Test 2025: Gravel bikes under 2,000 euros – a comparison of 13 affordable gravel bikes

Are you fed up with having to put yourself at risk in what can sometimes be dangerous traffic? Do you long for rides in the countryside? Perhaps you simply don’t want to commit to one thing or the other (anymore)? Or are you perhaps looking for a second bike?

Don’t worry: even though these questions might sound like an advertising campaign, we’re certainly not trying to talk you into buying a gravel bike here. But if the topic interests you, it’s worth taking a closer look at the 13 bikes in our comprehensive comparison test: with prices ranging from 1,499 to 1,999 euros, these bikes are relatively affordable and can serve as an alternative – or a complement – to a road bike.

Some are more clearly geared towards off-road use than others, whilst others are better suited to road cycling; still others are ideal for epic bikepacking tours to quench your thirst for adventure. The following pages reveal which bike is best suited to which purpose. Just this much to start with: you’ll discover a whole host of rock-solid and reliable companions for adventure and sport.

All 13 gravel bikes in the comparison test

• Bulls Grinder 4
• Canyon Grizzl 7
• Carver Gravel 220 1x >> available here
• 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 >> available here
• Radon Regard AL 10.0
• Ridley Kanzo Adventure Aluminium >> available here
• Rose Backroad AL GRX RX400 >> available here
• Scott Speedster Gravel 10 >> available here
• Stevens Prestige >> available here

All aluminium, or what? – Frame materials for gravel bikes

Given our price limit of up to 2,000 euros, almost without exception the bikes that make it into the test laboratory have aluminium frames. Whilst carbon frames are now considerably cheaper to buy than they were a few years ago, virtually every competition-grade road bike is built using this composite material.

However, the process of turning it into a finished frame remains more labour-intensive and costly than that of an aluminium chassis. Its tubes are usually shaped under pressure – a process known as hydroforming – and then welded together. Thanks to the physical properties of this light metal, it is easier and cheaper to produce stable, torsionally rigid structures on the tyres.

However, if the aluminium frame is also to be as light as possible, the complexity increases once again, and the price advantage over carbon diminishes. Consequently, almost all well-known brands now tend to neglect aluminium frame construction and invest very little in innovation. Inexpensive gravel bikes are no exception.

Bulky aluminium tubes make the frames almost universally unshakably stiff and stable to ride – but also rather heavy. With an average total weight of almost eleven kilograms, these gravel bikes certainly aren’t in the flyweight class; on the contrary: Bikes are getting heavier overall – which is also down to the evolution of the gravel bike: ever-wider tyres, wider rims, wider handlebars and huge sprockets simply weigh more.

On the other hand, the Radon demonstrates that aluminium, a durable material, does not necessarily have to be heavy. Its frame is comparatively slender and, weighing around 1,800 grams, is one of the lighter aluminium frames on the market. The new Specialized Crux DSW As far as we are aware, it is currently the lightest aluminium gravel bike (frame set 1,530 grams, total weight 9.6 kilograms), but it is more expensive (2,700 euros).

Alongside the frame sets, the largely straightforward wheels play a decisive role in the weight of these bikes. The combination of simple aluminium rims, wide knobbly tyres, a large cassette and basic brake discs accounts for just under half the total weight of almost all the bikes tested. There are also differences in quality even within the same price range.

Particularly worth noting are the wheelsets from Giant and Rose, which are barely any heavier than budget carbon wheelsets. The heavy models fitted to bikes from Bulls, Carver or Megamo, on the other hand, provide the tuning tip on a silver platter. Decent carbon wheelsets are available from 800 euros and could save up to 500 grams in weight.

When it comes to handlebars, stems and seatposts, too, the vast majority of manufacturers opt for solid constructions. Whilst these are virtually indestructible and will last for the entire life of the bike, they do make a difference on the scales and, above all, when you’re in the saddle.

Strictly speaking, the Cube is the only model that manages to bring the speed sensation of a road bike to gravel trails. For one simple reason: the German manufacturer has once again managed to equip its bike to an exceptionally high standard whilst still bringing it to market with a lightweight carbon frame; it is two kilograms lighter than the heaviest model in Carver’s test.

That said, the Carver is by far the cheapest bike. However, even Carver’s top-of-the-range model – which the Frankfurt-based company did not have in stock during the test period – falls well short due to its comparable set-up. With the exception of the Radon, the other competitors also fail to match the agile handling of Cube’s bargain-priced model, which, thanks to its low weight, outshines even more expensive models.

Soft rubbers

When it comes to suspension comfort – which, as the most important criterion for gravel bikes, accounts for 30 per cent of the TOUR score – there are both positives and negatives. On the test bench, two bikes score highly: the Canyon benefits from a flexible carbon seatpost, whilst the Giant benefits from a special aluminium version with a sophisticated clamping mechanism.

On the gravel track, the bikes make the most of their high-quality tyres, which means that most models are able to compensate quite well for the lack of frame comfort. Many manufacturers opt for comparatively wide tyres measuring 45 millimetres. All bikes are fitted with tubeless-compatible tyres; the comfort-oriented Giant comes with sealant fitted as standard. This allows the tyres to be ridden at lower pressures and noticeably smooths out bumps.

With, in some cases, generous tyre clearance, the bikes can be set up to be even more off-road capable. The frontrunner is the Giant, which, thanks to an adjustable wheelbase, accommodates tyres up to 53 millimetres wide. The Focus goes a step further, but requires a switch to wheels in the smaller 650B format. Important: choosing wider tyres changes the handling; the gravel bikes, which are already smooth-riding, respond even more sluggishly to steering inputs.

When it comes to frame geometries, there is a clear division between those tending towards comfort and those leaning towards a sportier ride, although the emphasis in the test is predominantly on a comparatively stretched riding position. It’s important to note that, compared to road bikes, the geometry of gravel bikes is generally somewhat more moderate. Even competition-ready gravel bikes sometimes differ significantly from aggressive road bikes.

On most of the gravel bikes in our test – including the sportier models – you sit in much the same way as on a marathon bike, which shows that manufacturers are targeting a broad audience. However, anyone looking for a gravel racer with low handlebars in the under-2,000-euro price range will find nothing – at least off the shelf.

There is broad agreement on handling. With their long wheelbases, shallow steering angles and generous fork trail, these bikes clearly stand out from agile road racers and sit firmly on country lanes or forest tracks. Less experienced cyclists are likely to appreciate the easy handling. The Merida, with a wheelbase almost that of a mountain bike, stays on track particularly well over rough terrain.

Wide handlebars with flared ends also improve control over the bike. However, with the exception of the Rose Backroad (24 degrees), the so-called ‘flare’ – which describes the angle at which the lower handlebar section flares out – is moderate on most bikes. Classic Ahead stems, as well as easily accessible brake hoses and gear cables, simplify maintenance and assembly work and allow for relatively straightforward adjustment of the riding position.

Around half of the models demonstrate that, despite the tried-and-tested system, you do not necessarily have to compromise on a modern, clean look. On models from Cube, Focus, Merida, Ridley, Rose and Scott, the cables are routed under the stem into the head tube, giving the bikes a similar appearance to more expensive versions with integrated handlebar-stem units.

A game of component confusion

When it comes to choosing a drivetrain, too, at first glance the more affordable bikes differ little from the top-of-the-range models. With the exception of the Megamo, all bikes are fitted with Shimano’s gravel-specific GRX groupset screwed together. However, as the abbreviation actually refers to a jumble of individual parts of varying quality that can be combined in any way, there are sometimes significant differences in performance.

There is general agreement that the gears are changed mechanically. Current 12-speed versions dominate in terms of rear derailleurs and cassettes; however, almost a third of the test bikes are still fitted with older 10- or 11-speed sprocket sets; the cranksets are available with either one or two chainrings and are all from the most basic – albeit slightly heavier – product range.

>> Shimano GRX Di2: A test ride of the electronic gravel groupset

Drivetrains with a double chainring offer a wider range of gear ratios with smaller steps between the gears. The gear ratios on all bikes are suitable even for beginners and less fit gravel cyclists, and provide enough power in reserve for steep climbs. The advantage of the single-chainring system is that it is easier to use; it is also less prone to errors and requires less maintenance than drivetrains with two chainrings and a front derailleur.

The gravel bikes in this test provide a solid foundation for adventures and rides both on and off tarmac; many can also be easily converted into a touring or commuter bike and prove themselves to be robust all-rounders.

But there’s no advantage without a drawback: huge mountain bike cassettes, such as those found on the Carver, Cube, Megamo and Radon, do compensate for the lack of a second chainring; however, the extremely low gear ratio in the lowest gear is too extreme for typical gravel bike rides. Added to this are the sometimes very large gaps between gears. This leads to significant differences in cadence when changing gears and can disrupt a smooth pedalling rhythm.

The brakes are robust in the best sense of the word; it is only when compared side-by-side that you realise the predominantly simple lever mechanisms make it slightly harder to modulate braking power as precisely as on the top-of-the-range models. One criticism is that all the bikes are fitted with basic steel brake discs, which can overheat and lose performance during prolonged braking under full load. Only Merida and Rose score top marks in this area, thanks to their massive 180-millimetre front discs.

Conclusion

The 13 gravel bikes in this test provide a solid foundation for adventures and rides both on and off tarmac; many can also be easily converted into a touring or commuter bike and prove their worth as robust all-rounders in everyday use, on an after-work ride or on a holiday tour with luggage.

Anyone hoping for sporting prowess given the racing handlebars, however, might be a little disappointed, as lightness and nimbleness are not the key strengths of these comparatively heavy bikes – with the exception of the Cube Nuroad, whose carbon frame ultimately proves to be the deciding factor in the race for the test victory.

An overview of the individual ratings for gravel bikes

>> We’ve compiled all the information about the test carried out by the TOUR road bike editorial team here.