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 + 1 road tests and 907 + 165 owner reviews. How we score
Too close to call: Azenis FK510 71, Ecsta PA51 70.
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 – · 1 test Owners 70 · 165 reviews
Relative Score per category, 0–100. Open “Why this score” for the tests and owner ratings behind it.
| Source | Azenis FK510 | Ecsta PA51 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · 28 / – tests | 73 | ≈ 69 (est.) |
| Reviews found online | 75 | 70 |
Azenis FK510: 60% × 72.9 + 40% × 75.4 = 74
Ecsta PA51: 60% × 69 (est.) + 40% × 70.3 = 70
No road tests of dry for Ecsta PA51. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.42).
| Source | Azenis FK510 | Ecsta PA51 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · 29 / – tests | 89 | ≈ 71 (est.) |
| Reviews found online | 78 | 72 |
Azenis FK510: 60% × 89 + 40% × 78.3 = 85
Ecsta PA51: 60% × 71.2 (est.) + 40% × 71.6 = 71
No road tests of wet for Ecsta PA51. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.55).
| Source | Azenis FK510 | Ecsta PA51 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) | ≈ 61 (est.) | ≈ 67 (est.) |
| Reviews found online | 46 | 60 |
Azenis FK510: 60% × 61.3 (est.) + 40% × 45.5 = 55
Ecsta PA51: 60% × 66.7 (est.) + 40% × 59.8 = 64
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).
No road tests of snow for Ecsta PA51. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.37).
| Source | Azenis FK510 | Ecsta PA51 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · 6 / – tests | 42 | ≈ 68 (est.) |
| Reviews found online | 68 | 65 |
Azenis FK510: 40% × 41.7 + 60% × 67.6 = 57
Ecsta PA51: 40% × 68.4 (est.) + 60% × 65.4 = 67
No road tests of comfort for Ecsta PA51. The test half is the tested tires’ average (69): owners’ comfort ratings barely follow the road tests.
| Source | Azenis FK510 | Ecsta PA51 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · 18 / – tests | 66 | ≈ 67 (est.) |
| Reviews found online | 67 | 74 |
Azenis FK510: 60% × 66 + 40% × 67.3 = 67
Ecsta PA51: 60% × 66.6 (est.) + 40% × 74.2 = 70
No road tests of noise for Ecsta PA51. The test half is the tested tires’ average (67): owners’ noise ratings barely follow the road tests.
| Source | Azenis FK510 | Ecsta PA51 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · 5 / 1 tests | 73 | 70 |
| Reviews found online | 54 | 74 |
Azenis FK510: 60% × 73.1 + 40% × 54.2 = 66
Ecsta PA51: 60% × 69.8 + 40% × 74.2 = 72
| Source | Azenis FK510 | Ecsta PA51 |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews found online | 72 | 68 |
| Source | Azenis FK510 | Ecsta PA51 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · 19 / – tests | 51 | – |
| Category | Falken Azenis FK510 | Kumho Ecsta PA51 |
|---|---|---|
| Relative Score | 71 | 70 |
| Dry | 74 | 70 |
| Wet | 85 | 71 |
| Snow | 55 | 64 |
| Comfort | 57 | 67 |
| Noise | 67 | 70 |
| Treadwear | 66 | 72 |
| Handling (owners) | 72 | 68 |
| Efficiency | 51 | – |
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 PA51
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.
| Discipline | Category | Azenis FK510 | Ecsta PA51 | Δ | Head-to-head |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tested Tread Life (Miles) | Treadwear | 54% #17/22 · 2022 Consumer Reports Ultra High Performance Summer Tires | 67% #11/19 · 2022 Consumer Reports Ultra High Performance All-Season Tires | – | Different tests |
| Also published by the testers (not in the score) | |||||
| Overall Ranking | Overall | #7/10 2025 Tire Rack UUHP Summer Tyre Test | #7/19 2022 Consumer Reports Ultra High Performance All-Season Tires | – | Different tests |
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.
“2022 MS Plaid on 21" archnids. Factory Michelins replaced at 7,500 miles (at wear markers). FK510's after 9,000 miles on the rubber are at 7/32. Expecting another 5,000 miles or so. They're comparable treadwear rating but last longer. Heavy car with lots of torque will inevitably go through tires sooner than the rated mileage. I'm fortunate to have decent alignment from the factory as the wear was even. Good luck on the next set of tires.”
“I purchased a full set of Falken Azenis FK510 tires in January of last year. Ride, quietness, and wet/dry handling were all right on the money with the Tire Rack and other reviews that I looked over when deciding which tires to buy. Now I'm wishing I'd gone ahead and spent the extra money to get another set of Michelins. The rear tires are completely worn down now after only daily driving the car and putting maybe 15k miles on the tires. The same driving conditions with the previous Michelin PSIII tires resulted in the tires lasting for 5 years and 50k miles. Tread wear is the only complaint I have with these tires, but it is one massive issue with tires only lasting 15k miles with tame daily driving. My advice is to spend the extra money and get the Michelin tires. That's what I'll be doing this weekend.”
“Accidentally bought a Falken FK510 at discount tire when my other rear tire is a FK460A/S I have a brand new 460A/S on my driver rear a week ago and I went to discount yesterday and accidentally bought the 510 for my passenger rear. My biggest concerns is the difference in grip and wear and for the torsen limited slip on my GT PP1. I just daily my car to work and floor it at lights and don’t do canyon or track runs. I saw discount tire has a return / exchange policy, has anyone gone this route?”
Based on 63 community posts
We haven't collected enough community discussion about this tire yet.
| Attribute | A · Falken Azenis FK510 | B · Kumho Ecsta PA51 |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Summer | All Season |
| Vehicle type | Passenger Car / Crossover | Passenger Car / Crossover |
| Sizes available | 93 | 13 |
| Rim diameters | 17″ – 22″ | 16″ – 19″ |
| Tread depth | 10/32″ | 10.5/32″ |
| UTQG | 300 A A | 500 A A |
| Treadwear warranty | — | 45,000 mi |
| Sidewall | Blackwall | Blackwall |
| Max pressure | 50 psi | 51 psi |
| Sizes in common | 5 | 5 |
Falken Azenis FK510
Kumho Ecsta PA51
Too close to call: Falken Azenis FK510 and Kumho Ecsta PA51 are within 2 points overall. Falken Azenis FK510 is stronger on wet and dry. Kumho Ecsta PA51 is stronger on comfort, snow and treadwear.
Falken Azenis FK510 scores 85 vs 71 on wet.
Kumho Ecsta PA51 scores 67 vs 57 on comfort.
Kumho Ecsta PA51 scores 64 vs 55 on snow.
Kumho Ecsta PA51 scores 72 vs 66 on treadwear.
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
Falken Azenis FK510, 85 vs 71 on our wet score.
Falken Azenis FK510, 74 vs 70 on our dry score.
Kumho Ecsta PA51, 64 vs 55 on our snow score.
Kumho Ecsta PA51, 70 vs 67 on our noise score.
Kumho Ecsta PA51, 67 vs 57 on our comfort score.
Kumho Ecsta PA51, 72 vs 66 on our treadwear 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
