Comparison: Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 vs. Nokian WR Snowproof P (2026)

This is where the contest becomes one-sided in the Bridgestone's favour. In the one mutual test that measured wet braking distances directly — the Autobild 2022 56-tyre group test — the Blizzak LM-005 stopped from 80 km/h in 32.8 metres on wet tarmac. The Nokian WR Snowproof P needed 36 metres: more than three metres longer, a gap that is substantial at any speed. The LM-005 took first place overall in that test; the Nokian finished thirteenth. That result is not an anomaly. The Nokian's aquaplaning resistance is a serious concern — testing reveals it to be among the weaker performers in its class in standing water, with understeer appearing early in wet cornering scenarios and limited safety margins overall. The Blizzak, by contrast, has claimed the best wet braking result in class outright in major tests, with Bridgestone noting it achieved the maximum score in the 80-to-0 km/h wet braking category in one evaluation. For anyone who regularly encounters wet autumn and winter roads, the difference between these two tyres in this discipline could genuinely matter.

On dry roads, the Nokian WR Snowproof P is the stronger performer — and it's not especially close. Its dry braking is genuinely impressive for a winter tyre, and testers praise its dynamic, confident handling on dry tarmac with short stopping distances and a composed, neutral character. The Blizzak LM-005, while certainly not unsafe on dry roads — its objective dry handling scores are high — does give up ground in outright dry braking, with extended stopping distances flagged consistently across evaluations. Bridgestone's own positioning acknowledges this: the LM-005 is positioned as a wet and snow specialist first, with dry performance as a secondary priority. If dry winter roads are your primary concern, the Nokian has a clear edge in this one discipline.

On snow, the two tyres are closer than their overall rankings suggest. In the Autobild 2022 snow braking test, the Bridgestone stopped in 26.3 metres and the Nokian in 26.2 metres — effectively identical. Snow acceleration scores also favour the Bridgestone only marginally. Where the Blizzak gains the upper hand is in snow handling: it is described as agile and easy to manage, with good lateral grip and a predictable, controllable character. The Nokian shows moderate lateral grip on snow and a tendency to understeer — it is not poorly behaved, but it lacks the last degree of confidence the Bridgestone provides. Neither tyre is a deep-snow specialist; both are oriented toward the European winter tyre market of slush, cold rain, and occasional snow rather than extreme alpine conditions.

The Nokian WR Snowproof P is the more comfortable and economical tyre by a clear margin. Testers consistently highlight its low road noise, smooth ride, and fuel-efficient rolling resistance — and real-world owners back this up, rating it highly for refinement in everyday use. Its predicted mileage is also substantially better than the Blizzak's, which has been flagged for above-average wear rates and lower longevity. The Blizzak LM-005 is not a harsh or loud tyre — it scores respectably for comfort — but it cannot match the Nokian's refinement. Drivers who prioritise a quiet, economical winter tyre for predominantly dry commuting will find the Nokian's credentials here genuinely appealing.