Head-to-head Updated

Bridgestone Turanza ER33 vs Toyo Proxes CF1 — Compared

Relative Score (0–100): the weighted average of the categories below, each 60% road tests and 40% owner reviews. Based on 0 + 0 road tests and 25 + 46 owner reviews. How we score

Proxes CF1 is ahead, 69–54

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.

Toyo Proxes CF1
Tire BToyo

Proxes CF1

Summer

Tests – · none yet Owners 68 · 46 reviews

Category by category

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

  1. 54

    Dry

    Proxes CF1 +15
    69
    Why this score
    SourceTuranza ER33Proxes CF1
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 59 (est.)≈ 69 (est.)
    Reviews found online4670

    Turanza ER33: 60% × 59.1 (est.) + 40% × 46.4 = 54

    Proxes CF1: 60% × 68.6 (est.) + 40% × 70 = 69

    No road tests of dry for Turanza ER33. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.40).

    No road tests of dry for Proxes CF1. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.40).

  2. 51

    Wet

    Proxes CF1 +21
    72
    Why this score
    SourceTuranza ER33Proxes CF1
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 56 (est.)≈ 71 (est.)
    Reviews found online4572

    Turanza ER33: 60% × 55.7 (est.) + 40% × 44.6 = 51

    Proxes CF1: 60% × 71.1 (est.) + 40% × 72.2 = 72

    No road tests of wet for Turanza ER33. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.56).

    No road tests of wet for Proxes CF1. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.56).

  3. 47

    Snow

    No comparison
    –
    Why this score
    SourceTuranza ER33Proxes CF1
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 57 (est.)–
    Reviews found online32–

    Turanza ER33: 60% × 57.3 (est.) + 40% × 31.9 = 47

    No road tests of snow for Turanza ER33. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.33).

  4. 56

    Comfort

    Proxes CF1 +13
    69
    Why this score
    SourceTuranza ER33Proxes CF1
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 64 (est.)≈ 69 (est.)
    Reviews found online4269

    Turanza ER33: 60% × 64.5 (est.) + 40% × 42.2 = 56

    Proxes CF1: 60% × 69 (est.) + 40% × 68.5 = 69

    No road tests of comfort for Turanza ER33 or Proxes CF1. The test half is the tested tires’ average (69): owners’ comfort ratings barely follow the road tests.

  5. 61

    Noise

    No comparison
    –
    Why this score
    SourceTuranza ER33Proxes CF1
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 67 (est.)–
    Reviews found online50–

    Turanza ER33: 60% × 67.3 (est.) + 40% × 50.4 = 61

    No road tests of noise for Turanza ER33. The test half is the tested tires’ average (67): owners’ noise ratings barely follow the road tests.

  6. 64

    Treadwear

    Turanza ER33 +2
    62
    Why this score
    SourceTuranza ER33Proxes CF1
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 65 (est.)≈ 64 (est.)
    Reviews found online6460

    Turanza ER33: 60% × 65 (est.) + 40% × 63.6 = 64

    Proxes CF1: 60% × 63.8 (est.) + 40% × 59.7 = 62

    No road tests of treadwear for Turanza ER33. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.31).

    No road tests of treadwear for Proxes CF1. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.31).

  7. 47

    Handling (owners)

    Proxes CF1 +22
    69
    Why this score
    SourceTuranza ER33Proxes CF1
    Reviews found online4769
Scores at a glance
Bridgestone Turanza ER33 vs Toyo Proxes CF1: scores by category (0–100)
CategoryBridgestone Turanza ER33Toyo Proxes CF1
Relative Score 54 69
Dry 54 69
Wet 51 72
Snow 47 –
Comfort 56 69
Noise 61 –
Treadwear 64 62
Handling (owners) 47 69

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

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

Turanza ER33

Proxes CF1

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 Turanza ER33

Pros

  • Exceptional tread life and durability
  • Reliable dry-weather grip and handling
  • Stiff sidewall construction

Cons

  • High levels of cabin and road noise
  • Poor wet-weather performance and hydroplaning resistance
  • Mediocre ride comfort and impact absorption
All owner themes in the Turanza ER33 review

Tire B Proxes CF1

Pros

  • Exceptional dry and wet grip for the price point
  • High levels of ride comfort and low road noise
  • Predictable handling and responsive steering feedback

Cons

  • Rapid tread wear and short lifespan
  • Performance degradation as the tread depth decreases
  • Potential for handling instability if mixed with non-directional tires
All owner themes in the Proxes CF1 review

Specs side by side

Attribute A · Bridgestone Turanza ER33 B · Toyo Proxes CF1
CategorySummerSummer
Vehicle typePassenger Car / CrossoverPassenger Car / Crossover
Sizes available12—
Rim diameters16″ – 19″—
Tread depth10/32″—
UTQG140 A A—
SidewallBlackwall—
Max pressure44 psi—

Which one should you actually buy?

Bridgestone Turanza ER33

Toyo Proxes CF1

Winner: Toyo Proxes CF1 — better handling, wet and dry. Where the Bridgestone Turanza ER33 is ahead, it is by less than 3 points.

Pick tire B You enjoy sharp, responsive handling

Toyo Proxes CF1 scores 69 vs 47 on handling.

Pick tire B Your priority is wet-weather safety

Toyo Proxes CF1 scores 72 vs 51 on wet.

Pick tire B You want the most grip on dry roads

Toyo Proxes CF1 scores 69 vs 54 on dry.

Pick tire B You want the most comfortable ride

Toyo Proxes CF1 scores 69 vs 56 on comfort.

Tire A · Bridgestone Turanza ER33
Tire B · Toyo Proxes CF1

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

Turanza ER33 or Proxes CF1?

Which is better in the wet, Turanza ER33 or Proxes CF1?

Toyo Proxes CF1, 72 vs 51 on our wet score.

Which grips better on dry roads, Turanza ER33 or Proxes CF1?

Toyo Proxes CF1, 69 vs 54 on our dry score.

Which is more comfortable, Turanza ER33 or Proxes CF1?

Toyo Proxes CF1, 69 vs 56 on our comfort score.

Which lasts longer, Turanza ER33 or Proxes CF1?

Neither, by our numbers: 64 vs 62 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