Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic vs Minerva Eco Stud: the full picture
This comparison is built only from published independent tests — no manufacturer claims and no sponsored reviews. Between them, the Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic and Minerva Eco Stud appear in 4 tests, 1 of which put both tires on the same track on the same day. 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 UltraGrip Ice Arctic performs. It takes the win in snow, ice. Its overall Tire Lab Score is 90/100, based on 3 tests.
How the Minerva Eco Stud performs. It takes the win in wet, dry. Its overall Tire Lab Score is 91/100, 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 Minerva Eco Stud is the stronger all-round choice, leading in wet and Tire Lab Score. The Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic still wins on snow, making it the right pick if that matters most to you.
Which one should you buy?
- You prioritise snow
- You prioritise ice
Choose Minerva Eco Stud if
- You prioritise wet
- You prioritise dry
Test profile
| Metric | Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic | Minerva Eco Stud |
|---|---|---|
| Segment | Studded Winter | Studded Winter |
| Type | Winter | Winter |
| Tests used | 3 | 1 |
| Best rank | #1 | #1 |
| Avg rank | 3.8 | 5.5 |
| Latest test | 2019 | 2017 |
| Tire Lab Score | 90.3 | 91 |
Tire Lab Score
Minerva Eco Stud
Performance overview
Category-by-category results
| Category | Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic | Minerva Eco Stud | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| 💧Wet | Avg rank 3.5 11 | Avg rank 1.0 1 | Minerva Eco Stud |
| ☀️Dry | Avg rank 3.3 11 | Avg rank 2.0 1 | Minerva Eco Stud |
| ❄️Snow | Avg rank 3.7 3 | Avg rank 9.0 | Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic |
| 🧊Ice | Avg rank 3.4 2 | Avg rank 10.0 | Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic |
| 🔋Efficiency | Avg rank 3.0 1 | Avg rank 3.0 1 | Tie |
Tests used in this comparison
Both tires were measured head-to-head in these 1 independent test:
💧 Wet: Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic vs Minerva Eco Stud
The Minerva Eco Stud wins this category with an average rank of 1.0, compared to 3.5 for the Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic.
☀️ Dry: Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic vs Minerva Eco Stud
The Minerva Eco Stud wins this category with an average rank of 2.0, compared to 3.3 for the Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic.
❄️ Snow: Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic vs Minerva Eco Stud
The Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic wins this category with an average rank of 3.7, compared to 9.0 for the Minerva Eco Stud.
🧊 Ice: Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic vs Minerva Eco Stud
The Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic wins this category with an average rank of 3.4, compared to 10.0 for the Minerva Eco Stud.
🔋 Efficiency: Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic vs Minerva Eco Stud
Both tires perform similarly in efficiency, with average ranks of 3.0 and 3.0.
Frequently asked questions
Which is better in the wet, Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic or Minerva Eco Stud?
Across independent wet-braking tests, the Minerva Eco Stud ranks higher on average than the Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic.
Which has shorter dry braking distance?
The Minerva Eco Stud averages a better dry-braking rank than the Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic across the tests where both appeared.
How many tests were used in this comparison?
Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic appears in 3 independent tests, Minerva Eco Stud in 1, with 1 head-to-head tests where both were measured.
Also compare
Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic vs…
Minerva Eco Stud vs…
Data aggregated from independent testing organizations including ADAC, Auto Bild, TCS, and Auto Motor und Sport. Read our methodology →