Head-to-head Updated

Continental Cross Contact A/T vs General Grabber A/T — 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 14 + 17 owner reviews. How we score

Grabber A/T leads, 65–62 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.

General Grabber A/T
Tire BGeneral

Grabber A/T

All-Terrain tire

Provisional

Tests – · none yet Owners 63 · 17 reviews

Category by category

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

  1. 64

    Dry

    Grabber A/T +1
    65
    Why this score
    SourceCross Contact A/TGrabber A/T
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 66 (est.)≈ 66 (est.)
    Reviews found online6263

    Cross Contact A/T: 60% × 65.5 (est.) + 40% × 62.2 = 64

    Grabber A/T: 60% × 65.8 (est.) + 40% × 63 = 65

    No road tests of dry for Cross Contact A/T. 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 Grabber A/T. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.40).

  2. 64

    Wet

    Grabber A/T +2
    66
    Why this score
    SourceCross Contact A/TGrabber A/T
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 66 (est.)≈ 67 (est.)
    Reviews found online6365

    Cross Contact A/T: 60% × 65.7 (est.) + 40% × 62.5 = 64

    Grabber A/T: 60% × 66.9 (est.) + 40% × 64.6 = 66

    No road tests of wet for Cross Contact A/T. 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 Grabber A/T. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.56).

  3. 53

    Snow

    Grabber A/T +9
    62
    Why this score
    SourceCross Contact A/TGrabber A/T
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 60 (est.)≈ 66 (est.)
    Reviews found online4157

    Cross Contact A/T: 60% × 60.4 (est.) + 40% × 41.3 = 53

    Grabber A/T: 60% × 65.7 (est.) + 40% × 57.1 = 62

    No road tests of snow for Cross Contact A/T. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.33).

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

  4. 65

    Comfort

    Level
    65
    Why this score
    SourceCross Contact A/TGrabber A/T
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 68 (est.)≈ 68 (est.)
    Reviews found online6062

    Cross Contact A/T: 60% × 67.6 (est.) + 40% × 60.4 = 65

    Grabber A/T: 60% × 67.9 (est.) + 40% × 61.8 = 65

    No road tests of comfort for Cross Contact A/T or Grabber A/T. The test half is the tested tires’ average (69): owners’ comfort ratings barely follow the road tests.

  5. 65

    Treadwear

    Level
    65
    Why this score
    SourceCross Contact A/TGrabber A/T
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 65 (est.)≈ 65 (est.)
    Reviews found online6464

    Cross Contact A/T: 60% × 65.2 (est.) + 40% × 64.4 = 65

    Grabber A/T: 60% × 65.1 (est.) + 40% × 64 = 65

    No road tests of treadwear for Cross Contact A/T. 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 Grabber A/T. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.31).

  6. 62

    Handling (owners)

    Grabber A/T +2
    64
    Why this score
    SourceCross Contact A/TGrabber A/T
    Reviews found online6264
Scores at a glance
Continental Cross Contact A/T vs General Grabber A/T: scores by category (0–100)
CategoryContinental Cross Contact A/TGeneral Grabber A/T
Relative Score 62 65
Dry 64 65
Wet 64 66
Snow 53 62
Comfort 65 65
Treadwear 65 65
Handling (owners) 62 64

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
Neutral
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Recomputed
Headline score

Cross Contact A/T

Grabber A/T

Pros, cons & observations

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

Tire A Cross Contact A/T

Pros

  • Excellent on-road comfort and handling with acceptable noise levels
  • High potential longevity and mileage for many users, with sets lasting upwards of 50,000 to 80,000 km/miles
  • Competent dry and wet performance on paved surfaces

Cons

  • Susceptibility to punctures and fragile sidewalls reported by some drivers
  • Rapid, premature tread wear experienced by certain users
  • Poor traction and spinning issues in winter conditions such as snow and ice
All owner themes in the Cross Contact A/T review

Tire B Grabber A/T

Pros

  • Excellent off-road traction on mud, grass, gravel, and farm tracks
  • Good performance in snow and winter conditions
  • Reasonably quiet and smooth on-road manners compared to more aggressive alternatives

Cons

  • Poor or slippery grip on wet tarmac, raising safety concerns for some users
  • Balancing issues reported by multiple owners
  • Weak sidewall durability or vulnerability to punctures on low-profile applications
All owner themes in the Grabber A/T review

Specs side by side

Attribute A · Continental Cross Contact A/T B · General Grabber A/T
CategoryAll-Terrain tireAll-Terrain tire
Vehicle typeSUV and 4x4SUV and 4x4

Which one should you actually buy?

Continental Cross Contact A/T

General Grabber A/T

Narrow edge: General Grabber A/T — better snow. It leads or ties in every category we score. Continental Cross Contact A/T rests on little evidence so far (0 tests, 14 reviews), so read this result as provisional. General Grabber A/T rests on little evidence so far (0 tests, 17 reviews), so read this result as provisional.

Pick tire B You drive through snowy winters

General Grabber A/T scores 62 vs 53 on snow.

Tire A · Continental Cross Contact A/T
Tire B · General Grabber A/T

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

Cross Contact A/T or Grabber A/T?

Which is better in the wet, Cross Contact A/T or Grabber A/T?

Neither, by our numbers: 64 vs 66 on the wet score, within 3 points.

Which grips better on dry roads, Cross Contact A/T or Grabber A/T?

Neither, by our numbers: 64 vs 65 on the dry score, within 3 points.

Which is better in snow, Cross Contact A/T or Grabber A/T?

General Grabber A/T, 62 vs 53 on our snow score.

Which is more comfortable, Cross Contact A/T or Grabber A/T?

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

Which lasts longer, Cross Contact A/T or Grabber A/T?

Neither, by our numbers: 65 vs 65 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