Select Tyres

Auto-select top 10 Tyres by Price?

#1 Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3

Only partial data available

Detail Prices

Currently not available

#2 Barum Polaris 6

70%

Detail Prices

£90

#3 Bridgestone Blizzak 6

69%

Detail Prices

£146

#4 Barum Polaris 5

56%

Detail Prices

£149

#5 FALKEN EUROWINTER HS02

55%

Detail Prices

£116

Winter tyre test 205/45 R18 for 2026

Overall Dry Wet Snow Comfort

Passenger Car SUV

TL;DR Summary

This methodology combines multiple professional test results into a single, normalized ranking system for tyres. It prioritizes critical disciplines like braking, handling, and aquaplaning resistance, which all profesional tests feature and adapts scoring based on tyre type (e.g., summer, winter) and tyre category (e.g., passenger car, van, SUV) to make sure we compare ryres that can be compared. To ensure fairness, it only uses tyres tested multiple times and adjusts rankings if essential data is missing or if a tyre underperforms in key areas relatively to its direct competitors. To ensure comparability of the different tests, we check the values amongst the tests absolutely, but also relatively to each other to validate our scoring system. The result is a transparent, comprehensive, and updated scoring system that reflects real-world performance demands.

Universal Tyre Performance Ranking: Methodology Overview

Introduction

This document outlines the comprehensive methodology employed to generate universal tyre performance rankings. By leveraging data from multiple professional tyre tests, the process involves meticulous aggregation, normalization, and weighted evaluation to ensure accurate, fair, and transparent rankings. This overview elucidates the criteria and computational strategies underpinning the rankings, emphasizing data validity, critical performance disciplines, and contextual groupings based on tyre type, all while maintaining the confidentiality of proprietary values and specific data sources.

Data Acquisition and Normalization

Data Sources

The foundation of the ranking system is robust data acquired from various professional tyre testing organizations. These sources conduct independent assessments under controlled conditions, evaluating tyres across multiple performance properties such as braking efficiency, handling, aquaplaning resistance, and more. Each test yields detailed metrics that serve as inputs for the ranking algorithm.

Data Normalization

To facilitate equitable comparisons across diverse testing protocols and metrics, the raw data undergoes a rigorous normalization process. This ensures that disparate scoring systems, scales, and measurement units are harmonized into a unified framework. The normalization steps include:

Standardization of Metrics: Converting all raw performance indicators (e.g., braking distances, noise levels) into a consistent score scale.
Adjustment for Test Conditions: Calibrating scores to account for variations in test environments, ensuring that external factors do not skew the comparative analysis.
Aggregation of Multiple Tests: For each tyre property, only tyres evaluated in multiple independent tests are considered. This requirement ensures data validity by mitigating the influence of outlier results. When multiple tests exist for the same property, their normalized results are aggregated into a single representative figure, providing a robust and reliable property-level score.

Performance Properties and Groupings

Performance Properties

Each tyre is assessed based on a comprehensive set of performance properties, which are essential indicators of its suitability for various driving conditions. These properties are categorized as follows:

Dry Conditions: Includes metrics such as dry braking performance and dry handling capabilities.
Wet Conditions: Encompasses wet braking efficiency, wet handling, and resistance to aquaplaning in both longitudinal and cross directions.
Snow Conditions: Pertinent for winter or all-season tyres, covering snow traction, snow braking, and snow handling.
Comfort-Related Metrics: Evaluates aspects like external noise levels, contributing to overall ride comfort.
Rolling Resistance: Assesses the tyre’s fuel efficiency and energy consumption characteristics.

Grouping of Properties by Tyre Type

To address the varying demands of different tyre categories, performance properties are organized into distinct groups, each tailored to specific tyre types. This structuring ensures that the final rankings are contextually relevant and aligned with the intended usage of each tyre category.

Summer Tyres: Emphasize performance in wet and dry conditions, with additional consideration for comfort and rolling resistance.
Winter Tyres: Prioritize excellence in wet, snow, and dry performance groups, supplemented by comfort and rolling resistance.
All-Season (Allround) Tyres: Balance performance across wet, dry, and snow conditions, alongside comfort and rolling resistance, to cater to diverse driving environments.

These groupings are integral to the weighting mechanism, ensuring that tyres are evaluated holistically within the context of their designated categories.

Data Sufficiency and Representation

Ensuring Validity through Multiple Tests

A cornerstone of the ranking methodology is the assurance of data validity. To this end, a tyre is featured in the final rankings for a given property only if it has been evaluated in multiple independent tests. This criterion safeguards against the disproportionate influence of any single anomalous test result, fostering a more accurate and dependable assessment of tyre performance.

Aggregation of Multiple Test Results

When multiple tests are available for the same property, their normalized scores are amalgamated into a single representative figure. This aggregation process involves:

Calculation of Average Scores: Computing the mean of normalized scores across all relevant tests to derive a stable and consistent property-level score.
Robustness Against Outliers: By considering multiple data points, the aggregation diminishes the impact of extreme values, ensuring that the final score reflects genuine performance trends.

This approach guarantees that the final property-level scores are both reliable and reflective of consistent performance across varied testing scenarios.

Critical Disciplines

Identification of Critical Performance Properties

Certain performance metrics are deemed critical due to their direct impact on safety and real-world driving conditions. These critical disciplines are given heightened importance in the ranking process and include:

Dry Braking
Wet Braking
Dry Handling
Wet Handling
Aquaplaning Resistance (Longitudinal and Cross)
Snow Traction
Snow Braking
Snow Handling

Incorporation into Final Ratings

These critical properties are integral to the final rating of each tyre. Their performance directly influences the overall score, ensuring that tyres meeting high standards in these areas are appropriately recognized. Additionally, poor performance or insufficient data in any of these critical disciplines can lead to a devaluation of the tyre’s overall rating, underscoring the paramount importance of these metrics in the ranking system.

Calculating Base Scores

Derivation of Base Performance Ratings

For each tyre and its respective properties, a base performance rating is computed from the normalized test results. This involves:

Aggregation of Multiple Tests: Combining normalized scores from all relevant tests to form a singular representative score for each property.
Mean Calculation: Determining the average of these scores to establish a stable baseline performance indicator.

This process ensures that the base score accurately reflects the tyre’s consistent performance across various testing conditions.

Aggregation Techniques

The aggregation of multiple test results employs methods designed to balance influence and ensure reliability:

Simple Averaging: Calculating the arithmetic mean of normalized scores to derive the base performance rating.
Weighted Averaging (if applicable): Assigning different weights to tests based on factors such as test credibility or relevance, although the primary approach relies on equal weighting to maintain impartiality.

These techniques collectively contribute to the creation of a robust and representative base score for each tyre property.

Comparisons and Win/Loss Ratios

Pairwise Comparisons

Within each test and property, tyres are subjected to pairwise comparisons to evaluate their relative performance:

Direct Comparison: Each tyre’s normalized score is compared against every other tyre’s score within the same test and property.
Win/Loss Determination:
- Win: Awarded to a tyre that outperforms its counterpart in a given comparison.
- Loss: Assigned to the tyre that underperforms in the comparison.

Accumulation of Wins and Losses

Over multiple tests and properties, each tyre accumulates a total count of wins and losses, providing a comprehensive overview of its competitive standing.

Calculation of Win/Loss Ratios

The win/loss ratio is computed as follows:

Total Comparisons: The sum of wins and losses for a tyre across all pairwise comparisons.
Win Ratio: The proportion of wins to total comparisons, offering insight into the tyre’s consistency in outperforming competitors.

Integration into Final Scoring

The win/loss ratio is integrated with the base performance score to yield a final, composite score:

Test results

Overall performance ranking

Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3

81%

Barum Polaris 6

70%

Price: £90

Bridgestone Blizzak 6

69%

Price: £146

Barum Polaris 5

56%

Price: £149

FALKEN EUROWINTER HS02

55%

Price: £116

Dry

Weight in overall score: 20%

Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3

70%

Bridgestone Blizzak 6

64%

Price: £146

Barum Polaris 6

62%

Price: £90

FALKEN EUROWINTER HS02

57%

Price: £116

Barum Polaris 5

57%

Price: £149

Dry braking

50%

FALKEN EUROWINTER HS02

68%

Barum Polaris 6

58%

Bridgestone Blizzak 6

51%

Barum Polaris 5

42%

Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3

Not enough data

This parameter was not reflected in the group grade due to incomplete data

Dry handling

50%

Bridgestone Blizzak 6

77%

Barum Polaris 5

72%

Barum Polaris 6

67%

Falken Eurowinter HS02

47%

Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3

Not enough data

This parameter was not reflected in the group grade due to incomplete data

Wet

Weight in overall score: 40%

Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3

93%

Bridgestone Blizzak 6

70%

Price: £146

FALKEN EUROWINTER HS02

57%

Price: £116

Barum Polaris 6

51%

Price: £90

Barum Polaris 5

41%

Price: £149

Wet braking

20%

Bridgestone Blizzak 6

73%

Barum Polaris 6

67%

FALKEN EUROWINTER HS02

52%

Barum Polaris 5

39%

Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3

Not enough data

This parameter was not reflected in the group grade due to incomplete data

Wet handling

20%

Bridgestone Blizzak 6

72%

Falken Eurowinter HS02

66%

Barum Polaris 6

58%

Barum Polaris 5

35%

Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3

Not enough data

This parameter was not reflected in the group grade due to incomplete data

Aquaplaning - longitudal

20%

Bridgestone Blizzak 6

64%

FALKEN EUROWINTER HS02

55%

Barum Polaris 6

41%

Barum Polaris 5

37%

Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3

Not enough data

This parameter was not reflected in the group grade due to incomplete data

Aquaplaning - cross

20%

Bridgestone Blizzak 6

64%

FALKEN EUROWINTER HS02

48%

Barum Polaris 6

42%

Barum Polaris 5

43%

Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3

Not enough data

This parameter was not reflected in the group grade due to incomplete data

Wet circle cornering

20%

Bridgestone Blizzak 6

78%

Falken Eurowinter HS02

64%

Barum Polaris 6

49%

Barum Polaris 5

50%

Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3

Not enough data

This parameter was not reflected in the group grade due to incomplete data

Snow

Weight in overall score: 30%

Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3

75%

Barum Polaris 6

74%

Price: £90

Bridgestone Blizzak 6

73%

Price: £146

Barum Polaris 5

61%

Price: £149

FALKEN EUROWINTER HS02

45%

Price: £116

Snow traction

33%

Barum Polaris 6

74%

Bridgestone Blizzak 6

73%

Barum Polaris 5

58%

FALKEN EUROWINTER HS02

46%

Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3

Not enough data

This parameter was not reflected in the group grade due to incomplete data

Snow braking

33%

Barum Polaris 6

82%

Bridgestone Blizzak 6

73%

Barum Polaris 5

63%

FALKEN EUROWINTER HS02

44%

Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3

Not enough data

This parameter was not reflected in the group grade due to incomplete data

Snow handling

33%

Bridgestone Blizzak 6

73%

Barum Polaris 6

66%

Barum Polaris 5

63%

Falken Eurowinter HS02

43%

Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3

Not enough data

This parameter was not reflected in the group grade due to incomplete data

Comfort

Weight in overall score: 5%

Barum Polaris 6

97%

Price: £90

FALKEN EUROWINTER HS02

68%

Price: £116

Barum Polaris 5

55%

Price: £149

Bridgestone Blizzak 6

40%

Price: £146

Exterior noise

100%

Barum Polaris 6

97%

FALKEN EUROWINTER HS02

68%

Barum Polaris 5

55%

Bridgestone Blizzak 6

40%

Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3

Not enough data

This parameter was not reflected in the group grade due to incomplete data

Select Tyres

Winter tyre test 205/45 R18 for 2026

Test results

Dry

Dry braking

Dry handling

Wet

Wet braking

Wet handling

Aquaplaning - longitudal

Aquaplaning - cross

Wet circle cornering

Snow

Snow traction

Snow braking

Snow handling

Comfort

Exterior noise

Summer

Rankings

Tests

Brands

Rankings

Tests

Brands

Winter

Rankings

Tests

Brands

Rankings

Tests

Brands

Allround

Rankings

Tests

Brands

Rankings

Tests

Brands