Falken Azenis FK520 vs Vredestein Ultrac Pro
The FK520's story is more specialized: it frequently shines in outright stopping power and ownership metrics (wear/value), yet it's repeatedly marked down for steering precision and wet-cornering confidence. If you're choosing between them, the key question is whether you prioritize braking and longevity (Falken) or more rounded dynamic ability with lower noise and strong aquaplaning margins (Vredestein).
Test Results
Independent comparison tyre tests are the best source of data to get tyre information from, and the good news is there have been six tests which compare both tyres directly!
| Tyre | Test Wins | Performance |
|---|---|---|
| Vredestein Ultrac Pro | six |
While it might look like the Vredestein Ultrac Pro is better than the Falken Azenis FK520 purely based on the higher number of test wins, tyres are very complicated objects which means where one tyre is better than the other can be more important in real world use.
Let's look at how the two tyres compare across multiple tyre test categories.
Key Strengths
- Strong braking performance trend (wins 4/6 in dry braking and 4/6 in wet braking; e.g., 27.8 m vs 28.8 m wet braking in the 50-tyre test)
- Best-in-comparison wear/value efficiency (e.g., Autobild 52,080 km vs 42,100 km; ADAC 46,700 km vs 40,100 km; value metric wins in every reported test)
- Competitive efficiency metrics in several tests (often low rolling resistance / good fuel consumption, e.g., ADAC 5.6 vs 5.7 l/100 km)
- Good aquaplaning capability in specific scenarios and strong loose-surface traction in the SUV test (sand traction win: 10,718 N vs 10,147 N; grass traction win: 2,658 N vs 2,548 N)
- More complete, higher-scoring overall performance across shared tests (consistently better overall ranks; especially strong in the 2026 SUV test: 2/9 vs 8/9)
- Stronger handling, especially in the wet (wins wet handling in 4/4 appearances; better subjective wet handling where measured)
- Better refinement: consistently lower noise and often lower rolling resistance (SUV noise: 69.1 dB vs 71.3 dB; SUV rolling resistance: 6.92 vs 7.35 kg/t)
- Stronger aquaplaning safety margins in key tests (SUV straight aquaplaning: 89.3 vs 85.4 km/h; SUV curved aquaplaning: 2.5 vs 2.18 m/s²)
Dry Braking
Looking at data from six tyre tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during four dry braking tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 stopped the vehicle in 0.95% less distance than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Dry Braking: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Dry Braking winner was calculated >>
Dry Handling [s]
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during one dry handling [s] tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was 0.66% faster around a lap than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Dry Handling [s]: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Dry Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during two dry handling [km/h] tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was 1.57% faster around a lap than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Dry Handling [Km/H]: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Subj. Dry Handling
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during two subj. dry handling tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro scored 14.31% more points than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Subj. Dry Handling: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Subj. Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Braking
Looking at data from six tyre tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during four wet braking tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 stopped the vehicle in 0.46% less distance than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Wet Braking: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Wet Braking winner was calculated >>
Wet Braking - Concrete
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during one wet braking - concrete tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro stopped the vehicle in 0.53% less distance than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Wet Braking - Concrete: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Wet Braking - Concrete winner was calculated >>
Wet Handling [s]
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during two wet handling [s] tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was 1.98% faster around a wet lap than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Wet Handling [s]: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during two wet handling [km/h] tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was 0.95% faster around a wet lap than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Wet Handling [Km/H]: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Subj. Wet Handling
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during two subj. wet handling tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro scored 16.46% more points than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Subj. Wet Handling: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Subj. Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Circle
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during one wet circle tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was 0.06% faster around a wet circle than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Wet Circle: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Wet Circle winner was calculated >>
Straight Aqua
Looking at data from five tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during four straight aqua tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro floated at a 1.15% higher speed than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Straight Aqua: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Straight Aqua winner was calculated >>
Curved Aquaplaning
Looking at data from four tyre tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during two curved aquaplaning tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 slipped out at a 3.51% higher speed than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Curved Aquaplaning: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Curved Aquaplaning winner was calculated >>
Gravel Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during one gravel handling [km/h] tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was 0.63% faster around a lap than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Gravel Handling [Km/H]: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Gravel Handling winner was calculated >>
Gravel Traction
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during one gravel traction tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro had 0.68% better traction on gravel than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Gravel Traction: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Gravel Traction winner was calculated >>
Sand Traction
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during one sand traction tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 had 5.33% better traction in sand than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Sand Traction: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Sand Traction winner was calculated >>
Grass Traction
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during one grass traction tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 had 4.14% better traction on grass than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Grass Traction: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Grass Traction winner was calculated >>
Subj. Comfort
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during one subj. comfort tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 scored 6.54% more points than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Subj. Comfort: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Subj. Comfort winner was calculated >>
Subj. Noise
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during one subj. noise tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro scored 10.64% more points than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Subj. Noise: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Subj. Noise winner was calculated >>
Noise
Looking at data from four tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during three noise tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro measured 1.44% quieter than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Noise: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Noise winner was calculated >>
Wear
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during three wear tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 is predicted to cover 17.35% miles before reaching 1.6mm than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Wear: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Wear winner was calculated >>
Value
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during three value tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 proved to have a 17.82% better value based on price/1000km than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Value: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Value winner was calculated >>
Rolling Resistance
Looking at data from four tyre tests, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro was better during two rolling resistance tests. On average the Vredestein Ultrac Pro had a 0.49% lower rolling resistance than the Falken Azenis FK520.
Best In Rolling Resistance: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
See how the Rolling Resistance winner was calculated >>
Fuel Consumption
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during one fuel consumption tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 used 1.75% less fuel than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Fuel Consumption: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Fuel Consumption winner was calculated >>
Abrasion
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Falken Azenis FK520 was better during one abrasion tests. On average the Falken Azenis FK520 lost 19.29% less particle wear matter than the Vredestein Ultrac Pro.
Best In Abrasion: Falken Azenis FK520
See how the Abrasion winner was calculated >>
Real World Driver Reviews
Falken Azenis FK520 Driver Reviews
Across 35 reviews, the Falken Azenis FK520 is generally praised as a strong value UHP summer tyre with excellent dry grip, confident braking, and predictable, progressive handling near the limit. Most drivers also report good wet grip and stability, plus low noise and solid comfort for the category, with many expecting or seeing respectable wear. A smaller but recurring concern is performance in standing water (some drivers report aquaplaning sensitivity in heavy rain), and a minority mention ride vibrations/harshness or less precise steering feel versus top-premium rivals.
Based on 38 reviews with an average rating of 83%
Vredestein Ultrac Pro Driver Reviews
Drivers largely praise the Vredestein Ultrac Pro for strong dry and wet grip, confident handling, and notably good ride comfort, with several noting premium feel and value. High-scoring reviews highlight short braking distances, stability, and decent wear for aggressive or heavy vehicles. A minority report concerns include poor performance in very cold (sub-5°C) conditions and one case of premature wear/delamination. Overall, the Ultrac Pro delivers balanced performance with comfort-focused tuning and attractive design.
Based on 6 reviews with an average rating of 81%
Conclusion
The Falken Azenis FK520 counters with two practical, consumer-relevant strengths: braking and running costs. It wins dry braking in 4/6 shared tests (including a notable EVO margin: 33.4 m vs 35.1 m) and wet braking in 4/6 (e.g., 27.8 m vs 28.8 m in the 50-tyre braking test). It also consistently projects longer life and better value (Autobild wear: 52,080 km vs 42,100 km; ADAC wear: 46,700 km vs 40,100 km; and value metrics favor Falken in all three tests reported). The trade-off is that multiple reports describe vague turn-in/delayed response and weaker side guidance, and the results back that up with the Vredestein's stronger wet handling across the board (FK520 wins 0/4 wet handling categories in the shared summary).
Practical takeaway: if you drive quickly on mixed roads and want the safer, more confidence-inspiring tyre when it's wet-plus lower noise-the Ultrac Pro is the better all-round choice. If your priority is shorter braking distances and minimizing cost-per-kilometre (and you can accept less precision at the limit), the FK520 remains a compelling value/performance buy.
Key Differences
- Overall results favor Vredestein heavily: it places ahead in all 6 shared tests (e.g., 2/9 vs 8/9 SUV; 9/20 vs 13/20 Autobild; 5/18 vs 8/18 ADAC).
- Braking vs handling split: Falken more often wins dry/wet braking (4/6 each), while Vredestein dominates wet handling (4/4) and usually leads dry handling/subjective feel.
- Aquaplaning pattern leans Vredestein in the most safety-critical high-speed metrics (SUV straight aquaplaning +4.6% and curved +14.7% for Vredestein), even though Falken can be strong in select aquaplaning subtests.
- Refinement advantage for Vredestein: lower measured noise in multiple tests (e.g., 69.1 vs 71.3 dB in SUV; 71 vs 72 dB in Autobild).
- Running costs favor Falken: consistently higher projected mileage and better value metrics (Autobild +23.7% wear; AZ +23.1% wear; ADAC +16.5% wear).
- Driver confidence/precision: multiple qualitative notes flag FK520's vague/delayed steering and weaker side guidance, while Ultrac Pro is repeatedly described as balanced, predictable, and safe at the limit.
Overall Winner: Vredestein Ultrac Pro
Based on the tyre test data and user reviews we have in our database, the Vredestein Ultrac Pro has demonstrated better overall performance in this comparison. However, as you can see from the spider diagram above, each tyre has its own strengths which should be considered in your final tyre buying choice.Similar Comparisons
Looking for more tyre comparisons? Here are other direct comparisons involving these tyres:
Footnote
This page has been developed using tyre industry testing best practices. This means we are only comparing tests which have had both tyres in the same test.
Why is this important? Tyre testing is heavily affected by things like surface grip levels and surface temperature, which means you can only compare values from the same day. During a tyre test external condition changes are calculated into the overall results, but it is not possible to calculate this between tyre tests performed on different days or at different locations.
As a result you will see other tests on Tyre Reviews which feature both the %s and %s, but as they weren't conducted on the same day, the results are not comparable.
Lots of other websites do this sort of tyre comparison, Tyre Reviews doesn't.
Discussion
- No comments yet — be the first.