Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3 SUV 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 Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3 SUV 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 Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3 SUV performs. It takes the win in wet, dry, efficiency. Its overall Tire Lab Score is 88/100, 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 Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3 SUV is the stronger all-round choice, leading in wet and Tire Lab Score. The GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV making it the right pick if that matters most to you.
Which one should you buy?
Choose Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3 SUV if
- You prioritise wet
- You prioritise dry
- You prioritise efficiency
- You prefer the GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV's brand, sizing or price
Test profile
| Metric | Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3 SUV | GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV |
|---|---|---|
| Segment | SUV | SUV |
| Type | Summer | Summer |
| Tests used | 1 | 1 |
| Best rank | #1 | #2 |
| Avg rank | 5.0 | 7.0 |
| Latest test | 2020 | 2023 |
| Tire Lab Score | 87.5 | 85 |
Tire Lab Score
GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV
Performance overview
Category-by-category results
| Category | Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3 SUV | GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| 💧Wet | Avg rank 3.5 1 | Avg rank 7.0 | Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3 SUV |
| ☀️Dry | Avg rank 2.0 11 | Avg rank 8.5 | Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3 SUV |
| 🔇Noise / Comfort | Avg rank 6.0 1 | Avg rank 6.0 | Tie |
| 🔋Efficiency | Avg rank 3.0 1 | Avg rank 5.5 | Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3 SUV |
💧 Wet: Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3 SUV vs GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV
The Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3 SUV wins this category with an average rank of 3.5, compared to 7.0 for the GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV.
☀️ Dry: Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3 SUV vs GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV
The Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3 SUV wins this category with an average rank of 2.0, compared to 8.5 for the GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV.
🔇 Noise / Comfort: Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3 SUV vs GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV
Both tires perform similarly in noise / comfort, with average ranks of 6.0 and 6.0.
🔋 Efficiency: Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3 SUV vs GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV
The Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3 SUV wins this category with an average rank of 3.0, compared to 5.5 for the GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV.
Frequently asked questions
Which is better in the wet, Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3 SUV or GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV?
Across independent wet-braking tests, the Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3 SUV ranks higher on average than the GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV.
Which has shorter dry braking distance?
The Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3 SUV averages a better dry-braking rank than the GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV across the tests where both appeared.
How many tests were used in this comparison?
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3 SUV appears in 1 independent tests, GT-Radial SportActive 2 SUV in 1.
Also compare
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3 SUV 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 →
