Comparison: Pirelli P ZERO vs. Pirelli P ZERO PZ4 vs. Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2 vs. Pirelli P Zero (PZ5) vs. Goodyear Efficientgrip 2 SUV vs. Falken e.Ziex

This is where the comparison becomes unambiguous. In the only head-to-head test capturing wet braking distances, the Hankook stopped in 35.7 metres against the Yokohama's 40.2 metres — a 4.5-metre gap that represents a meaningful real-world safety difference. That margin is not a rounding error; it reflects a fundamentally stronger wet compound on the Hankook. Its aquaplaning resistance score of 69.8 is admittedly modest, and wet grip ratings on individual EU label dimensions are split between A and B — but in measured braking the Hankook is clearly superior. The Yokohama's full A-rated EU wet grip label looks strong on paper, and its overall wet score of 84 is impressive, but that 40.2-metre stop alongside a tyre that manages 35.7 metres in identical conditions is hard to overlook. Owner feedback on the Yokohama raises additional concern: one reviewer explicitly warned that the tyre feels dangerous above 120 km/h — a red flag for motorway users that no EU label can address.

Dry braking is closely matched between these two: in the one mutual test where both were measured, the Hankook stopped in 34.3 metres against the Yokohama's 34.9 metres — a negligible margin in isolation. The Hankook's measured dry handling scores average exceptionally high at 93.3, and its overall dry score of 90 reflects a tyre with confident, predictable behaviour rather than outright aggression. The Yokohama carries a higher dry performance score of 96, suggesting stronger handling dynamics on a good day, and BRZ owners on Tyre Reviews describe dry and wet grip as confidence-inspiring. However, in the 52-tyre Autobild comparison where both competed, the Hankook finished 2nd overall while the Yokohama placed 15th — a gap that suggests the Yokohama's dry capability is inconsistent across conditions and tyre sizes rather than a reliable advantage.

The Yokohama scores significantly higher in comfort (95 vs 78.8) and noise (95 vs 78.9) based on aggregated test data, suggesting a noticeably more refined ride in controlled evaluations. The Hankook's exterior noise score of 85.7 is respectable but the gap is real. Rolling resistance is similarly close, with the Hankook edging slightly ahead (70.2 vs 69) — neither tyre is an efficiency standout, with both primarily rated C on the EU fuel label. Mileage is a weak point for both: the Hankook scores 62.8 and the Yokohama 60, so neither should be chosen for longevity. Where the Yokohama's comfort advantage is partially undermined is in owner satisfaction — its Tyre Reviews average of 41 out of 100 across 64 reviews is unusually low for a tyre with high test scores, hinting at real-world inconsistencies in ride quality, noise, or durability that aggregate scores may not capture.