tirewheelguide
Head-to-head Updated

Bridgestone Blizzak LM-32 vs Continental ContiProContact SSR — Compared

Relative Score (0–100): the weighted average of the categories below, each 60% road tests and 40% owner reviews (comfort 40/60). Based on 0 + 0 road tests and 21 + 10 owner reviews. How we score

Too close to call: Blizzak LM-32 65, ContiProContact SSR 66.

Check price on Amazon · Blizzak LM-32 Check price on Amazon · ContiProContact SSR
Add your size for an exact match
/R

Both Amazon links then search this exact size.

TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.

Category by category

Relative Score per category, 0–100. Open “Why this score” for the tests and owner ratings behind it.

  1. 65

    Dry

    Level
    65
    Why this score
    SourceBlizzak LM-32ContiProContact SSR
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 66 (est.)≈ 66 (est.)
    Reviews found online6364

    Blizzak LM-32: 60% × 65.9 (est.) + 40% × 63 = 65

    ContiProContact SSR: 60% × 66.3 (est.) + 40% × 63.9 = 65

    No road tests of dry for Blizzak LM-32. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.41).

    No road tests of dry for ContiProContact SSR. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.41).

  2. 65

    Wet

    ContiProContact SSR +5
    70
    Why this score
    SourceBlizzak LM-32ContiProContact SSR
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 67 (est.)≈ 70 (est.)
    Reviews found online6369

    Blizzak LM-32: 60% × 66.7 (est.) + 40% × 63.4 = 65

    ContiProContact SSR: 60% × 69.8 (est.) + 40% × 69.1 = 70

    No road tests of wet for Blizzak LM-32. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.55).

    No road tests of wet for ContiProContact SSR. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.55).

  3. 66

    Snow

    Blizzak LM-32 +1
    65
    Why this score
    SourceBlizzak LM-32ContiProContact SSR
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 68 (est.)≈ 68 (est.)
    Reviews found online6361

    Blizzak LM-32: 60% × 68.2 (est.) + 40% × 63.2 = 66

    ContiProContact SSR: 60% × 67.6 (est.) + 40% × 61.3 = 65

    No road tests of snow for Blizzak LM-32. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.32).

    No road tests of snow for ContiProContact SSR. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.32).

  4. 61

    Comfort

    Blizzak LM-32 +1
    60
    Why this score
    SourceBlizzak LM-32ContiProContact SSR
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 67 (est.)≈ 66 (est.)
    Reviews found online5856

    Blizzak LM-32: 40% × 66.5 (est.) + 60% × 57.9 = 61

    ContiProContact SSR: 40% × 66.2 (est.) + 60% × 56.3 = 60

    No road tests of comfort for Blizzak LM-32. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.20).

    No road tests of comfort for ContiProContact SSR. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.20).

  5. 63

    Noise

    ContiProContact SSR +4
    67
    Why this score
    SourceBlizzak LM-32ContiProContact SSR
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 66 (est.)≈ 66 (est.)
    Reviews found online5968

    Blizzak LM-32: 60% × 66.3 (est.) + 40% × 58.9 = 63

    ContiProContact SSR: 60% × 66.3 (est.) + 40% × 68.2 = 67

    No road tests of noise for Blizzak LM-32 or ContiProContact SSR. The test half is the tested tires’ average (66): owners’ noise ratings barely follow the road tests.

  6. 66

    Treadwear

    Level
    66
    Why this score
    SourceBlizzak LM-32ContiProContact SSR
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 66 (est.)≈ 66 (est.)
    Reviews found online6665

    Blizzak LM-32: 60% × 66.2 (est.) + 40% × 65.5 = 66

    ContiProContact SSR: 60% × 66.1 (est.) + 40% × 65.4 = 66

    No road tests of treadwear for Blizzak LM-32. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.36).

    No road tests of treadwear for ContiProContact SSR. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.36).

  7. 59

    Handling (owners)

    No comparison
    –
    Why this score
    SourceBlizzak LM-32ContiProContact SSR
    Reviews found online59–
Scores at a glance
CategoryBridgestone Blizzak LM-32Continental ContiProContact SSR
Relative Score 65 66
Dry 65 65
Wet 65 70
Snow 66 65
Comfort 61 60
Noise 63 67
Treadwear 66 66
Handling (owners) 59 –

Higher is better. The Relative Score follows your weights below; category scores do not change.

Weight the categories that matter to you

Wet grip starts at “Important”. Treadwear starts at “Neutral” here: road tests measured it for at most one of the two tires, so it rests on owner reviews. Move the sliders and the scores update instantly.

Important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Neutral
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Neutral
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost

Only one of the two tires has a score here, so this weight changes nothing in the head-to-head.

Recomputed
Headline score
± 8

Blizzak LM-32

± 8

ContiProContact SSR

Only categories both tires have data for count toward the headline score.

Pros, cons & observations

Themes extracted from owner reviews found online — not the opinion of TireWheelGuide.

Tire A Blizzak LM-32

Pros

  • Exceptional traction and reliability in deep snow and winter storms
  • Stable and satisfying handling on cold, dry roads
  • Good resistance to aquaplaning and solid durability/tread life reported by some users

Cons

  • Poor and unpredictable wet weather grip, leading to wheel spin and sliding
  • Noticeable road noise and humming that increases as the tread wears down
  • Vague steering feel and lackluster performance under quick acceleration
All owner themes in the Blizzak LM-32 review

Tire B ContiProContact SSR

Not enough owner reviews yet to extract themes.

Specs side by side

Attribute A · Bridgestone Blizzak LM-32 B · Continental ContiProContact SSR
CategoryWinterAll-Season tire
Vehicle typeSUV and 4x4Passenger Car / Crossover
Sizes available361
Rim diameters15″ – 20″17″
Tread depth11/32″10/32″
UTQG—400 A A
Treadwear warranty—40,000 mi
SidewallBlackwallBlackwall
Max pressure50 psi51 psi

Which one should you actually buy?

Bridgestone Blizzak LM-32

Continental ContiProContact SSR

Too close to call: Bridgestone Blizzak LM-32 and Continental ContiProContact SSR are within 2 points overall. Continental ContiProContact SSR is stronger on wet and noise. Continental ContiProContact SSR rests on little evidence so far (0 tests, 10 reviews), so read this result as provisional.

Pick tire B Your priority is wet-weather safety

Continental ContiProContact SSR scores 70 vs 65 on wet.

Pick tire B You want a quieter cabin

Continental ContiProContact SSR scores 67 vs 63 on noise.

Tire A · Bridgestone Blizzak LM-32
Check price on Amazon
Tire B · Continental ContiProContact SSR
Check price on Amazon

TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.

Blizzak LM-32 or ContiProContact SSR?

Which is better in the wet, Blizzak LM-32 or ContiProContact SSR?

Continental ContiProContact SSR, 70 vs 65 on our wet score.

Which grips better on dry roads, Blizzak LM-32 or ContiProContact SSR?

Neither, by our numbers: 65 vs 65 on the dry score, within 3 points.

Which is better in snow, Blizzak LM-32 or ContiProContact SSR?

Neither, by our numbers: 66 vs 65 on the snow score, within 3 points.

Which is quieter, Blizzak LM-32 or ContiProContact SSR?

Continental ContiProContact SSR, 67 vs 63 on our noise score.

Which is more comfortable, Blizzak LM-32 or ContiProContact SSR?

Neither, by our numbers: 61 vs 60 on the comfort score, within 3 points.

Which lasts longer, Blizzak LM-32 or ContiProContact SSR?

Neither, by our numbers: 66 vs 66 on the treadwear score, within 3 points.

How do we compare tires?

Every category score blends two independent signals. 60% comes from professional tire tests (braking distances, lap times, noise measurements), each result compared with every other tire in the same test and newer tests counting more. 40% comes from owner reviews found online, adjusted for how generously each site rates. Both use one scale: the average tested tire gets 70, the best 100. When a tire has only one of the two, the missing half is estimated from the other and the score stays closer to average; with no road test and fewer than five owner reviews it gets no score yet.

Handling is the exception: road tests measure it inside the dry and wet scores, so its own row comes from owner ratings only and starts as less important.

Community buzz from Reddit and forums is shown for context only — it never changes the score. Full methodology