Adjust Result Weighting
The overall scores below are calculated using our weighting system. Since the original publication may use a different scoring methodology that wasn't shared, these results may differ from their published rankings. You can adjust the weightings below to explore how different priorities affect the results.
Test Results Data
BEST
Good
Average
Below Average
Cells are colour-coded from green (best) to red (worst). The Total Score reflects the weighted sum of all categories. A ★ marks the best tyre in each test.
| # | Tyre | Total Score | Dry | Wet | Value | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Braking M | % | Braking M | Braking - Concrete M | Straight Aqua Km/H | Curved Aquaplaning m/sec2 | % | Wear KM | Fuel Consumption l/100km | Abrasion mg/km/t | % | |||
| 1 | Continental PremiumContact 7 | 96.8% | 35 | 96.9% | 30.1 ★ | 34.9 2 | 79.7 ★ | 3.7 ★ | 97.4% | 44700 | 5.4 ★ | 69 | 85.8% |
| 2 ▲14 | Linglong Sport Master | 95.5% | 34.2 2 | 99.1% | 30.1 ★ | 32.3 ★ | 78.6 | 3.4 | 98.6% | 26100 | 6 | 131 | 60.4% |
| 3 ▼1 | Pirelli Cinturato C3 | 94.8% | 34.5 | 98.3% | 31.8 | 37.3 | 79.7 ★ | 3.6 3 | 93% | 48600 | 5.7 | 79 | 83.7% |
| 4 ▼1 | Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 | 93.4% | 36.3 | 93.4% | 31.3 | 38.1 | 75.7 | 3.4 | 91.4% | 57800 ★ | 5.5 | 62 2 | 95.8% |
| 5 ▲4 | Kumho Ecsta HS52 | 92.8% | 35.7 | 95% | 31.1 3 | 35.9 3 | 77.3 | 3.2 | 92.9% | 43200 | 5.8 | 91 | 77.2% |
| 6 ▲1 | Michelin Primacy 5 | 92.6% | 36.3 | 93.4% | 32.7 | 38.8 | 76.5 | 3.3 | 89.1% | 56000 2 | 5.4 ★ | 54 ★ | 98.9% |
| 7 ▼2 | Falken ZIEX ZE320 | 92% | 33.9 ★ | 100% | 34.3 | 37.7 | 75.2 | 3.1 | 87.4% | 37500 | 5.6 | 71 | 79.4% |
| 8 ▲6 | Lassa Revola | 91.5% | 34.4 3 | 98.6% | 32.9 | 39.2 | 76.6 | 3.3 | 88.7% | 36100 | 5.6 | 89 | 74.3% |
| 9 ▼3 | Bridgestone Turanza 6 | 91% | 36.4 | 93.1% | 33.8 | 40.2 | 77.2 | 3.4 | 87.6% | 55600 3 | 5.5 | 66 3 | 93% |
| 10 ▼6 | Firestone Roadhawk 2 ENLITEN | 90.3% | 34.9 | 97.1% | 34.9 | 40.1 | 77.2 | 3.6 3 | 87.5% | 36700 | 5.7 | 95 | 73% |
| 11 ▲1 | Vredestein Ultrac plus | 90.2% | 35.3 | 96% | 33.9 | 39.5 | 79.3 3 | 3.5 | 88.8% | 30600 | 5.6 | 97 | 69.5% |
| 12 ▼4 | Maxxis Premitra HP6 | 89.9% | 35.8 | 94.7% | 33.4 | 38.1 | 75 | 3 | 87.5% | 37200 | 5.6 | 76 | 77.8% |
| 13 ▼3 | BFGoodrich Advantage | 89.1% | 36.5 | 92.9% | 34.5 | 41.5 | 76.2 | 3.5 | 86.3% | 46700 | 5.6 | 83 | 82.2% |
| 14 ▼3 | Hankook Ventus Prime 4 | 88.3% | 36.7 | 92.4% | 34.5 | 42.1 | 72.9 | 3.4 | 84.9% | 44700 | 5.4 ★ | 75 | 84.1% |
| 15 | Leao Nova Force Acro | 88.2% | 35.2 | 96.3% | 33 | 40.8 | 73.7 | 2.9 | 85.3% | 27700 | 5.5 | 100 | 67.9% |
| 16 ▼3 | Greentrac Quest X | 86.6% | 36.2 | 93.7% | 37.9 | 44.5 | 75.7 | 3.7 ★ | 82.4% | 38200 | 5.7 | 83 | 76.2% |
Scroll for more
Dry
97%
Wet
97%
Value
86%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
35 M
Wet
Wet Braking
30.1 M
★
Wet Braking - Concrete
34.9 M
2
Straight Aqua
79.7 Km/H
★
Curved Aquaplaning
3.7 m/sec2
★
Value
Wear
44700 KM
Fuel Consumption
5.4 l/100km
★
Abrasion
69 mg/km/t
Dry
99%
Wet
99%
Value
60%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
34.2 M
2
Wet
Wet Braking
30.1 M
★
Wet Braking - Concrete
32.3 M
★
Straight Aqua
78.6 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning
3.4 m/sec2
Value
Wear
26100 KM
Fuel Consumption
6 l/100km
Abrasion
131 mg/km/t
Dry
98%
Wet
93%
Value
84%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
34.5 M
Wet
Wet Braking
31.8 M
Wet Braking - Concrete
37.3 M
Straight Aqua
79.7 Km/H
★
Curved Aquaplaning
3.6 m/sec2
3
Value
Wear
48600 KM
Fuel Consumption
5.7 l/100km
Abrasion
79 mg/km/t
Dry
93%
Wet
91%
Value
96%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
36.3 M
Wet
Wet Braking
31.3 M
Wet Braking - Concrete
38.1 M
Straight Aqua
75.7 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning
3.4 m/sec2
Value
Wear
57800 KM
★
Fuel Consumption
5.5 l/100km
Abrasion
62 mg/km/t
2
Dry
95%
Wet
93%
Value
77%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
35.7 M
Wet
Wet Braking
31.1 M
3
Wet Braking - Concrete
35.9 M
3
Straight Aqua
77.3 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning
3.2 m/sec2
Value
Wear
43200 KM
Fuel Consumption
5.8 l/100km
Abrasion
91 mg/km/t
Dry
93%
Wet
89%
Value
99%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
36.3 M
Wet
Wet Braking
32.7 M
Wet Braking - Concrete
38.8 M
Straight Aqua
76.5 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning
3.3 m/sec2
Value
Wear
56000 KM
2
Fuel Consumption
5.4 l/100km
★
Abrasion
54 mg/km/t
★
Dry
100%
Wet
87%
Value
79%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
33.9 M
★
Wet
Wet Braking
34.3 M
Wet Braking - Concrete
37.7 M
Straight Aqua
75.2 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning
3.1 m/sec2
Value
Wear
37500 KM
Fuel Consumption
5.6 l/100km
Abrasion
71 mg/km/t
Dry
99%
Wet
89%
Value
74%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
34.4 M
3
Wet
Wet Braking
32.9 M
Wet Braking - Concrete
39.2 M
Straight Aqua
76.6 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning
3.3 m/sec2
Value
Wear
36100 KM
Fuel Consumption
5.6 l/100km
Abrasion
89 mg/km/t
Dry
93%
Wet
88%
Value
93%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
36.4 M
Wet
Wet Braking
33.8 M
Wet Braking - Concrete
40.2 M
Straight Aqua
77.2 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning
3.4 m/sec2
Value
Wear
55600 KM
3
Fuel Consumption
5.5 l/100km
Abrasion
66 mg/km/t
3
Dry
97%
Wet
88%
Value
73%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
34.9 M
Wet
Wet Braking
34.9 M
Wet Braking - Concrete
40.1 M
Straight Aqua
77.2 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning
3.6 m/sec2
3
Value
Wear
36700 KM
Fuel Consumption
5.7 l/100km
Abrasion
95 mg/km/t
Dry
96%
Wet
89%
Value
70%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
35.3 M
Wet
Wet Braking
33.9 M
Wet Braking - Concrete
39.5 M
Straight Aqua
79.3 Km/H
3
Curved Aquaplaning
3.5 m/sec2
Value
Wear
30600 KM
Fuel Consumption
5.6 l/100km
Abrasion
97 mg/km/t
Dry
95%
Wet
88%
Value
78%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
35.8 M
Wet
Wet Braking
33.4 M
Wet Braking - Concrete
38.1 M
Straight Aqua
75 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning
3 m/sec2
Value
Wear
37200 KM
Fuel Consumption
5.6 l/100km
Abrasion
76 mg/km/t
Dry
93%
Wet
86%
Value
82%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
36.5 M
Wet
Wet Braking
34.5 M
Wet Braking - Concrete
41.5 M
Straight Aqua
76.2 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning
3.5 m/sec2
Value
Wear
46700 KM
Fuel Consumption
5.6 l/100km
Abrasion
83 mg/km/t
Dry
92%
Wet
85%
Value
84%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
36.7 M
Wet
Wet Braking
34.5 M
Wet Braking - Concrete
42.1 M
Straight Aqua
72.9 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning
3.4 m/sec2
Value
Wear
44700 KM
Fuel Consumption
5.4 l/100km
★
Abrasion
75 mg/km/t
Dry
96%
Wet
85%
Value
68%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
35.2 M
Wet
Wet Braking
33 M
Wet Braking - Concrete
40.8 M
Straight Aqua
73.7 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning
2.9 m/sec2
Value
Wear
27700 KM
Fuel Consumption
5.5 l/100km
Abrasion
100 mg/km/t
Dry
94%
Wet
82%
Value
76%
View detailed scores
Dry
Dry Braking
36.2 M
Wet
Wet Braking
37.9 M
Wet Braking - Concrete
44.5 M
Straight Aqua
75.7 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning
3.7 m/sec2
★
Value
Wear
38200 KM
Fuel Consumption
5.7 l/100km
Abrasion
83 mg/km/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.
I gotta agree with others , weird ranking and based almost solely on abrasion and fuel efficiency. Kumho is obviously better than the Maxxis in terms of safety when looking at the results, but finishes after the maxxis anyway. That's just one observation.
The final ranking is a joke... The best wet braking, the second best dry braking and 4th place on wet aquaplaning, equals to last place... Maybe Ling long (and the sister brand Leao) didn't send them a cheque... I am wearing these tyres from September of 2024 and have already done around 20k km (205/55R16). I cannot say that my tyres are going to fall off on 26k km (additional 6k km than those i've already have...). I am very happy with performance both on wet and dry surfaces. For my tyres size, the difference between ling long and continental were 160 euros for all 4 tyres... It no wonder that german products keep receiving the middle finger from Chinese ones, no matter if we are talking about tyres or cars...
I’m honestly disappointed with the overall ADAC test results. It’s hard to ignore the feeling that a small group of “chosen” manufacturers is systematically favored, while tires that are objectively very strong in real-world conditions are pushed down the rankings.
Seeing a tire in 4th place that doesn’t even come close to Falken or Vredestein in wet grip and aquaplaning resistance really raises questions. It feels like progressive eco-politics has started to outweigh common sense, where rolling resistance and “green scores” matter more than actual safety and cost efficiency.
The top three tires cost €150-160 per piece, while Falken or Vredestein are roughly €40 cheaper per tire. That’s €160 saved per set - so the obvious question is: how many extra kilometers can I drive for that money?
For me, aquaplaning resistance in heavy rain is far more important than saving a few grams of CO₂ in a lab test. I drive on real roads, not perfect German asphalt, and definitely not in a spreadsheet.
ADAC tests may look nice on paper, but maybe it’s time for a hard reset - and a reminder that safety, realism, and value for money should come before ideology.
It's not about "chosen" brands, it's the eco-cancer. Think about it. The only thing that holds you on the road is the tyre so it has to be SAFE and only SAFE, everything else is absolutely irrelevant. It does not have to do a million miles but it has to stay safe over a period of time, say, for at least six, seven years. Unfortunately, no currently produced tyre lasts as long without losing most of its original safety performance. Only fleet cars can do such high mileages in range of three or (max.) four years which is the time summer tyres (at least Goodyear) deteriorate to such extent that they become dangerous (cracked, no traction). Nokian lasts a bit longer, cca five years.
Before somenone starts arguing with me, try real life - emergency braking in a smaller car without ABS first. Try new set of tyres and then try four year old ones of the same type. You will never ever buy eco tyres again.
Oops. The first sentence should have ended with "it's the eco-cancer and testers' emphasis on it".
“Sadly ADAC did not publish the purchase price of the tyres so we can't work out costs per 100 km driven.”
The price is listed in Allgemeinen Daten, Preis in Euro on each tyre’s page:
https://www.adac.de/rund-ums-fahrzeug/ausstattung-technik-zubehoer/reifen/reifentest/sommerreifen/225-50-r17-2026/continental-premiumcontact-7-id-5128/
How did I miss that. I must be getting hard of sight.