tirewheelguide
Head-to-head Updated

Continental Premium Contact 5 vs Yokohama BluEarth Es ES32 — 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 4 + 0 road tests and 119 + 63 owner reviews. How we score

BluEarth Es ES32 leads, 72–70 Narrow edge

Check price on Amazon · BluEarth Es ES32 or Premium Contact 5 on Amazon
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.

Continental Premium Contact 5
Tire AContinental

Premium Contact 5

Summer

± 6

Tests 73 · 4 tests Owners 63 · 119 reviews

Best test result: #1 of 11 in 2019 AMS Summer SUV Tyre Test (straight aquaplaning)

Category by category

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

  1. 71

    Dry

    Level
    71
    Why this score
    SourcePremium Contact 5BluEarth Es ES32
    Professional tests (TWG score) · 4 / – tests71≈ 70 (est.)
    Reviews found online7173

    Premium Contact 5: 60% × 71.1 + 40% × 70.9 = 71

    BluEarth Es ES32: 60% × 70 (est.) + 40% × 72.9 = 71

    No road tests of dry for BluEarth Es ES32. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.41).

  2. 77

    Wet

    Premium Contact 5 +2
    75
    Why this score
    SourcePremium Contact 5BluEarth Es ES32
    Professional tests (TWG score) · 4 / – tests79≈ 74 (est.)
    Reviews found online7476

    Premium Contact 5: 60% × 78.6 + 40% × 73.5 = 77

    BluEarth Es ES32: 60% × 73.7 (est.) + 40% × 76.2 = 75

    No road tests of wet for BluEarth Es ES32. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.55).

  3. 69

    Comfort

    BluEarth Es ES32 +5
    74
    Why this score
    SourcePremium Contact 5BluEarth Es ES32
    Professional tests (TWG score) · 1 / – tests74≈ 70 (est.)
    Reviews found online6676

    Premium Contact 5: 40% × 74.2 + 60% × 65.6 = 69

    BluEarth Es ES32: 40% × 70.1 (est.) + 60% × 75.8 = 74

    No road tests of comfort for BluEarth Es ES32. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.20).

  4. 70

    Noise

    No comparison
    –
    Why this score
    SourcePremium Contact 5BluEarth Es ES32
    Professional tests (TWG score) · 4 / – tests73–
    Reviews found online≈ 66 (est.)–

    Premium Contact 5: 60% × 73.2 + 40% × 66.4 (est.) = 70

    No owner ratings of noise for Premium Contact 5. The owner half is the owners’ average (66): owners’ noise ratings barely follow the road tests, so the tests say nothing about how owners would rate it.

  5. 59

    Treadwear

    BluEarth Es ES32 +8
    67
    Why this score
    SourcePremium Contact 5BluEarth Es ES32
    Professional tests (TWG score) · 1 / – tests69≈ 67 (est.)
    Reviews found online4367

    Premium Contact 5: 60% × 68.7 + 40% × 43.4 = 59

    BluEarth Es ES32: 60% × 66.5 (est.) + 40% × 66.5 = 67

    No road tests of treadwear for BluEarth Es ES32. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.36).

  6. 67

    Handling (owners)

    BluEarth Es ES32 +10
    77
    Why this score
    SourcePremium Contact 5BluEarth Es ES32
    Reviews found online6777
  7. 67

    Efficiency

    No comparison
    –
    Why this score
    SourcePremium Contact 5BluEarth Es ES32
    Professional tests (TWG score) · 3 / – tests67–
Scores at a glance
CategoryContinental Premium Contact 5Yokohama BluEarth Es ES32
Relative Score 70 72
Dry 71 71
Wet 77 75
Comfort 69 74
Noise 70 –
Treadwear 59 67
Handling (owners) 67 77
Efficiency 67 –

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
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
Not 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
± 6

Premium Contact 5

± 8

BluEarth Es ES32

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 Premium Contact 5

Pros

  • Exceptional grip in both wet and dry road conditions
  • High levels of ride comfort and low cabin noise
  • Predictable and safe handling characteristics

Cons

  • Rapid and premature tread wear
  • Soft sidewalls leading to vague steering feedback and body roll
  • Performance degradation as the tread depth decreases
All owner themes in the Premium Contact 5 review

Tire B BluEarth Es ES32

Pros

  • Exceptional ride comfort and smoothness over bumps
  • Noticeably low road noise and quiet operation
  • Strong value for money compared to premium brands

Cons

  • Faster-than-average tread wear reported by some drivers
  • Diminished wet weather grip and increased skidding risk as the tread wears down
  • Not suited for high-performance driving or aggressive cornering
All owner themes in the BluEarth Es ES32 review

Specs side by side

Attribute A · Continental Premium Contact 5 B · Yokohama BluEarth Es ES32
CategorySummerSummer
Vehicle typePassenger Car / CrossoverPassenger Car / Crossover
Sizes available2364
Rim diameters14″ – 17″13″ – 18″
Sizes in common1616

Which one should you actually buy?

Continental Premium Contact 5

Yokohama BluEarth Es ES32

Narrow edge: Yokohama BluEarth Es ES32 — better handling, treadwear and comfort. Where the Continental Premium Contact 5 is ahead, it is by less than 3 points.

Pick tire B You enjoy sharp, responsive handling

Yokohama BluEarth Es ES32 scores 77 vs 67 on handling.

Pick tire B You want the longest tread life

Yokohama BluEarth Es ES32 scores 67 vs 59 on treadwear.

Pick tire B You want the most comfortable ride

Yokohama BluEarth Es ES32 scores 74 vs 69 on comfort.

Tire A · Continental Premium Contact 5
Check price on Amazon
Tire B · Yokohama BluEarth Es ES32
Check price on Amazon

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

Premium Contact 5 or BluEarth Es ES32?

Which is better in the wet, Premium Contact 5 or BluEarth Es ES32?

Neither, by our numbers: 77 vs 75 on the wet score, within 3 points.

Which grips better on dry roads, Premium Contact 5 or BluEarth Es ES32?

Neither, by our numbers: 71 vs 71 on the dry score, within 3 points.

Which is more comfortable, Premium Contact 5 or BluEarth Es ES32?

Yokohama BluEarth Es ES32, 74 vs 69 on our comfort score.

Which lasts longer, Premium Contact 5 or BluEarth Es ES32?

Yokohama BluEarth Es ES32, 67 vs 59 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