18 Shops · 56,847+ Products

Comparison: BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER vs. Michelin e.Primacy vs. Kumho Ecsta PS71 vs. Falken e.Ziex vs. Hankook ION Evo

Test Profile

BFGoodrich
ACTIVAN WINTER
Michelin
e.Primacy
Kumho
Ecsta PS71
Falken
e.Ziex
Hankook
ION Evo
Number of tests
1
4
15
3
1
Best position
#13
#3
#2
#2
#1
Average position
13.0
12.0
9.0
3.7
1.0
Latest test
2019
2025
2025
2025
2025
Available sizes
15
111
225
34
64

Wet

Wet
Michelin e.Primacy
61%
Kumho Ecsta PS71
79%
Falken e.Ziex
75%
Hankook ION Evo
89%
Wet braking
BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER
40%
Michelin e.Primacy
62%
Kumho Ecsta PS71
79%
Falken e.Ziex
87%
Hankook ION Evo
97%
Wet circle cornering
BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER
61%
Michelin e.Primacy
52%
Kumho Ecsta PS71
72%
Falken e.Ziex
77%
Hankook ION Evo
92%
Wet handling
BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER
23%
Michelin e.Primacy
52%
Kumho Ecsta PS71
79%
Falken e.Ziex
69%
Hankook ION Evo
92%
Aquaplaning - cross
BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER
67%
Michelin e.Primacy
65%
Kumho Ecsta PS71
87%
Falken e.Ziex
61%
Hankook ION Evo
87%
Aquaplaning - longitudal
BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER
56%
Michelin e.Primacy
65%
Kumho Ecsta PS71
90%
Falken e.Ziex
68%
Hankook ION Evo
77%

Dry

Dry
Michelin e.Primacy
74%
Kumho Ecsta PS71
72%
Falken e.Ziex
85%
Hankook ION Evo
92%
Dry braking
BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER
82%
Michelin e.Primacy
63%
Kumho Ecsta PS71
76%
Falken e.Ziex
88%
Hankook ION Evo
91%

Comfort

Comfort
Michelin e.Primacy
62%
Kumho Ecsta PS71
67%
Falken e.Ziex
78%
Hankook ION Evo
72%
Exterior noise
BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER
71%
Michelin e.Primacy
70%
Kumho Ecsta PS71
62%
Falken e.Ziex
78%
Hankook ION Evo
66%

Costs

Costs
Michelin e.Primacy
81%
Kumho Ecsta PS71
71%
Falken e.Ziex
80%
Hankook ION Evo
71%
Mileage
BFGoodrich ACTIVAN WINTER
89%
Michelin e.Primacy
100%
Kumho Ecsta PS71
65%
Falken e.Ziex
60%
Hankook ION Evo
82%

Dimensions and prices

Compare prices across all available dimensions for these tyres.

Add to comparison

Popular brands
New comparison