Comparison: Kormoran All Season vs. Falken EuroALL Season AS210 (2026)

Across one measured shared dry-braking test, Kormoran averages 42.4m and Falken 44.4m. No separate average-braking dataset is supplied, so these are single-test averages from the 2022 comparison in 195/55 R16. Kormoran's 2.0m advantage represents a 4.5% shorter stopping distance relative to Falken: a useful margin when space suddenly disappears. The starting speed is not provided, so these figures cannot responsibly be described as stops from 100km/h. They establish a clear result for that comparison, rather than a universal advantage across sizes and temperatures.

The distinction between braking and handling explains Falken's mixed dry-road character. Feedback credits good handling, yet repeatedly identifies extended dry braking, average dry grip or mild dry-road weaknesses. Its dry-handling detail score of 73.6 therefore sits alongside a less convincing overall dry score of 58.5; Kormoran scores 75 overall and 86 for dry braking, against Falken's 70.1 braking score. Reported Falken understeer means the front tyres can run out of cornering grip before the driver would like. However, there is insufficient Kormoran handling feedback to infer sharper steering or better high-speed stability. Its stronger stopping result does not establish it as the sportier tyre, and no construction evidence explains the underlying difference.

Across one measured shared wet-braking test, Falken averages 51.6m against Kormoran's 61.0m. That 9.4m difference is approximately two ordinary passenger-car lengths, or a 15.4% reduction relative to Kormoran's stopping distance. Again, the supplied data does not specify the starting speed. This is the comparison's most consequential measured gap: Falken's advantage on wet asphalt is substantially larger than its dry-braking deficit. It also puts their shared-test finishing positions—11th for Falken and 24th for Kormoran among 35 tyres—into useful perspective.

Falken's wet character nevertheless requires qualification. Several evaluations describe short braking distances, effective wet handling and precise lateral guidance, suggesting useful control through damp bends. Others identify understeer, and the 2026 feedback reports long wet braking and weak wet grip. Aquaplaning assessments are similarly inconsistent: some praise resistance, while several flag it as a weakness. Although Falken's aquaplaning score of 74 exceeds Kormoran's 46, it should not be treated as uniformly strong in deep water. Braking grip and water evacuation are different abilities; a tyre can perform well on wet asphalt yet struggle when standing water separates it from the road. Their almost identical overall wet scores, 66.6 and 66.5, obscure the substantial measured braking difference.

Kormoran leads the supplied snow scores, 86.6 to Falken's 66.8, but there are no snow stopping distances to compare. That gives Kormoran a promising winter-performance signal without establishing a quantified advantage on packed snow or during emergency braking. Crucially, its data lacks the detailed winter feedback available for Falken. It would therefore be an overreach to turn that score into claims of stronger hill-start traction, more progressive cornering behaviour or superior ice grip. None of those advantages is demonstrated directly here.

Falken's fuller record describes a usable but limited winter performer. Positive assessments identify good snow traction, short snow braking and, in 2026, secure and controllable behaviour. Other feedback highlights average grip, winter-road weaknesses and understeer. Its snow-braking detail score of 77.5 and snow-handling score of 71.2 are consistent with worthwhile capabilities that do not translate into outstanding performance everywhere. One owner likewise describes reduced but predictable snow grip. For occasional snow, that predictability is encouraging; for demanding winter use, the evidence is less persuasive. Neither tyre's 3PMSF certification is supplied, and there are no ice measurements, so severe-weather approval and ice suitability cannot be confirmed from this dataset.

Kormoran has the stronger refinement signal, with supplied comfort and noise scores both at 99, compared with Falken's 65.2 and 73.9. Those are scores, not measured decibel levels or percentages. Its seven Heureka reviews average 10/10, with quietness, value and wet/dry stability each mentioned twice. Falken also satisfies many owners: 24 Heureka reviews average 9.6/10, with low noise mentioned four times, while 30 Tyre Reviews submissions average 86/100. Yet its test feedback ranges from the lowest internal noise in one comparison to audible cabin noise and below-average ride comfort in 2026. Quietness is a credible attraction for both, but Falken's refinement clearly varies between evaluations.

Running costs are less settled than the headline scores suggest. Kormoran's rolling-resistance score is 99 against Falken's 57.8, but no comparable resistance measurements or fuel-consumption figures accompany them. Falken attracts repeated criticism for high rolling resistance, including the highest in one test, although another evaluation praises low fuel consumption. That disagreement prevents a reliable fuel-bill calculation. EU wet-grip and fuel-efficiency label grades are missing for both tyres, so there is no supplied label evidence to resolve the issue or support a specific annual saving.

Falken has considerably better documented longevity: its mileage score is 85.3, with feedback praising high mileage and low abrasion, although another assessment notes mild projected-mileage weaknesses. One owner reports 50,000 miles with twice-yearly rotation and just under 3mm remaining across all four tyres—valuable experience, not a guaranteed lifespan. Another reports paying €380 fitted for four 205/55 R16 tyres, a historical purchase rather than a current quotation. Price and value detail scores of 90.5 and 88 reinforce its affordability credentials. Kormoran offers a low-cost entry point, but without mileage data its lifetime cost advantage remains unproven.