In this article, we use so-called affiliate links. With every purchase through these links, we receive a commission from the merchant. All relevant referral links are marked with . Learn more.
Are you tired of being exposed to sometimes dangerous road traffic? Do you long for a ride in seclusion? Perhaps you simply don't want to commit to one or the other (anymore)? Or are you perhaps looking for a second bike?
Don't worry: even if the questions may sound like an advertising campaign, we don't want to talk you into a gravel bike. But if the topic appeals to you, it's worth taking a closer look at the 13 bikes in our big comparison test: At prices between 1499 and 1999 euros, the bikes are relatively affordable and can be an alternative - or supplement - to a road racer.
Some are more clearly geared towards off-road use than others, others are more geared towards tarmac tours, while others are recommended for epic bikepacking tours to quench your thirst for adventure. The following pages reveal which bike is best suited for which purpose. Just this much in advance: you will get to know a whole host of rock-solid and loyal companions for adventure and sport.
All 13 gravel bikes in the comparison test
- Bulls Grinder 4
- Canyon Grizl 7
- Carver Gravel 220 1by
- CUBE Nuroad C:62 One >> available here
- Focus Atlas 6.7 >> available here
- Giant Revolt 0 >> available here
- Megamo Jakar 20 >> available here
- Merida Silex 400
- Radon Regard AL 10.0
- Ridley Kanzo Adventure Alu >> available here
- Rose Backroad AL GRX RX400 >> available here
- Scott Speedster Gravel 10 >> available here
- Stevens Prestige >> available here
All frames made of aluminium - at least almost
Given our price range of up to € 2000, almost all of the bikes that rolled into the test lab had aluminium frames. Although the purchase of a carbon frame is now much cheaper than it was a few years ago, almost every road bike suitable for competition is based on the composite material.
However, further processing into a finished frame is still more complex and cost-intensive than that of an aluminium chassis. Its tubes are usually shaped under pressure, known as hydroforming, and welded together. Thanks to the physical properties of the light metal, it is easier and cheaper to put stable, torsion-resistant constructions on the tyres.
However, if the aluminium frame also has to be as light as possible, the cost increases again and the price advantage over carbon shrinks. As a result, almost all well-known brands now tend to neglect aluminium frame construction and hardly invest in innovations. Inexpensive gravel bikes are no exception.
Voluminous aluminium tubes make the frames almost always unshakeably stiff and stable - but also quite heavy. With an average total weight of almost eleven kilograms, the gravel bikes are certainly not in the flyweight class, on the contrary: the bikes are getting heavier overall - which is also due to the evolution of gravel bikes: Ever wider tyres, wider rims, wider handlebars and huge sprockets also weigh more.
On the other hand, the Radon shows that the durable material aluminium does not necessarily have to result in high weight. Its frame is comparatively filigree and, at around 1800 grams, is one of the lighter aluminium frames on the market. The new Specialised Crux DSW is currently the lightest aluminium gravel bike to our knowledge (frame set 1530 grams, total weight 9.6 kilograms), but more expensive (2700 euros).
In addition to the framesets, the mostly simple wheels play a decisive role in the heavy bikes. The combination of simple aluminium rims, wide studded tyres, large cassette and simple brake discs account for almost half of the total weight of almost all test bikes. There are also differences in quality within the price range.
The wheels from Giant and Rose deserve special mention, as they are hardly any heavier than cheap carbon wheels. The heavy models in the bikes from Bulls, Carver or Megamo, on the other hand, serve up the tuning tip on a silver platter. Useful carbon wheels are available from 800 euros and could save up to 500 grams of weight.
The majority of manufacturers also rely on solid constructions for handlebars, stems and seat posts. Although these are indestructible and last a whole bike's life, they are noticeable on the scales and especially in the saddle.
Strictly speaking, the Cube is the only model that manages to transfer the speed feeling of a road bike to the gravel track. For one simple reason: the German manufacturer once again manages to equip its bike to an above-average standard and still put it on the market with a lightweight carbon frame; it is two kilograms lighter than the heaviest model in the Carver test.
On the other hand, the Carver is by far the cheapest bike. But even Carver's top model, which the Frankfurt-based company didn't have in stock during the test period, leaves a clear gap due to the comparable set-up. With the exception of the Radon, the other competitors don't come close to the agile handling of Cube's price warrior, whose low weight puts even more expensive models in the shade.
Top tyres
Suspension comfort, which is the most important gravel bike criterion and accounts for 30 per cent of the TOUR score, alternates between light and shade. Two bikes scored highly on the test bench: The Canyon benefits from a flexible carbon seatpost, the Giant from a special aluminium version with an elaborate clamp.
On the gravel track, the bikes draw on their high-quality tyres, which means that most models can compensate quite well for the low frame comfort. Many manufacturers choose comparatively wide tyres of 45 millimetres. All wheels roll on tubeless-compatible tyres, and the comfort-oriented Giant comes with factory-fitted sealant. This means that the tyres can be ridden with less pressure and smooth out bumps noticeably.
With ample tyre clearance in some cases, the bikes can be set up to be even more off-road capable. The front-runner is the Giant, which has room for tyres up to 53 millimetres wide thanks to an adjustable wheelbase. The Focus goes one step further, but requires a change to wheels in the smaller 650B format. Important: The choice of wider tyres changes the handling, the already smooth-running gravel bikes react even more slowly to steering commands.
In terms of frame geometry, there is a dichotomy between the more comfortable and relatively sporty direction, with the emphasis on a comparatively stretched seating position prevailing in the test. It is important to know that the geometry of gravel bikes is generally somewhat more moderate compared to road bikes. Even gravel bikes that are suitable for competition sometimes differ significantly from aggressive road bikes.
On most of the gravel bikes in our test - even the sporty ones - you sit as if you were on a marathon bike, which means that the manufacturers have a wide audience in mind. However, if you are looking for a gravel racer with low handlebars in the under €2000 price range, you won't find anything off the shelf.
The riding behaviour is unanimous. Long wheelbases, flat steering angles and plenty of fork travel clearly set the bikes apart from agile road racers and ensure a stable ride on field or forest tracks. Less experienced cyclists will appreciate the easy handling. The Merida steers particularly true to track through the terrain, with a wheelbase that almost corresponds to that of a mountain bike.
Wide handlebars with flared ends also promote control of the bike. With the exception of the Rose Backroad (24 degrees), the so-called flare, which describes the angle of the lower handlebars, is moderate on most bikes. Classic Ahead stems as well as freely accessible brake lines and shift cables facilitate maintenance and assembly work and allow relatively uncomplicated adjustment of the riding position.
Around half of the models show that you don't necessarily have to do without a modern, tidy look despite the tried and tested system. On Cube, Focus, Merida, Ridley, Rose and Scott, the cables are routed under the stem into the head tube, making the bikes look similar to more expensive versions with integrated handlebar/stem units.
Confusion with components
At first glance, there is also little to distinguish the more affordable bikes from the top models when it comes to the choice of transmission. With the exception of the Megamo, all bikes are fitted with Shimano's gravel-specific GRX shift group screwed. However, as the abbreviation conceals a jumble of individual parts of varying quality, which can be wildly combined, there are sometimes significant differences in performance.
The consensus is that the gears are changed mechanically. Current twelve-speed versions dominate the rear derailleur and cassette; however, almost a third of the test bikes are still equipped with older ten- or eleven-speed sprocket sets; the cranksets are found with one or two chainrings and are all from the simplest, but also somewhat heavier product line.
The drivetrains with a double chainring offer a wider range of gear ratios with smaller jumps between gears. The gear ratios on all bikes are also suitable for beginners and less trained gravel bikers and offer reserves for steep climbs. The advantage of single chainring technology is that it is easier to use, less prone to errors and requires less maintenance than gears with two chainrings and a front derailleur.
The gravel bikes in the test are a solid basis for adventures and tours on and off tarmac roads; many can also be easily upgraded to a touring or commuter bike and prove to be robust all-rounders.
But there is no advantage without a disadvantage: Huge mountain bike cassettes such as those on the Carver, Cube, Megamo and Radon compensate for the lack of a second chainring, but the extreme reduction in the lowest gear is too extreme for typical gravel bike tours. Added to this are the sometimes very large jumps from gear to gear. This leads to large differences in cadence when changing gears and can interfere with smooth pedalling.
The brakes are solid in the best sense of the word; the fact that you can control the braking power somewhat less precisely with the predominantly simple levers than on the top models is only noticeable in direct comparison. One criticism is that all bikes are fitted with simple steel brake discs, which can overheat and lose power when braking continuously under full load. Only Merida and Rose achieve top marks in this discipline thanks to their huge 180 millimetre discs on the front wheel.
Conclusion
The 13 gravel bikes in the test are a solid basis for adventures and tours on and off paved roads; many can also be easily upgraded to a touring or commuter bike and prove themselves as robust all-rounders in everyday life, on an after-work ride or on a holiday tour with luggage.
However, anyone hoping for sporty talents in view of the racing handlebars could be somewhat disappointed, as light-footedness and agility are not core virtues of the comparatively heavy bikes - with the exception of the Cube Nuroad, whose carbon frame ultimately proves to be the trump card in the competition for the test victory.
Overview of the individual gravel bike scores
Julian Schultz
Editor
