18 Shops · 56,847+ Products

Comparison: BFGoodrich Advantage vs. Kumho Ecsta HS52 vs. Falken e.Ziex vs. Hankook ION Evo

On evaluating the summer tyres, the BFGoodrich Advantage and the Kumho Ecsta HS52, various data points need to be considered. This comparison includes detailed test results from Autobild and ADAC, which offer insights into the strengths and weaknesses, and their overall performance.


As per our ratings, the Kumho Ecsta HS52 shows a marginal victory, with a score of 73% compared to the Advantage's 66%. A close examination of the tyres' performances in mutual tests further emphasises this difference.


Autobild's tests reveal a stark contrast between these two tyres. Out of 51 tyres, the Advantage conceded a 20th place while the Ecsta HS52 climbed up to the 3rd position. BFGoodrich's tyre shines for its comfort but falls short in not accentuating any other criteria. On the other hand, Kumho's tyre has an array of strengths, including dry braking, wet braking, dry handling, and price/value ratio.


In ADAC's tests, the Ecsta HS52 continued to outperform the Advantage, securing the 8th position out of 50 tyres versus the latter's 21st place.


The in-depth text summaries by Autobild also highlight the advantages and disadvantages of each model. The BFGoodrich Advantage excels in dry handling and offers a quiet ride along with a low rolling resistance, all at an affordable price. However, it underperforms in wet conditions. The Kumho Ecsta HS52 offers well-rounded performance on both dry and wet surfaces, but its sustainability and energy efficiency are areas needing improvement. However, its strength lies in its price to performance ratio.


Both the BFGoodrich Advantage and the Kumho Ecsta HS52 are distinct in their strengths. However, the Kumho Ecsta HS52 does lead the race by showing a more balanced performance throughout. Notably, the Ecsta HS52 is a successor to the Kumho Ecstra HS51, carrying forward the legacy of efficiency, comfort, and performance.


Overall, each tyre caters to different consumer requirements, the final decision, therefore, rests largely on individual preferences.

Test Profile

BFGoodrich
Advantage
Kumho
Ecsta HS52
Falken
e.Ziex
Hankook
ION Evo
Number of tests
14
10
3
1
Best position
#8
#2
#2
#1
Average position
13.4
6.0
3.7
1.0
Latest test
2026
2026
2025
2025
Available sizes
153
104
34
64

Wet

Wet
BFGoodrich Advantage
61%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
77%
Falken e.Ziex
75%
Hankook ION Evo
89%
Wet braking
BFGoodrich Advantage
77%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
80%
Falken e.Ziex
87%
Hankook ION Evo
97%
Aquaplaning - longitudal
BFGoodrich Advantage
61%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
73%
Falken e.Ziex
68%
Hankook ION Evo
77%
Wet handling
BFGoodrich Advantage
57%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
79%
Falken e.Ziex
69%
Hankook ION Evo
92%
Aquaplaning - cross
BFGoodrich Advantage
53%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
66%
Falken e.Ziex
61%
Hankook ION Evo
87%
Wet circle cornering
BFGoodrich Advantage
69%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
89%
Falken e.Ziex
77%
Hankook ION Evo
92%

Dry

Dry
BFGoodrich Advantage
72%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
87%
Falken e.Ziex
85%
Hankook ION Evo
92%
Dry braking
BFGoodrich Advantage
76%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
89%
Falken e.Ziex
88%
Hankook ION Evo
91%
Dry handling
BFGoodrich Advantage
80%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
85%
Falken e.Ziex
81%
Hankook ION Evo
92%

Comfort

Comfort
BFGoodrich Advantage
79%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
77%
Falken e.Ziex
78%
Hankook ION Evo
72%
Exterior noise
BFGoodrich Advantage
68%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
73%
Falken e.Ziex
78%
Hankook ION Evo
66%
Comfort
BFGoodrich Advantage
87%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
71%
Falken e.Ziex
78%
Hankook ION Evo
78%

Costs

Costs
BFGoodrich Advantage
68%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
76%
Falken e.Ziex
80%
Hankook ION Evo
71%
Rolling resistance
BFGoodrich Advantage
66%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
70%
Falken e.Ziex
95%
Hankook ION Evo
69%
Mileage
BFGoodrich Advantage
63%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
79%
Falken e.Ziex
60%
Hankook ION Evo
82%
Price/value
BFGoodrich Advantage
65%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
97%
Falken e.Ziex
60%
Hankook ION Evo
60%

Dimensions and prices

Compare prices across all available dimensions for these tyres.

Add to comparison

Popular brands
New comparison