Relative Score (0–100): the weighted average of the categories below, each 60% road tests and 40% owner reviews (comfort 40/60). Based on 7 + 14 road tests and 2,387 + 419 owner reviews. How we score
Ecsta HS52 is ahead, 79–61
Both Amazon links then search this exact size.
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
Tests 83 · 7 tests Owners 75 · 2,387 reviews
Best test result: #1 of 21 in 2022 Auto Bild Summer Tyre Test (dry braking)
“I have kuhmo ecsta hs52's on my renault megane during spring and summer and they are really good. No complaints at all. My milage did go up a little bit but that's it”
Tests 63 · 14 tests Owners 59 · 419 reviews
Best test result: #1 of 20 in 2024 AutoBild Summer Tyre Test (wet handling)
“Are budget tyres closing the gap to premium? I changed a set of tyres on my daily pd130 winter bash about and managed to get a set of vredestein ultrac for £80 a tyre fitted which I thought was a pretty good price. The tyre fitting service was saying to me that the gap between budgets and premium is much smaller in the last 10 years and that taxis tend to opt for budget tyres all the time and have no issues. Any thoughts on this? I’ve always gone for medium to higher end tyres. Leer más”
Relative Score per category, 0–100. Open “Why this score” for the tests and owner ratings behind it.
| Source | Ecsta HS52 | Ultrac |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · 7 / 13 tests | 86 | 84 |
| Reviews found online | 80 | 60 |
| Dry Braking (% of best) · 5 shared tests · wins 4–1 | 99% | 98% |
| Dry Handling (% of best) · 2 shared tests · wins 0–2 | 99% | 99% |
Ecsta HS52: 60% × 86.4 + 40% × 80.1 = 84
Ultrac: 60% × 84.3 + 40% × 60.3 = 75
| Source | Ecsta HS52 | Ultrac |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · 7 / 13 tests | 89 | 92 |
| Reviews found online | 78 | 66 |
| Curved Aquaplaning (% of best) · 3 shared tests · wins 0–3 | 83% | 98% |
| Straight Aquaplaning (% of best) · 3 shared tests · wins 0–3 | 95% | 99% |
| Wet Braking (% of best) · 5 shared tests · wins 3–2 | 95% | 95% |
| Wet Braking (concrete) (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 1–0 | 89% | 88% |
| Wet Circle (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 0–1 | 91% | 95% |
| Wet Handling (% of best) · 2 shared tests · wins 0–2 | 98% | 100% |
Ecsta HS52: 60% × 89.2 + 40% × 77.5 = 84
Ultrac: 60% × 92 + 40% × 66.4 = 82
| Source | Ecsta HS52 | Ultrac |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) | ≈ 68 (est.) | ≈ 67 (est.) |
| Reviews found online | 66 | 60 |
Ecsta HS52: 40% × 68.1 (est.) + 60% × 65.9 = 67
Ultrac: 40% × 67 (est.) + 60% × 60.3 = 63
No road tests of comfort for Ecsta HS52. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.20).
No road tests of comfort for Ultrac. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.20).
| Source | Ecsta HS52 | Ultrac |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · 3 / 11 tests | 64 | 67 |
| Reviews found online | ≈ 66 (est.) | ≈ 66 (est.) |
| Noise (% of best) · 3 shared tests · wins 2–1 | 98% | 97% |
Ecsta HS52: 60% × 63.9 + 40% × 66.4 (est.) = 65
Ultrac: 60% × 66.9 + 40% × 66.4 (est.) = 67
No owner ratings of noise for Ecsta HS52 or Ultrac. 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.
| Source | Ecsta HS52 | Ultrac |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · 5 / 3 tests | 80 | 10 |
| Reviews found online | 70 | 48 |
| Abrasion (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 1–0 | 88% | 47% |
| Wear (% of best) · 3 shared tests · wins 3–0 | 79% | 42% |
Ecsta HS52: 60% × 79.7 + 40% × 69.6 = 76
Ultrac: 60% × 10 + 40% × 48.3 = 25
| Source | Ecsta HS52 | Ultrac |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews found online | 77 | 60 |
| Source | Ecsta HS52 | Ultrac |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · 5 / 11 tests | 43 | 72 |
| Fuel Consumption (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 0–0 | 97% | 97% |
| Rolling Resistance (% of best) · 2 shared tests · wins 1–1 | 78% | 76% |
| Category | Kumho Ecsta HS52 | Vredestein Ultrac |
|---|---|---|
| Relative Score | 79 | 61 |
| Dry | 84 | 75 |
| Wet | 84 | 82 |
| Comfort | 67 | 63 |
| Noise | 65 | 67 |
| Treadwear | 76 | 25 |
| Handling (owners) | 77 | 60 |
| Efficiency | 43 | 72 |
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.
Ecsta HS52
Ultrac
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 5 tests that ran both, Kumho Ecsta HS52 finished ahead 5 times and Vredestein Ultrac 0 times.
| Discipline | Category | Ecsta HS52 | Ultrac | Δ | Head-to-head |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | Dry | 99% | 98% | +1.1 | 4–1 in 5 shared tests Newest: 2024 Summer Tyre Market Overview · 205/55 R16 |
| Dry Handling | Dry | 99% | 99% | −0.2 | 0–2 in 2 shared tests Newest: 2024 AutoBild Summer Tyre Test · 205/55 R16 |
| Curved Aquaplaning | Wet | 83% | 98% | −15.1 | 0–3 in 3 shared tests Newest: 2024 ADAC Summer Tyre Test · 215/55 R17 |
| Straight Aquaplaning | Wet | 95% | 99% | −4.7 | 0–3 in 3 shared tests Newest: 2024 ADAC Summer Tyre Test · 215/55 R17 |
| Wet Braking | Wet | 95% | 95% | +0.9 | 3–2 in 5 shared tests Newest: 2024 Summer Tyre Market Overview · 205/55 R16 |
| Wet Braking (concrete) | Wet | 89% | 88% | +1.2 | 1–0 in 1 shared test Newest: 2024 ADAC Summer Tyre Test · 215/55 R17 |
| Wet Circle | Wet | 91% | 95% | −4.0 | 0–1 in 1 shared test Newest: 2022 Auto Bild Summer Tyre Test · 215/55 R17 |
| Wet Handling | Wet | 98% | 100% | −1.5 | 0–2 in 2 shared tests Newest: 2024 AutoBild Summer Tyre Test · 205/55 R16 |
| Noise | Noise | 98% | 97% | +0.6 | 2–1 in 3 shared tests Newest: 2024 ADAC Summer Tyre Test · 215/55 R17 |
| Abrasion | Treadwear | 88% | 47% | +40.7 | 1–0 in 1 shared test Newest: 2024 ADAC Summer Tyre Test · 215/55 R17 |
| Wear | Treadwear | 79% | 42% | +36.8 | 3–0 in 3 shared tests Newest: 2024 ADAC Summer Tyre Test · 215/55 R17 |
| Fuel Consumption | Efficiency | 97% | 97% | 0.0 | 0–0 in 1 shared test Newest: 2024 ADAC Summer Tyre Test · 215/55 R17 |
| Rolling Resistance | Efficiency | 78% | 76% | +1.4 | 1–1 in 2 shared tests Newest: 2024 AutoBild Summer Tyre Test · 205/55 R16 |
| Also published by the testers (not in the score) | |||||
| Price | Cost | 77% | 68% | +8.8 | 1–0 in 1 shared test Newest: 2024 ADAC Summer Tyre Test · 215/55 R17 |
| Total Cost of Ownership | Cost | #12/20 | #20/20 | – | 2–0 in 2 shared tests Newest: 2024 AutoBild Summer Tyre Test · 205/55 R16 |
| Value | Cost | 91% | 45% | +46.1 | 3–0 in 3 shared tests Newest: 2024 ADAC Summer Tyre Test · 215/55 R17 |
| Overall Ranking | Overall | #2/55 | #3/55 | – | 5–0 in 5 shared tests Newest: 2024 Summer Tyre Market Overview · 205/55 R16 |
Themes extracted from owner reviews found online — not the opinion of TireWheelGuide.
From Reddit, forums and review threads. Not part of our score
The Kumho Ecsta HS52 receives a polarized mix of reviews from the community, praised by many for its rigid sidewalls, strong dry grip, sharp steering responsiveness, and great value compared to premium alternatives. However, some users report disappointing wet weather performance, potential issues with aquaplaning resistance, and inconsistent test results across different sizes. Overall, it is viewed as a solid mid-range option, though experiences with wet traction and longevity vary significantly among drivers.
“Bad i have hs52 on my audi a3 8l quattro 1.8t i have no grip with rain.. Like cant corner fast it just goes straight... Dry its fine but wet forget it. My oncle has the same experience with kuhmo on his bmw 118 diesel he got some rims and they had pretty good threats kumho on it. He said all it wanted was to drift and spin out. He said a couple of times it did a 180 he said never again i said same don't trust my car with these tyres. Im gonna get some new rim 17" and Goodyear asymmetric 6. To replace my 16" stock rims with kumho... I have had bad tyres but never this bad. Like 1 ere prix were even better in my Mercedes even doh they became ovals.”
“I have kuhmo ecsta hs52's on my renault megane during spring and summer and they are really good. No complaints at all. My milage did go up a little bit but that's it”
“What’s up with these tyres? Kumho ectsa hs52 date code 3923, tyres are (UK) legal regards tread but I can’t imagine this damage is normal. Both front tyres have this, looks like the tread is tearing apart in multiple places. I did not fit these tyres but it was mot’d 3 months ago and has done 2k miles since. I’ve owned the car 11 months but only noticed this very recently. I am getting them replaced on Monday with little use before then but I’m curious how this has happened. Is it just a shit brand? Wear is even across the face so I don’t think it would be the alignment or anything to do with the car and the damage is random across the contact patch. It’s a Peugeot 508 2l diesel so quite a bit of weight on the nose. Fitting Bridgestone Turanza 6. Rear tyres are good, but a different brand (horizon horace 2122 date)”
Based on 17 community posts
Community members generally view the Vredestein Ultrac favorably, recommending it as offering the best of both worlds at a good price point. While drivers appreciate its appearance and value on daily vehicles, prospective buyers express inquiries regarding noise levels and potential fast tread wear.
Based on 8 community posts
| Attribute | A · Kumho Ecsta HS52 | B · Vredestein Ultrac |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Summer | Summer |
| Vehicle type | Passenger Car / Crossover | Passenger Car / Crossover |
| Sizes available | 53 | 65 |
| Rim diameters | 14″ – 20″ | 15″ – 21″ |
| UTQG | — | 280 AA A |
| Sizes in common | 38 | 38 |
Kumho Ecsta HS52
Vredestein Ultrac
Winner: Kumho Ecsta HS52 — better treadwear, handling and dry. Pick the Vredestein Ultrac if efficiency matters most to you.
Kumho Ecsta HS52 scores 76 vs 25 on treadwear.
Vredestein Ultrac scores 72 vs 43 on efficiency.
Kumho Ecsta HS52 scores 77 vs 60 on handling.
Kumho Ecsta HS52 scores 84 vs 75 on dry.
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
Neither, by our numbers: 84 vs 82 on the wet score, within 3 points.
Kumho Ecsta HS52, 84 vs 75 on our dry score.
Neither, by our numbers: 65 vs 67 on the noise score, within 3 points.
Kumho Ecsta HS52, 67 vs 63 on our comfort score.
Kumho Ecsta HS52, 76 vs 25 on our treadwear score.
Vredestein Ultrac, 72 vs 43 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
