81
/ 100
Objective (60%)
–/100
No test data yet
User signal (40%)
83/100
27 owner reviews
Prices change daily — check the retailer for your size.
Head-to-head
Updated September 2026
Firestone Winterforce 2 vs General Grabber Arctic — Compared (September 2026)
Our Relative Score blends 60% objective test data with 40% owner-review signal — so any two tires can be compared even if they were never tested on the same day.
VS
88
/ 100
Objective (60%)
77/100
1 professional test
User signal (40%)
86/100
17 owner reviews
Prices change daily — check the retailer for your size.
VerdictWinner: General Grabber Arctic — better handling, comfort and dry. Pick the Firestone Winterforce 2 if snow matters most to you.
Read full
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made via links on this page.
Category breakdown
7 categories, side by side
Each bar is the Relative Score for that category. Expand a tile to see the test results and owner ratings behind it.
Dry
Score (0–100)
Grabber Arctic leads by 6
Why this score
| Source | Winterforce 2 | Grabber Arctic |
|---|---|---|
| Tire Rack owners | 85 | 88 |
| Tyre Reviews owners | 58 | 80 |
| SimpleTire owners | 87 | 92 |
Wet
Score (0–100)
Grabber Arctic leads by 2
Why this score
| Source | Winterforce 2 | Grabber Arctic |
|---|---|---|
| Tire Rack owners | 87 | 91 |
| Tyre Reviews owners | 48 | 80 |
| SimpleTire owners | 97 | 94 |
Snow
Score (0–100)
Winterforce 2 leads by 8
Why this score
| Source | Winterforce 2 | Grabber Arctic |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) | – | 84 |
| Tire Rack owners | 88 | 91 |
| Tyre Reviews owners | 88 | 95 |
| SimpleTire owners | 97 | 98 |
Comfort
Score (0–100)
Grabber Arctic leads by 14
Why this score
| Source | Winterforce 2 | Grabber Arctic |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) | – | 100 |
| Tire Rack owners | 80 | 83 |
| Tyre Reviews owners | 58 | 90 |
| SimpleTire owners | 85 | 91 |
Noise
Score (0–100)
Grabber Arctic leads by 2
Why this score
| Source | Winterforce 2 | Grabber Arctic |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleTire owners | 78 | 87 |
Treadwear
Score (0–100)
Grabber Arctic leads by 3
Why this score
| Source | Winterforce 2 | Grabber Arctic |
|---|---|---|
| Tire Rack owners | 83 | 85 |
| Tyre Reviews owners | 63 | – |
| SimpleTire owners | 85 | 93 |
Handling
Score (0–100)
Grabber Arctic leads by 39
Why this score
| Source | Winterforce 2 | Grabber Arctic |
|---|---|---|
| Tyre Reviews owners | 50 | – |
Scores at a glance
| Category | Firestone Winterforce 2 | General Grabber Arctic |
|---|---|---|
| Relative Score | 81 | 88 |
| Dry | 83 | 89 |
| Wet | 89 | 91 |
| Snow | 96 | 88 |
| Comfort | 81 | 95 |
| Noise | 78 | 80 |
| Treadwear | 82 | 85 |
| Handling | 50 | 89 |
Higher is better. The Relative Score follows your weights below; category scores do not change.
Personalize
Weight the categories that matter to you
Wet grip and treadwear start at “Important” — the two things buyers rank highest. Move the sliders and the scores update instantly.
Neutral
NoneLessNeutralMoreMost
Important
NoneLessNeutralMoreMost
Neutral
NoneLessNeutralMoreMost
Neutral
NoneLessNeutralMoreMost
Neutral
NoneLessNeutralMoreMost
Important
NoneLessNeutralMoreMost
Neutral
NoneLessNeutralMoreMost
Recomputed
Headline score
81
/ 100
Tire A
88
/ 100
Tire B
Test data
The professional test results behind the scores
Each result is shown as % of the best tire in that test. “Same test” rows are the strictest comparison: both tires were measured side by side.
| Discipline | Category | Tire A | Tire B | Δ | Both? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Ranking | Overall | 6% #17/17 · 2020 Consumer Reports North America Winter Tyre Test | 100% #1/5 · HT vs AT vs MT vs Winter Tyres on Snow | -94.1 | Different tests |
From owners
Pros, cons & observations
Themes extracted from owner reviews across retailers and review sites — not the opinion of TireWheelGuide.
The Firestone WinterForce 2 is widely regarded as a high-value, budget-friendly winter tire that excels in deep snow and challenging winter conditions. While it earns high praise for its aggressive traction and affordability, users note compromises in dry-road handling, road noise, and ice performance compared to premium alternatives.
Pros
- Exceptional traction and capability in deep snow
- Highly competitive price point
- Reliable performance for daily winter commuting
- Effective water displacement in wet conditions
Cons
- Increased road noise compared to all-season tires
- Noticeable 'mushy' or soft handling feedback on dry pavement
- Limited performance on ice without studs
- Faster tread wear when used year-round
Observations
- Users with RWD vehicles report significant improvements in winter drivability, though some note a lack of dry-handling precision.
- Owners of smaller, lighter vehicles (e.g., Mazda Miata, Ford Focus) report high satisfaction with snow-clearing capabilities.
- Some users report a harsh ride quality on older SUVs, suggesting the tire's construction may be less forgiving on certain chassis types.
The General Grabber Arctic is widely regarded as a high-performance winter tire that offers exceptional traction on snow and ice at a competitive price point. While some users note increased road noise and a slight impact on fuel economy, the consensus highlights its reliability and superior stopping power compared to all-season alternatives.
Pros
- Excellent traction on packed snow, ice, and unplowed surfaces
- Significant improvement in braking performance and vehicle stability
- High value-for-money proposition compared to premium competitors
- Effective performance when studded for heavy-duty or commercial plowing applications
Cons
- Noticeable road noise on dry or wet pavement
- Potential for decreased fuel economy
- Some users desire a more aggressive tread pattern for extreme conditions
Observations
- Heavy-duty truck owners (Chevy 2500, F-150) report significant improvements in winter capability, particularly when used for plowing.
- Users note that the tires can be a tight fit on stock rims for certain full-size trucks, though they maintain a good seal in cold temperatures.
Specifications
Specs side by side
| Attribute | A · Firestone Winterforce 2 | B · General Grabber Arctic |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Winter Premium Touring tires | Winter Premium Touring tires |
| Vehicle type | Passenger Car / Crossover | SUV and 4x4 |
| Sizes available | 31 | 6 |
| Rim diameters | 14″ – 18″ | 16″ – 20″ |
| Tread depth | 12/32″ | 12/32″ |
| Sidewall | Blackwall | Blackwall |
| Max pressure | 44 psi | 51 psi |
Final verdict
Which one should you actually buy?
81
/ 100
Firestone
88
/ 100
General
Winner: General Grabber Arctic — better handling, comfort and dry. Pick the Firestone Winterforce 2 if snow matters most to you.
Pick tire B
You enjoy sharp, responsive handling
General Grabber Arctic scores 89 vs 50 on handling.
Pick tire B
You want the most comfortable ride
General Grabber Arctic scores 95 vs 81 on comfort.
Pick tire A
You drive through snowy winters
Firestone Winterforce 2 scores 96 vs 88 on snow.
Pick tire B
You want the most grip on dry roads
General Grabber Arctic scores 89 vs 83 on dry.
Tire A · Firestone Winterforce 2
Tire B · General Grabber Arctic
More comparisons
Also compared with
Firestone Winterforce 2 also compared with
General Grabber Arctic also compared with
How do we compare tires?
Every category score blends two independent signals. 60% comes from professional tire tests (braking distances, lap times, noise measurements) normalized against the best tire in each test and weighted toward recent tests. 40% comes from thousands of owner reviews collected from retailers and review sites. When a tire has only one of the two, we use what exists and say so.
Community buzz from Reddit and forums is shown for context only — it never changes the score.