Tests – · none yet Owners 69 · 8 reviews
Head-to-head
Updated
Firestone Firehawk AS vs Laufenn S FIT AS — 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 0 + 1 road tests and 8 + 16 owner reviews. How we score
Firehawk AS is ahead, 69–59
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.
Category by category
Relative Score per category, 0–100. Open “Why this score” for the tests and owner ratings behind it.
-
70
Dry
Firehawk AS +1060Why this score
Source Firehawk AS S FIT AS Professional tests (TWG score) ≈ 69 (est.) ≈ 63 (est.) Reviews found online 71 56 Firehawk AS: 60% × 69.4 (est.) + 40% × 71.1 = 70
S FIT AS: 60% × 63 (est.) + 40% × 56 = 60
No road tests of dry for Firehawk AS. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.42).
No road tests of dry for S FIT AS. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.42).
-
69
Wet
Firehawk AS +1059Why this score
Source Firehawk AS S FIT AS Professional tests (TWG score) ≈ 70 (est.) ≈ 62 (est.) Reviews found online 69 54 Firehawk AS: 60% × 69.6 (est.) + 40% × 68.7 = 69
S FIT AS: 60% × 61.5 (est.) + 40% × 54.1 = 59
No road tests of wet for Firehawk AS. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.55).
No road tests of wet for S FIT AS. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.55).
-
66
Snow
Firehawk AS +1650Why this score
Source Firehawk AS S FIT AS Professional tests (TWG score) ≈ 68 (est.) ≈ 58 (est.) Reviews found online 63 37 Firehawk AS: 60% × 67.8 (est.) + 40% × 62.8 = 66
S FIT AS: 60% × 58.1 (est.) + 40% × 37 = 50
No road tests of snow for Firehawk AS. 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 S FIT AS. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.37).
-
69
Comfort
Firehawk AS +762Why this score
Source Firehawk AS S FIT AS Professional tests (TWG score) ≈ 69 (est.) ≈ 67 (est.) Reviews found online 70 59 Firehawk AS: 40% × 69.2 (est.) + 60% × 69.5 = 69
S FIT AS: 40% × 67.2 (est.) + 60% × 58.6 = 62
No road tests of comfort for Firehawk AS or S FIT AS. The test half is the tested tires’ average (69): owners’ comfort ratings barely follow the road tests.
-
70
Noise
No comparison–Why this score
Source Firehawk AS S FIT AS Professional tests (TWG score) ≈ 67 (est.) – Reviews found online 74 – Firehawk AS: 60% × 66.6 (est.) + 40% × 74.3 = 70
No road tests of noise for Firehawk AS. The test half is the tested tires’ average (67): owners’ noise ratings barely follow the road tests.
-
70
Treadwear
Firehawk AS +367Why this score
Source Firehawk AS S FIT AS Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 1 tests ≈ 68 (est.) 75 Reviews found online 72 56 Firehawk AS: 60% × 68.1 (est.) + 40% × 71.7 = 70
S FIT AS: 60% × 74.9 + 40% × 56.4 = 67
No road tests of treadwear for Firehawk AS. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.35).
-
67
Handling (owners)
Firehawk AS +1156Why this score
Source Firehawk AS S FIT AS Reviews found online 67 56
Scores at a glance
| Category | Firestone Firehawk AS | Laufenn S FIT AS |
|---|---|---|
| Relative Score | 69 | 59 |
| Dry | 70 | 60 |
| Wet | 69 | 59 |
| Snow | 66 | 50 |
| Comfort | 69 | 62 |
| Noise | 70 | – |
| Treadwear | 70 | 67 |
| Handling (owners) | 67 | 56 |
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
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
Recomputed
Headline score
69
/ 100
Firehawk AS
59
/ 100
S FIT AS
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 Firehawk AS
Pros
- Exceptionally quiet and smooth ride quality
- Strong dry handling and improved cornering response
- Good water dispersion and wet road performance for most users
Cons
- Potential susceptibility to hydroplaning in heavy rain according to select reviewers
- Requires proper balancing to prevent irregular tread wear
Tire B S FIT AS
Pros
- Exceptional value for the price compared to ultra-budget alternatives
- Very quiet and comfortable ride quality
- Good grip and handling in dry conditions
Cons
- Subpar wet-weather grip, with tendencies to lose traction easily under acceleration
- Wet performance degrades noticeably after 50% wear
- Concerns regarding rapid tread wear or limited lifespan
Specs side by side
| Attribute | A · Firestone Firehawk AS | B · Laufenn S FIT AS |
|---|---|---|
| Category | All Season High Performance tires | All Season |
| Vehicle type | Passenger Car / Crossover | Passenger Car / Crossover |
| Sizes available | 4 | — |
| Rim diameters | 15″ – 18″ | — |
| Tread depth | 11/32″ | — |
| UTQG | 480 A A | — |
| Treadwear warranty | 50,000 mi | — |
| Sidewall | Blackwall | — |
| Max pressure | 44 psi | — |
Which one should you actually buy?
69
/ 100
Firestone Firehawk AS
59
/ 100
Laufenn S FIT AS
Winner: Firestone Firehawk AS — better snow, handling and dry. It leads or ties in every category we score. Firestone Firehawk AS rests on little evidence so far (0 tests, 8 reviews), so read this result as provisional. Laufenn S FIT AS rests on little evidence so far (1 test, 16 reviews), so read this result as provisional.
Pick tire A
You drive through snowy winters
Firestone Firehawk AS scores 66 vs 50 on snow.
Pick tire A
You enjoy sharp, responsive handling
Firestone Firehawk AS scores 67 vs 56 on handling.
Pick tire A
You want the most grip on dry roads
Firestone Firehawk AS scores 70 vs 60 on dry.
Pick tire A
Your priority is wet-weather safety
Firestone Firehawk AS scores 69 vs 59 on wet.
Tire A · Firestone Firehawk AS
Tire B · Laufenn S FIT AS
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
Firehawk AS or S FIT AS?
Which is better in the wet, Firehawk AS or S FIT AS?
Firestone Firehawk AS, 69 vs 59 on our wet score.
Which grips better on dry roads, Firehawk AS or S FIT AS?
Firestone Firehawk AS, 70 vs 60 on our dry score.
Which is better in snow, Firehawk AS or S FIT AS?
Firestone Firehawk AS, 66 vs 50 on our snow score.
Which is more comfortable, Firehawk AS or S FIT AS?
Firestone Firehawk AS, 69 vs 62 on our comfort score.
Which lasts longer, Firehawk AS or S FIT AS?
Firestone Firehawk AS, 70 vs 67 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