Tests – · none yet Owners 63 · 21 reviews
Head-to-head
Updated
Bridgestone Blizzak LM-32 vs Continental WinterContact TS 810 — 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 + 5 owner reviews. How we score
Blizzak LM-32 leads, 64–60 Narrow edge
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.
Tests – · none yet Owners 56 · 5 reviews
Category by category
Relative Score per category, 0–100. Open “Why this score” for the tests and owner ratings behind it.
-
65
Dry
Blizzak LM-32 +461Why this score
Source Blizzak LM-32 WinterContact TS 810 Professional tests (TWG score) ≈ 66 (est.) ≈ 64 (est.) Reviews found online 63 58 Blizzak LM-32: 60% × 65.9 (est.) + 40% × 63 = 65
WinterContact TS 810: 60% × 63.8 (est.) + 40% × 57.9 = 61
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 WinterContact TS 810. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.41).
-
65
Wet
Blizzak LM-32 +164Why this score
Source Blizzak LM-32 WinterContact TS 810 Professional tests (TWG score) ≈ 67 (est.) ≈ 66 (est.) Reviews found online 64 62 Blizzak LM-32: 60% × 66.8 (est.) + 40% × 63.5 = 65
WinterContact TS 810: 60% × 65.8 (est.) + 40% × 61.7 = 64
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 WinterContact TS 810. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.55).
-
66
Snow
No comparison–Why this score
Source Blizzak LM-32 WinterContact TS 810 Professional tests (TWG score) ≈ 68 (est.) – Reviews found online 63 – Blizzak LM-32: 60% × 68.2 (est.) + 40% × 63.1 = 66
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).
-
61
Comfort
WinterContact TS 810 +162Why this score
Source Blizzak LM-32 WinterContact TS 810 Professional tests (TWG score) ≈ 67 (est.) ≈ 67 (est.) Reviews found online 58 58 Blizzak LM-32: 40% × 66.6 (est.) + 60% × 58 = 61
WinterContact TS 810: 40% × 66.6 (est.) + 60% × 58.3 = 62
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 WinterContact TS 810. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.20).
-
63
Noise
No comparison–Why this score
Source Blizzak LM-32 WinterContact TS 810 Professional tests (TWG score) ≈ 66 (est.) – Reviews found online 59 – Blizzak LM-32: 60% × 66.3 (est.) + 40% × 58.9 = 63
No road tests of noise for Blizzak LM-32. The test half is the tested tires’ average (66): owners’ noise ratings barely follow the road tests.
-
66
Treadwear
Blizzak LM-32 +1056Why this score
Source Blizzak LM-32 WinterContact TS 810 Professional tests (TWG score) ≈ 66 (est.) ≈ 60 (est.) Reviews found online 66 49 Blizzak LM-32: 60% × 66.2 (est.) + 40% × 65.5 = 66
WinterContact TS 810: 60% × 60.3 (est.) + 40% × 49 = 56
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 WinterContact TS 810. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.36).
-
59
Handling (owners)
Blizzak LM-32 +653Why this score
Source Blizzak LM-32 WinterContact TS 810 Reviews found online 59 53
Scores at a glance
| Category | Bridgestone Blizzak LM-32 | Continental WinterContact TS 810 |
|---|---|---|
| Relative Score | 64 | 60 |
| Dry | 65 | 61 |
| Wet | 65 | 64 |
| Snow | 66 | – |
| Comfort | 61 | 62 |
| Noise | 63 | – |
| Treadwear | 66 | 56 |
| Handling (owners) | 59 | 53 |
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
Important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Only one of the two tires has a score here, so this weight changes nothing in the head-to-head.
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Only one of the two tires has a score here, so this weight changes nothing in the head-to-head.
Neutral
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Recomputed
Headline score
64
/ 100
Blizzak LM-32
60
/ 100
WinterContact TS 810
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
Tire B WinterContact TS 810
Pros
- Reliable traction in snow and icy conditions
- Strong performance in cold, wet weather
- Well-balanced handling characteristics across various road surfaces
Cons
- Performance degradation in warmer or dry conditions
- Inconsistent snow and ice performance reported by some users
- Poor customer service experiences associated with the brand
Specs side by side
| Attribute | A · Bridgestone Blizzak LM-32 | B · Continental WinterContact TS 810 |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Winter | Winter |
| Vehicle type | SUV and 4x4 | Passenger Car / Crossover |
| Sizes available | 36 | 5 |
| Rim diameters | 15″ – 20″ | 15″ – 17″ |
| Tread depth | 11/32″ | — |
| Sidewall | Blackwall | — |
| Max pressure | 50 psi | — |
| Sizes in common | 4 | 4 |
Which one should you actually buy?
64
/ 100
Bridgestone Blizzak LM-32
60
/ 100
Continental WinterContact TS 810
Narrow edge: Bridgestone Blizzak LM-32 — better treadwear, handling and dry. Where the Continental WinterContact TS 810 is ahead, it is by less than 3 points. Continental WinterContact TS 810 rests on little evidence so far (0 tests, 5 reviews), so read this result as provisional.
Pick tire A
You want the longest tread life
Bridgestone Blizzak LM-32 scores 66 vs 56 on treadwear.
Pick tire A
You enjoy sharp, responsive handling
Bridgestone Blizzak LM-32 scores 59 vs 53 on handling.
Pick tire A
You want the most grip on dry roads
Bridgestone Blizzak LM-32 scores 65 vs 61 on dry.
Tire A · Bridgestone Blizzak LM-32
Tire B · Continental WinterContact TS 810
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
Blizzak LM-32 or WinterContact TS 810?
Which is better in the wet, Blizzak LM-32 or WinterContact TS 810?
Neither, by our numbers: 65 vs 64 on the wet score, within 3 points.
Which grips better on dry roads, Blizzak LM-32 or WinterContact TS 810?
Bridgestone Blizzak LM-32, 65 vs 61 on our dry score.
Which is more comfortable, Blizzak LM-32 or WinterContact TS 810?
Neither, by our numbers: 61 vs 62 on the comfort score, within 3 points.
Which lasts longer, Blizzak LM-32 or WinterContact TS 810?
Bridgestone Blizzak LM-32, 66 vs 56 on our treadwear score.
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