I appreciate your honesty. We get so much confirmation bias around these parts. I think the problem most of us have is that we switch from a worn out pair of Brand-A to a new set of Brand-B's and declare Brand-B to be superior.
It's time to replace my Nokian Hakkas this Fall. Am I going to be disappointed with a set of Altimax's? I don't want to take a step backwards, as the Hakkas have been great.
Price (when compared with one deductible on my insurance) isn't a huge issue, but (improved?) treadwear/life on Blizzaks is a non-starter for me - if it still sucks in comparison with Hakkas & X-ices.
So, it's down to the usual suspects around these parts: Altimax's, Blizzaks, X-ices, and another set of Hakkas.
If I had to prioritize one performance criterion, it would be ice & the melt/freeze that occurs when going from the Front Range to 9,000 feet. Somewhere in that altitude range you get that transition, so ice performance would be a priority over deep snow.
Does this point me toward X-ice's, Hakkas & Blizzaks over Altimax's?
... Thom