Difficult to generalize about tires, I think, as the same tires may perform differently with different vehicles (fwd vs rwd, type of suspension, weight, differing tire and wheel configurations, inflation, etc). I have had about equal luck with Continental and Michelin. Saab OEM tires were ContiProContact, and I had those on two Saabs with excellent reliability and performance, and predicted wear. I replaced one set with Yoko's and got good performance but premature wear. Some of that was caused by an alignment problem. Followed those with Conti DWS and was really impressed.
I've also had good success with Goodyear and Firestone on other cars, and have Goodyears on my wife's RX. They are wearing well, relatively quiet, do well in the wet and snow. Bridgestone run-flats on my BMW Z4.
I think factory engineers are pretty good these days about spec'ing tires for the car, at least for higher end models. Luxury car tires are selected for long wear, good ride, low noise. Sport versions, obviously, sacrifice some of the wear for increased performance in wet and higher cornering forces. Interestingly enough, the Tire Rack tests suggest that manufacturers are increasingly successful at producing tires with high performance characteristics combine with long wear.
But if performance is your game, the OEMs probably won't do, especially if they are all-season. For the GS, I would lean toward the Conti or Michelin unless I had an authoritative source giving me an alternative.
Dunlops are spec'd as OEM on a lot of European and Japanese sport sedans, and I think it's a conscious decision in favor of performance vs wear. Most of the Dunlops I see have a lower wear rating, although I'm not sure I've ever seen figures that suggest they are superior in other respects. Bridgestone, Continental, and Michelin seems to consistently wind up in the top three as tested by Tire Rack.
Trick in the end, I think, is to match the tire to the car and the type of driving.