Segment
2. Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Premium3. Kumho WinterCraft WP52+ Upper-middle4. BFGoodrich G-FORCE WINTER 2 Upper-middle5. Kleber KRISALP HP3 Upper-middle
Comparison: Kumho WinterCraft WP52+ vs. BFGoodrich G-FORCE WINTER 2 vs. Kleber KRISALP HP3 vs. GoodYear UltraGrip Performance+ vs. Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005
Number of sizes available
Number of tests
Best position in test
Worst position in test
Average position in tests
Year of the last test
Best rating in test
1. Kleber KRISALP HP3 Exemplary2. GoodYear UltraGrip Performance+ Very good3. BFGoodrich G-FORCE WINTER 2 Very good4. Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Very good
Worst rating in test
4. GoodYear UltraGrip Performance+ Recommended5. Bridgestone Blizzak LM-005 Conditionally recommended
Wet
(Overall rating)Wet braking according to EU label
Snow
(Overall rating)Costs
(Overall rating)Fuel consumption according to EU label
Dry
(Overall rating)Comfort
(Overall rating)Outside noise accoring to EU label
Add to comparison
Mutual Tests Available
These tyres were tested together in 2 test(s). Click to view detailed head-to-head results.
2
Mutual tests
| Name | Wet | Dry | Snow | Running costs | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 2+ | 2+ | 1– | 1 | |||
| Kumho WinterCraft WP52+ Rating: Good | 2+ | 2+ | 1– | 2 | |||
| BFGoodrich g-Force Winter 2 Rating: Good | 3 | 2– | 1 | 2+ | |||
| Kleber Krisalp HP3 Rating: Satisfactory | 3 | 2+ | 1 | 2+ | |||
| Show test details | |||||||
| Name | Wet | Snow | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best values in test | 32.6 | 27.1 | |||||
| Kumho WinterCraft WP52+ | 33.5 | 28.3 | |||||
| BFGoodrich G-FORCE WINTER 2 | 36.0 | 27.3 | |||||
| Kleber Krisalp HP3 | 36.2 | 27.1 | |||||
| Show test details | |||||||
