72
/ 100
Objective (60%)
–/100
No test data yet
User signal (40%)
68/100
42 owner reviews
Prices change daily — check the retailer for your size.
Head-to-head
Updated May 2026
Michelin Energy vs Yokohama Geolandar SUV — Compared (May 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
79
/ 100
Objective (60%)
–/100
No test data yet
User signal (40%)
78/100
5 owner reviews
Prices change daily — check the retailer for your size.
VerdictWinner: Yokohama Geolandar SUV — better handling, wet and dry. Pick the Michelin Energy if comfort and treadwear matter most to you.
Read full
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made via links on this page.
Category breakdown
5 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)
Geolandar SUV leads by 12
Why this score
| Source | Energy | Geolandar SUV |
|---|---|---|
| Tyre Reviews owners | 71 | 83 |
Wet
Score (0–100)
Geolandar SUV leads by 18
Why this score
| Source | Energy | Geolandar SUV |
|---|---|---|
| Tyre Reviews owners | 65 | 83 |
Comfort
Score (0–100)
Energy leads by 9
Why this score
| Source | Energy | Geolandar SUV |
|---|---|---|
| Tyre Reviews owners | 76 | 67 |
Treadwear
Score (0–100)
Energy leads by 7
Why this score
| Source | Energy | Geolandar SUV |
|---|---|---|
| Tyre Reviews owners | 84 | 77 |
Handling
Score (0–100)
Geolandar SUV leads by 22
Why this score
| Source | Energy | Geolandar SUV |
|---|---|---|
| Tyre Reviews owners | 61 | 83 |
Scores at a glance
| Category | Michelin Energy | Yokohama Geolandar SUV |
|---|---|---|
| Relative Score | 72 | 79 |
| Dry | 71 | 83 |
| Wet | 65 | 83 |
| Comfort | 76 | 67 |
| Treadwear | 84 | 77 |
| Handling | 61 | 83 |
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
Important
NoneLessNeutralMoreMost
Neutral
NoneLessNeutralMoreMost
Recomputed
Headline score
72
/ 100
Tire A
79
/ 100
Tire B
From owners
Pros, cons & observations
Themes extracted from owner reviews across retailers and review sites — not the opinion of TireWheelGuide.
The Michelin Energy is widely regarded as a high-longevity, fuel-efficient tire designed primarily for conservative, daily commuters. While many users praise its exceptional tread life and contribution to fuel economy, a significant portion of the user base reports dissatisfaction with its wet-weather grip, lack of steering feedback, and performance during spirited driving.
Pros
- Exceptional tread life and durability
- Noticeable improvements in fuel economy
- Low road noise and comfortable ride quality
- Predictable handling for standard, non-aggressive driving
Cons
- Lack of steering feedback and road feel
- Inconsistent or poor grip in wet conditions
- High price point relative to competitors
- Hard rubber compound can lead to premature cracking
Observations
- Users driving family sedans and hatchbacks (e.g., VW Golf, Toyota Corolla) report the highest satisfaction regarding longevity and economy.
- Drivers of higher-performance vehicles or those with more powerful engines (e.g., Audi A4, Renault Megane 2.0) frequently report issues with wheel spin and lack of traction.
- The tire is frequently noted as a reliable, long-lasting choice for high-mileage commuters and fleet-style usage.
The Yokohama Geolandar SUV is generally regarded as a durable, comfort-oriented tire suitable for daily commuting and light-duty use. While users praise its exceptional longevity and structural resilience against road hazards, its performance in wet conditions is frequently cited as a significant limitation.
Pros
- Exceptional tread longevity and durability
- High level of ride comfort
- Strong structural integrity against road hazards like potholes
- Reliable dry handling performance
Cons
- Poor grip and traction in wet weather conditions
- Not suitable for high-performance driving
- Lack of confidence-inspiring handling during cornering in rain
Observations
- Subaru Outback owners noted a significant improvement in ride comfort compared to factory-fitted Yokohama tires.
- Land Rover Freelander 2 owners reported excellent durability and impact resistance on challenging road surfaces.
Specifications
Specs side by side
| Attribute | A · Michelin Energy | B · Yokohama Geolandar SUV |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Summer Touring tires | Summer Premium Touring tires |
| Vehicle type | Passenger Car / Crossover | SUV and 4x4 |
Final verdict
Which one should you actually buy?
72
/ 100
Michelin
79
/ 100
Yokohama
Winner: Yokohama Geolandar SUV — better handling, wet and dry. Pick the Michelin Energy if comfort and treadwear matter most to you.
Pick tire B
You enjoy sharp, responsive handling
Yokohama Geolandar SUV scores 83 vs 61 on handling.
Pick tire B
Your priority is wet-weather safety
Yokohama Geolandar SUV scores 83 vs 65 on wet.
Pick tire B
You want the most grip on dry roads
Yokohama Geolandar SUV scores 83 vs 71 on dry.
Pick tire A
You want the most comfortable ride
Michelin Energy scores 76 vs 67 on comfort.
Tire A · Michelin Energy
Tire B · Yokohama Geolandar SUV
More comparisons
Also compared with
Michelin Energy also compared with
Yokohama Geolandar SUV 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.