Menu

2022/23 Tyre Reviews Studless Winter Tyre Test

Jonathan Benson
Tested and written by Jonathan Benson
11 min read Updated
Below are all the data points for the 2022/23 Tyre Reviews Studless Winter Tyre Test, displaying how each tyre performed across all test categories. The spider chart below provides a complete overview of performance, where one hundred percent represents the best performance in each category. The larger the area covered by each tyre's plot, the better its overall performance.
How to read these charts: For each test category, data is presented relative to the best performing tire. The direction indicates whether lower or higher values are better - pay close attention to this when interpreting results.

Performance Overview

This radar chart shows relative performance across all test categories, with 100% representing the best performance in each category. Reference tires may have gaps where data is not available.

Continental VikingContact 7
Michelin X Ice Snow
Continental WinterContact TS 870
Pirelli Ice Zero FR
Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
Yokohama iceGUARD iG53
Cooper Weathermaster S100
Federal Himalaya ICEO
Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10

Quick Navigation

Dry Performance Overview

Dry Braking (M)

Spread: 8.22 M (19.9%) | Avg: 46.87 M

Dry braking in meters (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Continental WinterContact TS 870 with a result of 41.27 M. The difference between best and worst was 16.6%.
  1. Continental WinterContact TS 870
    41.27 M
  2. Continental VikingContact 7
    45.87 M
  3. Pirelli Ice Zero FR
    46.66 M
  4. Federal Himalaya ICEO
    46.88 M
  5. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
    47.45 M
  6. Michelin X Ice Snow
    47.88 M
  7. Cooper Weathermaster S100
    49.47 M
  8. Yokohama iceGUARD iG53
    49.49 M

Dry Handling (s)

Spread: 2.77 s (3.9%) | Avg: 72.84 s

Dry handling time in seconds (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Continental WinterContact TS 870 with a result of 71.03 s. The difference between best and worst was 3.8%.
  1. Continental WinterContact TS 870
    71.03 s
  2. Continental VikingContact 7
    72.6 s
  3. Pirelli Ice Zero FR
    72.88 s
  4. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
    72.96 s
  5. Michelin X Ice Snow
    73.01 s
  6. Cooper Weathermaster S100
    73.15 s
  7. Yokohama iceGUARD iG53
    73.31 s
  8. Federal Himalaya ICEO
    73.8 s

Subj. Dry Handling ( Points)

Spread: 30.00 Points (27.3%) | Avg: 96.38 Points

Subjective Dry Handling Score (Higher is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Continental WinterContact TS 870 with a result of 110 Points. The difference between best and worst was 27.3%.
  1. Continental WinterContact TS 870
    110 Points
  2. Continental VikingContact 7
    100 Points
  3. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
    100 Points
  4. Michelin X Ice Snow
    98 Points
  5. Pirelli Ice Zero FR
    98 Points
  6. Yokohama iceGUARD iG53
    95 Points
  7. Cooper Weathermaster S100
    90 Points
  8. Federal Himalaya ICEO
    80 Points

Wet Performance Overview

Wet Braking (M)

Spread: 12.94 M (50.2%) | Avg: 34.71 M

Wet braking in meters (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Continental WinterContact TS 870 with a result of 25.78 M. The difference between best and worst was 33.4%.
  1. Continental WinterContact TS 870
    25.78 M
  2. Federal Himalaya ICEO
    33.61 M
  3. Continental VikingContact 7
    35.03 M
  4. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
    35.21 M
  5. Michelin X Ice Snow
    35.59 M
  6. Pirelli Ice Zero FR
    35.94 M
  7. Cooper Weathermaster S100
    37.76 M
  8. Yokohama iceGUARD iG53
    38.72 M

Wet Handling (s)

Spread: 11.12 s (15%) | Avg: 81.95 s

Wet handling time in seconds (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Continental WinterContact TS 870 with a result of 74.29 s. The difference between best and worst was 13%.
  1. Continental WinterContact TS 870
    74.29 s
  2. Continental VikingContact 7
    80.8 s
  3. Michelin X Ice Snow
    81.55 s
  4. Pirelli Ice Zero FR
    82.65 s
  5. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
    83.2 s
  6. Federal Himalaya ICEO
    83.5 s
  7. Yokohama iceGUARD iG53
    84.16 s
  8. Cooper Weathermaster S100
    85.41 s

Subj. Wet Handling ( Points)

Spread: 45.00 Points (37.5%) | Avg: 92.13 Points

Subjective Wet Handling Score (Higher is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Continental WinterContact TS 870 with a result of 120 Points. The difference between best and worst was 37.5%.
  1. Continental WinterContact TS 870
    120 Points
  2. Michelin X Ice Snow
    100 Points
  3. Continental VikingContact 7
    95 Points
  4. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
    95 Points
  5. Pirelli Ice Zero FR
    92 Points
  6. Cooper Weathermaster S100
    80 Points
  7. Federal Himalaya ICEO
    80 Points
  8. Yokohama iceGUARD iG53
    75 Points

Straight Aqua (Km/H)

Spread: 27.99 Km/H (28.1%) | Avg: 79.24 Km/H

Float Speed in Km/H (Higher is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Continental WinterContact TS 870 with a result of 99.45 Km/H. The difference between best and worst was 28.1%.
  1. Continental WinterContact TS 870
    99.45 Km/H
  2. Michelin X Ice Snow
    80.11 Km/H
  3. Federal Himalaya ICEO
    79.61 Km/H
  4. Cooper Weathermaster S100
    76.46 Km/H
  5. Yokohama iceGUARD iG53
    75.99 Km/H
  6. Pirelli Ice Zero FR
    75.71 Km/H
  7. Continental VikingContact 7
    75.12 Km/H
  8. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
    71.46 Km/H

Curved Aquaplaning (m/sec2)

Spread: 21.60 m/sec2 (27.9%) | Avg: 61.46 m/sec2

Remaining lateral acceleration (Higher is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Continental WinterContact TS 870 with a result of 77.4 m/sec2. The difference between best and worst was 27.9%.
  1. Continental WinterContact TS 870
    77.4 m/sec2
  2. Michelin X Ice Snow
    63.8 m/sec2
  3. Cooper Weathermaster S100
    59.8 m/sec2
  4. Yokohama iceGUARD iG53
    59.4 m/sec2
  5. Pirelli Ice Zero FR
    58.7 m/sec2
  6. Federal Himalaya ICEO
    58.7 m/sec2
  7. Continental VikingContact 7
    58.1 m/sec2
  8. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
    55.8 m/sec2

Snow Performance Overview

Snow Braking (M)

Spread: 0.63 M (4.1%) | Avg: 15.70 M

Snow braking in meters (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Yokohama iceGUARD iG53 with a result of 15.37 M. The difference between best and worst was 3.9%.
  1. Yokohama iceGUARD iG53
    15.37 M
  2. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
    15.5 M
  3. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
    15.51 M
  4. Continental VikingContact 7
    15.63 M
  5. Federal Himalaya ICEO
    15.74 M
  6. Michelin X Ice Snow
    15.81 M
  7. Cooper Weathermaster S100
    15.85 M
  8. Pirelli Ice Zero FR
    15.9 M
  9. Continental WinterContact TS 870
    16 M

Snow Traction (s)

Spread: 0.48 s (8.6%) | Avg: 5.76 s

Snow acceleration time (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 with a result of 5.55 s. The difference between best and worst was 8%.
  1. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
    5.55 s
  2. Continental VikingContact 7
    5.62 s
  3. Pirelli Ice Zero FR
    5.63 s
  4. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
    5.64 s
  5. Michelin X Ice Snow
    5.66 s
  6. Continental WinterContact TS 870
    5.85 s
  7. Yokohama iceGUARD iG53
    5.92 s
  8. Cooper Weathermaster S100
    5.92 s
  9. Federal Himalaya ICEO
    6.03 s

Snow Handling (s)

Spread: 4.39 s (5%) | Avg: 89.15 s

Snow handling time in seconds (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 with a result of 87.73 s. The difference between best and worst was 4.8%.
  1. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
    87.73 s
  2. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
    87.8 s
  3. Pirelli Ice Zero FR
    88 s
  4. Continental VikingContact 7
    88.08 s
  5. Michelin X Ice Snow
    88.56 s
  6. Federal Himalaya ICEO
    89.24 s
  7. Cooper Weathermaster S100
    89.87 s
  8. Yokohama iceGUARD iG53
    90.99 s
  9. Continental WinterContact TS 870
    92.12 s

Subj. Snow Handling ( Points)

Spread: 25.00 Points (25%) | Avg: 88.33 Points

Subjective Snow Handling Score (Higher is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Pirelli Ice Zero FR with a result of 100 Points. The difference between best and worst was 25%.
  1. Pirelli Ice Zero FR
    100 Points
  2. Continental VikingContact 7
    95 Points
  3. Michelin X Ice Snow
    95 Points
  4. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
    95 Points
  5. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
    95 Points
  6. Continental WinterContact TS 870
    80 Points
  7. Yokohama iceGUARD iG53
    80 Points
  8. Cooper Weathermaster S100
    80 Points
  9. Federal Himalaya ICEO
    75 Points

Snow Circle (S)

Spread: 1.45 S (5%) | Avg: 29.49 S

Snow Circle Time in Seconds (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 with a result of 28.9 S. The difference between best and worst was 4.8%.
  1. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
    28.9 S
  2. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
    28.98 S
  3. Michelin X Ice Snow
    29.09 S
  4. Pirelli Ice Zero FR
    29.21 S
  5. Continental WinterContact TS 870
    29.33 S
  6. Continental VikingContact 7
    29.49 S
  7. Federal Himalaya ICEO
    29.94 S
  8. Cooper Weathermaster S100
    30.15 S
  9. Yokohama iceGUARD iG53
    30.35 S

Ice Performance Overview

Ice Braking (M)

Spread: 5.01 M (65.1%) | Avg: 10.82 M

Ice braking in meters (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 with a result of 7.7 M. The difference between best and worst was 39.4%.
  1. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
    7.7 M
  2. Michelin X Ice Snow
    10.14 M
  3. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
    10.18 M
  4. Continental VikingContact 7
    10.34 M
  5. Pirelli Ice Zero FR
    10.68 M
  6. Yokohama iceGUARD iG53
    10.97 M
  7. Cooper Weathermaster S100
    11.97 M
  8. Federal Himalaya ICEO
    12.66 M
  9. Continental WinterContact TS 870
    12.71 M

Ice Traction (s)

Spread: 5.95 s (184.2%) | Avg: 6.74 s

Ice acceleration time (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 with a result of 3.23 s. The difference between best and worst was 64.8%.
  1. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
    3.23 s
  2. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
    6.06 s
  3. Continental VikingContact 7
    6.1 s
  4. Michelin X Ice Snow
    6.12 s
  5. Yokohama iceGUARD iG53
    6.41 s
  6. Pirelli Ice Zero FR
    6.51 s
  7. Cooper Weathermaster S100
    7.92 s
  8. Continental WinterContact TS 870
    9.13 s
  9. Federal Himalaya ICEO
    9.18 s

Ice Handling (s)

Spread: 7.82 s (15%) | Avg: 54.97 s

Ice handling time in seconds (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Continental VikingContact 7 with a result of 52.17 s. The difference between best and worst was 13%.
  1. Continental VikingContact 7
    52.17 s
  2. Michelin X Ice Snow
    52.92 s
  3. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
    53.5 s
  4. Pirelli Ice Zero FR
    54.18 s
  5. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
    54.33 s
  6. Cooper Weathermaster S100
    54.63 s
  7. Yokohama iceGUARD iG53
    54.74 s
  8. Federal Himalaya ICEO
    58.28 s
  9. Continental WinterContact TS 870
    59.99 s

Subj. Ice Handling ( Points)

Spread: 30.00 Points (30%) | Avg: 88.33 Points

Subjective Ice Handling Score (Higher is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Michelin X Ice Snow with a result of 100 Points. The difference between best and worst was 30%.
  1. Michelin X Ice Snow
    100 Points
  2. Continental VikingContact 7
    95 Points
  3. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
    95 Points
  4. Pirelli Ice Zero FR
    90 Points
  5. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
    90 Points
  6. Yokohama iceGUARD iG53
    90 Points
  7. Cooper Weathermaster S100
    85 Points
  8. Federal Himalaya ICEO
    80 Points
  9. Continental WinterContact TS 870
    70 Points

Comfort Performance Overview

Subj. Comfort ( Points)

Spread: 10.00 Points (10%) | Avg: 96.25 Points

Subjective Comfort Score (Higher is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 with a result of 100 Points. The difference between best and worst was 10%.
  1. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
    100 Points
  2. Yokohama iceGUARD iG53
    100 Points
  3. Federal Himalaya ICEO
    100 Points
  4. Continental VikingContact 7
    95 Points
  5. Michelin X Ice Snow
    95 Points
  6. Continental WinterContact TS 870
    95 Points
  7. Pirelli Ice Zero FR
    95 Points
  8. Cooper Weathermaster S100
    90 Points

Noise (dB)

Spread: 1.50 dB (2.4%) | Avg: 62.54 dB

Internal noise in dB (Lower is better)

Key Insight: All the tyres in the noise test finished less than 3% apart.
  1. Continental VikingContact 7
    61.9 dB
  2. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
    61.9 dB
  3. Michelin X Ice Snow
    62.1 dB
  4. Continental WinterContact TS 870
    62.1 dB
  5. Pirelli Ice Zero FR
    62.7 dB
  6. Federal Himalaya ICEO
    62.9 dB
  7. Cooper Weathermaster S100
    63.3 dB
  8. Yokohama iceGUARD iG53
    63.4 dB

Value Performance Overview

Rolling Resistance (kg / t)

Spread: 3.29 kg / t (45.4%) | Avg: 8.15 kg / t

Rolling resistance in kg t (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Michelin X Ice Snow with a result of 7.25 kg / t. The difference between best and worst was 31.2%.
  1. Michelin X Ice Snow
    7.25 kg / t
  2. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
    7.34 kg / t
  3. Yokohama iceGUARD iG53
    7.5 kg / t
  4. Continental VikingContact 7
    7.56 kg / t
  5. Continental WinterContact TS 870
    8.02 kg / t
  6. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
    8.29 kg / t
  7. Pirelli Ice Zero FR
    8.38 kg / t
  8. Cooper Weathermaster S100
    8.45 kg / t
  9. Federal Himalaya ICEO
    10.54 kg / t

Overall Findings

Based on the weighted scoring from all tests, here are the overall results:

Position Tyre Score
Michelin X Ice Snow 83.5%
2 Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 83.5%
3 Continental VikingContact 7 83.4%
4 Continental WinterContact TS 870 81.1%
5 Pirelli Ice Zero FR 81%
6 Yokohama iceGUARD iG53 80.8%
7 Cooper Weathermaster S100 77.6%
8 Federal Himalaya ICEO 75.7%
9 Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 63.6%

Test Winner

Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10

63.6%

Discussion

18 comments
  1. Family man archived

    When can we see test done on minivans? I’m curious to see how these winter tires handle in a minivan or similar size vehicles (FWD). Something bigger that isn’t AWD.
    Thanks for the review. Very educational! Cheers!

    #9166
    1. TyreReviews Family man archived

      In theory it should translate across vehicle types

      #9185
  2. DStLouis archived

    -- Performances of studded tires but without studs.--
    I did saw a lot of review of winter tires but never saw any that is reviewing the Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 that are not set with any studs. I do understands that studs clearly help for gripping on ice, but what's if there are no studs on these tires? Are they as good as the Hakkapeliitta R5, acceptable or simply not good at all?

    Location Montreal
    Vehicle: all wheel drive SUV
    Winter Tire size: 255/55 R19

    Driving under unpredictable slushy conditions is kind of my main concern during winter driving. The Hakka R5 didn't look to be a king under such conditions. Also dont want want to drive on studs.

    #9084
    1. TyreReviews DStLouis archived

      Why wouldn't you buy the R5 if that's what you want?

      #9090
    2. TyreReviews DStLouis archived

      Studded tyres usually have a slightly harder compound so an unstudded Hakka 10 would be worse than the R5.

      #9091
  3. Marc Valme archived

    I live in the Northeast, and the snow we get is much wetter than what they get in the Midwest or the Pacific Northwest. Quick to become slush, studless winters are way overkill.

    I am however quite curious about how these tires would perform in slushy conditions. I know you've mentioned it is difficult to test. But what would you guess?

    My suspicion is that the lack of hydro performance would be detrimental. And the michelins x ice would probably beat the rest because of hydroplaning. I also suspect that an all-weather tire like the cross climate twos would dominate in slushy snow, Even better than a central European all season I would guess.

    #9076
    1. TyreReviews Marc Valme archived

      i tend to agree, but the biggest factor is what's below the snow. If you're getting through to the road surface then yet, if you're only getting to another layer of snow, then no.

      #9077
  4. Eric toto archived

    Hi. What about the Nokian R5 EV compared to these non EV tires? I am struggling to find any good data on the web and would be nice to have it into this test.

    #9059
  5. Olivier St-Amand archived

    Hello.

    First off: thanks for the huge amount of effort required to create all this data. :-)

    Second: I'd like to make a suggestion. Would it be possible to get the option of showing the graphs going down all the way to 0?

    It would make it a lot easier to compare actual results. For example, in the "Dry Handling", as the graphs are now, the Continental Winter Contacts seem *infinitely* better than the worse ones (Federal Himalaya). But when we check the actual values, we find that there is only a 4% difference in performance between the best and worse. In other words, for this test, the actual difference in performance is very small.

    I'm not saying that you should replace the actual graphs with graphs that go to 0, but an option to toggle between the two would be nice.

    Thanks!

    #8978
    1. TyreReviews Olivier St-Amand archived

      I like that idea :) I'm not sure it's possible with google charts which the site currently uses, but maybe it's possible with another javascript library such as chart.js or similar.

      #8979
  6. David Card archived

    Great video. I have a set of Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2's for my GX470 but I live in North Carolina. I am thinking Central European winter tires would be more appropriate. The tough part is trying to filter through all the winter tires when they are all lumped together in most retailer websites, it would be nice with filter through them with a CE or Nordic Winter filter.

    #8895
    1. TyreReviews David Card archived

      Some retailers call them "performance winter tires" but I'm afraid you might struggle to find something that fits. Maybe a good snow bias all season or all weather would be smart, something like the CC2 is great as a winter tire.

      #8902
  7. John Doe archived

    Good video, thank you, I’m always interested to see a good unbiased review. I like how you did it.

    I live in Northern Ontario, Canada. I’ve run a wide range/type and brands of tires and snow tires over the years. I typically run summer and winter tires. Tire technology has changed quite a lot over the past 30-40 years in my experience.

    I have become a big fan of Nokian winter tires over the past 8 years on cars and light duty SUV’s and have bought 3 sets, and will continue to do so in the future. Non studded. The traction is incredible in all conditions. And they seem to be very durable, long lasting. Work well on the highway, city and gravel roads.

    As well, I know they are not covered here in this review, but I have also become a big fan of Toyo tires. The new ATIII are supposed to work well in the snow/winter and I have just installed a set on a GMC Yukon (10ply E rated) which is used on and off road, to run year round. I’ll be testing those this winter. I am interested to see how well they work in cold temps -30/40.

    #8388
  8. Vlad archived

    I live in Latvia.
    During winter we have both CE climate and Northern winter. Usually half and half of the winter season. So for my SUV I use AT tire with M+S thread = CE tire for the summer and I drive it untill I see, that this is safe and reasonable to use. Usually November and sometimes part or even whole December is still OK for CE tire. For the rest of the winter I change for the Friction tires. I've tried Nokian HKPL R1, Dunlop SJ6, Continental VikingContact 6 and 7. All are good, but Nokian, I think had little bit longer braking distance.

    #8387
    1. TyreReviews Vlad archived

      Nice little combination! Is your AT tire 3 peak rated? M+S doesn't really mean anything for snow these days!

      #8397
  9. Steve archived

    Some of the tyre performance descriptions are for the incorrect tyres

    #8379
    1. TyreReviews Steve archived

      Thanks, fixed.

      #8380