tirewheelguide
Head-to-head Updated

Vredestein Ultrac vs Kumho Ecsta HS52 — 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 14 + 7 road tests and 419 + 2,387 owner reviews. How we score

Ecsta HS52 is ahead, 79–61

Check price on Amazon · Ecsta HS52 or Ultrac 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.

Vredestein Ultrac
Tire AVredestein

Ultrac

Summer

± 6

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”

Kumho Ecsta HS52
Tire BKumho

Ecsta HS52

Summer

± 5

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”

Category by category

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

Key facts

  • In 5 tests that measured dry braking for both, Ultrac won 1 and Ecsta HS52 won 4 (average 98% vs 99% of the best).
  • In 5 tests that measured wet braking for both, Ultrac won 2 and Ecsta HS52 won 3 (average 95% vs 95% of the best).
  • In 3 tests that measured curved aquaplaning for both, Ultrac won 3 and Ecsta HS52 won 0 (average 98% vs 83% of the best).
  • In 3 tests that measured straight aquaplaning for both, Ultrac won 3 and Ecsta HS52 won 0 (average 99% vs 95% of the best).
  • In 3 tests that measured noise for both, Ultrac won 1 and Ecsta HS52 won 2 (average 97% vs 98% of the best).
  1. 75

    Dry

    Ecsta HS52 +9
    84
    Why this score
    SourceUltracEcsta HS52
    Professional tests (TWG score) · 13 / 7 tests8486
    Reviews found online6080
    Dry Braking (% of best) · 5 shared tests · wins 1–498%99%
    Dry Handling (% of best) · 2 shared tests · wins 2–099%99%

    Ultrac: 60% × 84.3 + 40% × 60.3 = 75

    Ecsta HS52: 60% × 86.4 + 40% × 80.1 = 84

  2. 82

    Wet

    Ecsta HS52 +2
    84
    Why this score
    SourceUltracEcsta HS52
    Professional tests (TWG score) · 13 / 7 tests9289
    Reviews found online6678
    Curved Aquaplaning (% of best) · 3 shared tests · wins 3–098%83%
    Straight Aquaplaning (% of best) · 3 shared tests · wins 3–099%95%
    Wet Braking (% of best) · 5 shared tests · wins 2–395%95%
    Wet Braking (concrete) (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 0–188%89%
    Wet Circle (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 1–095%91%
    Wet Handling (% of best) · 2 shared tests · wins 2–0100%98%

    Ultrac: 60% × 92 + 40% × 66.4 = 82

    Ecsta HS52: 60% × 89.2 + 40% × 77.5 = 84

  3. 63

    Comfort

    Ecsta HS52 +4
    67
    Why this score
    SourceUltracEcsta HS52
    Professional tests (TWG score)≈ 67 (est.)≈ 68 (est.)
    Reviews found online6066

    Ultrac: 40% × 67 (est.) + 60% × 60.3 = 63

    Ecsta HS52: 40% × 68.1 (est.) + 60% × 65.9 = 67

    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).

    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).

  4. 67

    Noise

    Ultrac +2
    65
    Why this score
    SourceUltracEcsta HS52
    Professional tests (TWG score) · 11 / 3 tests6764
    Reviews found online≈ 66 (est.)≈ 66 (est.)
    Noise (% of best) · 3 shared tests · wins 1–297%98%

    Ultrac: 60% × 66.9 + 40% × 66.4 (est.) = 67

    Ecsta HS52: 60% × 63.9 + 40% × 66.4 (est.) = 65

    No owner ratings of noise for Ultrac or Ecsta HS52. 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. 25

    Treadwear

    Ecsta HS52 +51
    76
    Why this score
    SourceUltracEcsta HS52
    Professional tests (TWG score) · 3 / 5 tests1080
    Reviews found online4870
    Abrasion (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 0–147%88%
    Wear (% of best) · 3 shared tests · wins 0–342%79%

    Ultrac: 60% × 10 + 40% × 48.3 = 25

    Ecsta HS52: 60% × 79.7 + 40% × 69.6 = 76

  6. 60

    Handling (owners)

    Ecsta HS52 +17
    77
    Why this score
    SourceUltracEcsta HS52
    Reviews found online6077
  7. 72

    Efficiency

    Ultrac +29
    43
    Why this score
    SourceUltracEcsta HS52
    Professional tests (TWG score) · 11 / 5 tests7243
    Fuel Consumption (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 0–097%97%
    Rolling Resistance (% of best) · 2 shared tests · wins 1–176%78%
Scores at a glance
CategoryVredestein UltracKumho Ecsta HS52
Relative Score 61 79
Dry 75 84
Wet 82 84
Comfort 63 67
Noise 67 65
Treadwear 25 76
Handling (owners) 60 77
Efficiency 72 43

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

Ultrac

± 5

Ecsta HS52

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 5 tests that ran both, Vredestein Ultrac finished ahead 0 times and Kumho Ecsta HS52 5 times.

DisciplineCategoryUltracEcsta HS52ΔHead-to-head
Dry Braking Dry 98% 99% −1.1 1–4 in 5 shared tests Newest: 2024 Summer Tyre Market Overview · 205/55 R16
Dry Handling Dry 99% 99% +0.2 2–0 in 2 shared tests Newest: 2024 AutoBild Summer Tyre Test · 205/55 R16
Curved Aquaplaning Wet 98% 83% +15.1 3–0 in 3 shared tests Newest: 2024 ADAC Summer Tyre Test · 215/55 R17
Straight Aquaplaning Wet 99% 95% +4.7 3–0 in 3 shared tests Newest: 2024 ADAC Summer Tyre Test · 215/55 R17
Wet Braking Wet 95% 95% −0.9 2–3 in 5 shared tests Newest: 2024 Summer Tyre Market Overview · 205/55 R16
Wet Braking (concrete) Wet 88% 89% −1.2 0–1 in 1 shared test Newest: 2024 ADAC Summer Tyre Test · 215/55 R17
Wet Circle Wet 95% 91% +4.0 1–0 in 1 shared test Newest: 2022 Auto Bild Summer Tyre Test · 215/55 R17
Wet Handling Wet 100% 98% +1.5 2–0 in 2 shared tests Newest: 2024 AutoBild Summer Tyre Test · 205/55 R16
Noise Noise 97% 98% −0.6 1–2 in 3 shared tests Newest: 2024 ADAC Summer Tyre Test · 215/55 R17
Abrasion Treadwear 47% 88% −40.7 0–1 in 1 shared test Newest: 2024 ADAC Summer Tyre Test · 215/55 R17
Wear Treadwear 42% 79% −36.8 0–3 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 76% 78% −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 68% 77% −8.8 0–1 in 1 shared test Newest: 2024 ADAC Summer Tyre Test · 215/55 R17
Total Cost of Ownership Cost #20/20 #12/20 – 0–2 in 2 shared tests Newest: 2024 AutoBild Summer Tyre Test · 205/55 R16
Value Cost 45% 91% −46.1 0–3 in 3 shared tests Newest: 2024 ADAC Summer Tyre Test · 215/55 R17
Overall Ranking Overall #3/55 #2/55 – 0–5 in 5 shared tests Newest: 2024 Summer Tyre Market Overview · 205/55 R16

Pros, cons & observations

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

Tire A Ultrac

Pros

  • Exceptional grip and confidence in wet weather conditions
  • High level of ride comfort and ability to absorb road bumps
  • Low road noise and quiet operation

Cons

  • Rapid tread wear reported by several drivers
  • Softer sidewalls leading to less initial steering feedback or stability
  • Occasional complaints of tramlining or tracking narrow road repairs
All owner themes in the Ultrac review

Tire B Ecsta HS52

Pros

  • Excellent wet and dry weather traction
  • Low road noise and quiet operation
  • Smooth and comfortable ride quality

Cons

  • A few reports of accelerated or abnormal tread wear
  • Slightly sensitive to tire pressure regarding comfort
  • Occasional complaints of high-speed vibration or imbalance early on
All owner themes in the Ecsta HS52 review

What real owners are saying

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

Tire A

Vredestein Ultrac

Positive

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.

Top themes
#good price point#best of both worlds#tread wear concerns#tire recommendation#wide tire appearance#budget versus premium

Based on 8 community posts

Tire B

Kumho Ecsta HS52

Mixed

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.

r/TyreReviews ·1 upvote ·2026-01-22

“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.”
r/CarTalkUK ·1 upvote ·2025-01-11

“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”
r/tires ·3 upvotes ·2025-09-23

“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)”
Top themes
#Dry grip and handling#Wet weather performance#Sidewall stiffness#Price and value#Comparison with competitors#Fuel economy and weight#Tread wear and durability

Based on 17 community posts

Specs side by side

Attribute A · Vredestein Ultrac B · Kumho Ecsta HS52
CategorySummerSummer
Vehicle typePassenger Car / CrossoverPassenger Car / Crossover
Sizes available6553
Rim diameters15″ – 21″14″ – 20″
UTQG280 AA A—
Sizes in common3838

Which one should you actually buy?

Vredestein Ultrac

Kumho Ecsta HS52

Winner: Kumho Ecsta HS52 — better treadwear, handling and dry. Pick the Vredestein Ultrac if efficiency matters most to you.

Pick tire B You want the longest tread life

Kumho Ecsta HS52 scores 76 vs 25 on treadwear.

Pick tire A You want lower fuel or energy use

Vredestein Ultrac scores 72 vs 43 on efficiency.

Pick tire B You enjoy sharp, responsive handling

Kumho Ecsta HS52 scores 77 vs 60 on handling.

Pick tire B You want the most grip on dry roads

Kumho Ecsta HS52 scores 84 vs 75 on dry.

Tire A · Vredestein Ultrac
Check price on Amazon
Tire B · Kumho Ecsta HS52
Check price on Amazon

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

Ultrac or Ecsta HS52?

Which is better in the wet, Ultrac or Ecsta HS52?

Neither, by our numbers: 82 vs 84 on the wet score, within 3 points.

Which grips better on dry roads, Ultrac or Ecsta HS52?

Kumho Ecsta HS52, 84 vs 75 on our dry score.

Which is quieter, Ultrac or Ecsta HS52?

Neither, by our numbers: 67 vs 65 on the noise score, within 3 points.

Which is more comfortable, Ultrac or Ecsta HS52?

Kumho Ecsta HS52, 67 vs 63 on our comfort score.

Which lasts longer, Ultrac or Ecsta HS52?

Kumho Ecsta HS52, 76 vs 25 on our treadwear score.

Which rolls more easily, Ultrac or Ecsta HS52?

Vredestein Ultrac, 72 vs 43 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