Comparison: GT RADIAL ClimateActive vs. Viking FourTech Plus (2026)

Wet is the one category where the tables genuinely turn. In the same measured braking test, the FourTech Plus actually out-braked the ClimateActive in the wet, stopping in 55.4m against 56.6m — a small but real 1.2m advantage. That result is backed up by the wider scores: Viking's wet-braking figure of 74 beats GT Radial's 70, and its overall wet performance score of 77 is notably higher than the ClimateActive's 73.5.

Where the FourTech Plus really separates itself is aquaplaning resistance. Its aquaplaning score of 88.5 (with a cross-aquaplaning detail score as high as 92) is dramatically stronger than the ClimateActive's 70/72, and Autobild's own testers backed this up, praising the Viking's "gute Reserven bei Aquaplaning" — solid reserves against aquaplaning. That's a tyre built with a channel and groove design tuned to shift standing water fast, which matters a lot to drivers in regions with frequent heavy rain and standing water on the road.

The trade-off is wet handling once the water is displaced and the tyre is working through a corner: here the ClimateActive's 79.5 wet-handling score and 84.5 wet-circle-cornering figure comfortably beat the FourTech Plus's 68 and 74.5 respectively. So the character split in the wet is precise — Viking straight-line braking and aquaplaning security, GT Radial cornering composure and handling confidence once you're leaning on the tyre through a wet bend.

Dry performance is where the gap between these two is widest and most consistent. Across the one directly measured dry-braking test in this comparison, the ClimateActive stopped in 40.9m versus 43.1m for the FourTech Plus — a 2.2m difference that, from 100km/h, is roughly half a car length of extra runway you don't have with the Viking. That single data point lines up neatly with the broader performance scores: GT Radial's dry-braking figure of 70.5 comfortably outpaces Viking's 52.5, one of the largest score gaps anywhere in this comparison.

The reason isn't just the compound — it's handling composure. Tester feedback repeatedly flags the FourTech Plus for "schwammiges Handling im Trockenen" (spongy dry handling), a description that matches its lower dry-handling detail score of 78.5 against the ClimateActive's more planted 74 dry-handling figure sitting alongside its stronger braking. Interestingly, Viking's dry-handling score reads higher in isolation, but the real-world verdict from testers was a downgrade specifically because the vague steering feel undermined confidence even when outright grip was present. The ClimateActive, by contrast, was praised in Autobild 2025 as a "Preisknaller, der sich keine gravierenden Schwächen erlaubt" — a budget tyre that doesn't allow itself any serious weaknesses — and that discipline shows up directly in its shorter stopping distances and more predictable turn-in.

Put simply: if dry emergency braking and confident steering response are the priority, the ClimateActive is the more trustworthy tyre, and its 5th-place finish (of 11) in the Autobild 2025 test versus the FourTech Plus's 9th underlines that this isn't a marginal edge.

Snow is a genuine strength for both tyres relative to their price point, but the ClimateActive edges ahead on the numbers that matter most. Its snow score of 73.4 and, more tellingly, a snow-braking detail score of 84 — versus the FourTech Plus's 67.8 overall snow score and 80.5 snow-braking figure — point to shorter stopping distances on packed snow. AUTOBILD 2024 explicitly praised the ClimateActive for "kurze Bremswege auf verschneiter Piste" (short braking distances on snow-covered track), a claim the scores directly support.

Viking doesn't lose this fight everywhere, though. Its snow-traction score of 79.5 is actually stronger than the ClimateActive's 75, and Autobild 2025 called the FourTech Plus a "günstiger Schneespezialist" — a budget snow specialist — suggesting real pulling and climbing ability in deep or loose snow even if its braking distances run longer. In practice that means the FourTech Plus can feel more willing to get moving on an ungritted incline, while the ClimateActive is the one you'd rather trust when you need to stop.

Comfort scores favour the ClimateActive (71.8 vs 69) and noise favours it more clearly still (77.5 vs 72), suggesting a quieter, more settled cabin experience — plausible given its more planted dry and wet handling character generally correlates with better-controlled sidewall movement over broken surfaces. Rolling resistance is a dead heat at 79.5 apiece, so neither tyre has an efficiency advantage at the fuel-economy level; whatever you save or spend at the pump will be identical between them.

Longevity is where the story flips hard in Viking's favour. The FourTech Plus posts a mileage score of 64.5 against the ClimateActive's markedly weaker 53, and AUTOBILD 2024 flagged the GT Radial explicitly for "eingeschränkte Laufleistung" — limited tread life. That's a meaningful real-world cost: a tyre that wears faster needs replacing sooner, eroding any low-price advantage over the ownership period. So while the ClimateActive is the sharper, quieter, more composed tyre when new, the FourTech Plus is arguably the better long-haul economic proposition if outright grip isn't the priority.

Weighed together, the ClimateActive is the tyre that feels better and performs more sharply day-to-day; the FourTech Plus is the one that costs less per kilometre driven over its life. Neither is a clean sweep on value — it depends whether you prioritise performance now or pence per mile over three or four years.