Test Charts / Autozurnal

2025 Autozurnal Winter Tyre Test

Compare each discipline in the tested size. See the measured result, position and gap to the best tyre, then read the verdict for the trade-offs behind the finishing order.

Tested size: 215/65 R17
Tyres tested: 7
Disciplines: 12
Test vehicle: VW Tiguan

Read the measurements, not just the rank

Lower is better for braking distances and lap times; higher is better for subjective scores and aquaplaning speed. Bars start at zero. Read the gap alongside the position: adjacent tyres can be separated by very different margins.

Positions and gaps always refer to the full test field within each group. Selecting tyres does not recalculate rankings or change the best-in-test benchmark.

Dry

Dry Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Michelin Alpin 7	44.9 m	Best	0 km/h
1Ceat WinterDrive SUV	44.9 m	Best	0 km/h
3Tomket Snowroad SUV 3	45.6 m	+0.70 m	16 km/h
4Barum Polaris 6	46 m	+1.10 m	20 km/h
5Riken Riken SUV Snow	46.2 m	+1.30 m	22 km/h
6Kormoran Kormoran SUV Snow	46.4 m	+1.50 m	23 km/h
7Lassa Competus Winter 2	48.3 m	+3.40 m	34 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 7.6% (3.4 m ≈ 0.8 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Lassa Competus Winter 2 would still be travelling at 34 km/h when the Michelin Alpin 7 had stopped.

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

Dry Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Alpin 7	50.8 s	Best
2Tomket Snowroad SUV 3	51 s	+0.20 s
3Lassa Competus Winter 2	51.2 s	+0.40 s
4Ceat WinterDrive SUV	51.4 s	+0.60 s
5Barum Polaris 6	51.8 s	+1.00 s
6Riken Riken SUV Snow	52.3 s	+1.50 s
7Kormoran Kormoran SUV Snow	52.4 s	+1.60 s

The difference between best and worst was 3.1% (1.6 s).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Michelin Alpin 7	52.4 m	Best	0 km/h
2Ceat WinterDrive SUV	55.2 m	+2.80 m	29 km/h
3Lassa Competus Winter 2	55.4 m	+3.00 m	30 km/h
4Barum Polaris 6	56.3 m	+3.90 m	34 km/h
5Riken Riken SUV Snow	60.3 m	+7.90 m	47 km/h
6Kormoran Kormoran SUV Snow	60.6 m	+8.20 m	48 km/h
7Tomket Snowroad SUV 3	67.2 m	+14.80 m	61 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 28.2% (14.8 m ≈ 3.3 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Tomket Snowroad SUV 3 would still be travelling at 61 km/h when the Michelin Alpin 7 had stopped.

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

Wet Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Alpin 7	88.5 s	Best
2Barum Polaris 6	90.3 s	+1.80 s
3Lassa Competus Winter 2	90.5 s	+2.00 s
4Ceat WinterDrive SUV	90.6 s	+2.10 s
5Kormoran Kormoran SUV Snow	93.4 s	+4.90 s
5Riken Riken SUV Snow	93.4 s	+4.90 s
7Tomket Snowroad SUV 3	100.4 s	+11.90 s

The difference between best and worst was 13.4% (11.9 s).

Wet Circle
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Tomket Snowroad SUV 3	13.59 m/s	Best
2Riken Riken SUV Snow	13.31 m/s	-0.28 m/s
3Kormoran Kormoran SUV Snow	13.28 m/s	-0.31 m/s
4Lassa Competus Winter 2	12.73 m/s	-0.86 m/s
5Barum Polaris 6	12.7 m/s	-0.89 m/s
6Michelin Alpin 7	12.62 m/s	-0.97 m/s
7Ceat WinterDrive SUV	12.61 m/s	-0.98 m/s

The difference between best and worst was 7.2% (0.98 m/s).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Alpin 7	84.3 km/h	Best
2Lassa Competus Winter 2	81.7 km/h	-2.60 km/h
3Ceat WinterDrive SUV	80.2 km/h	-4.10 km/h
4Barum Polaris 6	79.8 km/h	-4.50 km/h
5Kormoran Kormoran SUV Snow	76.9 km/h	-7.40 km/h
6Riken Riken SUV Snow	76.6 km/h	-7.70 km/h
7Tomket Snowroad SUV 3	73.6 km/h	-10.70 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 12.7% (10.7 Km/H).

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Tomket Snowroad SUV 3	100.4 m/sec2	Best
2Kormoran Kormoran SUV Snow	93.4 m/sec2	-7.00 m/sec2
2Riken Riken SUV Snow	93.4 m/sec2	-7.00 m/sec2
4Ceat WinterDrive SUV	90.6 m/sec2	-9.80 m/sec2
5Lassa Competus Winter 2	90.5 m/sec2	-9.90 m/sec2
6Barum Polaris 6	90.3 m/sec2	-10.10 m/sec2
7Michelin Alpin 7	88.5 m/sec2	-11.90 m/sec2

The difference between best and worst was 11.9% (11.9 m/sec2).

Snow

Snow Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Barum Polaris 6	24.7 m	Best	0 km/h
2Kormoran Kormoran SUV Snow	25.1 m	+0.40 m	16 km/h
3Ceat WinterDrive SUV	25.6 m	+0.90 m	24 km/h
3Riken Riken SUV Snow	25.6 m	+0.90 m	24 km/h
5Michelin Alpin 7	25.9 m	+1.20 m	28 km/h
6Lassa Competus Winter 2	26.2 m	+1.50 m	31 km/h
7Tomket Snowroad SUV 3	26.3 m	+1.60 m	32 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 6.5% (1.6 m ≈ 0.4 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Tomket Snowroad SUV 3 would still be travelling at 32 km/h when the Barum Polaris 6 had stopped.

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

Snow Traction
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Barum Polaris 6	9 s	Best
2Ceat WinterDrive SUV	9.25 s	+0.25 s
3Kormoran Kormoran SUV Snow	9.27 s	+0.27 s
4Tomket Snowroad SUV 3	9.43 s	+0.43 s
4Michelin Alpin 7	9.43 s	+0.43 s
6Riken Riken SUV Snow	9.46 s	+0.46 s
7Lassa Competus Winter 2	9.67 s	+0.67 s

The difference between best and worst was 7.4% (0.67 s).

Snow Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Alpin 7	76.1 s	Best
2Barum Polaris 6	76.6 s	+0.50 s
2Kormoran Kormoran SUV Snow	76.6 s	+0.50 s
4Lassa Competus Winter 2	77.1 s	+1.00 s
4Ceat WinterDrive SUV	77.1 s	+1.00 s
6Riken Riken SUV Snow	77.6 s	+1.50 s
7Tomket Snowroad SUV 3	78.7 s	+2.60 s

The difference between best and worst was 3.4% (2.6 s).

Comfort

Noise
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Barum Polaris 6	70.4 dB	Best
2Ceat WinterDrive SUV	70.7 dB	+0.30 dB
3Michelin Alpin 7	71.5 dB	+1.10 dB
4Tomket Snowroad SUV 3	72.1 dB	+1.70 dB
5Kormoran Kormoran SUV Snow	73.1 dB	+2.70 dB
6Riken Riken SUV Snow	73.5 dB	+3.10 dB
7Lassa Competus Winter 2	73.8 dB	+3.40 dB

The difference between best and worst was 4.8% (3.4 dB).

Value

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Barum Polaris 6	6.99 kg/t	Best	£0
2Michelin Alpin 7	7.25 kg/t	+0.26 kg/t	£16
3Tomket Snowroad SUV 3	7.77 kg/t	+0.78 kg/t	£49
4Lassa Competus Winter 2	8 kg/t	+1.01 kg/t	£64
5Kormoran Kormoran SUV Snow	8.71 kg/t	+1.72 kg/t	£108
6Ceat WinterDrive SUV	8.76 kg/t	+1.77 kg/t	£112
6Riken Riken SUV Snow	8.76 kg/t	+1.77 kg/t	£112

The difference between best and worst was 25.3% (1.77 kg / t). Over 19,000 km a year at £1.45/L, the Ceat WinterDrive SUV uses about 77 L (£112) more fuel than the Barum Polaris 6.

Adjust the assumptions

Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions. These calculators use the full test field, independently of your tyre selection above.

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.