Comparison: BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER vs. Kumho Ecsta HS52 vs. Falken e.Ziex

Upper-middle

BFGoodrich

ACTIVAN WINTER

R14 – R16

VS

Upper-middle

Kumho

Ecsta HS52

e.Ziex

9.0

R15 – R21

Also compare with

SportContact 7

PremiumContact 7

UltraContact NXT

Test Profile

ACTIVAN WINTER

Ecsta HS52

e.Ziex

Number of tests

1

10

3

Best position

#13

#2

Average position

13.0

6.0

3.7

Latest test

2019

2026

2025

Available sizes

15

104

34

Wet

Kumho Ecsta HS52

77%

Falken e.Ziex

75%

Wet handling

BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER

23%

Kumho Ecsta HS52

79%

Falken e.Ziex

69%

Aquaplaning - cross

BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER

67%

Kumho Ecsta HS52

66%

Falken e.Ziex

61%

Aquaplaning - longitudal

BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER

56%

Kumho Ecsta HS52

73%

Falken e.Ziex

68%

Wet braking

BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER

40%

Kumho Ecsta HS52

80%

Falken e.Ziex

87%

Wet circle cornering

BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER

61%

Kumho Ecsta HS52

89%

Falken e.Ziex

77%

Dry

Kumho Ecsta HS52

87%

Falken e.Ziex

85%

Dry braking

BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER

82%

Kumho Ecsta HS52

89%

Falken e.Ziex

88%

Comfort

Kumho Ecsta HS52

77%

Falken e.Ziex

78%

Exterior noise

BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER

71%

Kumho Ecsta HS52

73%

Falken e.Ziex

78%

Costs

Kumho Ecsta HS52

76%

Falken e.Ziex

80%

Mileage

BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER

89%

Kumho Ecsta HS52

79%

Falken e.Ziex

60%

Dimensions and prices

Compare prices across all available dimensions for these tyres.

Comparison: BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER vs. Kumho Ecsta HS52 vs. Falken e.Ziex

ACTIVAN WINTER

Ecsta HS52

e.Ziex

Test Profile

Wet

Dry

Comfort

Costs

Dimensions and prices

Add to comparison