Comparison: GoodYear UltraGrip Performance+ vs. Yokohama BluEarth winter V905 (2026)

This is the Yokohama's strongest discipline. Its dry handling score of 83.9 against the GoodYear's 78.2 reflects a tyre that feels unusually planted and responsive for a winter product. Its high-rigid bead filler — part of Yokohama's design brief for cleared winter roads — gives it a precise, confident character that owners on everything from Mazdas to Subarus describe as genuinely summer-like in feel. Dry braking backs this up with a score of 87.5 versus 83.6 for the GoodYear. The GoodYear is no slouch on dry tarmac, but it doesn't have the same sharply defined character — it prioritises balance across conditions rather than pushing dry performance to the front. If dry road confidence is your primary concern through winter, the Yokohama has a meaningful edge here.

The wet picture is more nuanced and, in measured terms, favours the GoodYear more clearly than the scores alone suggest. Across two shared braking tests, the GoodYear averages 32.5m on wet versus 34.0m for the Yokohama — a 1.5-metre gap that is consistent across both data points. Aquaplaning resistance is also significantly stronger on the GoodYear (85 versus 75.5), and wet handling overall scores higher at 82.6 against 79.6. GoodYear owners on performance rear-wheel-drive cars specifically praise its wet behaviour and resistance to aquaplaning — meaningful feedback given those vehicles expose tyre limitations quickly. The Yokohama performs adequately in wet conditions and owners report no drama at moderate speeds, but it is not the tyre you want when heavy rain meets a winter road at pace.

Snow is where the gap between these two tyres is widest, and where the GoodYear's premium credentials become undeniable. Its snow score of 90.6 towers over the Yokohama's 70.5 — a difference large enough to represent a fundamentally different experience in winter conditions. In measured snow braking across two tests, the GoodYear stops in an average of 24.6m against 26.1m for the Yokohama, a consistent 1.5-metre advantage. Beyond raw braking, the GoodYear's snow traction, snow handling, and acceleration on snow scores all rank among the best in its class. Owners confirm this: multiple reviewers report the GoodYear excelling in deep snow and mud, and it carries top-tier results from large-scale winter tyre tests. The Yokohama handles snow adequately for everyday urban or suburban conditions, with owners reporting solid traction in moderate snowfall, but it is not designed for serious winter deployment. Drivers who encounter real snow regularly should weigh this gap carefully.

Another area where the GoodYear holds a clear advantage. Its comfort score of 83.9 against the Yokohama's 72.2 is supported by real-world feedback — even owners running the GoodYear in run-flat form report surprisingly refined ride quality. Interior noise scores 87.7 for the GoodYear versus just 71.3 for the Yokohama, and noise is one of the most consistently mentioned criticisms in Yokohama owner reviews, appearing five times as a negative across customer feedback. The GoodYear's official assessment flags only average comfort as a weakness, which in context of its outstanding snow capability represents a reasonable trade-off that most owners find acceptable. Rolling resistance is similar for both — Goodyear at 79.9 and Yokohama at 79.0 — so neither has a meaningful fuel economy advantage.