tirewheelguide
Head-to-head Updated

Firestone RoadHawk vs Laufenn S Fit EQ+ — 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 17 + 11 road tests and 644 + 11 owner reviews. How we score

S Fit EQ+ is ahead, 72–57

Check price on Amazon · S Fit EQ+ or RoadHawk 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.

Firestone RoadHawk
Tire AFirestone

RoadHawk

Summer

± 6

Tests 70 · 17 tests Owners 40 · 644 reviews

Best test result: #1 of 15 in 2019 Summer and All Season Tyre Test (wet handling)

“Not sure if it is what you are looking for. I am Polish but I live in the USA. I am still following info from Poland but I am not buying tires there anymore. A magazine Motor tests tires. magazynauto.pl Firestone was included in their "accessibly priced" summer tires: Firestone Roadhawk. They lost to Uniroyal, Semperit, Dębica but were ahead of Kumho, Apollo, Tomket, Imperial and Double Coin. They were not included in their premium and middle priced test. German based Auto Bild (and its Polish version Auto Świat) did a test in 2019 and the same Roadhawk passed the elimination test (53 down to 20: wet and dry braking distances added together as #13) and finished #18 in detailed test. So Firestone is present in Poland and Europe as a cheaper brand from Bridgestone but how popular it is I do not know. Krzyś”

Laufenn S Fit EQ+
Tire BLaufenn

S Fit EQ+

Summer

± 6

Tests 66 · 11 tests Owners 80 · 11 reviews

Best test result: #1 of 10 in 2026 Auto Zeitung 18 Inch Summer Tyre Test (noise)

Category by category

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

Key facts

  • In 6 tests that measured wet braking for both, RoadHawk won 2 and S Fit EQ+ won 4 (average 85% vs 87% of the best).
  • In 5 tests that measured dry braking for both, RoadHawk won 0 and S Fit EQ+ won 5 (average 94% vs 95% of the best).
  1. 68

    Dry

    S Fit EQ+ +14
    82
    Why this score
    SourceRoadHawkS Fit EQ+
    Professional tests (TWG score) · 16 / 10 tests8280
    Reviews found online4685
    Dry Braking (% of best) · 5 shared tests · wins 0–594%95%
    Dry Handling (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 0–199%99%

    RoadHawk: 60% × 82.2 + 40% × 46 = 68

    S Fit EQ+: 60% × 79.8 + 40% × 84.8 = 82

  2. 65

    Wet

    S Fit EQ+ +10
    75
    Why this score
    SourceRoadHawkS Fit EQ+
    Professional tests (TWG score) · 17 / 11 tests7673
    Reviews found online4778
    Straight Aquaplaning (% of best) · 2 shared tests · wins 2–097%93%
    Wet Braking (% of best) · 6 shared tests · wins 2–485%87%
    Wet Braking (concrete) (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 0–187%90%
    Wet Handling (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 1–097%92%

    RoadHawk: 60% × 76.3 + 40% × 47.3 = 65

    S Fit EQ+: 60% × 73.5 + 40% × 78.3 = 75

  3. 50

    Comfort

    S Fit EQ+ +23
    73
    Why this score
    SourceRoadHawkS Fit EQ+
    Professional tests (TWG score) · 2 / 2 tests6766
    Reviews found online3977

    RoadHawk: 40% × 67.1 + 60% × 39 = 50

    S Fit EQ+: 40% × 66.3 + 60% × 77.3 = 73

  4. 45

    Noise

    S Fit EQ+ +28
    73
    Why this score
    SourceRoadHawkS Fit EQ+
    Professional tests (TWG score) · 8 / 5 tests3177
    Reviews found online≈ 66 (est.)≈ 66 (est.)
    Noise (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 0–197%100%

    RoadHawk: 60% × 30.6 + 40% × 66.4 (est.) = 45

    S Fit EQ+: 60% × 77 + 40% × 66.4 (est.) = 73

    No owner ratings of noise for RoadHawk or S Fit EQ+. 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. 50

    Treadwear

    S Fit EQ+ +6
    56
    Why this score
    SourceRoadHawkS Fit EQ+
    Professional tests (TWG score) · 6 / 5 tests6443
    Reviews found online2976
    Abrasion (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 1–051%36%
    Wear (% of best) · 2 shared tests · wins 1–157%49%

    RoadHawk: 60% × 64.3 + 40% × 28.9 = 50

    S Fit EQ+: 60% × 43.2 + 40% × 76.2 = 56

  6. 35

    Handling (owners)

    S Fit EQ+ +48
    83
    Why this score
    SourceRoadHawkS Fit EQ+
    Reviews found online3583
  7. 72

    Efficiency

    S Fit EQ+ +1
    73
    Why this score
    SourceRoadHawkS Fit EQ+
    Professional tests (TWG score) · 9 / 6 tests7273
    Fuel Consumption (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 0–193%95%
    Rolling Resistance (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 0–191%93%
Scores at a glance
CategoryFirestone RoadHawkLaufenn S Fit EQ+
Relative Score 57 72
Dry 68 82
Wet 65 75
Comfort 50 73
Noise 45 73
Treadwear 50 56
Handling (owners) 35 83
Efficiency 72 73

Higher is better. The Relative Score follows your weights below; category scores do not change.

Weight the categories that matter to you

Wet grip and treadwear start at “Important” — the two things buyers rank highest. Move the sliders and the scores update instantly.

Important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Not important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Recomputed
Headline score
± 6

RoadHawk

± 6

S Fit EQ+

The professional test results behind the scores

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 6 tests that ran both, Firestone RoadHawk finished ahead 3 times and Laufenn S Fit EQ+ 3 times.

DisciplineCategoryRoadHawkS Fit EQ+ΔHead-to-head
Dry Braking Dry 94% 95% −1.4 0–5 in 5 shared tests Newest: 2023 Summer Tyre Market Overview · 225/45 R18
Dry Handling Dry 99% 99% −0.6 0–1 in 1 shared test Newest: 2020 Auto Bild Summer Tyre Test · 245/45 R18
Straight Aquaplaning Wet 97% 93% +3.9 2–0 in 2 shared tests Newest: 2023 ADAC Summer Tyre Test · 205/55 R16
Wet Braking Wet 85% 87% −1.4 2–4 in 6 shared tests Newest: 2023 Summer Tyre Market Overview · 225/45 R18
Wet Braking (concrete) Wet 87% 90% −2.9 0–1 in 1 shared test Newest: 2023 ADAC Summer Tyre Test · 205/55 R16
Wet Handling Wet 97% 92% +4.5 1–0 in 1 shared test Newest: 2020 Auto Bild Summer Tyre Test · 245/45 R18
Noise Noise 97% 100% −2.6 0–1 in 1 shared test Newest: 2020 Auto Bild Summer Tyre Test · 245/45 R18
Abrasion Treadwear 51% 36% +14.7 1–0 in 1 shared test Newest: 2023 ADAC Summer Tyre Test · 205/55 R16
Wear Treadwear 57% 49% +8.5 1–1 in 2 shared tests Newest: 2023 ADAC Summer Tyre Test · 205/55 R16
Fuel Consumption Efficiency 93% 95% −1.6 0–1 in 1 shared test Newest: 2023 ADAC Summer Tyre Test · 205/55 R16
Rolling Resistance Efficiency 91% 93% −2.1 0–1 in 1 shared test Newest: 2020 Auto Bild Summer Tyre Test · 245/45 R18
Also published by the testers (not in the score)
Price Cost 66% 67% −1.5 0–1 in 1 shared test Newest: 2020 Auto Bild Summer Tyre Test · 245/45 R18
Total Cost of Ownership Cost #10/20 #9/20 – 0–1 in 1 shared test Newest: 2020 Auto Bild Summer Tyre Test · 245/45 R18
Value Cost 58% 55% +3.6 1–1 in 2 shared tests Newest: 2023 ADAC Summer Tyre Test · 205/55 R16
Overall Ranking Overall #31/48 #26/48 – 3–3 in 6 shared tests Newest: 2023 Summer Tyre Market Overview · 225/45 R18

Pros, cons & observations

Themes extracted from owner reviews found online — not the opinion of TireWheelGuide.

Tire A RoadHawk

Pros

  • Exceptional wet weather performance, particularly in standing water and heavy rain
  • Strong dry grip and confident cornering for daily driving
  • Comfortable ride quality with good bump absorption

Cons

  • Accelerated and sometimes uneven tread wear, resulting in shorter-than-expected lifespan
  • Soft sidewalls that can cause a visual 'under-inflated' bulge and spongy cornering response
  • Limited steering feedback and precision during spirited driving
All owner themes in the RoadHawk review

Tire B S Fit EQ+

Pros

  • Good to excellent dry grip, traction and handling, with several reviewers noting stable, confident behavior
  • Wet grip described as decent to excellent, with plenty of grip in both conditions
  • Excellent value; frequently compared favorably with Continental, Goodyear, Michelin and Hankook tires at a much lower price

Cons

  • Road noise noted as louder than expected by some reviewers, with one reporting a marked increase after 2,500 km
  • Ride can feel stiff or harder than needed, and one reviewer found the tires became hard and uncomfortable below 10°C
  • Longevity is uncertain; reviewers estimate roughly 18,000-20,000 miles from one set, and others are unsure how long they will last
All owner themes in the S Fit EQ+ review

What real owners are saying

From Reddit, forums and review threads. Not part of our score

Tire A

Firestone RoadHawk

Mixed

Community discussions reflect mixed perspectives on the Firestone Roadhawk, noting reasonable reviews alongside concerns regarding tread wear. While some test results place it competitively among budget-friendly summer options, owners also discuss practical issues such as unusual noises, generational replacement difficulties, and overall value.

r/automobil ·2025-11-20

“sind diese Sommerreifen noch okay? Im August 2023 gekauft und circa 25 tausend km gefahren. Firestone Roadhawk, DOT 4922. Habe an meinem Opel Meriva beim Anfahren nach links, zB beim Ausparken oder beim Anfahren in einer engen Linkskurve von vorne rechts ein mehrmaliges Poltern gehört. Habe ein bisschen gegoogelt und von ausgeschlagenem Querlenker gelesen. Im Oktober 2022 hat das Auto einen neuen Vorderachsträger und neue Querlenker bekommen. Nun habe ich Winterräder montiert und das Poltern beim Anfahren nach links ist weg. Was kann das sein? Read more”
r/tires ·2026-04-22

“I cant for the life of me find a Firestone Roadhawk (gen1) 205/50 R17 93W XL anywhere in Europe. The problem is GEN 1 is over, and all they have is GEN 2, aka Roadhawk 2. And i have 3 perfectly good Roadhawk (GEN 1), and no tire to make a set. Some sellers even post pictures of GEN 1, but they actually send you GEN 2. Which im pretty sure have a different profile, and markings. Any ideas ?”
Top themes
#tread wear concerns#budget tire test results#replacement availability issues#generation differences#driving noise symptoms

Based on 5 community posts

Tire B

Laufenn S Fit EQ+

We haven't collected enough community discussion about this tire yet.

Specs side by side

Attribute A · Firestone RoadHawk B · Laufenn S Fit EQ+
CategorySummerSummer
Vehicle typePassenger Car / CrossoverPassenger Car / Crossover
Sizes available11574
Rim diameters15″ – 21″15″ – 20″
UTQG—360 A A
Sizes in common6868

Which one should you actually buy?

Firestone RoadHawk

Laufenn S Fit EQ+

Winner: Laufenn S Fit EQ+ — better handling, noise and comfort. It leads or ties in every category we score.

Pick tire B You enjoy sharp, responsive handling

Laufenn S Fit EQ+ scores 83 vs 35 on handling.

Pick tire B You want a quieter cabin

Laufenn S Fit EQ+ scores 73 vs 45 on noise.

Pick tire B You want the most comfortable ride

Laufenn S Fit EQ+ scores 73 vs 50 on comfort.

Pick tire B You want the most grip on dry roads

Laufenn S Fit EQ+ scores 82 vs 68 on dry.

Pick tire A Your priority is straight aquaplaning

Firestone RoadHawk won 2 of 2 shared straight aquaplaning tests.

Tire A · Firestone RoadHawk
Check price on Amazon
Tire B · Laufenn S Fit EQ+
Check price on Amazon

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

RoadHawk or S Fit EQ+?

Which is better in the wet, RoadHawk or S Fit EQ+?

Laufenn S Fit EQ+, 75 vs 65 on our wet score.

Which grips better on dry roads, RoadHawk or S Fit EQ+?

Laufenn S Fit EQ+, 82 vs 68 on our dry score.

Which is quieter, RoadHawk or S Fit EQ+?

Laufenn S Fit EQ+, 73 vs 45 on our noise score.

Which is more comfortable, RoadHawk or S Fit EQ+?

Laufenn S Fit EQ+, 73 vs 50 on our comfort score.

Which lasts longer, RoadHawk or S Fit EQ+?

Laufenn S Fit EQ+, 56 vs 50 on our treadwear score.

Which rolls more easily, RoadHawk or S Fit EQ+?

Neither, by our numbers: 72 vs 73 on the efficiency score, within 3 points.

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