Relative Score (0–100): the weighted average of the categories below, each 60% road tests and 40% owner reviews (comfort 40/60). Based on 31 + 11 road tests and 907 + 2,130 owner reviews. How we score
Too close to call: Azenis FK510 73, Ventus S1 evo2 72.
Both Amazon links then search this exact size.
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
Tests 74 · 31 tests Owners 66 · 907 reviews
Best test result: #1 of 9 in 2018 Sport Auto 19 inch UHP and Track Day Tyre Test (wet braking)
“I have Fallen FK510s and live where it rains 300 days a year, they perform great and I'm sure the 520 is even better”
Tests 79 · 11 tests Owners 67 · 2,130 reviews
Best test result: #1 of 16 in 2018 Test World Summer Tyre Test (dry braking)
Relative Score per category, 0–100. Open “Why this score” for the tests and owner ratings behind it.
| Source | Azenis FK510 | Ventus S1 evo2 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · 28 / 11 tests | 73 | 77 |
| Reviews found online | 75 | 70 |
| Dry Braking (% of best) · 9 shared tests · wins 1–6 | 96% | 97% |
| Dry Handling (% of best) · 7 shared tests · wins 1–5 | 97% | 98% |
| Dry Handling (tester's mark) (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 0–0 | 80% | 80% |
Azenis FK510: 60% × 72.9 + 40% × 75.4 = 74
Ventus S1 evo2: 60% × 76.7 + 40% × 70 = 74
| Source | Azenis FK510 | Ventus S1 evo2 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · 29 / 11 tests | 89 | 83 |
| Reviews found online | 78 | 73 |
| Straight Aquaplaning (% of best) · 5 shared tests · wins 2–3 | 96% | 95% |
| Wet Handling (tester's mark) (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 0–0 | 80% | 80% |
| Wet Braking (% of best) · 9 shared tests · wins 9–0 | 99% | 95% |
| Wet Handling (% of best) · 8 shared tests · wins 6–0 | 98% | 98% |
Azenis FK510: 60% × 89 + 40% × 78.2 = 85
Ventus S1 evo2: 60% × 83.3 + 40% × 73.4 = 79
| Source | Azenis FK510 | Ventus S1 evo2 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) | ≈ 61 (est.) | – |
| Reviews found online | 46 | – |
Azenis FK510: 60% × 61.3 (est.) + 40% × 45.5 = 55
No road tests of snow for Azenis FK510. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.37).
| Source | Azenis FK510 | Ventus S1 evo2 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · 6 / 1 tests | 42 | 72 |
| Reviews found online | 68 | 63 |
Azenis FK510: 40% × 41.7 + 60% × 67.6 = 57
Ventus S1 evo2: 40% × 71.7 + 60% × 62.8 = 66
| Source | Azenis FK510 | Ventus S1 evo2 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · 18 / 6 tests | 66 | 76 |
| Reviews found online | 67 | ≈ 67 (est.) |
| Noise (% of best) · 5 shared tests · wins 2–2 | 99% | 99% |
Azenis FK510: 60% × 66 + 40% × 67.2 = 66
Ventus S1 evo2: 60% × 75.9 + 40% × 66.6 (est.) = 72
No owner ratings of noise for Ventus S1 evo2. The owner half is the owners’ average (67): owners’ noise ratings barely follow the road tests, so the tests say nothing about how owners would rate it.
| Source | Azenis FK510 | Ventus S1 evo2 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · 5 / – tests | 73 | ≈ 63 (est.) |
| Reviews found online | 54 | 57 |
Azenis FK510: 60% × 73.1 + 40% × 54.1 = 65
Ventus S1 evo2: 60% × 63 (est.) + 40% × 57.1 = 61
No road tests of treadwear for Ventus S1 evo2. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.35).
| Source | Azenis FK510 | Ventus S1 evo2 |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews found online | 72 | 68 |
| Source | Azenis FK510 | Ventus S1 evo2 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · 19 / 5 tests | 51 | 72 |
| Rolling Resistance (% of best) · 4 shared tests · wins 0–3 | 91% | 96% |
| Category | Falken Azenis FK510 | Hankook Ventus S1 evo2 |
|---|---|---|
| Relative Score | 73 | 72 |
| Dry | 74 | 74 |
| Wet | 85 | 79 |
| Snow | 55 | – |
| Comfort | 57 | 66 |
| Noise | 66 | 72 |
| Treadwear | 65 | 61 |
| Handling (owners) | 72 | 68 |
| Efficiency | 51 | 72 |
Higher is better. The Relative Score follows your weights below; category scores do not change.
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.
Only one of the two tires has a score here, so this weight changes nothing in the head-to-head.
Azenis FK510
Ventus S1 evo2
Only categories both tires have data for count toward the headline score.
Per discipline: the average % of the best tire over every test both tires were in, and how many of those tests each one won. “Different tests” rows compare results from separate tests.
In the overall rankings of 14 tests that ran both, Falken Azenis FK510 finished ahead 5 times and Hankook Ventus S1 evo2 9 times.
| Discipline | Category | Azenis FK510 | Ventus S1 evo2 | Δ | Head-to-head |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | Dry | 96% | 97% | −0.9 | 1–6 in 9 shared tests Newest: 2020 Auto Bild UHP 19 inch Tyre Test · 265/35 R19 |
| Dry Handling | Dry | 97% | 98% | −0.4 | 1–5 in 7 shared tests Newest: 2020 Auto Bild UHP 19 inch Tyre Test · 265/35 R19 |
| Dry Handling (tester's mark) | Dry | 80% | 80% | 0.0 | 0–0 in 1 shared test Newest: 2018 Test World Summer Tyre Test · 225/45 R17 |
| Straight Aquaplaning | Wet | 96% | 95% | +0.4 | 2–3 in 5 shared tests Newest: 2020 Auto Bild UHP 19 inch Tyre Test · 265/35 R19 |
| Wet Braking | Wet | 99% | 95% | +3.8 | 9–0 in 9 shared tests Newest: 2020 Auto Bild UHP 19 inch Tyre Test · 265/35 R19 |
| Wet Handling | Wet | 98% | 98% | +0.8 | 6–0 in 8 shared tests Newest: 2020 Auto Bild UHP 19 inch Tyre Test · 265/35 R19 |
| Wet Handling (tester's mark) | Wet | 80% | 80% | 0.0 | 0–0 in 1 shared test Newest: 2018 Test World Summer Tyre Test · 225/45 R17 |
| Comfort (tester's mark) | Comfort | 70% #5/9 · 2022 AUTO Straßenverkehr Summer Tire Test R19 | 86% #4/11 · 2019 Auto Bild Sports Car Tyre Test | – | Different tests |
| Noise | Noise | 99% | 99% | −0.4 | 2–2 in 5 shared tests Newest: 2020 Auto Bild UHP 19 inch Tyre Test · 265/35 R19 |
| Rolling Resistance | Efficiency | 91% | 96% | −5.2 | 0–3 in 4 shared tests Newest: 2020 Auto Bild UHP 19 inch Tyre Test · 265/35 R19 |
| Also published by the testers (not in the score) | |||||
| Price | Cost | 79% | 69% | +10.3 | 4–0 in 4 shared tests Newest: 2020 Auto Bild UHP 19 inch Tyre Test · 265/35 R19 |
| Overall Ranking | Overall | #7/10 | #5/10 | – | 5–9 in 14 shared tests Newest: 2020 Auto Bild UHP 19 inch Tyre Test · 265/35 R19 |
Themes extracted from owner reviews found online — not the opinion of TireWheelGuide.
From Reddit, forums and review threads. Not part of our score
Community members frequently view the Falken Azenis FK510 as an affordable, budget-friendly alternative to premium tires like Michelin Pilot Sports, offering strong wet weather grip and good everyday road comfort. However, opinions are mixed due to rapid treadwear, with multiple drivers reporting bald tires in 10,000 to 15,000 miles or poor durability during track and autocross sessions. Furthermore, some users note compromises in steering response, road noise, and overall performance compared to top-tier max performance tires.
“Falken Azenis FK510 prices? Anyone know why the prices for Falken Azenis FK510's went up 25% or more in the last month? 235/40R18 went from $154 to $192. The whole benefit of these tires is that they offer PS4S performance for way less money. Now, you midaswhale just buy the Michelins. I haven't seen any other summer tires make that kind of a jump in price. I know Falken announced a price increase for 2022, but it was only like 5%. What's the dealio? Read more”
“I put the fk510 on my 2014 535d msport and the rears only lasted 10-11k or one year. Trying something different. They are a good performance summer tire but not worth replacing every year.”
“I've had a set of Falken Azenis FK510's on my car for a couple of months now, and just this past weekend took a trip through the twisties up to Prescott, and pushed the car as hard as I could heading up the mountain. I was a little nervous as I'd never used Falken tires before, but trusted in Tire Rack's reviews of them and pushed the envelope in every turn I hit. It was a pleasant surprise to find that the tires were gripping just as well as the much more expensive Michelin tires they'd replaced, and I even hit a personal best of .95g going around one of the more nasty turns. During this entire drive I never felt once like the tires weren't gripping perfectly, or that I was going to lose control from them breaking loose. Road noise is pretty much non-existent, and they seem to run pretty smooth over every surface I've driven them on so far. All-in-all I don't regret my purchase one bit, and if their longevity is anything like what I got out of my previous set of Michelins I'll definitely be buying another set once this one is done for.”
Based on 63 community posts
We haven't collected enough community discussion about this tire yet.
| Attribute | A · Falken Azenis FK510 | B · Hankook Ventus S1 evo2 |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Summer | Summer |
| Vehicle type | Passenger Car / Crossover | Passenger Car / Crossover |
| Sizes available | 93 | 61 |
| Rim diameters | 17″ – 22″ | 16″ – 20″ |
| Tread depth | 10/32″ | — |
| UTQG | 300 A A | — |
| Sidewall | Blackwall | — |
| Max pressure | 50 psi | — |
| Sizes in common | 51 | 51 |
Falken Azenis FK510
Hankook Ventus S1 evo2
Too close to call: Falken Azenis FK510 and Hankook Ventus S1 evo2 are within 2 points overall. Falken Azenis FK510 is stronger on wet and treadwear. Hankook Ventus S1 evo2 is stronger on efficiency, comfort and noise.
Hankook Ventus S1 evo2 scores 72 vs 51 on efficiency.
Hankook Ventus S1 evo2 scores 66 vs 57 on comfort.
Falken Azenis FK510 scores 85 vs 79 on wet.
Hankook Ventus S1 evo2 scores 72 vs 66 on noise.
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
Falken Azenis FK510, 85 vs 79 on our wet score.
Neither, by our numbers: 74 vs 74 on the dry score, within 3 points.
Hankook Ventus S1 evo2, 72 vs 66 on our noise score.
Hankook Ventus S1 evo2, 66 vs 57 on our comfort score.
Falken Azenis FK510, 65 vs 61 on our treadwear score.
Hankook Ventus S1 evo2, 72 vs 51 on our efficiency score.
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
