Menu

2022/23 Tyre Reviews Studless Winter Tyre Test

Jonathan Benson
Tested and written by Jonathan Benson
11 min read Updated

Adjust Result Weighting

The overall scores below are calculated using our weighting system based on the test methodology. You can adjust the weightings below to explore how different priorities affect the results.

Dry 10%
Wet 15%
Snow 30%
Ice 30%
Comfort 5%
Value 10%
Dry 10% · Wet 15% · Snow 30% · Ice 30% · Comfort 5% · Value 10%
Fine-tune sub-categories
Dry
Wet
Snow
Ice
Comfort
Value

Test Results Data

BEST Good Average Below Average
# Tyre Total Score Dry Wet Snow Ice Comfort Value
Braking M Handling s Subj. Dry Handling Points % Braking M Handling s Subj. Wet Handling Points Straight Aqua Km/H Curved Aquaplaning m/sec2 % Braking M Traction s Handling s Subj. Snow Handling Points Circle S % Braking M Traction s Handling s Subj. Ice Handling Points % Subj. Comfort Points Noise dB % Rolling Resistance kg / t %
1 Michelin X Ice Snow 83.5% 47.88 73.01 98 90.8% 35.59 81.55 3 100 2 80.11 2 63.8 2 79.4% 15.81 5.66 88.56 95 2 29.09 3 97.7% 10.14 2 6.12 52.92 2 100 75.9% 95 62.1 3 97.3% 7.25 100%
2 ▼1 Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 83.5% 47.45 72.96 100 2 91.3% 35.21 83.2 95 3 71.46 55.8 77.3% 15.51 3 5.55 87.8 2 95 2 28.98 2 99.2% 10.18 3 6.06 2 53.5 3 95 2 75.4% 100 61.9 100% 7.34 2 98.8%
3 ▼2 Continental VikingContact 7 83.4% 45.87 2 72.6 2 100 2 93.2% 35.03 3 80.8 2 95 3 75.12 58.1 78.8% 15.63 5.62 2 88.08 95 2 29.49 98.6% 10.34 6.1 3 52.17 95 2 75.4% 95 61.9 97.5% 7.56 95.9%
4 ▲3 Continental WinterContact TS 870 81.1% 41.27 71.03 110 100% 25.78 74.29 120 99.45 77.4 100% 16 5.85 92.12 80 29.33 94.8% 12.71 9.13 59.99 70 60.1% 95 62.1 3 97.3% 8.02 90.4%
5 ▼1 Pirelli Ice Zero FR 81% 46.66 3 72.88 3 98 92.1% 35.94 82.65 92 75.71 58.7 77.4% 15.9 5.63 3 88 3 100 29.21 98% 10.68 6.51 54.18 90 72.3% 95 62.7 96.9% 8.38 86.5%
6 ▼1 Yokohama iceGUARD iG53 80.8% 49.49 73.31 95 88.9% 38.72 84.16 75 75.99 59.4 73.8% 15.37 5.92 90.99 80 30.35 97% 10.97 6.41 54.74 90 71.5% 100 63.4 98.8% 7.5 3 96.7%
7 ▼1 Cooper Weathermaster S100 77.6% 49.47 73.15 90 88.8% 37.76 85.41 80 76.46 59.8 3 74.6% 15.85 5.92 89.87 80 30.15 95.8% 11.97 7.92 54.63 85 66.1% 90 63.3 93.9% 8.45 85.8%
8 ▼1 Federal Himalaya ICEO 75.7% 46.88 73.8 80 90.6% 33.61 2 83.5 80 79.61 3 58.7 79.7% 15.74 6.03 89.24 75 29.94 95.9% 12.66 9.18 58.28 80 61.3% 100 62.9 99.2% 10.54 68.8%
9 ▼2 Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 63.6% 15.5 2 5.64 87.73 95 2 28.9 7.7 3.23 54.33 90 8.29
Scroll for more
Dry 91% Wet 79% Snow 98% Ice 76% Comfort 97% Value 100%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking 47.88 M
Dry Handling 73.01 s
Subj. Dry Handling 98 Points
Wet
Wet Braking 35.59 M
Wet Handling 81.55 s 3
Subj. Wet Handling 100 Points 2
Straight Aqua 80.11 Km/H 2
Curved Aquaplaning 63.8 m/sec2 2
Snow
Snow Braking 15.81 M
Snow Traction 5.66 s
Snow Handling 88.56 s
Subj. Snow Handling 95 Points 2
Snow Circle 29.09 S 3
Ice
Ice Braking 10.14 M 2
Ice Traction 6.12 s
Ice Handling 52.92 s 2
Subj. Ice Handling 100 Points
Comfort
Subj. Comfort 95 Points
Noise 62.1 dB 3
Value
Rolling Resistance 7.25 kg / t
Dry 91% Wet 77% Snow 99% Ice 75% Comfort 100% Value 99%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking 47.45 M
Dry Handling 72.96 s
Subj. Dry Handling 100 Points 2
Wet
Wet Braking 35.21 M
Wet Handling 83.2 s
Subj. Wet Handling 95 Points 3
Straight Aqua 71.46 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning 55.8 m/sec2
Snow
Snow Braking 15.51 M 3
Snow Traction 5.55 s
Snow Handling 87.8 s 2
Subj. Snow Handling 95 Points 2
Snow Circle 28.98 S 2
Ice
Ice Braking 10.18 M 3
Ice Traction 6.06 s 2
Ice Handling 53.5 s 3
Subj. Ice Handling 95 Points 2
Comfort
Subj. Comfort 100 Points
Noise 61.9 dB
Value
Rolling Resistance 7.34 kg / t 2
Dry 93% Wet 79% Snow 99% Ice 75% Comfort 98% Value 96%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking 45.87 M 2
Dry Handling 72.6 s 2
Subj. Dry Handling 100 Points 2
Wet
Wet Braking 35.03 M 3
Wet Handling 80.8 s 2
Subj. Wet Handling 95 Points 3
Straight Aqua 75.12 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning 58.1 m/sec2
Snow
Snow Braking 15.63 M
Snow Traction 5.62 s 2
Snow Handling 88.08 s
Subj. Snow Handling 95 Points 2
Snow Circle 29.49 S
Ice
Ice Braking 10.34 M
Ice Traction 6.1 s 3
Ice Handling 52.17 s
Subj. Ice Handling 95 Points 2
Comfort
Subj. Comfort 95 Points
Noise 61.9 dB
Value
Rolling Resistance 7.56 kg / t
Dry 100% Wet 100% Snow 95% Ice 60% Comfort 97% Value 90%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking 41.27 M
Dry Handling 71.03 s
Subj. Dry Handling 110 Points
Wet
Wet Braking 25.78 M
Wet Handling 74.29 s
Subj. Wet Handling 120 Points
Straight Aqua 99.45 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning 77.4 m/sec2
Snow
Snow Braking 16 M
Snow Traction 5.85 s
Snow Handling 92.12 s
Subj. Snow Handling 80 Points
Snow Circle 29.33 S
Ice
Ice Braking 12.71 M
Ice Traction 9.13 s
Ice Handling 59.99 s
Subj. Ice Handling 70 Points
Comfort
Subj. Comfort 95 Points
Noise 62.1 dB 3
Value
Rolling Resistance 8.02 kg / t
5
81%
Dry 92% Wet 77% Snow 98% Ice 72% Comfort 97% Value 87%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking 46.66 M 3
Dry Handling 72.88 s 3
Subj. Dry Handling 98 Points
Wet
Wet Braking 35.94 M
Wet Handling 82.65 s
Subj. Wet Handling 92 Points
Straight Aqua 75.71 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning 58.7 m/sec2
Snow
Snow Braking 15.9 M
Snow Traction 5.63 s 3
Snow Handling 88 s 3
Subj. Snow Handling 100 Points
Snow Circle 29.21 S
Ice
Ice Braking 10.68 M
Ice Traction 6.51 s
Ice Handling 54.18 s
Subj. Ice Handling 90 Points
Comfort
Subj. Comfort 95 Points
Noise 62.7 dB
Value
Rolling Resistance 8.38 kg / t
6
80.8%
Dry 89% Wet 74% Snow 97% Ice 72% Comfort 99% Value 97%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking 49.49 M
Dry Handling 73.31 s
Subj. Dry Handling 95 Points
Wet
Wet Braking 38.72 M
Wet Handling 84.16 s
Subj. Wet Handling 75 Points
Straight Aqua 75.99 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning 59.4 m/sec2
Snow
Snow Braking 15.37 M
Snow Traction 5.92 s
Snow Handling 90.99 s
Subj. Snow Handling 80 Points
Snow Circle 30.35 S
Ice
Ice Braking 10.97 M
Ice Traction 6.41 s
Ice Handling 54.74 s
Subj. Ice Handling 90 Points
Comfort
Subj. Comfort 100 Points
Noise 63.4 dB
Value
Rolling Resistance 7.5 kg / t 3
Dry 89% Wet 75% Snow 96% Ice 66% Comfort 94% Value 86%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking 49.47 M
Dry Handling 73.15 s
Subj. Dry Handling 90 Points
Wet
Wet Braking 37.76 M
Wet Handling 85.41 s
Subj. Wet Handling 80 Points
Straight Aqua 76.46 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning 59.8 m/sec2 3
Snow
Snow Braking 15.85 M
Snow Traction 5.92 s
Snow Handling 89.87 s
Subj. Snow Handling 80 Points
Snow Circle 30.15 S
Ice
Ice Braking 11.97 M
Ice Traction 7.92 s
Ice Handling 54.63 s
Subj. Ice Handling 85 Points
Comfort
Subj. Comfort 90 Points
Noise 63.3 dB
Value
Rolling Resistance 8.45 kg / t
8
75.7%
Dry 91% Wet 80% Snow 96% Ice 61% Comfort 99% Value 69%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking 46.88 M
Dry Handling 73.8 s
Subj. Dry Handling 80 Points
Wet
Wet Braking 33.61 M 2
Wet Handling 83.5 s
Subj. Wet Handling 80 Points
Straight Aqua 79.61 Km/H 3
Curved Aquaplaning 58.7 m/sec2
Snow
Snow Braking 15.74 M
Snow Traction 6.03 s
Snow Handling 89.24 s
Subj. Snow Handling 75 Points
Snow Circle 29.94 S
Ice
Ice Braking 12.66 M
Ice Traction 9.18 s
Ice Handling 58.28 s
Subj. Ice Handling 80 Points
Comfort
Subj. Comfort 100 Points
Noise 62.9 dB
Value
Rolling Resistance 10.54 kg / t
Snow 99% Ice 99% Value 88%
View detailed scores
Snow
Snow Braking 15.5 M 2
Snow Traction 5.64 s
Snow Handling 87.73 s
Subj. Snow Handling 95 Points 2
Snow Circle 28.9 S
Ice
Ice Braking 7.7 M
Ice Traction 3.23 s
Ice Handling 54.33 s
Subj. Ice Handling 90 Points
Value
Rolling Resistance 8.29 kg / t
Not every driver has the same priorities. Adjust the category weightings above to re-rank the tyres based on what matters most to your driving style.
Scores are colour-coded from red (weakest) through yellow to green (strongest) to help you quickly spot each tyre's strengths and weaknesses.
The original test ranking is shown in the # column. Arrows indicate how each tyre moves when your custom weighting is applied.

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