Road bike helmet review: Expensive versus budget road bike helmets in a comparison test

Note: This article was first published on 19 May 2025 and was updated on 17 April 2026.

The saying ‘You get what you pay for!’ means that cheap products are often of inferior quality and break more quickly, or do not have the desired features. Applied to a cycle helmet, this could have fatal consequences. This is particularly the case if the helmet fails to fulfil its function, slips off the head during a fall, or even crumbles on the slightest impact. To ensure that this does not happen, only helmets that have passed the relevant standard test (DIN EN 1078) in advance are permitted to be sold. However, the approved testing machines essentially only check whether the helmet meets the standard’s requirements regarding the impact absorption of the helmet shell and the durability of straps and fastenings. The test method is now outdated, as it cannot assess the effectiveness of safety systems such as the Mips rotational impact protection system. It merely defines minimum standards that fall far short of what modern helmets are capable of and is therefore not a good indicator of their actual protective function.

All road bike helmets in the TOUR test

• Abus Game Changer 2.0
• Abus Stormchaser ACE
• Cratoni C-Zero Mips
• Cratoni Gravoq
• Giro Eclipse Spherical
• Giro Cielo MIPS
• MET Manta Tadej Pogačar
• MET Estro Mips
• POC Ventral Mips
• POC Omne Air MIPS
• Specialized S-Works Evade
• Specialised Search MIPS
• Uvex Surge Aero MIPS
• Uvex Rise

In a Nutshell

Almost all manufacturers now fit their helmets with the MIPS rotational protection system. In the test, the Estro Mips model from MET, priced at 140 euros, was the cheapest helmet. The test on the TOUR test bench impressively demonstrates that all helmets, whether expensive or cheap, offer the best protection against concussion when fitted with this system.

Case studies

To assess helmet safety in a real-world context, we have been testing all helmets since 2020 on our own test rig, which records all relevant forces generated when the test head, wearing a helmet, strikes an inclined surface. This also allows us to assess the effectiveness and quality of the MIPS system. In our latest test, we wanted – amongst other things – to find out whether the more expensive top-of-the-range models offer better protection than the cheaper helmets. Seven manufacturers accepted our invitation to take part in the test, each submitting one more expensive and one cheaper model. Here’s a spoiler: a higher price does not automatically mean greater safety. Furthermore, a higher price is not necessarily linked to better features, such as adjustable Y-straps (which improve the fit below the ears) or a height-adjustable headband, which improves the fit and usually also allows a plait to be threaded between the helmet shell and the size adjuster. When it comes to fastenings, the push-button fastening dominates; adjustable ratchet fastenings are rare, whilst one helmet in the test features a magnetic strap fastening. The option to securely clip cycling glasses into the helmet, reflective strips or a carry bag are welcome extras, though they have become less common compared to the previous test. You’ll search in vain in the box today for spare pads or pads in different thicknesses to customise the helmet. Only one manufacturer offers a customer-friendly accident replacement scheme.

Light is out

The days when the top-of-the-range helmets were always the lightest in the range are long gone. The extra weight of the current generation of helmets is due, on the one hand, to the additional integrated MIPS system and/or a closed helmet shell designed for aerodynamic reasons, with fewer air vents to reduce drag from the airflow. Conversely, the lightest helmet in the test, weighing 223 grams, is a classic-looking model without rotational protection and featuring numerous ventilation slots. However, when it comes to ventilation, the modern design with fewer air vents need not be a disadvantage. Even with the models labelled as ‘aero helmets’, our practical test revealed no build-up of heat beneath the shell.

Better safe than sorry

When it comes to protective performance, the crash test delivers a clear result: a rotational protection system integrated into the helmet, such as MIPS, reduces the risk of brain injuries. Our measurements confirm this. MIPS helmets therefore offer an added safety benefit compared with helmets without this feature. And the good news is that the models costing half as much provide just as much protection as the top-of-the-range helmets.

The 7 pairs of road cycling helmets in the individual test

>> Abus Game Changer 2.0 vs. Abus Stormchaser ACE

>> Cratoni C-Zero Mips vs. Cratoni Gravoq

>> Giro Eclipse Spherical vs. Giro Cielo MIPS

>> MET Manta Tadej Pogačar and the MET Estro Mips

>> POC Ventral Mips and POC Omne Air Mips

>> Specialized S-Works Evade and Specialized Search Mips

>> The Uvex Surge Aero Mips and the Uvex Rise

An overview of the results

How TOUR carries out its tests

Safety (50 per cent)

Specialised safety systems – such as MIPS and others – are designed to measurably reduce the risk of head injuries by minimising the rotational forces generated during an oblique impact. The existing helmet testing standard, EN 1078, cannot replicate these scenarios. In order to test the current generation of helmets under realistic conditions, we have developed our own helmet test rig, drawing on methods used in academia and by manufacturers engaged in research. For the test, the helmet is fitted onto a 4.9-kilogramme aluminium test head. During the simulated fall, the helmet and head are guided on a sled and strike a steel surface inclined at an angle of 45 degrees at a speed of 21 km/h. Grain 40 sandpaper mimics the roughness of the surface – we use this method in line with the testing facilities at Virginia Tech, Folksam and other research institutions. The sled races past the impact surface and releases the helmet, which bounces away after the impact. A six-axis sensor in the test head records acceleration and rotational rates around the three axes in space during the impact and the subsequent flight phase. In the first test, the helmet impacts head-on; in the second, it impacts from the side. We evaluate the acceleration based on the highest resulting value – the lower the better. The average value from four measurements is reported. We convert the head rotation to the brIC criterion (Brain Injury Criterion), which indicates how harmful the movement is to the brain. This method is widely used in scientific circles and, via the so-called AIS code, enables conclusions to be drawn about the likelihood of a concussion.

Adjustment (20 per cent)

In doing so, we assess the design and adjustability of the headband, as well as the fit, position and fastening of the harness system.

Cooling (15 per cent)

We test the ventilation using a powerful fan that accelerates the airflow to speeds of up to 30 km/h. The heated head, wearing a helmet, is exposed to the airflow, and we measure the cooling performance.

Weight (15 per cent)

The head is particularly sensitive to weight. An extra 50 grams – or 50 grams less – makes a noticeable difference. Our test shows that more weight does not automatically mean better protection.

Laboratory measurements

Risk of concussion, as a percentage

The diagram shows the probability that a cyclist would suffer a moderate concussion in the fall scenario we have simulated. This can be calculated from the measured rotational movements (BrIC, Brain Injury Criterion). The relationship between BrIC and the probability of a concussion (according to the AIS code) is not linear. The probability is therefore a more suitable measure for assessment. The risk of concussion ranges from 8 to 31 per cent, with an average of just under 13.3 per cent. According to our test, the risk of suffering a concussion whilst wearing a helmet without MIPS is 27.5 per cent on average.

Acceleration in g

All the helmets in the test recorded acceleration values – that is, the forces still acting on the head following an impact – well below the standard (250 g). However, the range extends from 90.4 g (Uvex Surge Aero Mips) to 130.6 g (Uvex Rise), demonstrating that the helmets offer varying levels of protection. Based on all the tests, no clear correlation can be established between reduced rotational acceleration and good shock absorption.