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 + 6 road tests and 907 + 1,663 owner reviews. How we score
Too close to call: Azenis FK510 73, Ecsta HS51 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 76 · 6 tests Owners 69 · 1,663 reviews
Best test result: #1 of 20 in 2021 Auto Bild 16 Inch Summer Tyre Test (wet handling)
Relative Score per category, 0–100. Open “Why this score” for the tests and owner ratings behind it.
| Source | Azenis FK510 | Ecsta HS51 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · 28 / 4 tests | 73 | 77 |
| Reviews found online | 75 | 71 |
| Dry Braking (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 1–0 | 96% | 92% |
| Dry Handling (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 1–0 | 100% | 97% |
Azenis FK510: 60% × 72.9 + 40% × 75.4 = 74
Ecsta HS51: 60% × 76.6 + 40% × 70.9 = 74
| Source | Azenis FK510 | Ecsta HS51 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · 29 / 4 tests | 89 | 80 |
| Reviews found online | 78 | 73 |
| Wet Braking (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 1–0 | 99% | 91% |
| Wet Handling (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 1–0 | 100% | 96% |
Azenis FK510: 60% × 89 + 40% × 78.3 = 85
Ecsta HS51: 60% × 79.7 + 40% × 72.9 = 77
| Source | Azenis FK510 | Ecsta HS51 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | Ecsta HS51 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · 6 / – tests | 42 | ≈ 69 (est.) |
| Reviews found online | 68 | 69 |
Azenis FK510: 40% × 41.7 + 60% × 67.6 = 57
Ecsta HS51: 40% × 69.1 (est.) + 60% × 68.7 = 69
No road tests of comfort for Ecsta HS51. The test half is the tested tires’ average (69): owners’ comfort ratings barely follow the road tests.
| Source | Azenis FK510 | Ecsta HS51 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · 18 / 2 tests | 66 | 65 |
| Reviews found online | 67 | ≈ 67 (est.) |
Azenis FK510: 60% × 66 + 40% × 67.3 = 67
Ecsta HS51: 60% × 65.2 + 40% × 66.6 (est.) = 66
No owner ratings of noise for Ecsta HS51. 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 | Ecsta HS51 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · 5 / 4 tests | 73 | 73 |
| Reviews found online | 54 | 65 |
| Wear (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 1–0 | 70% | 59% |
Azenis FK510: 60% × 73.1 + 40% × 54.2 = 66
Ecsta HS51: 60% × 73.4 + 40% × 65 = 70
| Source | Azenis FK510 | Ecsta HS51 |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews found online | 72 | 69 |
| Source | Azenis FK510 | Ecsta HS51 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · 19 / 2 tests | 51 | 57 |
| Category | Falken Azenis FK510 | Kumho Ecsta HS51 |
|---|---|---|
| Relative Score | 73 | 72 |
| Dry | 74 | 74 |
| Wet | 85 | 77 |
| Snow | 55 | – |
| Comfort | 57 | 69 |
| Noise | 67 | 66 |
| Treadwear | 66 | 70 |
| Handling (owners) | 72 | 69 |
| Efficiency | 51 | 57 |
Higher is better. The Relative Score follows your weights below; category scores do not change.
Wet grip and treadwear start at “Important” — the two things buyers rank highest. 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
Ecsta HS51
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 2 tests that ran both, Falken Azenis FK510 finished ahead 2 times and Kumho Ecsta HS51 0 times.
| Discipline | Category | Azenis FK510 | Ecsta HS51 | Δ | Head-to-head |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | Dry | 96% | 92% | +3.7 | 1–0 in 1 shared test Newest: 2017 Auto Bild Summer Tyre Test · 225/50 R17 |
| Dry Handling | Dry | 100% | 97% | +2.5 | 1–0 in 1 shared test Newest: 2017 Auto Bild Summer Tyre Test · 225/50 R17 |
| Straight Aquaplaning | Wet | 60% #9/9 · 2022 AUTO Straßenverkehr Summer Tire Test R19 | 99% #2/20 · 2021 Auto Bild 16 Inch Summer Tyre Test | – | Different tests |
| Wet Braking | Wet | 99% | 91% | +8.3 | 1–0 in 1 shared test Newest: 2017 Auto Bild Summer Tyre Test · 225/50 R17 |
| Wet Handling | Wet | 100% | 96% | +3.4 | 1–0 in 1 shared test Newest: 2017 Auto Bild Summer Tyre Test · 225/50 R17 |
| Noise | Noise | 100% #3/10 · 2022 Sport Auto UHP, UUHP and Semi Slick Tyre Test | 97% #15/20 · 2021 Auto Bild 16 Inch Summer Tyre Test | – | Different tests |
| Wear | Treadwear | 70% | 59% | +10.5 | 1–0 in 1 shared test Newest: 2017 Auto Bild Summer Tyre Test · 225/50 R17 |
| Rolling Resistance | Efficiency | 60% #7/9 · 2022 AUTO Straßenverkehr Summer Tire Test R19 | 75% #20/20 · 2021 Auto Bild 16 Inch Summer Tyre Test | – | Different tests |
| Also published by the testers (not in the score) | |||||
| Price | Cost | 100% #1/10 · 2022 Sport Auto UHP, UUHP and Semi Slick Tyre Test | 82% #2/10 · 2019 Auto Zeitung Summer Tyre Test | – | Different tests |
| Total Cost of Ownership | Cost | #6/20 2020 Auto Bild Summer Tyre Test | #9/20 2021 Auto Bild 16 Inch Summer Tyre Test | – | Different tests |
| Value | Cost | 100% #1/20 · 2020 Auto Bild Summer Tyre Test | 99% #3/20 · 2021 Auto Bild 16 Inch Summer Tyre Test | – | Different tests |
| Overall Ranking | Overall | #3/43 | #13/43 | – | 2–0 in 2 shared tests Newest: 2017 Auto Bild Summer Tyre Shootout · 225/50 R17 |
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.
“I've got a set of Falken Azenis FK510 on my 20" Detroits, which I've been running for several years. They weren't expensive at the time and not noticeably different to the Pirellis on before - I would buy them again.”
“ST feels boaty on new Falken’s I recently purchased a set of 245/40/18 Falken Azenis FK510 to put on my stock wheels. After, the car feels like it’s constantly driving on a wet road. Even after getting heat into the tires, the car feels boaty and like the rear end doesn’t want to follow the front. Any tips? Or did I make a bad choice in tire?”
“Update: Took the car out in a pretty nasty storm today with the new Falken FK510 and they performed just fine and just as good as the Pirellis did IMO. My efficiency got a little worse but that's expected in the rain. My rated efficiency for my normal commute drive went from 220 Wh/mi to 250 Wh/mi for 17/18 miles. Not bad and just as good as the Pirelli rain efficiency. Puddle performance was just fine, no hydroplaning and I was able to drive with confidence at about 70 mph in a pretty bad downpour. Really not bad at all. Wet performance in a bad storm was totally within acceptable limits.”
Based on 63 community posts
We haven't collected enough community discussion about this tire yet.
| Attribute | A · Falken Azenis FK510 | B · Kumho Ecsta HS51 |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Summer | Summer |
| Vehicle type | Passenger Car / Crossover | Passenger Car / Crossover |
| Sizes available | 93 | 27 |
| Rim diameters | 17″ – 22″ | 14″ – 18″ |
| Tread depth | 10/32″ | — |
| UTQG | 300 A A | — |
| Sidewall | Blackwall | — |
| Max pressure | 50 psi | — |
| Sizes in common | 3 | 3 |
Falken Azenis FK510
Kumho Ecsta HS51
Too close to call: Falken Azenis FK510 and Kumho Ecsta HS51 are within 2 points overall. Falken Azenis FK510 is stronger on wet. Kumho Ecsta HS51 is stronger on comfort, efficiency and treadwear.
Kumho Ecsta HS51 scores 69 vs 57 on comfort.
Falken Azenis FK510 scores 85 vs 77 on wet.
Kumho Ecsta HS51 scores 57 vs 51 on efficiency.
Kumho Ecsta HS51 scores 70 vs 66 on treadwear.
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
Falken Azenis FK510, 85 vs 77 on our wet score.
Neither, by our numbers: 74 vs 74 on the dry score, within 3 points.
Neither, by our numbers: 67 vs 66 on the noise score, within 3 points.
Kumho Ecsta HS51, 69 vs 57 on our comfort score.
Kumho Ecsta HS51, 70 vs 66 on our treadwear score.
Kumho Ecsta HS51, 57 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
