Comparison: Kumho Solus HA31 vs. Michelin CrossClimate+ (2026)

Wet performance tells a similar story. The single mutual wet braking result shows the Kumho stopping in 49.5m versus the Michelin's 48.6m — a closer margin here, but the broader picture is less flattering for the Kumho. Its EU wet grip label sits predominantly at C, while the Michelin carries a B rating on 89% of its sizes, a genuine indicator of real-world wet-road safety. The CrossClimate+'s wet braking score of 85.3 versus the Kumho's 67 reflects what testers find: the Michelin handles wet braking with composure, while the Kumho's wet-weather performance leaves a noticeable safety gap. Aquaplaning resistance is the one area where they track closely — scores of 65.5 and 66.1 respectively — though both show some limitation in crosswind aquaplaning scenarios.

On dry roads, the gap between these two is substantial. In the Autobild 2019 225/45 R17 test, dry braking measured 43.8m for the Kumho against 39.9m for the Michelin — nearly four metres of extra stopping distance, which is a meaningful real-world difference. The Michelin's dry braking score of 93 against the Kumho's 59 underlines just how wide the separation is. The CrossClimate+ earns consistent praise for its handling precision and dry grip that testers describe as genuinely confidence-inspiring, with rigid tread blocks engineered specifically for clean, direct response on dry tarmac. The Kumho is adequate for everyday driving but lacks the sharpness and security margin of the Michelin when conditions demand more.

Snow capability is where the Kumho Solus HA31 earns its most enthusiastic real-world support. Owners report genuine surprise at how well it handles snow and ice for a budget tyre, with one describing traction as simply excellent after switching from standard all-seasons. That said, the Michelin CrossClimate+ remains the more accomplished winter performer in measured testing — its snow score of 77.8 versus the Kumho's 66.8 reflects the CrossClimate+'s 3PMSF certification and its reputation as a genuinely capable cold-weather tyre. Where the Kumho impresses owners at a price, the Michelin impresses testers on metrics. Some CrossClimate+ owners note reduced snow traction as the tyre wears, which is worth bearing in mind for long-term winter use.

This is arguably the Kumho's strongest relative ground. Its comfort score of 81 edges the Michelin's 78.7, and noise comes in similarly close at 81 versus 79.8. In practice, the difference is marginal, but the Kumho doesn't ride harshly for a budget tyre. Where the Michelin pulls clearly ahead is rolling resistance — 81.1 versus 71 for the Kumho — meaning meaningfully lower fuel costs over time. And on mileage, the CrossClimate+ scores a perfect 100 in measured tests, which is remarkable. Real owners consistently highlight its durability, with many reporting outstanding wear life. The Kumho's mileage score of 77 is reasonable, but it cannot match the Michelin's longevity credentials, which largely offset the higher purchase price over the tyre's lifetime.