Head-to-head Updated

Michelin Primacy 4+ vs Nexen N Fera AU5 — 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 10 + 0 road tests and 39 + 6 owner reviews. How we score

Primacy 4+ is ahead, 78–56

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.

Michelin Primacy 4+
Tire AMichelin

Primacy 4+

Summer

± 4

Tests 85 · 10 tests Owners 70 · 39 reviews

Best test result: #1 of 16 in 2024 ADAC Summer Tyre Test (abrasion)

Nexen N Fera AU5
Tire BNexen

N Fera AU5

Summer

± 8Provisional

Tests – · none yet Owners 50 · 6 reviews

Category by category

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

  1. 78

    Dry

    Primacy 4+ +24
    54
    Why this score
    SourcePrimacy 4+N Fera AU5
    Professional tests (TWG score) · 9 / – tests82≈ 59 (est.)
    Reviews found online7146

    Primacy 4+: 60% × 82.3 + 40% × 70.5 = 78

    N Fera AU5: 60% × 58.9 (est.) + 40% × 46.2 = 54

    No road tests of dry for N Fera AU5. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.42).

  2. 79

    Wet

    Primacy 4+ +24
    55
    Why this score
    SourcePrimacy 4+N Fera AU5
    Professional tests (TWG score) · 9 / – tests83≈ 59 (est.)
    Reviews found online7450

    Primacy 4+: 60% × 82.6 + 40% × 73.8 = 79

    N Fera AU5: 60% × 59.1 (est.) + 40% × 49.6 = 55

    No road tests of wet for N Fera AU5. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.55).

  3. 71

    Comfort

    Primacy 4+ +10
    61
    Why this score
    SourcePrimacy 4+N Fera AU5
    Professional tests (TWG score) · 1 / – tests73≈ 67 (est.)
    Reviews found online6957

    Primacy 4+: 40% × 73.3 + 60% × 69 = 71

    N Fera AU5: 40% × 66.9 (est.) + 60% × 56.9 = 61

    No road tests of comfort for N Fera AU5. The test half is the tested tires’ average (69): owners’ comfort ratings barely follow the road tests.

  4. 73

    Noise

    No comparison
    –
    Why this score
    SourcePrimacy 4+N Fera AU5
    Professional tests (TWG score) · 7 / – tests77–
    Reviews found online≈ 67 (est.)–

    Primacy 4+: 60% × 76.7 + 40% × 66.6 (est.) = 73

    No owner ratings of noise for Primacy 4+. The owner half is the owners’ average (67): owners’ noise ratings barely follow the road tests, so the tests say nothing about how owners would rate it.

  5. 85

    Treadwear

    Primacy 4+ +28
    57
    Why this score
    SourcePrimacy 4+N Fera AU5
    Professional tests (TWG score) · 4 / – tests95≈ 61 (est.)
    Reviews found online6951

    Primacy 4+: 60% × 95.3 + 40% × 68.9 = 85

    N Fera AU5: 60% × 61 (est.) + 40% × 51.3 = 57

    No road tests of treadwear for N Fera AU5. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.35).

  6. 65

    Handling (owners)

    Primacy 4+ +11
    54
    Why this score
    SourcePrimacy 4+N Fera AU5
    Reviews found online6554
  7. 78

    Efficiency

    No comparison
    –
    Why this score
    SourcePrimacy 4+N Fera AU5
    Professional tests (TWG score) · 8 / – tests78–
Scores at a glance
Michelin Primacy 4+ vs Nexen N Fera AU5: scores by category (0–100)
CategoryMichelin Primacy 4+Nexen N Fera AU5
Relative Score 78 56
Dry 78 54
Wet 79 55
Comfort 71 61
Noise 73 –
Treadwear 85 57
Handling (owners) 65 54
Efficiency 78 –

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
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
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
± 4

Primacy 4+

± 8

N Fera AU5

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 Primacy 4+

Pros

  • Excellent ride comfort and a smooth, compliant 'limousine-like' feel over bumps
  • Strong and reliable grip in both wet and dry conditions, inspiring confidence
  • Noticeable improvement in quietness and traction compared to predecessor tires or factory options

Cons

  • Loud road noise and a harsh drone on rough or coarse asphalt surfaces
  • Soft sidewalls can reduce steering agility and initial responsiveness compared to dedicated sport tires
  • High premium price point relative to competitors
All owner themes in the Primacy 4+ review

Tire B N Fera AU5

Pros

  • Exceptional tread life and longevity, lasting multiple years of daily commuting
  • Very quiet and comfortable ride quality with smooth highway manners
  • Soft sidewalls contribute to high comfort levels even at higher tire pressures

Cons

  • Softer sidewalls lead to noticeable flex and reduced responsiveness in hard cornering
  • Lower dry grip levels compared to more aggressive performance tires like the Nexen N Fera SU1
  • Potential for traction loss or wheel spin during wet weather take-offs, particularly on powerful rear-wheel-drive vehicles
All owner themes in the N Fera AU5 review

Specs side by side

Attribute A · Michelin Primacy 4+ B · Nexen N Fera AU5
CategorySummerSummer
Vehicle typePassenger Car / CrossoverPassenger Car / Crossover
Sizes available66—
Rim diameters16″ – 21″—

Which one should you actually buy?

Michelin Primacy 4+

Nexen N Fera AU5

Winner: Michelin Primacy 4+ — better treadwear, dry and wet. It leads or ties in every category we score. Nexen N Fera AU5 rests on little evidence so far (0 tests, 6 reviews), so read this result as provisional.

Pick tire A You want the longest tread life

Michelin Primacy 4+ scores 85 vs 57 on treadwear.

Pick tire A You want the most grip on dry roads

Michelin Primacy 4+ scores 78 vs 54 on dry.

Pick tire A Your priority is wet-weather safety

Michelin Primacy 4+ scores 79 vs 55 on wet.

Pick tire A You enjoy sharp, responsive handling

Michelin Primacy 4+ scores 65 vs 54 on handling.

Tire A · Michelin Primacy 4+
Tire B · Nexen N Fera AU5

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

Primacy 4+ or N Fera AU5?

Which is better in the wet, Primacy 4+ or N Fera AU5?

Michelin Primacy 4+, 79 vs 55 on our wet score.

Which grips better on dry roads, Primacy 4+ or N Fera AU5?

Michelin Primacy 4+, 78 vs 54 on our dry score.

Which is more comfortable, Primacy 4+ or N Fera AU5?

Michelin Primacy 4+, 71 vs 61 on our comfort score.

Which lasts longer, Primacy 4+ or N Fera AU5?

Michelin Primacy 4+, 85 vs 57 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