Comparison: Kumho Solus HA31 vs. Nokian WeatherProof (2026)

On dry tarmac the Kumho holds a narrow advantage in the one test where direct measurements are available: in the 31-tyre Autobild 2019 225/45 R17 test, the Solus HA31 recorded a dry braking distance of 43.8 m against the WeatherProof's 44.5 m — a small but real gap that helped the Kumho finish 9th to the Nokian's 13th. That test result aligns with broader assessments of the WeatherProof, which has been independently flagged as relatively weak on dry roads — considered enough of a concern to merit a downgrade in at least one major evaluation. Handling feel on dry roads is where the difference becomes more noticeable: the Kumho offers a more natural, confidence-building response in normal dry conditions, while the Nokian's compound, optimised for cold temperatures, can feel less communicative when roads are warm and dry. Neither tyre is a sports car's choice, but the Kumho is the less compromised option when the sun is out.

Wet performance tells a more nuanced story. In the same Autobild 2019 test, the Kumho again came out fractionally ahead on wet braking — 49.5 m versus 51.3 m for the Nokian. Yet the WeatherProof carries a predominantly B-rated EU wet grip label (with a third of its range rated A), while the Solus HA31 is entirely C-rated — a meaningful difference in label terms. The explanation lies in aquaplaning: the Nokian's aquaplaning scores are substantially stronger, with cross-aquaplaning at 90.8 and longitudinal at 85.2, against the Kumho's considerably more modest 65.5 overall. In standing water at speed, the WeatherProof offers noticeably greater safety margins. On wet handling circuits in moderate temperatures, the Nokian is the more assured performer; it's specifically in outright warm-weather wet braking where the Kumho manages to compete. Real-world Nokian owners in wet and cold climates consistently rate the tyre highly, with one driver in Ankara praising its wet grip through both summer heat and icy winters.

This is where the WeatherProof separates itself most clearly. With a snow score of 82.2 against the Kumho's 66.8, and sub-scores including snow braking at 89.8 and snow traction at 85.6, the Nokian is a genuine all-season contender in winter conditions rather than merely a compromise. It won the ACE 2016 205/55 R16 test outright — a test the Kumho finished eighth of ten. Ice performance is also creditable, with ice braking at 79 and ice lateral guidance at 81.5. The WeatherProof satisfies winter tyre regulations in countries that require them, and owners regularly confirm this: one UK driver found it matched dedicated Wintracs in hard-packed snow and frost. The Solus HA31 is usable in light snow — Kumho owners report decent traction — but it is not in the same class as the Nokian when temperatures drop seriously. Drivers who regularly encounter real winter conditions should treat this gap as decisive.

Flip the tyre and the Kumho reasserts itself. Its comfort score of 81 comfortably surpasses the Nokian's 69.5, and its noise score of 81 versus 69.9 reflects what independent testing confirms: the WeatherProof is a relatively loud tyre. ADAC specifically flagged it as noisy enough to affect its overall assessment. The Kumho, by contrast, earns positive marks for cabin refinement — owners report a settled, unobtrusive ride on motorways and country roads alike. Rolling resistance is a surprising twist: the Nokian's 90.3 score versus the Kumho's 71 means the WeatherProof is notably more fuel-efficient despite its winter-biased construction. However, tread life swings back to the Kumho, which scores 77 on mileage against the Nokian's 67.3 — a gap confirmed by real-world experience. One Nokian owner reported wearing through a set on a Nissan Qashqai in under two years at 40,000 km. The Solus HA31 also covers 68 dimensions to the WeatherProof's 42, giving it a broader fitment range for common passenger car sizes.