Tests 70 · 13 tests Owners 78 · 20 reviews
Best test result: #1 of 20 in 2025 Studded, Friction and European Winter Tyre Test (comfort (tester's mark))
Head-to-head
Updated
Michelin X Ice Snow vs Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 — 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 13 + 12 road tests and 20 + 24 owner reviews. How we score
Too close to call: X Ice Snow 73, Hakkapeliitta R5 72.
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 69 · 12 tests Owners 76 · 24 reviews
Best test result: #1 of 20 in 2025 Studded, Friction and European Winter Tyre Test (snow handling (tester's mark))
Category by category
Relative Score per category, 0–100. Open “Why this score” for the tests and owner ratings behind it.
Key facts
- In 8 tests that measured ice traction for both, X Ice Snow won 5 and Hakkapeliitta R5 won 1 (average 90% vs 88% of the best).
- In 8 tests that measured snow traction for both, X Ice Snow won 2 and Hakkapeliitta R5 won 4 (average 93% vs 92% of the best).
- In 7 tests that measured ice handling for both, X Ice Snow won 1 and Hakkapeliitta R5 won 5 (average 85% vs 91% of the best).
- In 7 tests that measured snow handling for both, X Ice Snow won 2 and Hakkapeliitta R5 won 5 (average 95% vs 97% of the best).
- In 6 tests that measured wet handling for both, X Ice Snow won 1 and Hakkapeliitta R5 won 3 (average 91% vs 91% of the best).
-
67
Dry
Hakkapeliitta R5 +572Why this score
Source X Ice Snow Hakkapeliitta R5 Professional tests (TWG score) · 11 / 9 tests 65 70 Reviews found online 71 74 Dry Braking (% of best) · 5 shared tests · wins 2–3 82% 88% Dry Handling (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 0–0 92% 92% Dry Handling (tester's mark) (% of best) · 4 shared tests · wins 2–1 77% 73% X Ice Snow: 60% × 64.9 + 40% × 70.7 = 67
Hakkapeliitta R5: 60% × 70 + 40% × 74.3 = 72
-
71
Wet
X Ice Snow +962Why this score
Source X Ice Snow Hakkapeliitta R5 Professional tests (TWG score) · 12 / 11 tests 65 53 Reviews found online 79 77 Straight Aquaplaning (% of best) · 5 shared tests · wins 4–0 82% 77% Wet Handling (tester's mark) (% of best) · 4 shared tests · wins 1–1 72% 70% Wet Braking (% of best) · 5 shared tests · wins 1–3 83% 83% Wet Handling (% of best) · 6 shared tests · wins 1–3 91% 91% X Ice Snow: 60% × 64.9 + 40% × 79.2 = 71
Hakkapeliitta R5: 60% × 52.7 + 40% × 76.6 = 62
-
76
Snow
Hakkapeliitta R5 +480Why this score
Source X Ice Snow Hakkapeliitta R5 Professional tests (TWG score) · 12 / 10 tests 73 79 Reviews found online 81 81 Ice Braking (% of best) · 5 shared tests · wins 2–1 89% 88% Ice Handling (% of best) · 7 shared tests · wins 1–5 85% 91% Ice Traction (% of best) · 8 shared tests · wins 5–1 90% 88% Snow Braking (% of best) · 6 shared tests · wins 2–3 98% 96% Snow Handling (% of best) · 7 shared tests · wins 2–5 95% 97% Snow Traction (% of best) · 8 shared tests · wins 2–4 93% 92% Ice Handling (tester's mark) (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 0–1 60% 70% Snow Handling (tester's mark) (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 0–1 80% 100% Deep Snow Traction (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 1–0 100% 70% X Ice Snow: 60% × 73.2 + 40% × 81.2 = 76
Hakkapeliitta R5: 60% × 79.4 + 40% × 80.6 = 80
-
80
Comfort
X Ice Snow +1268Why this score
Source X Ice Snow Hakkapeliitta R5 Professional tests (TWG score) · 3 / 4 tests 81 52 Reviews found online 79 79 Comfort (tester's mark) (% of best) · 2 shared tests · wins 1–0 100% 80% X Ice Snow: 40% × 81 + 60% × 78.8 = 80
Hakkapeliitta R5: 40% × 52.4 + 60% × 79 = 68
-
75
Noise
Hakkapeliitta R5 +1287Why this score
Source X Ice Snow Hakkapeliitta R5 Professional tests (TWG score) · 8 / 6 tests 81 99 Reviews found online ≈ 66 (est.) 70 Noise (% of best) · 2 shared tests · wins 0–2 99% 99% Exterior Noise (% of best) · 2 shared tests · wins 1–0 100% 99% Noise (tester's mark) (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 0–0 100% 100% X Ice Snow: 60% × 80.5 + 40% × 66.4 (est.) = 75
Hakkapeliitta R5: 60% × 99.2 + 40% × 69.5 = 87
No owner ratings of noise for X Ice Snow. 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.
-
76
Treadwear
X Ice Snow +769Why this score
Source X Ice Snow Hakkapeliitta R5 Professional tests (TWG score) ≈ 72 (est.) ≈ 68 (est.) Reviews found online 81 71 X Ice Snow: 60% × 71.9 (est.) + 40% × 81.4 = 76
Hakkapeliitta R5: 60% × 68.2 (est.) + 40% × 71.2 = 69
No road tests of treadwear for X Ice Snow. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.36).
No road tests of treadwear for Hakkapeliitta R5. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.36).
-
75
Handling (owners)
Hakkapeliitta R5 +681Why this score
Source X Ice Snow Hakkapeliitta R5 Reviews found online 75 81 -
77
Efficiency
Hakkapeliitta R5 +885Why this score
Source X Ice Snow Hakkapeliitta R5 Professional tests (TWG score) · 6 / 7 tests 77 85 Fuel Consumption (% of best) · 3 shared tests · wins 1–2 97% 99% Rolling Resistance (% of best) · 2 shared tests · wins 1–0 99% 97%
Scores at a glance
| Category | Michelin X Ice Snow | Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 |
|---|---|---|
| Relative Score | 73 | 72 |
| Dry | 67 | 72 |
| Wet | 71 | 62 |
| Snow | 76 | 80 |
| Comfort | 80 | 68 |
| Noise | 75 | 87 |
| Treadwear | 76 | 69 |
| Handling (owners) | 75 | 81 |
| Efficiency | 77 | 85 |
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
Important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Neutral
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Not important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Recomputed
Headline score
73
/ 100
X Ice Snow
72
/ 100
Hakkapeliitta R5
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 16 tests that ran both, Michelin X Ice Snow finished ahead 3 times and Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 13 times.
| Discipline | Category | X Ice Snow | Hakkapeliitta R5 | Δ | Head-to-head |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | Dry | 82% | 88% | −5.5 | 2–3 in 5 shared tests Newest: 2025 NAF Motor Studless Winter Tire Test R17 · 225/45R17 |
| Dry Handling | Dry | 92% | 92% | 0.0 | 0–0 in 1 shared test Newest: 2025 NAF Motor Studless Winter Tire Test R17 · 225/45R17 |
| Dry Handling (tester's mark) | Dry | 77% | 73% | +4.4 | 2–1 in 4 shared tests Newest: 2025 Friction and Studded Winter Tyre Test · 205/55 R16 |
| Straight Aquaplaning | Wet | 82% | 77% | +5.0 | 4–0 in 5 shared tests Newest: 2025 NAF Motor Studless Winter Tire Test R17 · 225/45R17 |
| Wet Braking | Wet | 83% | 83% | −0.1 | 1–3 in 5 shared tests Newest: 2025 NAF Motor Studless Winter Tire Test R17 · 225/45R17 |
| Wet Circle | Wet | 81% #10/10 · 2026 Tire Rack All-Weather vs Winter Tyre Test | 97% #5/6 · 2025 NAF Motor Studded Winter Tire Test R17 | – | Different tests |
| Wet Handling | Wet | 91% | 91% | −0.5 | 1–3 in 6 shared tests Newest: 2025 Friction and Studded Winter Tyre Test · 205/55 R16 |
| Wet Handling (tester's mark) | Wet | 72% | 70% | +2.2 | 1–1 in 4 shared tests Newest: 2025 NAF Motor Studless Winter Tire Test R17 · 225/45R17 |
| Deep Snow Traction | Snow | 100% | 70% | +30.0 | 1–0 in 1 shared test Newest: 2023 Autoreview Studless Winter Tire Test R16 · 215/60R16 |
| Ice Braking | Snow | 89% | 88% | +1.2 | 2–1 in 5 shared tests Newest: 2025 NAF Motor Studless Winter Tire Test R17 · 225/45R17 |
| Ice Handling | Snow | 85% | 91% | −5.5 | 1–5 in 7 shared tests Newest: 2025 NAF Motor Studless Winter Tire Test R17 · 225/45R17 |
| Ice Handling (tester's mark) | Snow | 60% | 70% | −10.0 | 0–1 in 1 shared test Newest: 2025 Studded, Friction and European Winter Tyre Test · 235/45 R18 |
| Ice Traction | Snow | 90% | 88% | +2.0 | 5–1 in 8 shared tests Newest: 2025 NAF Motor Studless Winter Tire Test R17 · 225/45R17 |
| Snow Braking | Snow | 98% | 96% | +1.5 | 2–3 in 6 shared tests Newest: 2025 NAF Motor Studless Winter Tire Test R17 · 225/45R17 |
| Snow Handling | Snow | 95% | 97% | −2.1 | 2–5 in 7 shared tests Newest: 2025 NAF Motor Studless Winter Tire Test R17 · 225/45R17 |
| Snow Handling (tester's mark) | Snow | 80% | 100% | −20.0 | 0–1 in 1 shared test Newest: 2025 Studded, Friction and European Winter Tyre Test · 235/45 R18 |
| Snow Traction | Snow | 93% | 92% | +0.9 | 2–4 in 8 shared tests Newest: 2025 NAF Motor Studless Winter Tire Test R17 · 225/45R17 |
| Comfort (tester's mark) | Comfort | 100% | 80% | +20.0 | 1–0 in 2 shared tests Newest: 2025 Studded, Friction and European Winter Tyre Test · 235/45 R18 |
| Exterior Noise | Noise | 100% | 99% | +0.2 | 1–0 in 2 shared tests Newest: 2025 NAF Motor Studless Winter Tire Test R17 · 225/45R17 |
| Noise | Noise | 99% | 99% | −0.2 | 0–2 in 2 shared tests Newest: 2024 Nordic Friction Winter Tyre Test · 225/45 R17 |
| Noise (tester's mark) | Noise | 100% | 100% | 0.0 | 0–0 in 1 shared test Newest: 2025 Friction and Studded Winter Tyre Test · 205/55 R16 |
| Fuel Consumption | Efficiency | 97% | 99% | −2.0 | 1–2 in 3 shared tests Newest: 2025 Studded, Friction and European Winter Tyre Test · 235/45 R18 |
| Rolling Resistance | Efficiency | 99% | 97% | +1.4 | 1–0 in 2 shared tests Newest: 2025 NAF Motor Studless Winter Tire Test R17 · 225/45R17 |
| Also published by the testers (not in the score) | |||||
| Road Rating (tester's mark) | Other | 97% #6/10 · 2026 Tire Rack All-Weather vs Winter Tyre Test | 50% #10/18 · 2026 Teknikens Värld Studded, Nordic and Central European Winter Tyre Test | – | Different tests |
| Overall Ranking | Overall | #3/7 | #2/7 | – | 3–13 in 16 shared tests Newest: 2025 Moottori Studless Winter Tire Test R16 · 205/55R16 |
Pros, cons & observations
Themes extracted from owner reviews found online — not the opinion of TireWheelGuide.
Tire A X Ice Snow
Pros
- Exceptional grip and traction in deep snow, packed snow, and slush
- High confidence and predictable handling on icy and freezing roads
- Impressive tread wear longevity and minimal wear over multiple seasons
Cons
- Average performance on dry and wet pavement compared to dedicated non-winter tires
- Slightly noisier on dry pavement as the tread wears down
- Can feel slightly twitchy at the limit or less comfortable than older X-Ice generations
Tire B Hakkapeliitta R5
Pros
- Outstanding traction and braking on snow and packed ice
- Significantly lower road noise and higher comfort than traditional studded tires
- Good fuel efficiency and low rolling resistance
Cons
- Reduced stability and wandering feel at high speeds on dry pavement
- Occasional unexpected sliding or lack of confidence in heavy slush
- Potential concerns regarding sidewall strength or vulnerability to pothole damage
Specs side by side
| Attribute | A · Michelin X Ice Snow | B · Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Winter | Winter |
| Vehicle type | Passenger Car / Crossover | Passenger Car / Crossover |
| Sizes available | 100 | 60 |
| Rim diameters | 13″ – 21″ | 14″ – 20″ |
| Tread depth | — | 10.5/32″ |
| Sidewall | — | Blackwall |
| Max pressure | — | 51 psi |
| Sizes in common | 52 | 52 |
Which one should you actually buy?
73
/ 100
Michelin X Ice Snow
72
/ 100
Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
Too close to call: Michelin X Ice Snow and Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 are within 2 points overall. Michelin X Ice Snow is stronger on comfort, wet and treadwear. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 is stronger on noise, efficiency and handling.
Pick tire A
You want the most comfortable ride
Michelin X Ice Snow scores 80 vs 68 on comfort.
Pick tire B
You want a quieter cabin
Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 scores 87 vs 75 on noise.
Pick tire A
Your priority is wet-weather safety
Michelin X Ice Snow scores 71 vs 62 on wet.
Pick tire B
You want lower fuel or energy use
Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 scores 85 vs 77 on efficiency.
Tire A · Michelin X Ice Snow
Tire B · Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
X Ice Snow or Hakkapeliitta R5?
Which is better in the wet, X Ice Snow or Hakkapeliitta R5?
Michelin X Ice Snow, 71 vs 62 on our wet score.
Which grips better on dry roads, X Ice Snow or Hakkapeliitta R5?
Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5, 72 vs 67 on our dry score.
Which is better in snow, X Ice Snow or Hakkapeliitta R5?
Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5, 80 vs 76 on our snow score.
Which is quieter, X Ice Snow or Hakkapeliitta R5?
Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5, 87 vs 75 on our noise score.
Which is more comfortable, X Ice Snow or Hakkapeliitta R5?
Michelin X Ice Snow, 80 vs 68 on our comfort score.
Which lasts longer, X Ice Snow or Hakkapeliitta R5?
Michelin X Ice Snow, 76 vs 69 on our treadwear score.
Which rolls more easily, X Ice Snow or Hakkapeliitta R5?
Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5, 85 vs 77 on our efficiency 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