Comparison: Goodyear Efficientgrip 2 SUV vs. Hankook Ventus Prime 4 (2026)

In the wet the order reverses, and this is where the Goodyear earns its keep. It posts a wet-braking score of 86.3 to the Hankook's 81.1, and an overall wet rating of 84.5 against 81.4. A five-point braking-score advantage on a wet surface is comfortably a car length or more in a hard stop from motorway speed. The Goodyear's EU wet-grip spread is almost entirely A-rated (98 percent of its sizes earn an A), whereas the Hankook is scattered across A, B, C and even D. On paper and in testing, the Goodyear is the safer choice when the road turns greasy.

Aquaplaning is the clearest split of all. The Goodyear scores 81.8 for aquaplaning and 83.4 on the cross-aquaplaning detail, and testers across multiple years singled out its strong safety reserves in standing water. The Hankook manages 74.4 overall and 78.9 on longitudinal aquaplaning, respectable but a clear step behind, and ADAC 2026 flagged a distinctly weaker wet performance with more pronounced limitations. The Hankook is not bad in the rain (its makers built the whole tyre around wet braking, and aftonbladet praised its hydroplaning, grip and handling), but it is beaten here by a tyre that simply clears water better.

Wet handling is closer and genuinely good on both. The Goodyear took first place for wet handling in Motor 2026 with a perfect 25.0 of 25 points, and its wet-handling detail score of 88.3 narrowly tops the Hankook's 87.5 objective figure. The Hankook corners well in the wet (a strong 86.2 on the wet circle) and feels neutral, but in heavy rain, deep water and emergency wet stops the Goodyear keeps the bigger margin in hand.

The data here does not include a metre-by-metre average dry braking table, so the honest comparison is built on the braking scores and the single absolute figure we do have. On dry-braking the Hankook edges ahead with 85.6 against the Goodyear's 82.1, and the head-to-head detail is even more telling: in Motor 2026 the EfficientGrip 2 SUV pulled up from 100 km/h in 36.3 metres, only sixth of eight tyres and one of its rare soft spots. That gap of a few points translates, in practical terms, to roughly a car length of extra dry stopping distance for the Goodyear in the worst comparisons, which is the kind of margin you notice once and never forget. If pure dry stopping is your single priority, the Hankook has the edge.

Handling tells a more nuanced story. The Hankook is the more eager, more precise car here: its objective dry-handling score is an outstanding 97.5, and testers repeatedly praised its dynamic, neutral-to-sharp behaviour on dry asphalt, with one owner reporting it is almost 20 km/h faster on the limit than a Conti SportContact 2 and simply refuses to understeer. That is sports-tyre talk from a comfort product. The Goodyear answers with a more measured 86 dry-handling score and an overall dry rating of 84.1 that actually sits a fraction above the Hankook's 83.8, because the SUV tyre spreads its competence more evenly and stays composed at high speed and under load rather than chasing outright agility.

The why is straightforward. The Hankook is a lighter passenger-car construction tuned for response, so it changes direction crisply and bites early. The Goodyear is a stiffer, heavier-duty SUV casing that must manage a tall, loaded body, so Goodyear deliberately softens the steering (its own listed weakness is being less responsive) in exchange for stability and that class-leading calm. For an SUV at speed the Goodyear is the more reassuring tool; for a hatchback driven keenly the Hankook is the more entertaining one.

Comfort and refinement are the Goodyear's home turf. Its 96.9 noise score and 92.3 comfort score are among the best you will see from any summer tyre, and the owner voice confirms it: one driver called it incredibly comfortable with extremely successful road absorption, another simply said it was very quiet and a highly recommended tyre. The Hankook is good rather than great here: a comfort score of 80, a noise score of 77.3, and the unwelcome distinction in Motor 2026 of being the loudest tyre in the test at 75.5 dB. AutoBild called its comfort merely average. Hankook's own 2.5 dB noise-reduction and Low Noise Groove technology help, but against a dedicated comfort SUV tyre it is outclassed on refinement.

On running costs the picture is split. Rolling resistance is similar, with the Goodyear at 78 and the Hankook at 75, and the Goodyear's EU fuel label is the stronger of the two (mostly B and C grades versus the Hankook's spread that dips to D and E), so the Goodyear should be marginally kinder at the pump despite carrying a heavier SUV. Where the Goodyear pulls decisively clear is longevity: a mileage score of 96 versus the Hankook's 74.2 is a chasm. AutoBild repeatedly crowned the Goodyear the best tyre in the cost chapter thanks to outstanding tread life, while the Hankook drew criticism for moderate mileage, only partly offset by its claimed 20 percent durability gain over the Prime 3.

Price is the Hankook's trump card. It is the affordable premium option (the Goodyear's listed weakness is its higher price, quoted at 603 zloty in one Polish test), and a single set costs noticeably less up front. But value over the tyre's whole life is closer than the sticker suggests: the Goodyear's far superior mileage amortises its premium across many more kilometres, and its better fuel label trims pence per mile. Buy the Hankook to save money today; buy the Goodyear if you measure value in cost-per-kilometre over four or five years.