Comparison: Hankook Ventus Prime 4 vs. Kumho Ecsta HS52 vs. Falken ZIEX ZE310 Ecorun vs. Nokian Powerproof

The comparison below looks at two popular summer touring tyres: the Hankook Ventus Prime 4 and the Kumho Ecsta HS52. Tests from ADAC, AutoBild, Vibilagare and others are summarised to give a clear picture of real-world strengths, weaknesses and which tyre performs better overall.

Quick links: view the Hankook tyre at /hankook-ventus-prime-4 and the Kumho tyre at /kumho-ecsta-hs52. Manufacturer pages: Hankook /hankook/, Kumho /kumho/summer/.

Overall test summary
Both tyres are classed as summer touring tyres and score well in independent tests, but the Kumho holds a small edge in aggregated results: our ratings place the Kumho Ecsta HS52 at 74% versus the Hankook Ventus Prime 4 at 71%. Across multiple test programmes the Kumho often finishes one position ahead (ADAC: Kumho 8th / Hankook 9th) and shows consistently strong wet performance and predicted mileage.

Strengths — Kumho Ecsta HS52
The Ecsta HS52 is frequently highlighted for its balanced wet and dry performance, competitive price and very good projected wear. ADAC and AutoBild note short wet and dry braking distances and convincing handling on both wet and dry surfaces. ADAC 2024 praises its very good predicted mileage, low abrasion and lower fuel consumption. Weaknesses mentioned include a slight vulnerability to aquaplaning in some ADAC test scenarios, a heavier tyre weight and only average ride comfort.

Strengths — Hankook Ventus Prime 4
The Ventus Prime 4 stands out for sharp dry handling and low rolling resistance. AutoBild ranks it at the very top in some comparisons for dry braking and dry handling, and ADAC notes short dry braking distances and dynamic behaviour on both wet and dry tracks. However, tests flag moderate tread life and lower aquaplaning resistance; ADAC also records higher external noise in some conditions.

Mutual test positions and where each wins
- ADAC and aggregated tests give the edge to the Kumho overall (better positions and a slightly higher score).
- AutoBild and several national club tests sometimes place the Hankook ahead, especially for pure dry performance and handling precision.
In short: Kumho scores better for wet braking, mileage and value, while Hankook rewards drivers seeking sharper dry handling and marginally lower rolling resistance.

Practical verdict
If you prioritise all‑round safety, wet braking and long tyre life for a strong price/value proposition, the Kumho Ecsta HS52 is the better all-round choice. If your driving is frequently sporty or you want the best dry handling and slightly lower rolling resistance, the Hankook Ventus Prime 4 is a compelling option—accepting somewhat shorter tread life and minor aquaplaning compromises.

Replacement note: Neither model in this comparison is listed as having been replaced by a newer tyre in our data; both succeed earlier models (Kumho Ecsta HS51 and Hankook Ventus Prime3 K125) but are current in the test corpus.

Choose based on your priorities: wet-weather confidence and mileage (Kumho) or dry handling and rolling-resistance gains (Hankook).