in snow handling where it would need to better combine longitudinal and lateral forces and provide improved lateral guidance, and also narrowly misses a good rating for ice braking distances, resulting in an overall satisfactory rating that impacts the driving safety score. Regarding environmental performance, this Hungarian-manufactured tyre achieves good results with very high predicted mileage, low tyre wear, and good efficiency due to low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry94.7%

Wet94.9%

Snow94.2%

Ice87.4%

Comfort93.4%

Value92.5%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	9^th / 31	43.7 m	+2.30 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	6^th / 31	32.9 m	+1.20 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	6^th / 31	37.5 m	+1.00 m
Wet CircleHigher is better	4^th / 30	2.9 m/s	-0.20 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	10^th / 31	74 km/h	-4.90 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 31	9.7 m	+0.50 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	13^th / 31	238 N	-16.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	21^st / 31	17.4 m	+2.20 m
NoiseLower is better	30^th / 31	75.3 dB	+5.00 dB
WearHigher is better	3^rd / 31	72400 KM	-8,600.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	8^th / 31	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	4^th / 31	56 mg/km/t	+6.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/72
Origin: Hungary
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 140.00

The Dunlop Winter Sport 5 achieves good ratings in both driving safety and environmental performance, resulting in a good overall score. For driving safety, while the tyre could provide slightly better steering feel, responsiveness, and precision on dry roads, it maintains good performance limits allowing stable and safe obstacle avoidance with good braking distances from 100 km/h. On wet surfaces, it earns good ratings for braking performance and handling with good safety reserves and precise control over test courses, though it only achieves satisfactory results in both longitudinal and lateral aquaplaning resistance, albeit narrowly missing better scores. In winter conditions, the Winter Sport 5 receives good ratings with effective braking distances on snow and ice, good traction performance, and just barely achieves a good rating for snow handling by adequately combining longitudinal and lateral forces while providing sufficient reserves for largely precise handling course navigation. Regarding environmental impact, this German-manufactured tyre earns good ratings due to its high predicted mileage and low tyre wear, while also scoring well for efficiency thanks to its low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry94.1%

Wet94.2%

Snow95.8%

Ice90.5%

Comfort94.9%

Value83.5%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	14^th / 31	44 m	+2.60 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	13^th / 31	34.4 m	+2.70 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	12^th / 31	38.9 m	+2.40 m
Wet CircleHigher is better	2^nd / 30	3 m/s	-0.10 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	15^th / 31	73.2 km/h	-5.70 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	4^th / 31	9.5 m	+0.30 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	10^th / 31	241 N	-13.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	14^th / 31	16.8 m	+1.60 m
NoiseLower is better	27^th / 31	74.1 dB	+3.80 dB
WearHigher is better	8^th / 31	61300 KM	-19,700.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	8^th / 31	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	16^th / 31	67 mg/km/t	+17.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/C/72
Origin: Germany
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 169.00

The Continental WinterContact TS 870 P narrowly misses a good driving safety rating due to its winter road performance but still achieves a good overall score thanks to its strong environmental performance. For driving safety, the tyre provides good steering feel on dry roads with largely spontaneous response and good precision, maintaining good performance limits that allow stable and safe obstacle avoidance with clearly good braking performance from 100 km/h. On wet surfaces, it earns good ratings with strong braking distances and longitudinal aquaplaning resistance, plus good handling with effective grip, precision, and adequate reserves in limit situations, though it only achieves satisfactory results for lateral aquaplaning resistance. In winter conditions, the WinterContact TS 870 P fails to achieve good ratings overall, though it just barely manages good scores for braking and traction tests on snow as well as handling, allowing safe and largely precise control over test courses, but its satisfactory performance in ice braking tests ultimately prevents it from achieving a good winter road rating. Regarding environmental performance, this tyre manufactured in Romania and France receives good ratings with good predicted mileage, clearly good tyre wear ratings, and good efficiency thanks to low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry97.2%

Wet92.1%

Snow93.4%

Ice84%

Comfort97.9%

Value82.8%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	6^th / 31	42.6 m	+1.20 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	8^th / 31	33 m	+1.30 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	9^th / 31	38 m	+1.50 m
Wet CircleHigher is better	7^th / 30	2.7 m/s	-0.40 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	4^th / 31	75.2 km/h	-3.70 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	19^th / 31	9.8 m	+0.60 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	17^th / 31	236 N	-18.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	27^th / 31	18.1 m	+2.90 m
NoiseLower is better	10^th / 31	71.8 dB	+1.50 dB
WearHigher is better	15^th / 31	53100 KM	-27,900.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 31	5.6 l/100km	Best in this discipline
AbrasionLower is better	8^th / 31	60 mg/km/t	+10.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: C/B/71
Origin: France/Romania
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 177.00

The Kleber Krisalp HP3 misses a good driving safety rating due to its wet road performance and, despite achieving a good environmental rating, only manages a satisfactory overall score. For driving safety, the tyre provides good steering feel on dry roads with largely spontaneous response and good precision, maintaining good performance limits that allow stable and safe obstacle avoidance with good braking performance from 100 km/h. However, on wet surfaces, it clearly fails to achieve good ratings - while it narrowly misses good scores for braking distances, it clearly performs only at a satisfactory level in handling due to moderate grip levels that cause the test vehicle to understeer earlier than desired, and while it achieves good longitudinal aquaplaning resistance, its lateral aquaplaning performance is also only satisfactory. In winter conditions, the Krisalp HP3 regains good ratings with good performance in ice and snow braking distances and snow traction, and even achieves very good ratings for handling where the test vehicle can always be controlled safely and precisely with many reserves in limit situations. Regarding environmental performance, this Romanian-manufactured tyre receives good ratings with good predicted mileage, low tyre wear, and good efficiency primarily due to low fuel consumption, though production residues on new tyres that unnecessarily end up in the environment during the first kilometers are noted as a negative point.

Dry93.7%

Wet88.4%

Snow98%

Ice90.5%

Comfort97.8%

Value80.5%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	16^th / 31	44.2 m	+2.80 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	17^th / 31	35 m	+3.30 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	19^th / 31	40.7 m	+4.20 m
Wet CircleHigher is better	9^th / 30	2.6 m/s	-0.50 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	3^rd / 31	76.9 km/h	-2.00 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 31	9.4 m	+0.20 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	2^nd / 31	249 N	-5.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	14^th / 31	16.8 m	+1.60 m
NoiseLower is better	11^th / 31	71.9 dB	+1.60 dB
WearHigher is better	18^th / 31	52700 KM	-28,300.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	8^th / 31	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	13^th / 31	64 mg/km/t	+14.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/69
Origin: Romania
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 143.00

The Nokian Tyres Snowproof P fails to achieve good ratings on all three road surfaces and therefore misses a good overall driving safety score, and despite achieving a good environmental rating, only manages a satisfactory overall evaluation. For driving safety, the tyre provides only satisfactory steering feedback and precision on dry roads, requiring occasional corrections during steering input and cornering due to its elastic response feel, and the test vehicle tends to oversteer during dynamic evasive maneuvers or lane changes with only satisfactory limit behavior, though it achieves good braking distances that are slightly above average for the test field. On wet surfaces, the Nokian delivers satisfactory overall performance - while it still scores well for braking distances, it only achieves satisfactory ratings for both longitudinal and lateral aquaplaning resistance and handling, where the tyre tends to understeer early and lacks precision with moderate limit performance. In winter conditions, the Snowproof P also only manages satisfactory ratings overall, achieving good scores only for ice braking while receiving satisfactory evaluations for snow braking distances, traction, and handling, where the test vehicle cannot be steered with particular precision and the limit range is again only at a moderate level with early tendencies toward under- or oversteering, though the tyre still offers some reserves. Regarding environmental performance, this Finnish-manufactured tyre receives good ratings with good predicted mileage and tyre wear, plus good overall efficiency primarily due to low fuel consumption, though its weight is rated only as satisfactory.

Dry98.1%

Wet80.7%

Snow90.8%

Ice95%

Comfort99.2%

Value81.1%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 31	42.2 m	+0.80 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	11^th / 31	33.4 m	+1.70 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	8^th / 31	37.7 m	+1.20 m
Wet CircleHigher is better	27^th / 30	2 m/s	-1.10 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	27^th / 31	67.8 km/h	-11.10 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	23^rd / 31	10 m	+0.80 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	25^th / 31	228 N	-26.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	5^th / 31	16 m	+0.80 m
NoiseLower is better	2^nd / 31	70.9 dB	+0.60 dB
WearHigher is better	20^th / 31	51600 KM	-29,400.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	8^th / 31	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	9^th / 31	61 mg/km/t	+11.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: C/B/70
Origin: Finland
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 148.00

The Momo W-20 North Pole fails to achieve good ratings on dry and winter roads and therefore misses a good driving safety score, and also only manages a satisfactory environmental rating, resulting in a satisfactory overall grade. For driving safety, the Momo shows slight weaknesses in precision and steering feedback on dry roads, with limit behavior rated as only satisfactory compared to the test field - the test vehicle should respond more decisively to steering commands and stabilize more quickly when counter-steering, though the tyre's braking distances are rated as good. On wet surfaces, the W-20 North Pole achieves a good rating, particularly excelling in braking tests and convincing with good handling where the test vehicle can be steered largely precisely over the course with good grip providing decent safety reserves, though it narrowly misses good ratings for longitudinal aquaplaning and is rated just satisfactory for lateral aquaplaning. In winter conditions, the W-20 North Pole again only manages satisfactory ratings overall - while it achieves good scores for braking tests on snow and ice as well as pure snow traction, it cannot maintain this level in handling where the tyre can only satisfactorily combine longitudinal and lateral forces, causing the test vehicle to tend toward under- or oversteering somewhat early depending on the curve, negatively affecting precision and limit reserves. Regarding environmental performance, this Serbian-manufactured tyre only achieves satisfactory ratings despite scoring well for predicted mileage and low tyre wear, but falls short in efficiency due to higher weight and fuel consumption.

Dry96.1%

Wet86.3%

Snow92.9%

Ice91%

Comfort98.5%

Value83.7%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	7^th / 31	43.1 m	+1.70 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	4^th / 31	32.7 m	+1.00 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	2^nd / 31	36.6 m	+0.10 m
Wet CircleHigher is better	24^th / 30	2.3 m/s	-0.80 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	22^nd / 31	71.1 km/h	-7.80 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	19^th / 31	9.8 m	+0.60 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	21^st / 31	234 N	-20.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	10^th / 31	16.7 m	+1.50 m
NoiseLower is better	5^th / 31	71.4 dB	+1.10 dB
WearHigher is better	9^th / 31	61200 KM	-19,800.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	31^st / 31	6 l/100km	+0.40 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	9^th / 31	61 mg/km/t	+11.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/72
Origin: Serbia
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 115.00

The Ceat WinterDrive fails to achieve good ratings on dry and wet roads and therefore misses a good driving safety score, and despite achieving a good environmental rating, only manages a satisfactory overall evaluation. For driving safety, the tyre shows weaknesses in precision and steering feedback on dry roads, lacking the accuracy and directness expected for good ratings during steering input and cornering - steering corrections are needed to maintain the desired path, and during sudden evasive maneuvers the WinterDrive doesn't fully convince as the test vehicle tends to oversteer, especially when counter-steering, with sliding phases that could be shorter, resulting in limit behavior that isn't critical but only achieves satisfactory ratings, though dry braking distances are clearly rated as good. On wet surfaces, the Ceat also only manages satisfactory ratings overall - while it achieves good braking distance scores, it only receives satisfactory ratings for both longitudinal and lateral aquaplaning resistance, and its handling performance is rated as just adequate due to insufficient combination of longitudinal and lateral forces, causing the test vehicle to understeer early and lack precision over the course with moderate limit performance and adequate safety reserves. In winter conditions, however, the WinterDrive achieves clearly good ratings with above-average performance in both snow and ice braking distances as well as snow traction, plus good handling results where the test vehicle can be steered precisely with consistently good reserves. Regarding environmental performance, this Indian-manufactured tyre receives good ratings with above-average predicted mileage, low tyre wear, and good efficiency thanks to low fuel consumption, though its weight is slightly elevated.

Dry98.6%

Wet86.9%

Snow95.7%

Ice98.1%

Comfort98.2%

Value85.4%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 31	42 m	+0.60 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	14^th / 31	34.5 m	+2.80 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	14^th / 31	39.7 m	+3.20 m
Wet CircleHigher is better	12^th / 30	2.5 m/s	-0.60 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	21^st / 31	71.5 km/h	-7.40 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 31	9.7 m	+0.50 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	3^rd / 31	245 N	-9.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 31	15.5 m	+0.30 m
NoiseLower is better	7^th / 31	71.6 dB	+1.30 dB
WearHigher is better	6^th / 31	64600 KM	-16,400.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	16^th / 31	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	13^th / 31	64 mg/km/t	+14.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/C/70
Origin: India
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 136.00

The Matador MP93 Nordicca fails to achieve good results on dry, wet, and winter roads, resulting in only a satisfactory driving safety rating, and also narrowly misses a good environmental score, leading to a satisfactory overall evaluation. For driving safety, the tyre shows weaknesses in precision and steering feedback on dry roads, lacking the accuracy and directness expected for good ratings during steering input and cornering - steering corrections are needed to maintain the desired path, and during sudden evasive maneuvers the Matador doesn't fully convince as the test vehicle tends to oversteer, especially when counter-steering, with sliding phases that could be shorter, resulting in limit behavior that isn't critical but only achieves satisfactory ratings, and dry braking distances are also rated as only satisfactory compared to the test field. On wet surfaces, the MP93 Nordicca also only manages satisfactory ratings, failing to achieve good scores for braking distances or longitudinal and lateral aquaplaning resistance, while its handling performance is rated as merely adequate due to poor combination of longitudinal and lateral forces, causing the test vehicle to tend toward under- or oversteering early and for extended periods depending on the curve, preventing precise control over the course with low limit performance and only adequate safety reserves. In winter conditions, the MP93 Nordicca also narrowly misses good results, though it achieves good ratings for snow and ice braking as well as snow traction, its handling performance is only rated as satisfactory since the tyre should better combine longitudinal and lateral forces for more precise course control, with moderate limit reserves. Regarding environmental performance, this French-manufactured tyre narrowly falls short of satisfactory ratings, just missing good scores for predicted mileage but showing low tyre wear and good efficiency thanks to low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry91.8%

Wet85.1%

Snow95.1%

Ice90.5%

Comfort98.9%

Value77.9%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	25^th / 31	45.1 m	+3.70 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	16^th / 31	34.9 m	+3.20 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	21^st / 31	40.9 m	+4.40 m
Wet CircleHigher is better	20^th / 30	2.4 m/s	-0.70 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	17^th / 31	72.3 km/h	-6.60 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 31	9.7 m	+0.50 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	8^th / 31	242 N	-12.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	14^th / 31	16.8 m	+1.60 m
NoiseLower is better	3^rd / 31	71.1 dB	+0.80 dB
WearHigher is better	22^nd / 31	50100 KM	-30,900.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 31	5.6 l/100km	Best in this discipline
AbrasionLower is better	21^st / 31	71 mg/km/t	+21.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: C/C/72
Origin: France
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 110.00

The Uniroyal WinterExpert fails to achieve good ratings on dry and winter roads and therefore misses a good driving safety score, and despite earning a good environmental rating, this isn't sufficient to improve the overall judgment to "good." For driving safety, the tyre shows significant weaknesses in precision and steering feedback on dry roads, lacking the accuracy and directness expected during steering input and cornering - constant steering corrections are needed to maintain the desired path, and during sudden evasive maneuvers the WinterExpert doesn't convince as the test vehicle tends to oversteer, especially when counter-steering, with sliding phases that could be shorter, resulting in overall limit behavior that isn't at a high level and is just rated as satisfactory, though dry braking distances are still rated as good compared to the test field. On wet surfaces, the Uniroyal achieves good ratings with both braking distances and handling performance rated as good - the test vehicle can be driven safely and controllably over the course with the tyre consistently providing good limit reserves, though its longitudinal and lateral aquaplaning behavior is only satisfactory compared to the test field. In winter conditions, the WinterExpert narrowly misses good ratings, achieving good scores for both snow braking distances and snow traction compared to the test field, but failing to earn good handling ratings as it would need to better combine longitudinal and lateral forces, overall providing moderate grip levels in handling with satisfactory limit reserves, and also only achieving satisfactory ratings for ice braking. Regarding environmental performance, this French-manufactured tyre receives good ratings with good predicted mileage, low tyre wear, and good efficiency thanks to low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry94.3%

Wet90.4%

Snow93.6%

Ice87.4%

Comfort96%

Value78.5%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	12^th / 31	43.9 m	+2.50 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	6^th / 31	32.9 m	+1.20 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	10^th / 31	38.1 m	+1.60 m
Wet CircleHigher is better	9^th / 30	2.6 m/s	-0.50 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	18^th / 31	72.1 km/h	-6.80 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 31	9.7 m	+0.50 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	19^th / 31	235 N	-19.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	21^st / 31	17.4 m	+2.20 m
NoiseLower is better	23^rd / 31	73.2 dB	+2.90 dB
WearHigher is better	16^th / 31	53000 KM	-28,000.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	16^th / 31	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	18^th / 31	69 mg/km/t	+19.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/72
Origin: France
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 143.00

The Fulda Kristall Control HP2 fails to achieve good ratings on dry and wet roads and therefore misses a good driving safety score, and despite earning a good environmental rating, this isn't sufficient to improve the overall judgment to "good." For driving safety, the tyre shows weaknesses in precision and steering feedback on dry roads, lacking the accuracy and directness expected during steering input and cornering - frequent steering corrections are needed to maintain the desired path, and during sudden evasive maneuvers the Kristall Control HP2 doesn't convince as the test vehicle tends to oversteer, especially when counter-steering, with sliding phases that could be shorter, resulting in overall limit behavior that isn't at a high level and is rated as adequate, while dry braking distances are also rated as only satisfactory compared to the test field. On wet surfaces, the Fulda also only manages satisfactory ratings - while it narrowly misses good scores for braking distances, its handling behavior is clearly rated as satisfactory due to moderate grip levels and the need to better combine longitudinal and lateral forces, which would positively impact limit behavior and precision, and while its longitudinal aquaplaning behavior is still rated as good, it doesn't achieve good ratings for lateral aquaplaning. In winter conditions, the Kristall Control HP2 just manages to secure good ratings overall, achieving good scores for both snow braking distances and snow traction compared to the test field, but narrowly missing good ratings for ice braking distances and snow handling, where it would need to better combine longitudinal and lateral forces for good scores, offering moderate grip levels and satisfactory limit reserves. Regarding environmental performance, this German-manufactured tyre receives good ratings with good mileage, low tyre wear, and good efficiency thanks to low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry91.4%

Wet91.2%

Snow95.3%

Ice89.4%

Comfort94.6%

Value80.3%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	29^th / 31	45.3 m	+3.90 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	22^nd / 31	35.9 m	+4.20 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	15^th / 31	40 m	+3.50 m
Wet CircleHigher is better	4^th / 30	2.9 m/s	-0.20 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	10^th / 31	74 km/h	-4.90 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 31	9.7 m	+0.50 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	6^th / 31	243 N	-11.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	18^th / 31	17 m	+1.80 m
NoiseLower is better	29^th / 31	74.3 dB	+4.00 dB
WearHigher is better	13^th / 31	56900 KM	-24,100.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	16^th / 31	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	18^th / 31	69 mg/km/t	+19.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/C/72
Origin: Germany
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 143.00

The GT Radial WinterPro 2 Sport fails to achieve good results on dry, wet, and winter roads, resulting in only a satisfactory driving safety rating, and also only manages satisfactory environmental performance, leading to a satisfactory overall judgment. For driving safety, the tyre shows weaknesses in precision and steering feedback on dry roads, lacking the accuracy and directness expected during steering input and cornering - steering corrections are needed to maintain the desired path, and during sudden evasive maneuvers the WinterPro 2 Sport doesn't fully convince as the test vehicle tends to oversteer, especially when counter-steering, with sliding phases that could be shorter, resulting in overall limit behavior that isn't critical but only achieves satisfactory ratings for both responsiveness and limit performance, while dry braking distances are also rated as only satisfactory compared to the test field. On wet surfaces, the GT Radial also only manages satisfactory ratings, failing to achieve good scores for braking distances or longitudinal and lateral aquaplaning resistance, while its handling performance is rated as merely adequate due to poor combination of longitudinal and lateral forces, causing the test vehicle to tend toward under- or oversteering early and for extended periods depending on the curve, preventing precise control over the course with low limit performance and only adequate safety reserves. In winter conditions, the WinterPro 2 Sport also fails to achieve good results overall, though it manages good scores for snow braking and snow traction, its handling performance is rated as only satisfactory since it would need to clearly better combine longitudinal and lateral forces for more precise course control, with moderate limit reserves, and it also narrowly misses good ratings for ice braking. Regarding environmental performance, this Chinese-manufactured tyre also only achieves satisfactory ratings due to satisfactory predicted mileage that impacts the environmental score, though it earns good ratings for tyre wear and fuel consumption while having above-average weight.

Dry92%

Wet85.1%

Snow94%

Ice89.4%

Comfort96.6%

Value72.7%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	23^rd / 31	45 m	+3.60 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	23^rd / 31	36.3 m	+4.60 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	20^th / 31	40.8 m	+4.30 m
Wet CircleHigher is better	12^th / 30	2.5 m/s	-0.60 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	14^th / 31	73.4 km/h	-5.50 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 31	9.7 m	+0.50 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	16^th / 31	237 N	-17.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	18^th / 31	17 m	+1.80 m
NoiseLower is better	20^th / 31	72.8 dB	+2.50 dB
WearHigher is better	28^th / 31	44600 KM	-36,400.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	16^th / 31	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	27^th / 31	77 mg/km/t	+27.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/70
Origin: China
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 130.00

The Semperit Speed-Grip 5 clearly misses good ratings on dry roads and narrowly fails on winter roads, and while it achieves good scores on wet surfaces, overall driving safety is rated as only satisfactory, with environmental performance also receiving satisfactory ratings, resulting in a satisfactory overall judgment. For driving safety, the tyre shows weaknesses in precision and steering feedback on dry roads, lacking the accuracy and directness expected for good ratings during steering input and cornering - steering corrections are needed to maintain the desired path, and during sudden evasive maneuvers the Semperit doesn't convince as the test vehicle tends to oversteer, especially when counter-steering, with sliding phases that could be shorter, resulting in overall limit behavior that isn't at a high level and is rated as only adequate, though dry braking distances are still rated as good compared to the test field. On wet surfaces, the Speed-Grip 5 achieves good ratings with good scores for braking distances, longitudinal aquaplaning behavior, and handling, though it only manages satisfactory ratings for lateral aquaplaning - overall the test vehicle can be driven safely and controllably over the course with the tyre providing sufficient limit reserves. In winter conditions, the Speed-Grip 5 narrowly misses good ratings, achieving good scores for both snow braking distances and snow traction compared to the test field, but scoring just satisfactory for ice braking and missing good handling ratings as it would need to better combine longitudinal and lateral forces, offering moderate grip levels and satisfactory limit reserves. Regarding environmental performance, this French-manufactured tyre misses good ratings due to its predicted mileage, though its tyre wear is still rated as good and efficiency is good thanks to low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry93.5%

Wet90.2%

Snow94%

Ice89.4%

Comfort94.7%

Value77.1%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	17^th / 31	44.3 m	+2.90 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	10^th / 31	33.3 m	+1.60 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	7^th / 31	37.6 m	+1.10 m
Wet CircleHigher is better	9^th / 30	2.6 m/s	-0.50 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	9^th / 31	74.2 km/h	-4.70 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	6^th / 31	9.6 m	+0.40 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	19^th / 31	235 N	-19.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	18^th / 31	17 m	+1.80 m
NoiseLower is better	28^th / 31	74.2 dB	+3.90 dB
WearHigher is better	25^th / 31	47900 KM	-33,100.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	16^th / 31	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	15^th / 31	66 mg/km/t	+16.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/72
Origin: France
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 142.00

The Giti GitiWinter W2 fails to achieve good ratings on dry, wet, and winter roads, resulting in only satisfactory driving safety and environmental performance with a satisfactory overall judgment. On dry roads, it shows poor precision and steering feedback requiring constant corrections, with oversteering tendencies and adequate limit behavior, plus satisfactory braking distances. On wet surfaces, it narrowly misses good ratings despite achieving good scores for braking and aquaplaning resistance, but handling is only satisfactory due to moderate grip and early understeer. In winter conditions, it manages only satisfactory ratings for snow braking and traction with adequate handling performance that lacks precise control and sufficient reserves, though ice braking is satisfactory. This Chinese-manufactured tyre receives satisfactory environmental ratings due to moderate predicted mileage, despite good scores for tyre wear and efficiency.

Dry91.6%

Wet96.1%

Snow91.4%

Ice85.4%

Comfort97%

Value70.4%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	26^th / 31	45.2 m	+3.80 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	15^th / 31	34.7 m	+3.00 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	15^th / 31	40 m	+3.50 m
Wet CircleHigher is better	1^st / 30	3.1 m/s	Best in this discipline
Straight AquaHigher is better	1^st / 31	78.9 km/h	Best in this discipline
Snow BrakingLower is better	23^rd / 31	10 m	+0.80 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	23^rd / 31	231 N	-23.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	26^th / 31	17.8 m	+2.60 m
NoiseLower is better	18^th / 31	72.5 dB	+2.20 dB
WearHigher is better	29^th / 31	43700 KM	-37,300.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	16^th / 31	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	30^th / 31	86 mg/km/t	+36.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/71
Origin: China
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 136.00

The Point S Winter S receives only adequate ratings on dry roads and satisfactory on wet surfaces, but achieves good winter performance, though overall driving safety is rated as adequate due to dry road weaknesses. Despite good environmental performance, the overall judgment remains adequate. On dry roads, it shows poor precision and steering feedback requiring frequent corrections, with oversteering tendencies and adequate limit behavior, though braking distances are still good. On wet surfaces, it achieves good braking performance but only satisfactory ratings for aquaplaning resistance and handling due to moderate grip levels and poor force combination. In winter conditions, it just earns good ratings with good snow and ice braking plus snow traction, but narrowly misses good handling scores due to moderate grip and satisfactory reserves. This Slovakian-manufactured tyre receives good environmental ratings with good mileage, low tyre wear, and good efficiency thanks to low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry93%

Wet85.1%

Snow94.2%

Ice91%

Comfort100%

Value79.5%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	19^th / 31	44.5 m	+3.10 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	17^th / 31	35 m	+3.30 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	18^th / 31	40.4 m	+3.90 m
Wet CircleHigher is better	20^th / 30	2.4 m/s	-0.70 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	13^th / 31	73.5 km/h	-5.40 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 31	9.7 m	+0.50 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	13^th / 31	238 N	-16.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	10^th / 31	16.7 m	+1.50 m
NoiseLower is better	1^st / 31	70.3 dB	Best in this discipline
WearHigher is better	16^th / 31	53000 KM	-28,000.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 31	5.6 l/100km	Best in this discipline
AbrasionLower is better	20^th / 31	70 mg/km/t	+20.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: C/C/72
Origin: Slovakia
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 121.00

The Firestone Winterhawk 4 receives only adequate ratings on dry roads and narrowly misses satisfactory on wet surfaces, but achieves good winter performance, though overall driving safety is rated as adequate due to dry road weaknesses. It also misses good environmental ratings, resulting in an adequate overall judgment. On dry roads, it shows poor precision and steering feedback requiring frequent corrections, with oversteering tendencies and adequate limit behavior, plus braking distances that just miss good ratings. On wet surfaces, it narrowly misses good overall ratings despite achieving good braking and longitudinal aquaplaning performance, but only satisfactory lateral aquaplaning and handling due to moderate grip levels. In winter conditions, it clearly earns good ratings across all criteria including snow and ice braking, snow traction, and handling with precise control and sufficient reserves. This Italian-manufactured tyre misses good environmental ratings due to satisfactory predicted mileage, though it shows low tyre wear and good efficiency thanks to low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry91.6%

Wet86.3%

Snow95.3%

Ice94.4%

Comfort96.4%

Value76.4%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	26^th / 31	45.2 m	+3.80 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	8^th / 31	33 m	+1.30 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	11^th / 31	38.2 m	+1.70 m
Wet CircleHigher is better	24^th / 30	2.3 m/s	-0.80 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	12^th / 31	73.8 km/h	-5.10 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 31	9.7 m	+0.50 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	6^th / 31	243 N	-11.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	6^th / 31	16.1 m	+0.90 m
NoiseLower is better	21^st / 31	72.9 dB	+2.60 dB
WearHigher is better	23^rd / 31	48800 KM	-32,200.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	8^th / 31	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	23^rd / 31	72 mg/km/t	+22.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/71
Origin: Italy
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 135.00

The Maxxis Premitra Snow WP6 receives only adequate ratings on dry roads and satisfactory on wet and winter surfaces, resulting in adequate overall driving safety despite good environmental performance. On dry roads, it provides only adequate steering feedback and precision requiring frequent corrections as the test vehicle doesn't follow consistent radii, with oversteering tendencies during dynamic maneuvers and above-average long braking distances rated as satisfactory. On wet surfaces, it achieves overall satisfactory performance with satisfactory braking distances and lateral aquaplaning, but only adequate handling due to weak grip levels and poor force combination, though it manages good longitudinal aquaplaning resistance. In winter conditions, it misses good ratings despite good snow braking and traction performance, but fails to achieve good ice braking and only manages satisfactory handling with early under/oversteering tendencies and moderate limit performance. This Chinese-manufactured tyre receives good environmental ratings with good predicted mileage, low tyre wear, and good efficiency.

Dry91.6%

Wet87.9%

Snow93.2%

Ice86.9%

Comfort96.3%

Value87.4%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	26^th / 31	45.2 m	+3.80 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	24^th / 31	36.4 m	+4.70 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	22^nd / 31	41 m	+4.50 m
Wet CircleHigher is better	7^th / 30	2.7 m/s	-0.40 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	8^th / 31	74.6 km/h	-4.30 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 31	9.7 m	+0.50 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	22^nd / 31	233 N	-21.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	25^th / 31	17.5 m	+2.30 m
NoiseLower is better	22^nd / 31	73 dB	+2.70 dB
WearHigher is better	7^th / 31	62400 KM	-18,600.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 31	5.6 l/100km	Best in this discipline
AbrasionLower is better	7^th / 31	59 mg/km/t	+9.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/70
Origin: China
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 112.00

The Apollo Aspire XP Winter receives only adequate ratings on dry roads and satisfactory on wet and winter surfaces, resulting in adequate overall driving safety and satisfactory environmental performance for an adequate overall judgment. On dry roads, it provides barely adequate steering feedback with imprecise handling requiring frequent corrections as the test vehicle doesn't follow consistent radii, plus oversteering tendencies during dynamic maneuvers rated as just adequate, though braking distances are good. On wet surfaces, it narrowly misses good overall ratings despite good braking performance, with satisfactory aquaplaning resistance and handling due to moderate grip levels and the need for better force combination. In winter conditions, it also misses good ratings despite good snow and ice braking performance, but only satisfactory snow traction and handling with early under/oversteering tendencies and moderate limit performance. This Dutch-manufactured tyre receives satisfactory environmental ratings with good predicted mileage and tyre wear, but satisfactory efficiency due to low fuel consumption offset by high weight.

Dry94.5%

Wet87.4%

Snow92.1%

Ice91.6%

Comfort95%

Value77%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	10^th / 31	43.8 m	+2.40 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	12^th / 31	34.2 m	+2.50 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	12^th / 31	38.9 m	+2.40 m
Wet CircleHigher is better	12^th / 30	2.5 m/s	-0.60 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	16^th / 31	72.6 km/h	-6.30 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	19^th / 31	9.8 m	+0.60 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	24^th / 31	230 N	-24.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	9^th / 31	16.6 m	+1.40 m
NoiseLower is better	26^th / 31	74 dB	+3.70 dB
WearHigher is better	19^th / 31	51900 KM	-29,100.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	16^th / 31	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	24^th / 31	73 mg/km/t	+23.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/72
Origin: Netherlands
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 133.00

The Radar Dimax Winter receives poor overall driving safety ratings due to pronounced weaknesses on wet roads, despite satisfactory dry performance and good winter ratings, and achieves satisfactory environmental performance despite high weight. On dry roads, it provides only adequate precision and steering feedback requiring frequent corrections, with oversteering tendencies during evasive maneuvers and adequate limit behavior, though braking distances are still good. On wet surfaces, it receives poor ratings overall with very early under/oversteering tendencies and poor force combination compared to other test products, plus low grip and limit performance, though it manages satisfactory ratings for braking and aquaplaning resistance. In winter conditions, it achieves good ratings with short braking distances on snow and ice, good snow traction, and good handling with precise control and good limit performance through effective force combination. This Chinese-manufactured tyre receives satisfactory environmental ratings despite very high predicted mileage and good tyre wear due to high weight that results in only satisfactory efficiency despite low fuel consumption, plus adequate sustainability ratings.

Dry93.9%

Wet83.8%

Snow96.4%

Ice96.2%

Comfort97.2%

Value97.2%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	15^th / 31	44.1 m	+2.70 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	25^th / 31	36.7 m	+5.00 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	25^th / 31	41.7 m	+5.20 m
Wet CircleHigher is better	12^th / 30	2.5 m/s	-0.60 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	28^th / 31	67.7 km/h	-11.20 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	4^th / 31	9.5 m	+0.30 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	5^th / 31	244 N	-10.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 31	15.8 m	+0.60 m
NoiseLower is better	15^th / 31	72.3 dB	+2.00 dB
WearHigher is better	1^st / 31	81000 KM	Best in this discipline
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	16^th / 31	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	3^rd / 31	53 mg/km/t	+3.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: C/B/72
Origin: Thailand
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 99.00

The Nankang Winter Activa 4 receives poor ratings on dry and winter roads resulting in poor overall driving safety, with only satisfactory wet performance and adequate environmental ratings for a poor overall judgment. On dry roads, it shows poor responsiveness and steering feedback with very imprecise handling requiring constant corrections, oversteering tendencies during dynamic maneuvers with adequate limit behavior, and narrowly misses good braking distances. On wet surfaces, it achieves only satisfactory ratings across all criteria including braking, aquaplaning resistance, and handling with moderate grip levels and the need for better force combination. In winter conditions, it receives poor ratings overall despite satisfactory snow braking and traction performance, with poor handling due to inadequate force combination resulting in very imprecise control, very low limits, and early under/oversteering tendencies, plus adequate ice braking performance. This Chinese-manufactured tyre receives adequate environmental ratings with the lowest predicted mileage in the test, satisfactory tyre wear, and narrowly missing good efficiency ratings.

Dry92.4%

Wet85.6%

Snow86.2%

Ice79.6%

Comfort97.6%

Value65.1%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	21^st / 31	44.8 m	+3.40 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	21^st / 31	35.6 m	+3.90 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	24^th / 31	41.4 m	+4.90 m
Wet CircleHigher is better	12^th / 30	2.5 m/s	-0.60 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	20^th / 31	71.9 km/h	-7.00 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	26^th / 31	10.3 m	+1.10 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	29^th / 31	212 N	-42.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	29^th / 31	19.1 m	+3.90 m
NoiseLower is better	13^th / 31	72 dB	+1.70 dB
WearHigher is better	31^st / 31	34200 KM	-46,800.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	29^th / 31	5.9 l/100km	+0.30 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	31^st / 31	88 mg/km/t	+38.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/71
Origin: China
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 112.00

The Landsail Winter Lander receives poor ratings on winter roads resulting in poor overall driving safety, with only adequate dry performance and narrowly missing good wet ratings, plus satisfactory environmental performance for a poor overall judgment. On dry roads, it shows barely adequate responsiveness and steering feedback with very imprecise handling requiring constant corrections, oversteering tendencies during dynamic maneuvers with adequate limit behavior, but good braking performance. On wet surfaces, it narrowly misses good overall ratings with good braking distances but only satisfactory aquaplaning resistance and handling due to moderate grip levels and the need for better force combination. In winter conditions, it receives poor ratings with poor snow braking and handling performance due to inadequate force combination resulting in very imprecise control and very low limits with early under/oversteering tendencies, though it achieves adequate snow traction and good ice braking. This Chinese-manufactured tyre receives satisfactory environmental ratings with barely satisfactory predicted mileage, low tyre wear, slightly elevated weight, but good fuel consumption.

Dry97.4%

Wet89%

Snow74%

Ice91%

Comfort98.2%

Value75.6%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	5^th / 31	42.5 m	+1.10 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	5^th / 31	32.8 m	+1.10 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	4^th / 31	36.9 m	+0.40 m
Wet CircleHigher is better	12^th / 30	2.5 m/s	-0.60 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	22^nd / 31	71.1 km/h	-7.80 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	31^st / 31	12.2 m	+3.00 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	31^st / 31	185 N	-69.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	10^th / 31	16.7 m	+1.50 m
NoiseLower is better	7^th / 31	71.6 dB	+1.30 dB
WearHigher is better	21^st / 31	51000 KM	-30,000.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	16^th / 31	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	27^th / 31	77 mg/km/t	+27.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: C/B/72
Origin: China
3PMSF: Yes

The Petlas SnowMaster 2 Sport receives poor ratings on dry and winter roads resulting in poor overall driving safety, with satisfactory wet and environmental performance for a poor overall judgment. On dry roads, it shows poor responsiveness and steering feedback with very imprecise handling requiring constant corrections, oversteering tendencies during dynamic maneuvers with adequate limit behavior, though braking distances are still good. On wet surfaces, it achieves only satisfactory ratings overall with satisfactory braking and longitudinal aquaplaning but only adequate lateral aquaplaning and handling due to weak grip levels, low limits, and inadequate force combination. In winter conditions, it receives poor ratings despite satisfactory snow braking and traction, with poor handling performance due to inadequate force combination resulting in very imprecise control and very low limits with early under/oversteering tendencies, though it narrowly misses good ice braking ratings. This Turkish-manufactured tyre receives satisfactory environmental ratings, missing good predicted mileage but achieving good tyre wear ratings, with good fuel consumption offset by slightly above-average weight.

Dry94.3%

Wet77.9%

Snow87.9%

Ice89.9%

Comfort95.9%

Value76.2%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	12^th / 31	43.9 m	+2.50 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	20^th / 31	35.5 m	+3.80 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	22^nd / 31	41 m	+4.50 m
Wet CircleHigher is better	27^th / 30	2 m/s	-1.10 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	30^th / 31	65.8 km/h	-13.10 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	28^th / 31	10.4 m	+1.20 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	28^th / 31	222 N	-32.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	17^th / 31	16.9 m	+1.70 m
NoiseLower is better	24^th / 31	73.3 dB	+3.00 dB
WearHigher is better	27^th / 31	46300 KM	-34,700.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 31	5.6 l/100km	Best in this discipline
AbrasionLower is better	21^st / 31	71 mg/km/t	+21.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: C/B/72
Origin: Turkey
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 128.00

The Imperial Snowdragon UHP receives poor overall driving safety ratings due to pronounced weaknesses on wet roads, despite satisfactory dry and winter performance, though it achieves good environmental ratings for a poor overall judgment. On dry roads, it shows weaknesses in precision and steering feedback requiring constant corrections, with oversteering tendencies during evasive maneuvers and satisfactory limit behavior, though braking distances are still good. On wet surfaces, it receives poor ratings overall with very early under/oversteering tendencies and poor force combination compared to other test products, plus very low grip and limit performance, with only satisfactory braking and longitudinal aquaplaning but adequate lateral aquaplaning. In winter conditions, it achieves satisfactory ratings overall with satisfactory snow and ice braking plus snow traction, but only adequate handling due to imprecise control, low limits, and early under/oversteering tendencies requiring better force combination. This Chinese-manufactured tyre receives clearly good environmental ratings with good predicted mileage, low tyre wear, and good efficiency thanks to low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry92.8%

Wet73%

Snow89.3%

Ice87.4%

Comfort97.1%

Value85.5%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	20^th / 31	44.6 m	+3.20 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	26^th / 31	37.8 m	+6.10 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	26^th / 31	43.6 m	+7.10 m
Wet CircleHigher is better	29^th / 30	1.8 m/s	-1.30 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	25^th / 31	68.7 km/h	-10.20 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	26^th / 31	10.3 m	+1.10 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	26^th / 31	227 N	-27.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	21^st / 31	17.4 m	+2.20 m
NoiseLower is better	16^th / 31	72.4 dB	+2.10 dB
WearHigher is better	11^th / 31	59300 KM	-21,700.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	16^th / 31	5.8 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	5^th / 31	57 mg/km/t	+7.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: C/C/72
Origin: China
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 97.00

The Goodride SW608 receives poor overall driving safety ratings due to pronounced weaknesses on wet roads, despite adequate dry and winter performance, plus satisfactory environmental performance for a poor overall judgment. On dry roads, it shows only adequate precision and steering feedback requiring frequent corrections, with significant oversteering tendencies and adequate limit behavior, narrowly missing good braking distances. On wet surfaces, it receives poor ratings overall with very early under/oversteering tendencies and poor force combination compared to other test products, plus very low grip and limits, though braking and aquaplaning resistance are rated as satisfactory. In winter conditions, it achieves adequate ratings overall with satisfactory snow and ice braking plus snow traction, but barely adequate handling due to imprecise control, low limits, and early under/oversteering tendencies requiring better force combination. This Chinese-manufactured tyre receives satisfactory environmental ratings due to moderate predicted mileage, despite good tyre wear and efficiency ratings.

Dry92%

Wet81.2%

Snow87.7%

Ice83.5%

Comfort95.8%

Value75.5%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	23^rd / 31	45 m	+3.60 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	27^th / 31	38.5 m	+6.80 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	27^th / 31	44.7 m	+8.20 m
Wet CircleHigher is better	20^th / 30	2.4 m/s	-0.70 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	18^th / 31	72.1 km/h	-6.80 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	29^th / 31	10.5 m	+1.30 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	27^th / 31	223 N	-31.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	28^th / 31	18.2 m	+3.00 m
NoiseLower is better	25^th / 31	73.4 dB	+3.10 dB
WearHigher is better	24^th / 31	48400 KM	-32,600.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	8^th / 31	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	25^th / 31	75 mg/km/t	+25.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/C/72
Origin: China
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 96.00

The Syron Everest 2 receives poor ratings on dry and wet roads resulting in poor overall driving safety despite very good winter performance, plus satisfactory environmental performance for a poor overall judgment. On dry roads, it shows poor responsiveness and steering feedback with very imprecise handling requiring constant corrections, oversteering tendencies during dynamic maneuvers with adequate limit behavior, and only satisfactory braking distances. On wet surfaces, it receives poor ratings overall with very early under/oversteering tendencies and poor force combination compared to other test products, plus very low grip and limits, with poor braking and lateral aquaplaning but adequate longitudinal aquaplaning. In winter conditions, it achieves the best results in the test with very good ratings across all criteria including snow and ice braking, snow traction, and handling with excellent force combination allowing absolutely safe and precise control with very high limits. This Chinese-manufactured tyre receives satisfactory environmental ratings with satisfactory predicted mileage, tyre wear, and weight, good fuel consumption, though production residues on new tyres that end up in the environment are noted negatively.

Dry90%

Wet57.4%

Snow100%

Ice100%

Comfort97.5%

Value70.3%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	30^th / 31	46 m	+4.60 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	31^st / 31	47.1 m	+15.40 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	31^st / 31	53 m	+16.50 m
Wet CircleHigher is better	30^th / 30	1.3 m/s	-1.80 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	31^st / 31	61.6 km/h	-17.30 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	1^st / 31	9.2 m	Best in this discipline
Snow TractionHigher is better	1^st / 31	254 N	Best in this discipline
Ice BrakingLower is better	1^st / 31	15.2 m	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	14^th / 31	72.1 dB	+1.80 dB
WearHigher is better	30^th / 31	41800 KM	-39,200.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	8^th / 31	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	29^th / 31	85 mg/km/t	+35.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/C/72
Origin: China
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 126.00

The CST Medallion Winter WCP1 receives satisfactory ratings on dry and wet roads but poor winter performance, resulting in poor overall driving safety despite satisfactory environmental performance for a poor overall judgment. On dry roads, it shows only adequate precision and steering feedback requiring frequent corrections, with significant oversteering tendencies and adequate limit behavior, but achieves satisfactory ratings overall thanks to above-average braking distances. On wet surfaces, it achieves satisfactory ratings with good braking and longitudinal aquaplaning but only satisfactory lateral aquaplaning and adequate handling due to weak grip, low limits, and inadequate force combination. In winter conditions, it receives poor ratings despite satisfactory snow braking and traction, with poor handling performance due to inadequate force combination resulting in very imprecise control and very low limits with early under/oversteering tendencies, plus only adequate ice braking. This Turkish-manufactured tyre receives satisfactory environmental ratings with good predicted mileage and tyre wear, but satisfactory efficiency due to high weight despite good fuel consumption impact.

Dry95.6%

Wet86.4%

Snow80.9%

Ice78.8%

Comfort93.1%

Value79.3%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	8^th / 31	43.3 m	+1.90 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	19^th / 31	35.3 m	+3.60 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	17^th / 31	40.2 m	+3.70 m
Wet CircleHigher is better	12^th / 30	2.5 m/s	-0.60 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	6^th / 31	75.1 km/h	-3.80 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	30^th / 31	10.9 m	+1.70 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	30^th / 31	198 N	-56.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	30^th / 31	19.3 m	+4.10 m
NoiseLower is better	31^st / 31	75.5 dB	+5.20 dB
WearHigher is better	14^th / 31	55400 KM	-25,600.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	29^th / 31	5.9 l/100km	+0.30 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	17^th / 31	68 mg/km/t	+18.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/B/71
Origin: China
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 93.00

The Star Performer Stratos UHP receives just satisfactory ratings on dry roads and clearly satisfactory on winter surfaces, but poor on wet roads, resulting in poor overall driving safety despite good environmental performance for a poor overall judgment. On dry roads, it shows adequate responsiveness and steering feedback with imprecise handling requiring constant corrections, oversteering tendencies during dynamic maneuvers with adequate limit behavior, and just manages good braking distances. On wet surfaces, it receives poor ratings overall with very early under/oversteering tendencies and poor force combination compared to other test products, plus very low grip and limit performance, with only adequate braking and lateral aquaplaning but satisfactory longitudinal aquaplaning. In winter conditions, it achieves satisfactory ratings overall with good snow braking and traction performance, but only satisfactory handling and ice braking with adequately precise control, moderate limits, and early under/oversteering tendencies requiring better force combination. This Chinese-manufactured tyre receives clearly good environmental ratings with very high predicted mileage, good tyre wear, and good efficiency thanks to low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry93.2%

Wet76.3%

Snow93.6%

Ice87.4%

Comfort97.8%

Value85.2%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	18^th / 31	44.4 m	+3.00 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	28^th / 31	39.9 m	+8.20 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	28^th / 31	47.1 m	+10.60 m
Wet CircleHigher is better	26^th / 30	2.2 m/s	-0.90 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	29^th / 31	66.8 km/h	-12.10 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	22^nd / 31	9.9 m	+0.70 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	11^th / 31	239 N	-15.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	21^st / 31	17.4 m	+2.20 m
NoiseLower is better	11^th / 31	71.9 dB	+1.60 dB
WearHigher is better	10^th / 31	60000 KM	-21,000.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 31	5.6 l/100km	Best in this discipline
AbrasionLower is better	11^th / 31	62 mg/km/t	+12.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/C/72
Origin: China
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 95.00

The Tomket Snowroad Pro 3 receives adequate ratings on dry roads, satisfactory on winter surfaces, but poor on wet roads, resulting in poor overall driving safety despite good environmental performance for a poor overall judgment. On dry roads, it shows barely adequate responsiveness and steering feedback with very imprecise handling requiring constant corrections, oversteering tendencies during dynamic maneuvers with adequate limit behavior, and narrowly missing good braking distances. On wet surfaces, it receives poor ratings overall with very early under/oversteering tendencies and poor force combination compared to other test products, plus very low grip and limit performance, with only satisfactory ratings for braking and aquaplaning resistance. In winter conditions, it achieves satisfactory ratings across all criteria including snow and ice braking, snow traction, and handling, though control isn't particularly precise with moderate limits and early under/oversteering tendencies requiring better force combination. This Chinese-manufactured tyre receives clearly good environmental ratings with very high predicted mileage rated as very good, low tyre wear, and good efficiency thanks to low weight and fuel consumption.

Dry92.4%

Wet80.2%

Snow92.9%

Ice95.6%

Comfort98.2%

Value89.7%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	21^st / 31	44.8 m	+3.40 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	29^th / 31	40.4 m	+8.70 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	29^th / 31	47.3 m	+10.80 m
Wet CircleHigher is better	12^th / 30	2.5 m/s	-0.60 m/s
Straight AquaHigher is better	26^th / 31	67.9 km/h	-11.00 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	23^rd / 31	10 m	+0.80 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	13^th / 31	238 N	-16.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	4^th / 31	15.9 m	+0.70 m
NoiseLower is better	7^th / 31	71.6 dB	+1.30 dB
WearHigher is better	5^th / 31	66500 KM	-14,500.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 31	5.6 l/100km	Best in this discipline
AbrasionLower is better	6^th / 31	58 mg/km/t	+8.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/C/72
Origin: China
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 107.00

The Evergreen EW66 receives poor ratings on all three surfaces, with wet road performance being the main factor in the overall downgrade, plus satisfactory environmental performance due to low predicted mileage for a poor overall judgment. On dry roads, it shows poor responsiveness and steering feedback with very imprecise handling requiring constant corrections, oversteering tendencies during dynamic maneuvers with adequate limit behavior, and only satisfactory braking distances. On wet surfaces, it receives poor ratings overall with very early under/oversteering tendencies and poor force combination compared to other test products, plus very low grip and limit performance, with only adequate braking and lateral aquaplaning but satisfactory longitudinal aquaplaning. In winter conditions, it also receives poor ratings due to poor ice braking performance, despite good snow performance with good braking, traction, and handling that combines forces well with safe, precise control and good limits. This Chinese-manufactured tyre receives satisfactory environmental ratings with satisfactory predicted mileage and weight, but good tyre wear and fuel consumption.

Dry89.6%

Wet43.9%

Snow93.8%

Ice72%

Comfort96.7%

Value74.9%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (11)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	31^st / 31	46.2 m	+4.80 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	30^th / 31	42.3 m	+10.60 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	30^th / 31	47.7 m	+11.20 m
Straight AquaHigher is better	24^th / 31	70.8 km/h	-8.10 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 31	9.7 m	+0.50 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	17^th / 31	236 N	-18.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	31^st / 31	21.1 m	+5.90 m
NoiseLower is better	19^th / 31	72.7 dB	+2.40 dB
WearHigher is better	26^th / 31	47700 KM	-33,300.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	8^th / 31	5.7 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	26^th / 31	76 mg/km/t	+26.00 mg/km/t

EU Label: D/C/72
3PMSF: Yes
Price: 133.00

More tyre tests

Cross-check this test

All tyre tests

Where these tyres were tested again, and how the verdict held up.

Auto Bild2025

2025 Winter Tyre Braking Test - 52 Sets!

225/40 R1851 tyres tested

20 of these 31 tyres tested again

Winner there

Dunlop Winter Response 2

This test’s winner finished 3^rd there

Auto Bild2026

2026 Winter Tyre Braking Test - 50 Sets

245/45 R1950 tyres tested

16 of these 31 tyres tested again

Winner there

Pirelli P Zero Winter 2

This test’s winner finished 9^th there

Auto Bild2023

2023 Winter Tyre Test 54 Set Braking Test

225/45 R1854 tyres tested

16 of these 31 tyres tested again

Winner there

Bridgestone Blizzak LM005

This test’s winner finished 3^rd there

More tyre tests2026 Auto Bild Winter Tyre Test 2026 Tire Rack New Winter Tyre Test 2026 Auto Bild Sportscars Winter Tyre Test The BEST Winter Tyres for 2026/27 All tests: Winter Tyres

Best tyresBest Winter Tyres Best UHP Winter Tyres Best Studless Winter Tyres

Discussion

4 comments

Alper Pala Dec 29, 2025 archived

Momo was shown 8th , now it says 9th. What’s changed?

#10476
1. TyreReviews Alper Pala Dec 29, 2025 archived
  
  It's still showing as joint 8th for me?
  
  #10477
  1. Alper Pala TyreReviews Dec 30, 2025 archived
    
    In ADAC test result placement, yesterday it was shown 8th- Nokian , 9th-Momo and 10- Ceat.. and now yes you’re right! it’s 8th- Nokian & Momo, 10 - Ceat.. so, who’s 9th now? a ghost! :)
    
    #10478
    1. TyreReviews Alper Pala Dec 30, 2025 archived
      
      There's two tires in 8th place that tied on points according to the adac grading :)
      Maybe if you went to the results tab it doesn't show placement so momo would look to be in 9th.
      
      #10479

Menu

Tyre shortlist

The evidence behind the verdict

Test setup & methodology

Recorded test conditions

Dry

Wet

Snow

Ice

Comfort

Value

Results

Cross-check this test