Tests – · 1 test Owners 70 · 165 reviews
Head-to-head
Updated
Kumho Ecsta PA51 vs Falken Azenis FK510 — 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 1 + 31 road tests and 165 + 907 owner reviews. How we score
Too close to call: Ecsta PA51 70, Azenis FK510 71.
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.
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”
Category by category
Relative Score per category, 0–100. Open “Why this score” for the tests and owner ratings behind it.
-
70
Dry
Azenis FK510 +474Why this score
Source Ecsta PA51 Azenis FK510 Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 28 tests ≈ 69 (est.) 73 Reviews found online 70 75 Ecsta PA51: 60% × 69 (est.) + 40% × 70.3 = 70
Azenis FK510: 60% × 72.9 + 40% × 75.4 = 74
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).
-
71
Wet
Azenis FK510 +1485Why this score
Source Ecsta PA51 Azenis FK510 Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 29 tests ≈ 71 (est.) 89 Reviews found online 72 78 Ecsta PA51: 60% × 71.2 (est.) + 40% × 71.6 = 71
Azenis FK510: 60% × 89 + 40% × 78.3 = 85
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).
-
64
Snow
Ecsta PA51 +955Why this score
Source Ecsta PA51 Azenis FK510 Professional tests (TWG score) ≈ 67 (est.) ≈ 61 (est.) Reviews found online 60 46 Ecsta PA51: 60% × 66.7 (est.) + 40% × 59.8 = 64
Azenis FK510: 60% × 61.3 (est.) + 40% × 45.5 = 55
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).
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).
-
67
Comfort
Ecsta PA51 +1057Why this score
Source Ecsta PA51 Azenis FK510 Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 6 tests ≈ 68 (est.) 42 Reviews found online 65 68 Ecsta PA51: 40% × 68.4 (est.) + 60% × 65.4 = 67
Azenis FK510: 40% × 41.7 + 60% × 67.6 = 57
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.
-
70
Noise
Ecsta PA51 +367Why this score
Source Ecsta PA51 Azenis FK510 Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 18 tests ≈ 67 (est.) 66 Reviews found online 74 67 Ecsta PA51: 60% × 66.6 (est.) + 40% × 74.2 = 70
Azenis FK510: 60% × 66 + 40% × 67.3 = 67
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.
-
72
Treadwear
Ecsta PA51 +666Why this score
Source Ecsta PA51 Azenis FK510 Professional tests (TWG score) · 1 / 5 tests 70 73 Reviews found online 74 54 Ecsta PA51: 60% × 69.8 + 40% × 74.2 = 72
Azenis FK510: 60% × 73.1 + 40% × 54.2 = 66
-
68
Handling (owners)
Azenis FK510 +472Why this score
Source Ecsta PA51 Azenis FK510 Reviews found online 68 72 -
–
Efficiency
No comparison51Why this score
Source Ecsta PA51 Azenis FK510 Professional tests (TWG score) · – / 19 tests – 51
Scores at a glance
| Category | Kumho Ecsta PA51 | Falken Azenis FK510 |
|---|---|---|
| Relative Score | 70 | 71 |
| Dry | 70 | 74 |
| Wet | 71 | 85 |
| Snow | 64 | 55 |
| Comfort | 67 | 57 |
| Noise | 70 | 67 |
| Treadwear | 72 | 66 |
| Handling (owners) | 68 | 72 |
| Efficiency | – | 51 |
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
Neutral
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Not important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Only one of the two tires has a score here, so this weight changes nothing in the head-to-head.
Recomputed
Headline score
70
/ 100
Ecsta PA51
71
/ 100
Azenis FK510
Only categories both tires have data for count toward the headline score.
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.
| Discipline | Category | Ecsta PA51 | Azenis FK510 | Δ | Head-to-head |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tested Tread Life (Miles) | Treadwear | 67% #11/19 · 2022 Consumer Reports Ultra High Performance All-Season Tires | 54% #17/22 · 2022 Consumer Reports Ultra High Performance Summer Tires | – | Different tests |
| Also published by the testers (not in the score) | |||||
| Overall Ranking | Overall | #7/19 2022 Consumer Reports Ultra High Performance All-Season Tires | #7/10 2025 Tire Rack UUHP Summer Tyre Test | – | Different tests |
Pros, cons & observations
Themes extracted from owner reviews found online — not the opinion of TireWheelGuide.
Tire A Ecsta PA51
Pros
- Excellent price-to-performance ratio
- Strong dry pavement traction and cornering grip
- Quiet and smooth ride quality
Cons
- Inconsistent performance in heavy rain or standing water
- Some reports of increased road noise over time
- Limited availability in certain niche sizes
Tire B Azenis FK510
Pros
- Outstanding grip in both wet and dry conditions
- Exceptional value and lower price point compared to premium brands
- Smooth and comfortable ride quality that absorbs road imperfections well
Cons
- Accelerated tread wear and shorter overall lifespan
- Softer sidewalls can result in slightly delayed initial steering response or a feeling of looseness during aggressive high-speed maneuvers
- Occasional reports of increased tire noise or harshness on specific rough or concrete road surfaces
What real owners are saying
From Reddit, forums and review threads. Not part of our score
Tire A
Kumho Ecsta PA51
We haven't collected enough community discussion about this tire yet.
Tire B
Mixed
Falken Azenis FK510
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.
r/TeslaModelS
·1 upvote ·2025-11-28
“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.”
corvetteforum.com
“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.”
r/Mustang
·1 upvote ·2025-12-28
“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?”
Top themes
#budget friendly pricing#wet weather traction#fast treadwear#track durability concerns#ride comfort#cabin road noise#daily street driving
Based on 63 community posts
Specs side by side
| Attribute | A · Kumho Ecsta PA51 | B · Falken Azenis FK510 |
|---|---|---|
| Category | All Season | Summer |
| Vehicle type | Passenger Car / Crossover | Passenger Car / Crossover |
| Sizes available | 13 | 93 |
| Rim diameters | 16″ – 19″ | 17″ – 22″ |
| Tread depth | 10.5/32″ | 10/32″ |
| UTQG | 500 A A | 300 A A |
| Treadwear warranty | 45,000 mi | — |
| Sidewall | Blackwall | Blackwall |
| Max pressure | 51 psi | 50 psi |
| Sizes in common | 5 | 5 |
Which one should you actually buy?
70
/ 100
Kumho Ecsta PA51
71
/ 100
Falken Azenis FK510
Too close to call: Kumho Ecsta PA51 and Falken Azenis FK510 are within 2 points overall. Kumho Ecsta PA51 is stronger on comfort, snow and treadwear. Falken Azenis FK510 is stronger on wet and dry.
Pick tire B
Your priority is wet-weather safety
Falken Azenis FK510 scores 85 vs 71 on wet.
Pick tire A
You want the most comfortable ride
Kumho Ecsta PA51 scores 67 vs 57 on comfort.
Pick tire A
You drive through snowy winters
Kumho Ecsta PA51 scores 64 vs 55 on snow.
Pick tire A
You want the longest tread life
Kumho Ecsta PA51 scores 72 vs 66 on treadwear.
Tire A · Kumho Ecsta PA51
Tire B · Falken Azenis FK510
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
Ecsta PA51 or Azenis FK510?
Which is better in the wet, Ecsta PA51 or Azenis FK510?
Falken Azenis FK510, 85 vs 71 on our wet score.
Which grips better on dry roads, Ecsta PA51 or Azenis FK510?
Falken Azenis FK510, 74 vs 70 on our dry score.
Which is better in snow, Ecsta PA51 or Azenis FK510?
Kumho Ecsta PA51, 64 vs 55 on our snow score.
Which is quieter, Ecsta PA51 or Azenis FK510?
Kumho Ecsta PA51, 70 vs 67 on our noise score.
Which is more comfortable, Ecsta PA51 or Azenis FK510?
Kumho Ecsta PA51, 67 vs 57 on our comfort score.
Which lasts longer, Ecsta PA51 or Azenis FK510?
Kumho Ecsta PA51, 72 vs 66 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