Falken Azenis RS820 vs Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
Across three independent tests in large, performance-focused sizes (235/35 R19, 285/30 R20, 295/30 R20), the pattern is consistent: the PS4S finishes materially higher overall (2nd/7, 2nd/4, 5th/9), while the RS820 tends to land mid-to-lower pack (5th/7, 3rd/4, 8th/9). The interesting twist is that the Falken can feel engaging and even nick a dry-handling result in one test, but it struggles to match Michelin's wet braking security, road polish, and broad “usable performance window.”
Test Results
Independent comparison tyre tests are the best source of data to get tyre information from, and the good news is there have been three tests which compare both tyres directly!
| Tyre | Test Wins | Performance |
|---|---|---|
| Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S | three |
While it might look like the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S is better than the Falken Azenis RS820 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
- Engaging, keen steering feel; can be biddable and fun near the limit (noted especially in wet circuit driving)
- Competent dry performance with solid traction out of slow corners; competitive dry braking for the class (though usually not best-in-test)
- Can post strong single-lap results in the dry (EVO dry handling win: 67.47 s vs 67.96 s)
- Value proposition: positioned as the budget-friendlier option in tests, offering acceptable performance for the money
- Consistently shorter braking distances, especially in the wet (e.g., 29.15 m vs 33.63 m in EVO)
- Balanced, precise handling on dry roads; repeatedly top-two level in track-style dry tests
- Strong aquaplaning security overall (wins straight aquaplaning in all three shared tests)
- Best day-to-day refinement and road manners in the EVO test: top road score plus low noise/comfort and excellent steering connection
Dry Braking
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S was better during three dry braking tests. On average the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S stopped the vehicle in 1.23% less distance than the Falken Azenis RS820.
Best In Dry Braking: Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
See how the Dry Braking winner was calculated >>
Dry Handling [s]
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Falken Azenis RS820 was better during one dry handling [s] tests. On average the Falken Azenis RS820 was 0.72% faster around a lap than the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S.
Best In Dry Handling [s]: Falken Azenis RS820
See how the Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Dry Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S was better during two dry handling [km/h] tests. On average the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S was 2.4% faster around a lap than the Falken Azenis RS820.
Best In Dry Handling [Km/H]: Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
See how the Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Subj. Dry Handling
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S was better during one subj. dry handling tests. On average the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S scored 7.14% more points than the Falken Azenis RS820.
Best In Subj. Dry Handling: Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
See how the Subj. Dry Handling winner was calculated >>
Subj. Road Score
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S was better during one subj. road score tests. On average the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S scored 15.42% more points than the Falken Azenis RS820.
Best In Subj. Road Score: Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
See how the Subj. Road Score winner was calculated >>
Wet Braking
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S was better during three wet braking tests. On average the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S stopped the vehicle in 6.18% less distance than the Falken Azenis RS820.
Best In Wet Braking: Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
See how the Wet Braking winner was calculated >>
Wet Handling [s]
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S was better during one wet handling [s] tests. On average the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S was 4.53% faster around a wet lap than the Falken Azenis RS820.
Best In Wet Handling [s]: Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
See how the Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Handling [Km/H]
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S was better during two wet handling [km/h] tests. On average the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S was 0.96% faster around a wet lap than the Falken Azenis RS820.
Best In Wet Handling [Km/H]: Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
See how the Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Subj. Wet Handling
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S was better during one subj. wet handling tests. On average the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S scored 3.57% more points than the Falken Azenis RS820.
Best In Subj. Wet Handling: Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
See how the Subj. Wet Handling winner was calculated >>
Wet Circle
Looking at data from one tyre tests, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S was better during one wet circle tests. On average the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S was 0.36% faster around a wet circle than the Falken Azenis RS820.
Best In Wet Circle: Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
See how the Wet Circle winner was calculated >>
Straight Aqua
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S was better during three straight aqua tests. On average the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S floated at a 1.08% higher speed than the Falken Azenis RS820.
Best In Straight Aqua: Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
See how the Straight Aqua winner was calculated >>
Curved Aquaplaning
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S was better during two curved aquaplaning tests. On average the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S slipped out at a 2.89% higher speed than the Falken Azenis RS820.
Best In Curved Aquaplaning: Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
See how the Curved Aquaplaning winner was calculated >>
Noise
Looking at data from two tyre tests, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S was better during two noise tests. On average the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S measured 1.01% quieter than the Falken Azenis RS820.
Best In Noise: Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
See how the Noise winner was calculated >>
Rolling Resistance
Looking at data from three tyre tests, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S was better during two rolling resistance tests. On average the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S had a 3.7% lower rolling resistance than the Falken Azenis RS820.
Best In Rolling Resistance: Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
See how the Rolling Resistance winner was calculated >>
Real World Driver Reviews
Tyre Reviews also collects real world driver reviews for the Falken Azenis RS820 and Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S.
In total the Falken Azenis RS820 has been reviewed 7 times and drivers have given the tyre 90% overall.
The Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S has been reviewed 156 times and drivers have given the tyre 85% overall.
This means in real world driving, people prefer the Falken Azenis RS820.
Conclusion
The Falken Azenis RS820's case is value and “good fun when conditions suit.” It can deliver keen steering feel and competent pace, including a narrow win in EVO's dry handling stopwatch (67.47 s vs 67.96 s). But multiple reports flag drawbacks that matter for real-world confidence: less refinement, more sensitivity to load changes in the wet, and in some contexts (Sport Auto's powerful BMW M4) an imbalance/instability as speeds rise and grip limits approach. If you want the most complete, confidence-inspiring max-performance summer tyre for mixed road use (including heavy rain), the PS4S remains the safer, more consistent buy; the RS820 only makes sense when price is a primary driver and you can accept the wet/refinement compromises.
Key Differences
- Wet braking is the biggest real-world gap: Michelin is 6-13% shorter in the shared tests (e.g., 29.15 m vs 33.63 m in EVO).
- Overall standings strongly favor Michelin (wins all 3 tests overall); Falken places 8/9 in EVO and mid-pack elsewhere.
- Dry handling: Falken can match or even beat Michelin on a specific layout (EVO stopwatch win), but Michelin is more consistently quick in the larger-size tests (Autobild and Sport Auto).
- Subjective road/refinement: Michelin is markedly more polished (EVO road score 22.7 vs 19.2; testers praise comfort/linearity), while Falken is reported as bassy/harsh over coarse surfaces and ridges.
- Aquaplaning: Michelin is consistently better in straight-line aquaplaning across all tests; curved aquaplaning is mixed (Falken wins one test, but is also reported last in Autobild's curved aquaplaning metric).
- Noise/efficiency tendency: Michelin is generally quieter (e.g., 73.4 vs 74.8 dB in Sport Auto) and often lower rolling resistance, though results vary by test/size (Falken wins rolling resistance once).
Overall Winner: Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
Based on the tyre test data and user reviews we have in our database, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S 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:
Falken Azenis RS820 Top Comparisons
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.