Comparison: Barum Polaris 5 vs. Sava Eskimo HP2 vs. Pirelli P Zero Winter 2 vs. Dunlop Winter

Wet performance is the area where both tyres draw the most criticism — and both deserve it. Across five measured wet braking tests, the Polaris 5 averages 36.1 metres versus the Eskimo HP2's 36.7 metres — a marginal advantage for the Barum. Yet the Sava's wet braking score in aggregated testing (66.8 vs 63.1) tells a slightly different story, suggesting the Sava performs more consistently across a broader range of wet conditions. Aquaplaning resistance is similarly close (64.5 vs 65.8 in favour of Sava). Both have been cited for wet weaknesses: the Polaris 5 for understeer and limited aquaplaning reserves, the Eskimo HP2 for general wet handling shortfalls. Real-world Sava owners, however, frequently praise its wet grip and describe a predictable, confidence-inspiring feel in the rain — a meaningful counterpoint to the lab data.

Snow is where both tyres genuinely earn their winter classification. The Eskimo HP2 has the edge in average snow braking — 26.6 metres versus the Polaris 5's 27.1 metres across five shared tests — and its snow and ice scores across detailed testing are impressive for the price, with snow braking, snow traction, and ice braking all scoring in the mid-to-high 80s. The Barum's snow credentials are solid too, particularly praised for traction and its optimised sipe arrangement that Barum highlights as the centrepiece of the Polaris 5's design. Owner feedback backs the Sava's winter ability strongly: over a quarter of Heureka reviewers specifically mention good snow and ice grip. The Polaris 5 draws similar praise, though one owner switching from Sava to Barum noted a surprising drop in snow performance — an outlier, but worth noting.

On dry tarmac, the two tyres are almost indistinguishable on paper — dry scores of 70.5 and 70.8 respectively — but the test feedback reveals subtle differences in character. The Polaris 5 has been praised for its dynamic dry handling and confident feel at normal road speeds, with reviewers noting a composed and predictable response. The Eskimo HP2 is a different story at the limit: testers have flagged a lack of dry precision and weak behaviour in limit situations, suggesting it becomes nervous and less communicative when pushed. For everyday commuting this rarely matters, but it does suggest the Barum rewards a driver who occasionally wants to place the car accurately on a dry B-road.

The Polaris 5 takes a clear lead here. Its comfort score of 73.3 versus the Eskimo HP2's 72.0 is backed up by a more meaningful gap in noise: 75.2 against 73.1. Barum has consistently been praised for low rolling resistance and a quiet, refined ride — attributes that matter on long motorway runs. The Sava has a noisier reputation, with a minority of owners specifically calling out tyre noise as the main downside. On mileage, however, the Eskimo HP2 pulls ahead slightly (75.8 vs 72.4), and its rolling resistance score of 82.5 is fractionally better — meaning over a full set's lifetime it may cost a little less in fuel.