Home » Summer

Falken Azenis FK520: Comprehensive Test Results & Performance Analysis

Reading 2 min Modified by
A durable mid-range tire with excellent fuel efficiency and solid wet braking, though it is slightly less responsive in wet handling. Discover this tire in our in-depth review: tests history with detailed statistics, strengths and weaknesses, performance overview, comparison to competitors and market medians.

Falken Azenis FK520 photo, test, review, ratings

Falken Azenis FK520 is an Ultra-High-Performance summer tire with an asymmetrical tread pattern design. It was released in 2023, is available in 128 sizes from 17 to 21 inches, and is suitable for passenger cars and crossovers.

The tire replaced the Falken Azenis FK510.

6.3

Average
place

2

Best
place

8

Worst
place

13

times
tested

2022-2025

test
years

Contents
  1. Key performance
  2. Falken Azenis FK520 Test History
  3. Falken Azenis FK520 vs. Market
  4. Falken Azenis FK520 vs Competitors

Key performance

Overall rating: 93.9% (100 measurements from 13 independent tests)
ⓘ The overall rating is calculated as the arithmetic average of the average scores for each discipline, to eliminate bias towards disciplines with a large number of tests.

Dry Performance

  • Dry braking

    (4/5)
    Good
    Based on 13 tests|1 wins|Avg. pos. 4.2th|1-9th range|Rating: 97%
    Performance Chart
    • Exemplary: 1 (8%) i Outstanding result, significantly better than the test average.
    • Good: 5 (38%) i A solid performance, clearly above the average.
    • Average: 6 (46%) i A typical result, close to the test average.
    • Weak: 1 (8%) i The result is noticeably below the average.
    Detailed Test Results: 13 tests analyzed (2022-2025)
    Key statistics
    • Typically outperforms 63.1% of competitors per test
    • 🏆 Victories (1st place): 1 of 13
    • ✅ Podium finishes (TOP-3): 5 of 13
    • ⚠️ Bottom-half finishes: 6 of 13
    • ⚠️ Worst-3 finishes: 1 of 13
    • ✅ No last-place finishes
    Results in numbers
    • Best result:32.4 m (2022 Evo)
    • Worst result:35.2 m (2024 AMS)
    • Average result:33.8 m
    • Typical gap to leader:+0.62 – +1.45 m
    • Max gap to leader:+2.7 m (2024 EVO)

  • Dry handling

    (3.5/5)
    Good
    Based on 12 tests|0 wins|Avg. pos. 4.6th|2-7th range|Rating: 98.9%
    Performance Chart
    • Good: 4 (33%) i A solid performance, clearly above the average.
    • Average: 6 (50%) i A typical result, close to the test average.
    • Weak: 1 (8%) i The result is noticeably below the average.
    • Poor: 1 (8%) i A poor result, significantly worse than the test average.
    Detailed Test Results: 12 tests analyzed (2022-2025)
    Key statistics
    • Typically outperforms 55.7% of competitors per test
    • ➖ No first-place finishes
    • ✅ Podium finishes (TOP-3): 3 of 12
    • ⚠️ Bottom-half finishes: 4 of 12
    • ⚠️ Worst-3 finishes: 2 of 12
    • ❌ Last-place finish: 1 of 12

Wet Performance

  • Wet braking

    (3/5)
    Average
    Based on 13 tests|0 wins|Avg. pos. 5.5th|2-12th range|Rating: 93.9%
    Performance Chart
    • Good: 4 (31%) i A solid performance, clearly above the average.
    • Average: 6 (46%) i A typical result, close to the test average.
    • Weak: 3 (23%) i The result is noticeably below the average.
    Detailed Test Results: 13 tests analyzed (2022-2025)
    Key statistics
    • Typically outperforms 49.3% of competitors per test
    • ➖ No first-place finishes
    • ✅ Podium finishes (TOP-3): 4 of 13
    • ⚠️ Bottom-half finishes: 8 of 13
    • ⚠️ Worst-3 finishes: 2 of 13
    • ❌ Last-place finish: 1 of 13
    Results in numbers
    • Best result:22.57 m (2025 Tyre Reviews UHP)
    • Worst result:48.4 m (2025 Auto Bild SUV)
    • Average result:34.7 m
    • Typical gap to leader:+0.6 – +3.9 m
    • Max gap to leader:+6.4 m (2025 Auto Zeitung)

  • Wet handling

    (2/5)
    Poor
    Based on 12 tests|1 wins|Avg. pos. 7.3th|1-19th range|Rating: 96.1%
    Performance Chart
    • Good: 1 (8%) i A solid performance, clearly above the average.
    • Average: 5 (42%) i A typical result, close to the test average.
    • Weak: 3 (25%) i The result is noticeably below the average.
    • Poor: 3 (25%) i A poor result, significantly worse than the test average.
    Detailed Test Results: 12 tests analyzed (2022-2025)
    Key statistics
    • Typically outperforms 31.6% of competitors per test
    • 🏆 Victories (1st place): 1 of 12
    • ✅ Podium finishes (TOP-3): 1 of 12
    • ⚠️ Bottom-half finishes: 10 of 12
    • ⚠️ Worst-3 finishes: 6 of 12
    • ❌ Last-place finish: 3 of 12

  • Wet lateral handling

    (2.5/5)
    Average
    Based on 5 tests|0 wins|Avg. pos. 6.4th|4-10th range|Rating: 97.2%
    Performance Chart
    • Average: 4 (80%) i A typical result, close to the test average.
    • Poor: 1 (20%) i A poor result, significantly worse than the test average.
    Detailed Test Results: 5 tests analyzed (2022-2025)
    Key statistics
    • Typically outperforms 33.9% of competitors per test
    • ➖ No first-place finishes
    • ➖ No TOP-3 finishes
    • ⚠️ Bottom-half finishes: 4 of 5
    • ⚠️ Worst-3 finishes: 1 of 5
    • ❌ Last-place finish: 1 of 5

Aquaplaning resistance

  • Straight aqua

    (3/5)
    Average
    Based on 13 tests|4 wins|Avg. pos. 4.8th|1-11th range|Rating: 97.8%
    Performance Chart
    • Exemplary: 1 (8%) i Outstanding result, significantly better than the test average.
    • Good: 6 (46%) i A solid performance, clearly above the average.
    • Average: 2 (15%) i A typical result, close to the test average.
    • Weak: 2 (15%) i The result is noticeably below the average.
    • Poor: 2 (15%) i A poor result, significantly worse than the test average.
    Detailed Test Results: 13 tests analyzed (2022-2025)
    Key statistics
    • Typically outperforms 55.5% of competitors per test
    • 🏆 Victories (1st place): 4 of 13
    • ✅ Podium finishes (TOP-3): 5 of 13
    • ⚠️ Bottom-half finishes: 6 of 13
    • ⚠️ Worst-3 finishes: 4 of 13
    • ❌ Last-place finish: 2 of 13
    Results in numbers
    • Best result:104.1 km/h (2023 Auto Bild)
    • Worst result:71.43 km/h (2024 EVO)
    • Average result:80.3 km/h
    • Typical gap to leader:-4.75 – -1.12 km/h
    • Max gap to leader:-7 km/h (2023 Auto Bild)

  • Lateral aqua

    (3.5/5)
    Good
    Based on 7 tests|1 wins|Avg. pos. 4.3th|1-7th range|Rating: 93.2%
    Performance Chart
    • Exemplary: 1 (14%) i Outstanding result, significantly better than the test average.
    • Good: 2 (29%) i A solid performance, clearly above the average.
    • Average: 2 (29%) i A typical result, close to the test average.
    • Weak: 2 (29%) i The result is noticeably below the average.
    Detailed Test Results: 7 tests analyzed (2022-2025)
    Key statistics
    • Typically outperforms 49% of competitors per test
    • 🏆 Victories (1st place): 1 of 7
    • ✅ Podium finishes (TOP-3): 3 of 7
    • ⚠️ Bottom-half finishes: 4 of 7
    • ⚠️ Worst-3 finishes: 2 of 7
    • ❌ Last-place finish: 1 of 7

Secondary

  • Rolling resistance

    (4/5)
    Good
    Based on 13 tests|1 wins|Avg. pos. 4.8th|1-17th range|Rating: 91%
    Performance Chart
    • Good: 6 (46%) i A solid performance, clearly above the average.
    • Average: 6 (46%) i A typical result, close to the test average.
    • Weak: 1 (8%) i The result is noticeably below the average.
    Detailed Test Results: 13 tests analyzed (2022-2025)
    Key statistics
    • Typically outperforms 61.7% of competitors per test
    • 🏆 Victories (1st place): 1 of 13
    • ✅ Podium finishes (TOP-3): 6 of 13
    • ⚠️ Bottom-half finishes: 5 of 13
    • ⚠️ Worst-3 finishes: 1 of 13
    • ✅ No last-place finishes
    Results in numbers
    • Best result:5.7 kg/t (2023 AMS)
    • Worst result:8.9 kg/t (2025 Tyre Reviews UHP)
    • Average result:8.2 kg/t
    • Typical gap to leader:+0.29 – +1.42 kg/t
    • Max gap to leader:+1.75 kg/t (2023 Auto Bild Sports Car)

  • Noise

    (3.5/5)
    Good
    Based on 10 tests|0 wins|Avg. pos. 5th|2-9th range|Rating: 98.2%
    Performance Chart
    • Good: 2 (20%) i A solid performance, clearly above the average.
    • Average: 7 (70%) i A typical result, close to the test average.
    • Weak: 1 (10%) i The result is noticeably below the average.
    Detailed Test Results: 10 tests analyzed (2023-2025)
    Key statistics
    • Typically outperforms 56.4% of competitors per test
    • ➖ No first-place finishes
    • ✅ Podium finishes (TOP-3): 3 of 10
    • ⚠️ Bottom-half finishes: 4 of 10
    • ⚠️ Worst-3 finishes: 2 of 10
    • ✅ No last-place finishes
    Results in numbers
    • Best result:63.9 dB (2025 Auto Bild SUV)
    • Worst result:73.4 dB (2023 AMS)
    • Average result:69.8 dB
    • Typical gap to leader:+0.6 – +1.7 dB
    • Max gap to leader:+2 dB (2025 Auto Zeitung)

  • Wear resistance

    (4.5/5)
    Exemplary
    Based on 2 tests|0 wins|Avg. pos. 4th|4-4th range|Rating: 75.4%
    Performance Chart
    • Good: 2 (100%) i A solid performance, clearly above the average.
    Detailed Test Results: 2 tests analyzed (2023-2025)
    Key statistics
    • Typically outperforms 75.4% of competitors per test
    • ➖ No first-place finishes
    • ➖ No TOP-3 finishes
    • ✅ No bottom-half finishes
    • ✅ No worst-3 finishes
    • ✅ No last-place finishes
    Results in numbers
    • Best result:44800km (2023 Auto Bild)
    • Worst result:40000km (2025 Auto Zeitung)
    • Average result:42400km
    • Max gap to leader:-18400km (2023 Auto Bild)

Falken Azenis FK520 Test History

Independent magazines and organizations have tested the tire multiple times in various sizes. The detailed results from each test are below.

Year
Magazine
Size
Place
Score
2025
Auto Zeitung
225/45 R18
8 (10)
2025
Auto Bild SUV
255/55 R18
2 (8)
2025
Tyre Reviews UHP
225/40 R18
5 (7)
2024
EVO
235/35 R19
7 (7)
2024
AMS
235/55 R18
7 (8)
2023
Auto Bild Sports Car
225/40 R18
7 (13)
Good
2023
Auto Bild
225/45 R18
8 (20)
2023
Auto Zeitung
235/35 R19
6 (9)
2023
Gute Fahrt
245/40 R18
7 (7)
Good
2023
Sport Auto
225/40 R18
7 (11)
2023
Vi Bilagare
245/40 R18
4 (8)
2023
AMS
255/45 R20
7 (10)
2022
Evo
235/35 R19
7 (7)

Falken Azenis FK520 vs. Market

Comparison of key tire indicators with average market values.

The tire performs above the median in 6 testing areas while showing lower results in 4 areas. Notable advantages are observed in wear resistance (+11.32%) and rolling resistance (+5.28%). The main area for improvement is wet handling (-1.02%).
6 areas above the median
Dry braking (+0.71%)
Dry handling (+0.46%)
Wet braking (+1.67%)
Straight aqua (+1.88%)
Rolling resistance (+5.28%)
Wear resistance (+11.32%)
4 areas below the median
Wet handling (-1.02%)
Wet lateral handling (-0.02%)
Lateral aqua (-0.1%)
Noise (-0.23%)

Falken Azenis FK520 vs Competitors

Falken is competitive compared to top competitors and similar mid-range tires. It excels in straight and lateral aquaplaning resistance, ranking 3rd and 4th, respectively, and leads the pack in rolling resistance, indicating excellent fuel efficiency. Its dry handling and braking are also strong, placing 6th and 7th, respectively. However, it performs less impressively in wet handling, ranking 9th. Additionally, it has commendable wear resistance (3rd place) and low noise levels (5th place), making it a balanced choice for those seeking a mix of performance and durability.

Key Statistics

  • ⚠️ Dry braking #8 of 11
  • ⚠️ Dry handling #7 of 11
  • ⚠️ Wet braking #7 of 11
  • ⚠️ Wet handling #10 of 11
  • ⚠️ Wet lateral handling #8 of 11
  • ✅ Straight aqua #2 of 11
  • ✅ Lateral aqua #4 of 11
  • ✅ Noise #4 of 11
  • ✅ Rolling resistance #2 of 11
  • ✅ Wear resistance #3 of 10
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
1
Continental SportContact 7 2.5%
99.44%
2.5%
-0.81 m
2
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6 1.2%
98.21%
1.2%
-0.40 m
3
Michelin Pilot Sport 5 0.8%
97.78%
0.8%
-0.26 m
4
Bridgestone Potenza Sport 0.7%
97.68%
0.7%
-0.23 m
5
Hankook Ventus S1 evo3 K127 0.5%
97.45%
0.5%
-0.15 m
6
Toyo Proxes Sport 2 0.4%
97.37%
0.4%
-0.13 m
7
Pirelli P Zero (PZ4) 0.3%
97.29%
0.3%
-0.10 m
8
Falken Azenis FK520
96.99%
—
—
9
Sava Intensa UHP 2 0.7%
96.25%
0.7%
+0.24 m
10
Fulda SportControl 2 0.9%
96.11%
0.9%
+0.29 m
11
Kumho Ecsta PS71 3.1%
93.93%
3.1%
+1.01 m
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
1
Continental SportContact 7 1.0%
99.82%
1.0%
+1.14 km/h
2
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6 0.6%
99.44%
0.6%
+0.69 km/h
3
Bridgestone Potenza Sport 0.3%
99.12%
0.3%
+0.31 km/h
4
Toyo Proxes Sport 2 0.2%
99.09%
0.2%
+0.26 km/h
5
Pirelli P Zero (PZ4) 0.2%
99.02%
0.2%
+0.19 km/h
6
Michelin Pilot Sport 5 0.1%
99.00%
0.1%
+0.16 km/h
7
Falken Azenis FK520
98.87%
—
—
8
Sava Intensa UHP 2 0.6%
98.28%
0.6%
-0.71 km/h
9
Hankook Ventus S1 evo3 K127 0.6%
98.25%
0.6%
-0.74 km/h
10
Fulda SportControl 2 0.8%
98.09%
0.8%
-0.94 km/h
11
Kumho Ecsta PS71 1.1%
97.74%
1.1%
-1.35 km/h
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
1
Continental SportContact 7 5.1%
98.97%
5.1%
-2.14 m
2
Hankook Ventus S1 evo3 K127 1.9%
95.81%
1.9%
-0.81 m
3
Michelin Pilot Sport 5 1.9%
95.73%
1.9%
-0.78 m
4
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6 1.3%
95.14%
1.3%
-0.53 m
5
Bridgestone Potenza Sport 0.9%
94.76%
0.9%
-0.37 m
6
Kumho Ecsta PS71 0.6%
94.44%
0.6%
-0.24 m
7
Falken Azenis FK520
93.88%
—
—
8
Pirelli P Zero (PZ4) 1.7%
92.22%
1.7%
+0.70 m
9
Toyo Proxes Sport 2 3.1%
90.76%
3.1%
+1.31 m
10
Sava Intensa UHP 2 3.1%
90.74%
3.1%
+1.32 m
11
Fulda SportControl 2 6.1%
87.76%
6.1%
+2.57 m
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
1
Bridgestone Potenza Sport 3.2%
99.36%
3.2%
+2.58 km/h
2
Pirelli P Zero (PZ4) 2.7%
98.80%
2.7%
+2.12 km/h
3
Michelin Pilot Sport 5 2.3%
98.49%
2.3%
+1.88 km/h
4
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6 2.2%
98.35%
2.2%
+1.76 km/h
5
Continental SportContact 7 2.2%
98.32%
2.2%
+1.74 km/h
6
Hankook Ventus S1 evo3 K127 1.0%
97.16%
1.0%
+0.81 km/h
7
Sava Intensa UHP 2 0.2%
96.31%
0.2%
+0.13 km/h
8
Toyo Proxes Sport 2 0.1%
96.28%
0.1%
+0.11 km/h
9
Kumho Ecsta PS71 0.1%
96.27%
0.1%
+0.10 km/h
10
Falken Azenis FK520
96.14%
—
—
11
Fulda SportControl 2 1.0%
95.19%
1.0%
-0.76 km/h
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
1
Bridgestone Potenza Sport 2.5%
99.68%
2.5%
—
2
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6 2.4%
99.61%
2.4%
—
3
Continental SportContact 7 2.0%
99.18%
2.0%
—
4
Michelin Pilot Sport 5 1.9%
99.14%
1.9%
—
5
Kumho Ecsta PS71 1.6%
98.78%
1.6%
—
6
Pirelli P Zero (PZ4) 1.5%
98.74%
1.5%
—
7
Toyo Proxes Sport 2 1.1%
98.27%
1.1%
—
8
Falken Azenis FK520
97.22%
—
—
9
Hankook Ventus S1 evo3 K127 0.3%
96.96%
0.3%
—
10
Fulda SportControl 2 2.6%
94.66%
2.6%
—
11
Sava Intensa UHP 2 3.9%
93.32%
3.9%
—
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
1
Michelin Pilot Sport 5 0.2%
98.07%
0.2%
+0.16 km/h
2
Falken Azenis FK520
97.85%
—
—
3
Continental SportContact 7 0.0%
97.80%
0.0%
-0.03 km/h
4
Bridgestone Potenza Sport 0.5%
97.38%
0.5%
-0.34 km/h
5
Kumho Ecsta PS71 0.7%
97.18%
0.7%
-0.49 km/h
6
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6 1.5%
96.39%
1.5%
-1.06 km/h
7
Toyo Proxes Sport 2 1.9%
95.99%
1.9%
-1.36 km/h
8
Pirelli P Zero (PZ4) 2.1%
95.71%
2.1%
-1.56 km/h
9
Fulda SportControl 2 3.2%
94.64%
3.2%
-2.34 km/h
10
Hankook Ventus S1 evo3 K127 3.6%
94.21%
3.6%
-2.65 km/h
11
Sava Intensa UHP 2 4.0%
93.85%
4.0%
-2.92 km/h
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
1
Toyo Proxes Sport 2 5.3%
98.54%
5.3%
—
2
Kumho Ecsta PS71 2.6%
95.85%
2.6%
—
3
Sava Intensa UHP 2 1.7%
94.94%
1.7%
—
4
Falken Azenis FK520
93.25%
—
—
5
Fulda SportControl 2 0.3%
92.93%
0.3%
—
6
Michelin Pilot Sport 5 0.3%
92.90%
0.3%
—
7
Bridgestone Potenza Sport 0.5%
92.73%
0.5%
—
8
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6 0.7%
92.57%
0.7%
—
9
Pirelli P Zero (PZ4) 1.8%
91.45%
1.8%
—
10
Continental SportContact 7 2.8%
90.41%
2.8%
—
11
Hankook Ventus S1 evo3 K127 4.0%
89.21%
4.0%
—
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
1
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6 0.8%
98.93%
0.8%
-0.54 dB
2
Fulda SportControl 2 0.4%
98.55%
0.4%
-0.27 dB
3
Hankook Ventus S1 evo3 K127 0.2%
98.39%
0.2%
-0.15 dB
4
Falken Azenis FK520
98.18%
—
—
5
Pirelli P Zero (PZ4) 0.1%
98.04%
0.1%
+0.10 dB
6
Continental SportContact 7 0.3%
97.85%
0.3%
+0.24 dB
7
Sava Intensa UHP 2 0.4%
97.80%
0.4%
+0.27 dB
8
Toyo Proxes Sport 2 0.5%
97.72%
0.5%
+0.33 dB
9
Bridgestone Potenza Sport 1.4%
96.81%
1.4%
+0.98 dB
10
Michelin Pilot Sport 5 1.4%
96.76%
1.4%
+1.02 dB
11
Kumho Ecsta PS71 2.0%
96.19%
2.0%
+1.43 dB
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
1
Continental SportContact 7 0.0%
91.05%
0.0%
-0.00 kg/t
2
Falken Azenis FK520
91.04%
—
—
3
Michelin Pilot Sport 5 2.1%
88.95%
2.1%
+0.17 kg/t
4
Hankook Ventus S1 evo3 K127 2.2%
88.80%
2.2%
+0.18 kg/t
5
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6 2.3%
88.70%
2.3%
+0.19 kg/t
6
Fulda SportControl 2 6.4%
84.65%
6.4%
+0.51 kg/t
7
Pirelli P Zero (PZ4) 6.5%
84.57%
6.5%
+0.52 kg/t
8
Kumho Ecsta PS71 7.1%
83.97%
7.1%
+0.57 kg/t
9
Toyo Proxes Sport 2 7.8%
83.28%
7.8%
+0.62 kg/t
10
Bridgestone Potenza Sport 9.4%
81.62%
9.4%
+0.75 kg/t
11
Sava Intensa UHP 2 11.1%
79.91%
11.1%
+0.89 kg/t
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
1
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 6 19.5%
94.93%
19.5%
+10524 km
2
Michelin Pilot Sport 5 18.2%
93.64%
18.2%
+9825 km
3
Falken Azenis FK520
75.44%
—
—
4
Hankook Ventus S1 evo3 K127 6.1%
69.30%
6.1%
-3320 km
5
Sava Intensa UHP 2 6.7%
68.78%
6.7%
-3597 km
6
Bridgestone Potenza Sport 7.4%
68.01%
7.4%
-4014 km
7
Fulda SportControl 2 9.2%
66.22%
9.2%
-4979 km
8
Kumho Ecsta PS71 12.6%
62.80%
12.6%
-6828 km
9
Pirelli P Zero (PZ4) 19.1%
56.32%
19.1%
-10328 km
10
Toyo Proxes Sport 2 19.5%
55.95%
19.5%
-10527 km

falken
alltyretests
AllTyreTests.com
Add a comment