18 Shops · 56,847+ Products

Comparison: Ceat 4 SeasonDrive vs. Firestone Multiseason 2 vs. Kumho HA32 Solus 4S vs. GT RADIAL ClimateActive

The comparison below reviews two budget-friendly multi/season tyres tested by AutoBild and our lab: the Ceat 4 SeasonDrive (our rating: 63%) and the Firestone Multiseason 2 (our rating: 55%). Neither model has been replaced by a newer generation to date. Manufacturer pages: Ceat and Firestone.



Summary of test results


In the AutoBild comparative test (35 tyres), the two tyres ranked very differently: Firestone Multiseason 2 placed 9th, while the Ceat 4 SeasonDrive landed 34th of 35. Firestone scored particularly well for rolling resistance and braking on wet/snow in AutoBild, while Ceat was repeatedly noted for value, low noise and long mileage but flagged for limited winter performance and weakened wet braking.



Ceat 4 SeasonDrive — strengths & weaknesses


The Ceat 4 SeasonDrive stands out for price-conscious drivers: tests repeatedly highlight good mileage, a quiet ride and an attractive price point. Those characteristics likely explain its higher overall internal rating (63%) despite weaker test placements.

  • Strengths: long tread life; low rolling noise; very competitive price.

  • Weaknesses: limited winter capability with poor lateral guidance on snow and extended braking distances on wet surfaces. In AutoBild it finished near the bottom (34/35), driven down by the wet and snow handling deficits.


Verdict: Ceat is a sensible budget all-round tyre for drivers prioritising mileage, comfort and cost — but be aware of its compromised safety margins in wet and wintry conditions.



Firestone Multiseason 2 — strengths & weaknesses


Firestone’s Multiseason 2 scored better in comparative test position and was praised for its braking performance and efficiency: AutoBild highlights short snow and wet braking distances, high mileage and low rolling resistance. However, it is not without trade-offs.

  • Strengths: excellent rolling resistance (fuel-saving), strong wet and snow braking in test conditions, good mileage.

  • Weaknesses: only moderate lateral guidance on snow, limited safety reserves in curve aquaplaning and a somewhat longer dry braking distance.


Verdict: Overall, Firestone is the stronger performer in independent comparative tests — a superior choice if wet and snow braking and efficiency matter most, but expect modest compromises on dry handling precision.



Head-to-head conclusion


Which tyre is better in tests overall? Based on AutoBild positions and test notes, the Firestone Multiseason 2 outperforms the Ceat 4 SeasonDrive in core safety-relevant areas (wet and snow braking, rolling resistance) and placed much higher in the 35-tyre AutoBild field (9 vs 34). That said, our aggregated rating still gives Ceat a higher score (63% vs 55%) due to its strong points in noise, cost and mileage—factors that matter to many buyers.
Recommendation: choose Firestone Multiseason 2 if you prioritise test-proven braking performance and fuel efficiency; choose Ceat 4 SeasonDrive if you prioritise value, quietness and longevity but accept weaker wet/winter performance. For manufacturer details visit Ceat and Firestone.

Test Profile

Ceat
4 SeasonDrive
Firestone
Multiseason 2
Kumho
HA32 Solus 4S
GT
RADIAL ClimateActive
Number of tests
4
13
9
3
Best position
#5
#6
#5
#5
Average position
17.0
10.9
10.8
7.3
Latest test
2025
2025
2023
2025
Available sizes
27
61
73
1

Wet

Wet
Ceat 4 SeasonDrive
60%
Firestone Multiseason 2
68%
Kumho HA32 Solus 4S
67%
GT RADIAL ClimateActive
74%
Wet braking
Ceat 4 SeasonDrive
51%
Firestone Multiseason 2
77%
Kumho HA32 Solus 4S
61%
GT RADIAL ClimateActive
70%
Wet circle cornering
Ceat 4 SeasonDrive
73%
Firestone Multiseason 2
75%
Kumho HA32 Solus 4S
71%
GT RADIAL ClimateActive
85%
Wet handling
Ceat 4 SeasonDrive
53%
Firestone Multiseason 2
66%
Kumho HA32 Solus 4S
70%
GT RADIAL ClimateActive
80%
Aquaplaning - cross
Ceat 4 SeasonDrive
67%
Firestone Multiseason 2
48%
Kumho HA32 Solus 4S
62%
GT RADIAL ClimateActive
72%
Aquaplaning - longitudal
Ceat 4 SeasonDrive
69%
Firestone Multiseason 2
64%
Kumho HA32 Solus 4S
68%
GT RADIAL ClimateActive
68%

Snow

Snow
Ceat 4 SeasonDrive
54%
Firestone Multiseason 2
80%
Kumho HA32 Solus 4S
71%
GT RADIAL ClimateActive
73%
Snow braking
Ceat 4 SeasonDrive
63%
Firestone Multiseason 2
86%
Kumho HA32 Solus 4S
81%
GT RADIAL ClimateActive
84%
Snow cornering
Ceat 4 SeasonDrive
46%
Firestone Multiseason 2
60%
Kumho HA32 Solus 4S
58%
GT RADIAL ClimateActive
66%
Snow handling
Ceat 4 SeasonDrive
46%
Firestone Multiseason 2
80%
Kumho HA32 Solus 4S
67%
GT RADIAL ClimateActive
66%
Snow traction
Ceat 4 SeasonDrive
59%
Firestone Multiseason 2
87%
Kumho HA32 Solus 4S
72%
GT RADIAL ClimateActive
75%

Costs

Costs
Ceat 4 SeasonDrive
68%
Firestone Multiseason 2
75%
Kumho HA32 Solus 4S
65%
GT RADIAL ClimateActive
69%
Rolling resistance
Ceat 4 SeasonDrive
59%
Firestone Multiseason 2
79%
Kumho HA32 Solus 4S
59%
GT RADIAL ClimateActive
80%
Mileage
Ceat 4 SeasonDrive
75%
Firestone Multiseason 2
71%
Kumho HA32 Solus 4S
70%
GT RADIAL ClimateActive
53%
Price/value
Ceat 4 SeasonDrive
89%
Firestone Multiseason 2
71%
Kumho HA32 Solus 4S
83%
GT RADIAL ClimateActive
56%

Dry

Dry
Ceat 4 SeasonDrive
62%
Firestone Multiseason 2
71%
Kumho HA32 Solus 4S
68%
GT RADIAL ClimateActive
72%
Dry braking
Ceat 4 SeasonDrive
67%
Firestone Multiseason 2
68%
Kumho HA32 Solus 4S
63%
GT RADIAL ClimateActive
71%
Dry handling
Ceat 4 SeasonDrive
56%
Firestone Multiseason 2
74%
Kumho HA32 Solus 4S
73%
GT RADIAL ClimateActive
74%

Comfort

Comfort
Ceat 4 SeasonDrive
70%
Firestone Multiseason 2
73%
Kumho HA32 Solus 4S
76%
GT RADIAL ClimateActive
72%
Exterior noise
Ceat 4 SeasonDrive
78%
Firestone Multiseason 2
76%
Kumho HA32 Solus 4S
80%
GT RADIAL ClimateActive
78%
Comfort
Ceat 4 SeasonDrive
61%
Firestone Multiseason 2
71%
Kumho HA32 Solus 4S
71%
GT RADIAL ClimateActive
66%

Dimensions and prices

Compare prices across all available dimensions for these tyres.

Add to comparison

Popular brands
New comparison