18 Shops · 56,847+ Products

Comparison: Nokian Line SUV vs. Kumho Ecsta HS52 vs. BFGoodrich Advantage

Test Profile

Nokian
Line SUV
Kumho
Ecsta HS52
BFGoodrich
Advantage
Number of tests
5
10
14
Best position
#2
#2
#8
Average position
4.2
6.0
13.4
Latest test
2017
2026
2026
Available sizes
33
104
153

Wet

Wet
Nokian Line SUV
85%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
77%
BFGoodrich Advantage
61%
Wet braking
Nokian Line SUV
77%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
80%
BFGoodrich Advantage
77%
Wet circle cornering
Nokian Line SUV
78%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
89%
BFGoodrich Advantage
69%
Wet handling
Nokian Line SUV
84%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
79%
BFGoodrich Advantage
57%
Aquaplaning - cross
Nokian Line SUV
81%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
66%
BFGoodrich Advantage
53%
Aquaplaning - longitudal
Nokian Line SUV
82%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
73%
BFGoodrich Advantage
61%

Dry

Dry
Nokian Line SUV
82%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
87%
BFGoodrich Advantage
72%
Dry braking
Nokian Line SUV
78%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
89%
BFGoodrich Advantage
76%
Dry handling
Nokian Line SUV
87%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
85%
BFGoodrich Advantage
80%

Costs

Costs
Nokian Line SUV
71%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
76%
BFGoodrich Advantage
68%
Mileage
Nokian Line SUV
60%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
79%
BFGoodrich Advantage
63%
Rolling resistance
Nokian Line SUV
78%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
70%
BFGoodrich Advantage
66%

Comfort

Comfort
Nokian Line SUV
72%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
77%
BFGoodrich Advantage
79%
Exterior noise
Nokian Line SUV
70%
Kumho Ecsta HS52
73%
BFGoodrich Advantage
68%

Dimensions and prices

Compare prices across all available dimensions for these tyres.

Add to comparison

Popular brands
New comparison