Comparison: Kumho HA32 Solus 4S vs. Continental AllSeasonContact 2 (2026)

The wet-weather gap is where the two tyres diverge most dramatically. In the shared Autobild test, Kumho averaged 49.8m in wet braking against Continental's 45.4m — a 4.4-metre difference that, from 100km/h, is the length of roughly a car and then some, and matters enormously in a genuine emergency stop on a soaked road. That single data point is consistent with the broader scores: Kumho's wet-braking score is 60.8, while Continental's is 88.5 — one of the largest gaps between the two tyres in the entire comparison. Tyre Reviews 2024 called the AllSeasonContact 2 simply "best in wet handling with short wet braking" in its test field, and aftonbladet 2025 specifically credited it with the "best braking grip on cold, wet asphalt."

Kumho's wet performance isn't disastrous — Autobild has repeatedly noted "sicheres Nass... Handling" (safe wet handling) as a positive, and its wet-circle-cornering score of 71.4 is respectable for the price bracket — but its test negatives consistently mention "mäßige Aquaplaningreserven" (moderate aquaplaning reserves) and, in one year, "leicht untersteuerndes Nasshandling" (slightly understeering wet handling). Its aquaplaning score of 65.3 confirms this is a genuine limitation rather than a one-off comment.

The Continental isn't flawless in the wet either — Autobild and Tyre Reviews both flag average-to-low aquaplaning resistance as its one real weak spot, and aftonbladet bluntly said it "aquaplanes easily." But its aquaplaning score of 80 is still noticeably higher than Kumho's, and its wet-handling-objective figure of 87 and wet-circle-cornering of 88 show it corners with real composure once past that limitation. Real owners back this up: a Hyundai Ioniq owner switching from Continental's own EcoContact 6 summer tyre said wet-weather driving was "the biggest improvement," calling the AllSeasonContact 2 "far superior" in the wet. That's the difference between a tyre that's merely safe in the rain and one that inspires genuine confidence in it.

In that shared Autobild braking test, the Kumho averaged 41.4m and the Continental 40.4m in the dry — a modest 1-metre gap on its own, but it's part of a much bigger pattern once you look at the full performance data. Kumho's dry-braking score sits at 62.8 against Continental's 76.5, and dry-handling comes in at 67.9 versus 84.9. Autobild's own test notes for the Kumho across multiple years describe "stabiles Trockenhandling" (stable dry handling) as a consistent positive, but also flag "leicht verlängerte Trockenbremswege" (slightly extended dry braking distances) as a recurring weakness — the tyre holds a line fine, it just doesn't stop or turn in with any real urgency.

The Continental's dry story is more nuanced than a simple win. Testers do note it has its own soft spot here — Tyre Reviews 2024 flagged "extended dry braking" and AUTOBILD 2025 called out a "sehr hohes Preisniveau" alongside otherwise strong dry marks, and its measured dry-braking score of 76.5 is actually its weakest metric relative to its other scores. But its dry-handling-objective figure of 98.5 is exceptional, and AUTOBILD 2025 specifically praised "direktes Lenkverhalten" (direct steering response) and "gute Sicherheitsreserven im Trockenen" (good safety reserves in the dry). So while the Continental may give up a little in outright stopping distance relative to its own benchmark, it corners with far more precision and confidence than the Kumho ever manages — Tyre Reviews rated it "very good in dry handling" outright.

In practice this means a driver pushing either tyre through a series of bends will feel the difference immediately: the Continental's C-shaped tread blocks give it real structural stiffness for cornering loads, while the Kumho's compound and construction are tuned more for predictability at moderate pace than outright grip. Neither tyre is a sports tyre, but only one of them rewards a spirited drive on a dry road.

Snow is the one area where the gap narrows, at least on paper — Kumho scores 70.8 for snow overall against Continental's 85.1, and Kumho's snow-braking detail score of 80.6 and snow-traction of 72 are both genuinely solid results for a budget tyre. Autobild has repeatedly praised the Kumho's winter manners: "gute Schneetraktion" (good snow traction) and "gute Traktion und kurze Bremswege auf Schnee" (good traction and short braking distances on snow) appear across multiple test years, making this arguably the Solus 4S's strongest discipline relative to its price point.

The Continental, though, is operating on another level entirely here. Its snow-handling-objective score of 96 and snow-circle-cornering of 91.7 are both outstanding, and Tyre Reviews 2024 called it flatly "best snow traction" and "best in ice overall" in its test field — a striking claim for a tyre that isn't a dedicated winter product. Continental's own marketing leans into this too, citing "consistent strengths" in winter performance, and AUTOBILD 2024 specifically praised its "starkem Auftritt bei Schnee und Eis" (strong showing in snow and ice). Both tyres carry 3PMSF certification, so neither is making an empty winter claim, but the Continental's cornering stability on snow and ice is genuinely one of the standout figures in this whole comparison — this is where its adaptive tread design earns its keep.

Comfort is another area where Continental simply outclasses its rival: its comfort score of 100 and noise score of 100 are both maximum figures, backed by an interior noise detail score of 97, and AUTOBILD 2025 specifically praised its "leises Abrollgeräusch" (quiet rolling noise). An Audi A3 plug-in hybrid owner described it as "incredibly quiet," noting the car became "basically silent" in electric mode, while a Volkswagen Passat owner switching from Hankook Ventus Prime 4 tyres noted the Continental "feels significantly softer." Kumho's comfort score of 75.5 is genuinely decent for a budget tyre — Autobild has noted "leises Abrollgeräusch" for it too in places — but it's a clear step behind, and its ride-comfort detail score of 68 confirms it trades some plushness for cost.

Running costs are where the Kumho's real argument lives. Its price-value-ratio detail score of 82.5 is actually its single strongest metric, and Autobild has repeatedly cited "niedriger Preis" (low price) and "hohe Laufleistung" (high mileage) among its genuine positives, alongside "gute Wirtschaftlichkeit" (good economy). Its rolling-resistance score of 58.7 is weak, though, and multiple Autobild tests flag "erhöhter Rollwiderstand" (increased rolling resistance) as a persistent negative — so fuel economy doesn't quite match the up-front price advantage. Its EU fuel label skews mostly C and D grade rather than A or B.

The Continental costs considerably more up front — AUTOBILD 2025 called it out for a "sehr hohes Preisniveau" (very high price level), the priciest in its test field — but its mileage score of 86.3 is backed by concrete evidence: Tyre Reviews 2024 named it the "lowest wear on test" and "best value tyre on test" despite the sticker price, and its EU fuel label leans predominantly B-grade against Kumho's C/D-heavy spread. Its rolling-resistance score of 85.5 is also dramatically better than Kumho's. Over a full tread life, the Continental's combination of genuinely low wear, better fuel economy and class-leading comfort makes a real case for paying more upfront — it's a tyre built to reward ownership over years, not just to look cheap on day one.