Bridgestone Alenza 001 vs GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV: the full picture
This comparison is built only from published independent tests — no manufacturer claims and no sponsored reviews. Between them, the Bridgestone Alenza 001 and GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV appear in 2 tests, though they have not yet met head-to-head in the same test. Head-to-head results carry the most weight here, because surface, weather and test car all change between events and make raw numbers from different tests hard to compare directly.
How the Bridgestone Alenza 001 performs. It takes the win in wet, dry, noise / comfort, efficiency. Its overall Tire Lab Score is 82/100, based on 1 test.
How the GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV performs. It does not lead any single category outright in this matchup. Its overall Tire Lab Score is 85/100, based on 1 test.
What this means for you. Category wins matter more than the overall score when your driving is weighted toward one condition — a wet-climate commuter should follow the wet braking column, while a high-mileage driver should follow wear and rolling resistance. Also check that both tires are actually offered in your size and load rating: performance can shift between sizes, and availability differs between the European and North American markets.
Verdict
The GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV is the stronger all-round choice, leading in overall performance and Tire Lab Score. The Bridgestone Alenza 001 still wins on wet, making it the right pick if that matters most to you.
Which one should you buy?
- You prioritise wet
- You prioritise dry
- You prioritise noise / comfort
Choose GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV if
- You prefer the GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV's brand, sizing or price
Test profile
| Metric | Bridgestone Alenza 001 | GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV |
|---|---|---|
| Segment | SUV | SUV |
| Type | Summer | Summer |
| Tests used | 1 | 1 |
| Best rank | #1 | #2 |
| Avg rank | 2.8 | 7.0 |
| Latest test | — | 2023 |
| Tire Lab Score | 82 | 85 |
Tire Lab Score
Bridgestone Alenza 001
GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV
Performance overview
Category-by-category results
| Category | Bridgestone Alenza 001 | GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| 💧Wet | Avg rank 2.6 112 | Avg rank 7.0 | Bridgestone Alenza 001 |
| ☀️Dry | Avg rank 3.3 1 | Avg rank 8.5 | Bridgestone Alenza 001 |
| 🔇Noise / Comfort | Avg rank 3.5 1 | Avg rank 6.0 | Bridgestone Alenza 001 |
| 🔋Efficiency | Avg rank 2.0 1 | Avg rank 5.5 | Bridgestone Alenza 001 |
💧 Wet: Bridgestone Alenza 001 vs GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV
The Bridgestone Alenza 001 wins this category with an average rank of 2.6, compared to 7.0 for the GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV.
☀️ Dry: Bridgestone Alenza 001 vs GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV
The Bridgestone Alenza 001 wins this category with an average rank of 3.3, compared to 8.5 for the GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV.
🔇 Noise / Comfort: Bridgestone Alenza 001 vs GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV
The Bridgestone Alenza 001 wins this category with an average rank of 3.5, compared to 6.0 for the GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV.
🔋 Efficiency: Bridgestone Alenza 001 vs GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV
The Bridgestone Alenza 001 wins this category with an average rank of 2.0, compared to 5.5 for the GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV.
Frequently asked questions
Which is better in the wet, Bridgestone Alenza 001 or GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV?
Across independent wet-braking tests, the Bridgestone Alenza 001 ranks higher on average than the GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV.
Which has shorter dry braking distance?
The Bridgestone Alenza 001 averages a better dry-braking rank than the GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV across the tests where both appeared.
Which tire is quieter and more comfortable?
On combined noise and comfort metrics, the Bridgestone Alenza 001 ranks better than the GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV.
How many tests were used in this comparison?
Bridgestone Alenza 001 appears in 1 independent tests, GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV in 1.
Also compare
Bridgestone Alenza 001 vs…
GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV vs…
Data aggregated from independent testing organizations including ADAC, Auto Bild, TCS, and Auto Motor und Sport. Read our methodology →
