сравнение: Laufenn S Fit EQ срещу. Hankook Ventus Prime 4 (2026)

Again, specific wet braking distances in metres are unavailable in our data, but the scored gap is the largest in this entire comparison and carries the most serious real-world implications. The Hankook Ventus Prime 4 scores 81.1 for wet braking against the Laufenn S Fit EQ's 72.7 — a deficit of 8.4 points. The wet handling gap is even wider: 84.7 for the Hankook versus 57.7 for the Laufenn, a 27-point spread. Wet-circle cornering stands at 86.2 versus 56.0. Numbers at this distance from one another do not describe a subtle refinement difference; they describe tyres that behave in fundamentally different ways when the road is wet.

Aquaplaning resistance underscores the same story. The Ventus Prime 4 scores 74.4 for longitudinal aquaplaning (78.9 in the detailed metric), against the Laufenn's overall aquaplaning score of 57.7 and a longitudinal figure of just 60.3. Aquaplaning is driven by a tyre's ability to channel water through its grooves fast enough to maintain rubber-to-road contact at speed; the S Fit EQ's tread architecture simply cannot match the Hankook's drainage efficiency, which means the threshold at which the tyre begins to float over standing water arrives sooner. It is worth noting that testers in 2022 credited the Laufenn with safe aquaplaning characteristics as a positive — so it is not reckless — but the scored gap versus the Ventus Prime 4 suggests the margin of safety is substantially smaller, particularly at higher speeds or in heavier rainfall.

The Ventus Prime 4's wet credentials have been validated across geography and test format: its hydroplaning resistance, wet grip, and wet handling have all been cited as strengths in independent evaluations, and its wet-handling-objective score of 87.5 confirms that the subjective feel is backed by measurable grip. Real owners who have driven the VP4 on mixed roads in varying weather consistently describe a tyre that inspires confidence rather than anxiety in the rain — one Peugeot 206 owner noted the car simply refused to understeer regardless of input. The S Fit EQ, by contrast, was specifically flagged for limited grip and extended braking distances on wet roads — its core documented weakness. For any driver in a climate with regular rainfall, this is the section that settles the decision.

Actual braking distances in metres are not available in our dataset for these two tyres, so direct metreage comparisons are not possible here — but the scored evidence is unambiguous. The Hankook Ventus Prime 4 posts a dry-braking score of 85.6 against the Laufenn S Fit EQ's 78.7, with dry handling at 83.7 subjective and a near-perfect 97.5 in objective circuit testing. The Laufenn counters with 78.7 for dry braking and 78.3 for dry handling — scores that, for a budget tyre, represent a genuine competitive performance rather than mere adequacy. Tester feedback specifically credited the S Fit EQ for short dry braking distances as one of its headline strengths, so this is not an area where Laufenn simply phoned it in.

The difference in character becomes clearer when you look beyond braking at overall dry composure. The Ventus Prime 4's objective dry handling score of 97.5 — the highest in its test detail set — points to a tyre that remains planted and neutral deep into a corner, communicating grip progressively through the steering before breakaway arrives. It has been praised across multiple test seasons for dynamic, neutral-safe handling on dry tarmac, with a consistency that builds driver confidence at speed. The S Fit EQ, by contrast, handles the dry capably within its operating range but lacks the progressive limit behaviour of a premium compound — it is tuned for predictable daily use, not for exploiting the last tenth of available traction.

For the majority of dry-road scenarios — motorway overtakes, urban manoeuvring, sweeping A-road bends — the Laufenn's dry scores mean it is far from a liability. A driver who stays within ordinary pace on warm summer tarmac is unlikely to feel meaningfully short-changed versus the Hankook. But the Ventus Prime 4 holds a clear structural advantage in any situation demanding high-load emergency response: a sudden swerve to avoid debris, a hard stop at speed, or a tight corner taken faster than expected. That reserve capacity is the premium you are paying for.

The Ventus Prime 4 is marketed as a refined everyday tyre, and the comfort scores track that intent: 80 overall for comfort against the Laufenn's 62.7, and 77.3 for noise versus 62.7. Real-world owners consistently echo the lab findings — a Honda Civic driver with 8,000 km on the VP4 described it as quiet and smooth across a mix of road surfaces, and would buy again without hesitation. Testers have flagged low pass-by noise as a specific positive, lending the Ventus Prime 4 a long-distance refinement the S Fit EQ cannot match. The Laufenn was, to its credit, noted for good ride comfort (Abrollkomfort) as a positive in 2022 testing, and its ride-comfort score of 73.5 is not dismal — it absorbs road imperfections acceptably. The noise picture is less flattering: its exterior noise score of 62.7 suggests a road roar on coarse tarmac or at motorway speed that will become a background irritant on longer journeys. One note of fairness: the Ventus Prime 4 was recorded at 75.5 dB interior noise in one 2026 test field — the loudest in that particular comparison — a reminder that even the Hankook is not immune to noise criticism in specific configurations.

Rolling resistance is an area where the data does not produce the clean advantage you might expect. The Ventus Prime 4 scores 75 against the Laufenn's 71.7, giving Hankook the edge, though some individual tests have flagged the VP4's rolling resistance as a relative weakness — Aftonbladet's 2025 test specifically called it out. The EU fuel label data reflects this mixed picture: around 52% of Ventus Prime 4 variants achieve a C fuel grade, 28% a B, and only 10% an A. The Laufenn has no published EU label data in our database, making a precise fuel-economy comparison impossible, but its rolling resistance score of 71.7 suggests it is no class leader in this regard either. Both tyres land in a similar efficiency band, though the Hankook edges ahead on balance.

The clearest long-term cost difference lies in tread life. The Laufenn S Fit EQ scores just 51 for mileage — the lowest figure in this comparison by a wide margin — against the Ventus Prime 4's 74.2. Moderate mileage was flagged as a weakness in testing, and it is a consistent finding rather than a one-off result. A tyre that wears significantly faster than its rival erodes its price advantage with every kilometre driven; the S Fit EQ's lower purchase price must be weighed against a noticeably shorter replacement interval. The Ventus Prime 4's price-to-performance ratio has been rated as very good in independent assessments, and on a cost-per-kilometre basis — accounting for both the longer service life and the lower fuel penalty — the Hankook makes a compelling economic case even before safety is factored in.