Anta. Rabbit. Nnormal. Mount to Coast. There are so many new running shoe companies that you may have trouble determining which, if any, might be right for you. That’s where our wear-test team comes in. More than 200 runners logged thousands of miles in 74 different models of shoes—from not only new companies but also those established decades ago—to help find out how each performs best. Here are the trainers, racers, and trail shoes that stood out.
Jump to:
- 361 Degrees 361-Eleos
- Skechers GOrun Razor 5
- Health - Injuries
- mm M, 9 mm W
- The Best Running Shoes of 2024
- Nike Pegasus Plus
- Asics Superblast 2
- Brooks Hyperion 2 / Brooks Hyperion GTS 2
- Why We Took Scissors to $330 Running Shoes
- The Best New Shoes You Can Buy Now
- This Adrenaline Fan Loved the Newest Model
- Cyber Monday Running Shoes Deals 2024
- oz M, 9.1 oz W
- Rabbit Dream Chaser
- Lululemon Beyondfeel Trail
- Altra Experience Wild
- Nnormal Tomir 2.0
- Why Trust Us
361 Degrees 361-Eleos
| Type | Cushioned Trainer |
|---|---|
| Weight | 9.2 oz (M), 7.5 oz (W) |
| Drop | 6 mm |
The Eleos may have been the biggest surprise of 2024. And, if we were giving out a “Best Buy” award, this one would be a front-runner because of the shoe’s combination of versatility and cost. It’s a chunky-looking shoe, with an exceptionally broad slab of foam, but don’t be deceived by the appearance. In testing, we found the shoe to be relatively lightweight, well-balanced, and incredibly lively underfoot.
Our testers favorably compared it to the Asics Superblast 2, as much for its looks as for its performance. But while that shoe is firmly in “illegal” territory with a heel stack height of just over 45mm (World Athletics caps a shoe’s height at 40mm), the Eleos’s 36mm heel falls within regulation. Never mind that nobody is winning a major marathon in either of these shoes; you may find yourself lacing them up for just about every other run.
“I like the cushioning that the shoe provides, without it feeling overly clunky like some high-cushion shoes,” said one RW shoe tester who has run a sub-4-minute mile. “I also liked that my foot felt secure in the shoe without feeling too tight.”
The secret to that cushioning is a supercritical blend of EVA and PEBA foams, giving you durable reliability along with lightweight responsiveness. You’re sure to find that the platform feels capable at a variety of speeds and delivers the protection you want, whether you’re at the end of a long run or 300 miles into the shoe’s life.
The midsole also delivers a surprising amount of stability, in large part because of the extra-broad sole—even small-footed runners will be leaving behind massive footprints. However, it didn’t feel too wide on the run. I often kick my own ankles or heel collar when I run, but it was never an issue in the Eleos.
The upper, we’ll admit, feels pretty ho-hum. There’s really nothing wrong with it other than it can feel a little thick and warm, but it also just isn’t very exciting. The laces, however, shined. When you yank the puffy shoelaces through the eyelets, they stay put. If you are particularly fussy about how your shoes are tied, you’ll appreciate this small quality, though we found that combined with the upper fit it could have an unintended consequence: One tester with a low instep and narrow heel cinched the laces tightly only to find unbearable pressure later in her runs.—Jeff Dengate
Skechers GOrun Razor 5
| Type | Speed Trainer |
|---|---|
| Weight | 8.0 oz (M), 6.4 oz (W) |
| Drop | 4 mm |
We have long been fans of the Razor, especially the third version that came out in 2018, which was surprisingly versatile. Skechers was one of the first brands to start talking about supercritical foams, which boost durability and responsiveness of the material, though now they are widely used throughout the industry.
This version, like the 4 before it, transitioned to a TPU-based midsole. The rubber-like foam makes the shoe heavier, but the extra comfort and bounce underfoot is better suited for a wider range of runners across more distances. The shoe is light enough for speedwork days, but is cushy enough to handle a 20-miler. Bonus: The material is more durable than the earlier foams, meaning you won’t have to pony up for new kicks quite as often.
While our testers appreciated the heel cushioning and the responsiveness of the forefoot, nearly all of them agreed that the lighter, more breathable upper fits a bit snug in the front. Some of that comes from the shape, which tapers across the pinky toe. While we felt a little pressure, it was never enough to cause any hot spots or blisters.
Also new to the Razor is the company’s ArchFit insole. A few testers loved the pronounced bump molded into the sockliner. It’s made from a soft foam, so it breaks in with your foot after a couple runs, but you’ll still notice its pressure. If it’s too annoying, a quick insole swap is easy enough.—J.D.
Health - Injuries
| Type | Road Racing |
|---|---|
| Weight | 8.5 oz (M), 6.9 oz (W) |
| Drop | 8 mm |
New running shoe brand Mount to Coast has an unconventional mission: to develop better shoes for road ultramarathons. As a marathoner wary of entering an ultra because the terrain is usually trails, I was intrigued by Mount to Coast’s concept. The brand has plans to release a trail shoe in the future, but its first three models are all for use on pavement: The S1 is designed for daily training mileage, the P1 offers a dose of stability, and the R1 is the model designed for long-distance road racing.
The shoes don’t have a carbon-fiber plate. The foam, LightCell, is PEBA-based and nitrogen-infused. To combat the foot-swelling that ultrarunners experience when accruing hundreds of miles in the span of a couple of days, the shoe has a dual lacing system that includes a cinch cord similar to “Quick Lace” designs, which can be easily adjusted to provide more space as the foot swells.
When I put on the shoes, there really wasn’t anything special to them that indicated they’d last for over 850 miles—the R1 is relatively lightweight (a men’s size 9 weighs 8.5 ounces). Our testers, however, gave the shoe top marks. And as I ran in the R1 through multiple heat waves, lots of base-building runs, and a couple of long ones with a friend who gushed how much she “loved those shoes,” I could see the allure. It’s a neutral, moderately cushioned trainer that had me adding in some speedwork on days with 90-plus-degree heat because of the high rebound.
In the words of one of our wear-testers, the R1 is “a solid, versatile trainer for all kinds of efforts.” One runner said Mount to Coast especially nailed the amount of space at the front of the shoe. “I love the toebox! It’s roomy! My bunion feels at peace,” she said, adding that the R1 has become her new go-to daily trainer. “The shoe is light. It’s firm. It’s breathable. I just fell in love.”—Amanda Furrer
mm M, 9 mm W
| Type | Stability Trainer |
|---|---|
| Weight | 9.7 oz (M), 8.3 oz (W) |
| Drop | 8 mm |
The Supernova line made a comeback earlier this year with the Rise, a reliable everyday trainer capable of going long and going fast. Following that, Adidas released a stability version of the shoe, the Supernova Prima. For runners like Matthew Aberrant, a neutral wear-tester who sometimes needs support on his long runs, the Supernova Prima is “a shoe from Adidas I’ve been waiting for.”
“I run in the Adizero Adios 8 ftor speed- and track-work, and the Adizero Adios Pro 3 for racing, but [Adidas] didn’t have a good everyday trainer,” said Aberrant, who trains at 7-minute pace. “The Prima has some really good aspects of both of those other shoes, but with more support, cushioning, and a slightly larger heel drop that puts less stress on my calf and Achilles. This shoe feels both fast and supportive, providing a smooth ride that functions for long runs and faster-paced workouts.”
Like its neutral counterpart, the Prima has support rods that run along the bottom of the shoe. In the forefoot, the rods are wider (the Supernova Rise’s rods are more curved). These splinted rods help with torsional rigidity.
To assess the shoe’s stability, tester Elizabeth Borah ran in the Prima on her high school cross-country course.
“I have a terrible habit of rolling my ankles, especially on uneven and grassy surfaces. I had no trouble navigating the terrain in them,” said Borah, who is an underpronator and runs at a 7:30 pace. “I never felt like I had to tie the shoes super tight so I felt secure. I think this is the shoe’s best feature. It has a great ability to provide a firm and supportive structure for your runs.”
Another key difference between the Supernova Prima and its predecessor is the former’s more pronounced layer of Dreamstrike+ foam, which you can see on a side-by-side comparison. It’s the most Dreamstrike+ foam Adidas has ever put in a shoe. It provides a more plush platform and a more stable ride, but my runs in the Supernova Prima were not as quick as my workouts in the Supernova Rise. Testers found the cushioning protective but also wished the shoe was a little lighter.
“The cushioning is exactly what I am looking for in my daily trainers,” said tester Gabe Franc, who averages 60 miles per week. “I am a serious marathon runner and need a shoe with a lot of cushion to help protect me from injuries. If I had a few nitpicks, the biggest one would be the tongue. It isn’t exactly too short, but the laces might be just slightly too high.”—A.F.
The Best Running Shoes of 2024
| Type | Road Racing |
|---|---|
| Weight | 7.3 oz (M), 6.0 oz (W) |
| Drop | 12 mm |
*The C202 6 GT Pro replaced the oz M, 6.6 oz W on Anta’s site. The latest version was unavailable when we began testing for this guide.
Never heard of Anta? It’s a China-based company that is slowly becoming known in the States. It recently inked a deal with Kenenisa Bekele, arguably one of the greatest runners of all time. Of Anta’s trainers and racers we tested, the C202 5 GT (which also comes in a “Pro” version) fared best.
Each of these is basically a “super shoe,” extremely lightweight and built for marathon racing. The difference between the two shoes is essentially the same as with the Asics Metaspeed Edge and Sky. One shoe is for runners who speed up by taking more steps (the C202 5 GT), and the other is for runners who take longer strides (the Pro). In fact, the intended purpose is clearly labeled on the heel of each shoe.
The similarity to Asics goes deeper than intention, however. I cut both shoes open in the RW Shoe Lab and found similar geometry. In both brands, the shoe for striders (the Pro) has a carbon-fiber plate uniformly curved in an arc, with similar amounts of foam between your foot and the plate at both the heel and forefoot. The non-Pro version has a spoon-shaped plate that curves down toward the pavement under the forefoot.
And the differences in overall stack heights and offsets of these two models were similar to those in the two Asics: We measured the Pro’s drop at 5mm, with a heel thickness of 36.2mm. The non-Pro is 4mm thicker under the heel but 2mm thinner at the forefoot. Our heel-strikers appreciated the extra thickness, which afforded them a quick turnover. The Pro proved to be a bit firmer with a snappy, propulsive ride.
“I could feel the increased space in my stride,” said one tester, who wore the Pro version to run a 4:20 at the 5th Avenue Mile and has previously tested the Metaspeed Sky. “I think it is all derived from the stiffness of the plate, as these shoes were probably the hardest shoe to compress with my hands when first trying them on. It felt like there was a ton of spring in them before I ever even slapped them on.”
One thing every tester was unanimous about for both models is that the “liquid rubber” outsole was plenty grippy on dry roads but quickly turned into slipping-on-banana-peel comedy when even the slightest bit of moisture was on the ground.—J.D.
Nike Pegasus Plus
| Type | Speed Trainer |
|---|---|
| Weight | 8.5 oz (M), 6.9 oz (W) |
| Drop | 10 mm |
Sorry, Nike. This is the last time you’ll ever hear me call this shoe the Peg Plus. Anybody who’s been around this sport since 2018 will know this is the second coming of the Peg Turbo. That shoe had a nearly identical design to the shoe you see here and was outfitted with a ZoomX midsole, the same foam that was (and still is) used in Nike’s top marathon racing shoes. It was one of the first trainers to get springy PEBA foam and deliver a new level of excitement to your daily runs. Sadly, I left my Peg Turbos in a locker at the New York City offices of our parent company, Hearst, when the world went into COVID-19 shutdown. A year later when I could retrieve them, they felt dead. So I reluctantly chucked them.
A lot has happened since then, though, and Nike has better tuned the midsole foams it’s using. In the case of the Peg Plus, the underfoot sensation is still softer, livelier, and bouncier than the Pegasus 41. But it’s not as squishy and bouncy as the original Peg Turbo. Some of us miss that spring, but, in truth, it makes the Peg Plus a more versatile training—and even racing—option.
Another RW shoe tester had a similar reminiscence as me: “I’m stretching my memory to its limits, but I want to say the original had a toebox that was a little too wide, and cushioning that at times could get a little too soft for tempo or race paces. Both of these issues have been improved—though not totally resolved—in a shoe that will be my speed-day shoe for the coming months.”
His main beef with the new Peg Plus is that the cushioning can feel a little too squishy on steep hills (it’s great on flats) and that the forefoot still feels slightly too roomy. In the Plus, a sturdy Flyknit construction replaces the loose-fitting translucent mesh shell of the original. I appreciated the broad and accommodating forefoot combined with a snug midfoot that delivers a secure lockdown. Our testers agreed that the midfoot has a racy fit as it tapers in at the arch. But, under the foot, that narrowing doesn’t create any stability issues because the forefoot is exceptionally wide to give you a solid platform for toe-off.
The combination of materials and fit make this shoe best suited for your frisky days. “It slid into a nice middle zone of working for daily miles but also up-tempo work on the roads and a bit of track-work as well,” said another tester who logs 40 miles per week at 7:00 pace. “For a tempo workout, the shoe is great.”—J.D.
Asics Superblast 2
| Type | Cushioned Trainer |
|---|---|
| Weight | 8.5 oz (M), 7.3 oz (W) |
| Drop | 8 mm |
I might be the only runner who didn’t gush about the original Superblast. On paper, it’s the kind of shoe I dig—lightweight with a thick PEBA midsole—but it just felt lifeless to me. To be fair, that’s a problem I find with most shoes that use a “carrier,” which is a firmer, more durable bathtub around a wedge of high-power modern foams. Somehow the carrier sucks the life out of the energetic foams—or requires a break-in period.
But, right out of the box, the experience couldn’t have been more different with the Superblast 2. It felt like somebody had already put 40 or 50 miles on the shoe. Part of the reasoning may be because the two foams are different from v1’s. Even though the shoe doesn’t look visually different, it can be felt. The more-compliant carrier didn’t fight the Flytefoam Turbo Plus (the foam used in Asics’s top marathon racing shoes). This new midsole combo delivers a softer and bouncier underfoot sensation.
“I love the firm, lightweight, and responsive foam, combined with the curved ride of the shoe,” said one tester who averages an 8-minute pace. “It is versatile and will do the job on recovery or tempo-type runs. It makes me feel peppy but also supported and stable.”
Much of that stability comes from the base, which is far broader than most trainers—especially through the midfoot. We had questioned whether a change in rubber placement would affect that stability. The older shoe had a few pieces that were connected along most of the length of the shoe, which helps restrict how much the foam compresses, and improves stability. The 2 has more segmented patches, allowing better flexibility. But, our testers found the shoe to ride steady no matter what terrain they covered.
And if your usual running routes involve rocks, you’ll love one small tweak to the sole of the 2. Here in Easton, Pennsylvania, we regularly run stretches of gravel along the Delaware River canal path, where the old Superblast collected small stones better than a Shop-Vac. But, those little holes are gone here, so you won’t have to stop midrun to knock loose any stowaways.—J.D.
Brooks Hyperion 2 / Brooks Hyperion GTS 2
| Type | Speed Trainer |
|---|---|
| Weight | 7.0 oz (M), 5.4 oz (W) |
| Drop | 8 mm |
| Type | Speed Trainer |
|---|---|
| Weight | 7.6 oz (M), 6.1 oz (W) |
| Drop | 8 mm |
The Hyperion Tempo is one of those shoes I’ve stored away in my bedroom closet, along with a retired pair of Nike Vaporfly 4%. When Brooks released its first super shoe, the Hyperion Elite (also on my closet shelf), runners complained that its DNA Zero midsole foam didn’t provide enough cushioning for a marathon effort. The Hyperion Tempo helped validate DNA Flash, the foam eventually used in the more cushioned Hyperion Elite 2. In essence, the Hyperion Tempo was Brooks’s first waltz into superfoam territory. And I felt this on my runs in the shoe. It struck the balance of lightweight and soft while still providing a super-shoe spring, which was still a phenomenon back in 2020. The second iteration of the Hyperion Tempo, renamed the Hyperion, came out three years later, along with a stability version, the Hyperion GTS. The shoes didn’t quite live up to the hype. While my testing runs in the Hyperion felt nostalgic, there was no “wow” factor. I wanted more pop.
The Hyperion 2 and Hyperion GTS 2 proved I should never lose hope. Brooks updated the model with DNA Flash v2, which it claims delivers 10 percent more energy return than DNA Flash. It also pumped up the shoe with even more foam by adding 4mm to the forefoot. The result is a Hyperion Tempo ride for the new age. Testers familiar with the original shoe, and those new to the Hyperion, felt the same way about the ride.
“From the moment I slipped my foot into these shoes, I knew I was going to really enjoy miles in them,” said Nina Rems, who averages 7:45 pace. “I felt like the Brooks Hyperion 2 was made for my feet. They’re sleek, not bulky. The curved heel collar makes it easy to slip your foot into the shoe without it bending or collapsing—what a dream!”
Tester Jeremy Garges, who also trains at Rems’s pace, wanted more arch support. Nevertheless, he appreciated the overall ride of the Hyperion 2.
“These shoes provided ample heel cushioning for my stride, rolled flawlessly into the forefoot, and had great response on push-off,” he said. “It was a nice, even ride with no flaws in transitions from heel to forefoot.”
Tester Katie O’Regan had also run in the Hyperion Tempo, but wasn’t as impressed with the update as I was.
“The Hyperion 2 feels like a peppy trainer, but not a fast session or race-day shoe,” said O’Regan. “The Tempo had a firmer and snappier feel to it; the Hyperion 2 has more cushioning, which reduces the responsiveness that I would expect in a shoe marketed as a speed workout or tempo shoe. It also fits completely differently than the Tempo, so runners looking for the old characteristics will be disappointed. However, the 2 feels like a good mix of cushion and support without being sloppy.”
The Hyperion GTS 2 matches the neutral model’s ride. Despite a slight weight increase due to the guide rails system (Brooks’s guide rails are denser foam on the lateral and medial side of the shoe to help control pronation), I found myself switching between the neutral and stability models without much thought. Usually, stability versions feel clunkier because of the added tech. Testers, like Quin Conde, found the Hyperion GTS 2’s ride smooth and speedy.
“This shoe was amazing,” said Conde, who has a flat arch and midfoot strike. “There was great support in the shoe, but this is the least clunky stability shoe I have ever worn. The ride in the Hyperion GTS was really special for me. It just felt sleek and fast. There was a really nice movement in the shoe from midfoot strike to toe-off, and a great pop or snap that I got from my stride.”
Tester Allison Fiorini, who is an overpronator and previously ran in the Hyperion, found the shoes to be a bit snug but also liked how she could press on the gas running in the Hyperion GTS 2. She also said the Hyperion GTS 2 was a “solid upgrade” from the Hyperion GTS, which she previously ran in and didn’t like.
“Unlike many stability shoes that feel bulky or rigid, the Hyperion GTS 2 provides support without compromising agility,” Fiorini said. “The guide rails technology offers just the right amount of stability, helping to correct my overpronation without being intrusive. The shoe feels fast and responsive, making it a joy to wear during tempo runs and intervals.”
In short, the Hyperion 2 and Hyperion GTS 2 scratch that itch for a tempo shoe. While they may not have a carbon-fiber plate, they’re an affordable option as a middle distance racer—and marathon shoe, if you’re an efficient runner.—A.F.
Why We Took Scissors to $330 Running Shoes
| Type | Cushioned Trainer |
|---|---|
| Weight | 9.6 oz (M), 7.6 oz (W) |
| Drop | 6 mm |
The midsole looks radically different from earlier versions, but we found the changes run deeper than just geometry. The Trainer v3 gets an infusion of PEBA foam blended with EVA to deliver all the protective goodness you’d expect from a beefy shoe. Sandwiched in the foam is a curved plate that helps reduce weight and boost cushioning.
I found the combination excels at both climbing and descending. On one lunch run, we hit Old Well Road, a steep bugger of a hill that rises 475 feet over just three-quarters of a mile. Our typical route is an out-and-back, where we descend first, then suffer on the return trip. I felt locked into the upper, and the cushy midsole prevented me from feeling beat-up as we bombed down stretches steeper than 22 percent.
The shoe felt plenty firm on the climb. The forefoot, in particular, didn’t have any squishy sensation that you experience in such thick shoes, and I powered my way uphill, finishing close to my fastest-ever performance over the segment.
On flatter ground, I could feel the 6mm drop at work. The v1 had a rocker that allowed the shoe to cruise effortlessly at a jog, but v3 makes me work more at slower paces. On my first few runs, I thought the shoe felt flat and clunky, but I warmed to it as I broke it in and dialed in the paces and terrain when the shoe suited me best—when I speed up and get off my heel, I’m happier.—J.D.
The Best New Shoes You Can Buy Now
| Type | Cushioned Trainer |
|---|---|
| Weight | 8.7 oz (M), 7.2 oz (W) |
| Drop | 5 mm |
Oftentimes, when brands introduce a max-cushioned trainer, the reps say the comfort they aim for is Hoka’s marshmallow-like cushioning. But the shoe we’ve given multiple shoe awards to, the Mach, is arguably the most un-Hoka Hoka for its light weight and sleeker profile.
The original Mach X, however, was very Hoka-like, with a tall stack height (39 mm) and a Pebax plate for propulsion. Some runners felt the ride fell flat. Others favored the shoe for marathon racing, appreciating the mix of amped cushioning and plate tech without the ferocity of carbon fiber.
The Mach X 2 feels bouncier. The first time I ran in the shoes, I was surprised by how jaunty my knees felt, how fast my turnover went for what was supposed to be a simple four-miler. Hoka updated the shoe using learnings from the Cielo X1, which I felt was the closest competitor to the Nike Alphafly. That’s partially due to the shoe’s geometry, which promotes aggressive toe-off. Hoka channeled that into the Mach X 2, along with an extended Psebax plate to provide even more propulsion.
“I really like the combination of the Pebax foam and plate,” said one tester. “The pop off the ground isn’t nearly as aggressive as other racing shoes, which means you don’t feel like there’s too much underfoot during warmup or slower mileage.”
Adidas Supernova Prima.
“The The Best New Shoes You Can Buy Now is almost the perfect shoe,” said tester Aly Costello, an underpronator whose average pace is 9:30. “The peppiness and bounce from the foam plate make these super fun to train and race in. The ‘almost’ comes in because the heel area was a huge problem. The heel collar sits way too high and is very rigid, causing friction and blisters.”—A.F.
This Adrenaline Fan Loved the Newest Model
| Type | Cushioned Trainer |
|---|---|
| Weight | 11.0 oz (M), 9.1 oz (W) |
| Drop | 5 mm |
“Rabbit makes running shoes?” That’s the question we got from our testers who were familiar with the company only through its apparel line. But, the brand from Santa Barbara, California, launched its first shoe during the 2024 Boston Marathon, where I got an early sample to test. Rabbit’s leadership team said that they’d really fast-tracked the development of the shoe, getting it from concept to production in just 18 months—roughly six months quicker than most cycles—but then made yet another tweak before broadly making the shoe available for sale. Is the shoe perfect? No. But it’s a darn good first attempt.
The most distinguishing feature of the Dream Chaser is the carbon-fiber patches on the middle of the sole. They’re visible because, well, new shoe companies need something unique to make their shoes stand out from the established players. There was a time when running shoes were burdened by “visible technology”—logos and physical elements were included more or less just to show value. That’s creeping back into footwear now, though some of it makes a meaningful difference. In the case of this shoe, the carbon fiber is intended to boost stability and energy return. The early sample that I got had the carbon fiber exposed; there was nothing standing between it and the pavement. But it clicked and made a lot of noise as I ran down the road. So, I cut the carbon-fiber strips off with a saw and didn’t notice any difference in the shoe’s performance. But I appreciated the silence! Rabbit quickly tweaked the shoe and added small rubber patches over that carbon fiber to quiet your footfalls.
Boosting comfort is a unique insole made of recycled foam from a company called Blumaka—its founder and CEO Stuart Jenkins was involved with the creation of the Dream Chaser shoe. Jenkins told me “using virgin foam to make insoles for shoes is environmental malpractice.” The insoles are made of ETPU foam (expanded thermoplastic polyurethane), and the bottoms of them are textured to reduce any slip.
On foot, you’ll notice that the midsole, which is also ETPU foam, is highly squishy and bouncy. ETPU weighs more than some of the high-powered foams you’ll find on the market now, but it provides excellent cushioning combined with better durability. You might not want the trade-off in a racer, but for everyday training it works great. We found this ride to be one of the softest shoes you’ll get your foot into right now.
The upper is one of the stretchiest and loosest-fitting that you’ll find on the market today. “My biggest issue with the shoe is the poor way the shoe handled when rounding corners, as my feet were not locked in,” said one runner who has been testing shoes for RW since 2017.
That’s almost sure to be tightened up in subsequent versions. I find that, for easy runs, it’s secure enough and I don’t fear slippage or irritation. If you’re making a lot of sharp turns or running on highly cambered roads, you’ll want more sturdy fabric.
oz M, 6.9 oz W?—J.D.
Cyber Monday Running Shoes Deals 2024
| Type | Speed Trainer |
|---|---|
| Weight | 7.7 oz (M), 6.6 oz (W) |
| Drop | 8 mm |
I still have my pair of Under Armour Flow Velociti Winds from 2021. It’s a precursor to the brand’s racing shoe, the Flow Velociti Elite, which has a similar Warp upper as the Flow Velociti Wind 2, as well as the same rubber-less outsole construction used throughout the Flow line. When I took the Velociti 4 out for a first run, I was pleased with how consistent UA has been with the Flow Velociti line’s ride. The brand may have simplified the name, but the fourth iteration has the same feel that made me fall in love with the original shoe. The Velociti 4 is structured like a racing flat but offers more support. It won’t trash your legs on harder, speedier efforts.
Our testers noted how the Velociti 4 isn’t a max-cushioned shoe in any possible way; the shoe’s thin slab of Flow foam provides supportive but firm cushioning. One tester compared the shoe’s cushioning to Saucony’s racing shoes. That thin slab led some testers to suggest the Velociti 4 is too light for anything beyond speedwork and short distances.
“The shoe itself does not provide much support, and as such is not something I would consistently reach for, for longer runs and longer fartlek workouts,” said tester Justin Brown, who compared the Velociti 4 to the Nike ZoomX Streakfly. “I use them for shorter, faster runs like hill repeats and short tempos. I have worn other shoes similar to these, in that they do not provide a large amount of support but are meant to provide a snappy responsive feel.”
Other testers, like Luann Heller, who previously tested the lightweight Adidas Adizero Takumi Sen 10, found the Velociti 4 extremely versatile. “This shoe had cushioning perfectly placed throughout,” said Heller, an overpronator and heel-striker. “No matter the distance I ran, my feet didn’t become fatigued.”
Tester David Fisher shared the same sentiments as Heller, saying, “Great level of well-balanced cushioning throughout the shoe. It was comfortable without being spongy—it allowed for a good balance of firmness for speed, but was soft enough for longer runs.”
I ran in the shoes for two- to three-mile tempos and a six-miler at about 7:30 pace, and I still didn’t feel wrecked. No sore knees or lower back, as sometimes seems to be the norm if I wear lightweight shoes for middle distances and speedwork.
The Flow series used to have a Warp knit upper that looked like cobwebs securing your foot. Beginning with the Velociti 3, the shoe gained a sleek, flat-knit upper, which provides a locked-in, hotspot-free fit, according to our testers.
“The material stretched with my stride,” said Fisher. “It has a nice snug fit from my heel to my toes. I like the narrow toebox, as it felt really locked in.”
Unlike Fisher, tester Sean Phillips, whose training pace averages 7:30, wasn’t a fan of the narrow fit in the toebox. “The shoe kept my foot dry and cool with no blistering and no irritation at the heel,” he said. “Beyond that, it fits small. The toebox compressed my foot and caused some irritation to the tips of the toes. I wish the Velociti 4 had slightly more rigidity for a snappier feel.”
Compared to previous Flow Velociti trainers I’ve tested, the toebox is narrower and the Velociti 4 runs a little short in the toes. Going half a size up, however, would make the rest of the shoe fit looser and less securely.
The narrower toebox didn’t diminish the speedy joy I felt running in the shoe, but it did make me mindful of trimming my toenails, lest I develop a black nail during training.—A.F.
oz M, 9.1 oz W
| Type | Stability Trainer |
|---|---|
| Weight | 10.9 oz (M), 9 oz (W) |
| Drop | 6 mm |
As a loyal Saucony Triumph runner, I was late to the Hurricane love train. My past attempts at running in the shoe were, um, stormy. I was frustrated with its heft that made me slog instead of soar. The TPU stability guidance frame made the shoe stiffer and heavier. But that was in the past, and the Hurricane got a big reset.
I noticed a change from the moment I put on the Hurricane 24, and I still catch myself reaching for it over its neutral counterpart, the Triumph 22. There are a few key differences that may be cause for my sway.
The most obvious difference is what Saucony calls Center Path Technology. Instead of using TPU along the midsole, Saucony’s new approach to stability includes a broader base and asymmetrical profile. Both work in tandem to create a supportive, wider platform with a slight lift on the medial side to prevent foot rolling—which came in handy during my summer travel.
The Hurricane 24 was my shoe of choice for a beach weekend. Instead of avoiding the sand like I used to during high school cross-country practice, I ran 7-minute pace out-and-back, worry-free of ankle rolls. And on the pavement, as I got lost on steep hills running in circles, I knew this to be true: The Hurricane 24 is also a good shoe for long runs—even when they’re unintended.
The trainer’s soft ride and responsiveness can be attributed to its dual-cushioned midsole. The shoe has a bottom layer of Pwrrun foam and a top layer of Pwrrun PB. The latter is the same foam used in Saucony’s speed collection—the Endorphin Speed 4 and Endorphin Pro 4—and in the Triumph 22.
According to a Saucony rep, the cushioning was meant to rival Hoka’s. For one tester, the brand failed in the best way.
“I typically stay away from brands like Hoka,” said tester John Krumenacker, an overpronator. “Hoka feels like a whole lot of shoe underfoot, and this didn’t. Substantial, yes—yet not like a Hoka. Cushion is one thing but having plush cushioning without it being over-the-top is another. There is something to be said about having a shoe in your arsenal that works so well for everyday runs—cushioned and protective, but then also really delivers a good ride and isn’t sloppy or flat.”—A.F.
Rabbit Dream Chaser
| Type | Cushioned Trainer |
|---|---|
| Weight | 8.4 oz (M), 7.0 oz (W) |
| Drop | 6 mm |
Am I alone in thinking this thing looks like a couch straight out of the 1970s? Thankfully it’s much more comfortable under my old bones.
The Balos is yet another max-cushioned trainer from NB, joining the Fresh Foam X 1080 v14 and FuelCell SuperComp Trainer v3. All have a 6mm heel-to-toe drop and are “extra soft.” So, how to choose which is right? The 1080 is the heaviest (9.2 oz for a men’s 9) and cheapest ($165), best suited for easy training. The SuperComp Trainer is plated and better geared for half- and full-marathon training. The Balos is the lightest and softest of the bunch, and versatile enough to wear for just about any kind of run.
The shoe looks pillowy soft, with an extremely pronounced rocker, and you feel it the second you put it on. Even if you land with a slight heel strike, the midfoot is what you notice first, as it crushes under your weight and guides your foot gently to Earth. It’s the sensation I recall from the earliest Hoka shoes—crazy levels of sinking that you’d never experienced before. But, in an age where cushioning has gone overboard with “energy return,” the Balos turns up the dial on comfort.
That kind of cush used to come at a cost—extra weight—but the Balos is shockingly lightweight for so much padding. Credit that to a midsole that’s blended with PEBA to boost resilience without the extra grams. You won’t mistake it for a super trainer because this shoe has neither a plate nor the typical propulsive response. Rather, it’s content to hang back at party pace. But don’t make the mistake of thinking it’s a slouch.
“I was prepared to dislike this shoe based on how they felt walking around in them (too bouncy, making me feel a little unstable between the rocker and the softness),” said one tester who is 5-foot-1, weighs 105 pounds, and regularly runs 9-minute pace. “But to my surprise, I really liked running in them. They were very comfortable, had a secure fit, lots of bounce, and a noticeable rocker. The instability I felt while walking was not a problem while running.”
Boosting the comfort further is the flexible, rubberlike patches that New Balance is using in place of rubber. There’s still the durable, hard-wearing patches under the heel and toe where you need them most, but the remaining outsole is “ground contact EVA.” Basically, that just means the foam is durable enough to resist the abrasion from running on pavement. It’s been used a lot over the years (anybody remember the Beacon?). A knock has always been that runners can see the foam wearing away and they freak out that their shoes are suffering a premature death. But, fret not, friends. There’s plenty remaining to suggest these trainers have a lot of life left in them.
Circling back to that upper, it’s fully rooted in 2024 and was loved unanimously by our testers. The stretchy, integrated tongue is basically a bootie underneath the sheer mesh that swaddles your foot, amplifying the shoe’s overall comfort.—J.D.
Lululemon Beyondfeel Trail
| Type | Trail |
|---|---|
| Weight | 11.0 oz (M), 9.1 oz (W) |
| Drop | 10 mm (M), 9 mm (W) |
Lululemon’s first running shoe, the Blissfeel, demonstrated that activewear brands can create daily trainers to compete with the Brooks Ghost or Nike Pegasus. What soon followed were several Lululemon shoe releases, including the Chargefeel (a cross-training model) and the Beyondfeel.
The Beyondfeel, the brand’s first road running shoe available for both women and men, is a max-cushioned shoe for recovery and just tacking on some slow miles. When Lululemon announced a trail version of the shoe, I wondered whether adding on trail features would enhance its beefiness. Turns out, I prefer the Beyondfeel Trail over its road version, even though it’s quite heavy compared to trail shoes I usually wear.
Compared to the Blissfeel Trail, Lululemon’s first trail shoe, the Beyondfeel Trail comes in 0.2 ounce lighter. This new model is less clunky and proves that every ounce—or tenths of an ounce—makes all the difference. I tested it just a few days after racing a fast and sweaty 10K. When I cruised down the trail in my town on sore and stiff legs, I felt surprisingly fresh by the end of a four-miler at 7:45 pace.
Unlike the Blissfeel Trail, which caused hotspots by rubbing my ankle and forced me to focus more on my feet than on my run, the Beyondfeel Trail has a more streamlined upper that hugs my wide foot without making it feel too compressed. One wear-tester said the Blissfeel Trail felt “more like a let’s-go-for-a-hike shoe than a let’s-go-for-a-run shoe.” The Beyondfeel Trail is definitely the latter kind.—A.F.
Altra Experience Wild
| Type | Trail |
|---|---|
| Weight | 9.5 oz (M), 7.9 oz (W) |
| Drop | 4 mm |
Last year, Altra committed what some diehard fans would consider an unspeakable crime: It launched a trainer with a 4mm offset. Since its modest beginnings back in 2009, when cofounder Golden Harper was creating prototypes in a toaster oven, the brand has been known for pushing “balanced cushioning” (Altra lingo for zero drop). So, it was a shocker when the AltraFWD Experience was revealed with a 30mm heel height and 26mm forefoot height.
Now, Altra has launched an entire family of Experience shoes—neutral, stability, and trail—so zero-drop-curious runners can choose a shoe that suits them best.
All of the shoes in the Experience line have an Altra Ego midsole, which is composed of lightweight, compression-molded EVA foam. The ride is comparable to the Brooks Launch 10 and Launch GTS 10, shoes that also have EVA midsoles. While the Launch is marketed by Brooks as a speed shoe, Altra’s Experience Flow and Experience Form fall more into the daily trainer category. The firm but not spongy cushioning accommodates both long runs and fast workouts.
A 4mm drop might seem undetectable—the height is approximately two stacked nickels—but as a runner who’s had her share of wipeouts from time to time in zero-drop shoes, that 4mm was appreciated. The rocker geometry is also a draw to the Experience collection: That heel-toe foot roll adds propulsion.
The Experience Wild was a standout for several of our testers. It’s a relatively lightweight trail shoe and doesn’t have a rock plate. It’s an ideal choice for road runners transitioning to trail, which tester Eric Bartosz pointed out in his feedback of the shoe.
“Altra hit it out of the park with the Experience Wild, and it has become one of the favorites in my rotation,” said Bartosz. “It hits all the Goldilocks checkpoints of ‘just right’: slight drop, that foot shape with the larger toebox, great cushioning, and plenty of soft edges for out-of-the-box comfort.”
Testers familiar with Altra didn’t hide their surprise when we gave them a non-zero-drop Altra trail shoe to test. After all, the brand’s lore is rooted in trail running and ultramarathons. After a couple runs in the Experience Wild, our testers were far from disappointed.
“This shoe actually exceeded my expectations,” said tester John Mikovits, who usually runs in the Altra Lone Peak. “I think this hits the mark that Altra was going for with a shoe that meets the needs of multiple people and is more of an introductory shoe to the brand and the trails. Overall, this shoe did well on trails that were not terribly technical.”—A.F.
Nnormal Tomir 2.0
| Type | Trail |
|---|---|
| Weight | 9.9 oz (M unisex) |
| Drop | 8 mm |
A large part of Nnormal’s sustainability mission is to release updates only when there is a meaningful improvement (as opposed to the typical cycles of annually updating for minor tweaks to fit and fabrics and biannually for major overhauls). The Tomir 2.0 follows the first version fairly quickly, but it is a dramatic improvement on the company’s do-it-all trail shoe. This is the shoe Kilian Jornet laces up for long runs in technical mountain terrain.
The main goals of the Tomir 2.0 are versatility and durability. It’s one of those shoes that you should be able to put on and forget about. With a secure fit, and fairly firm midsole, you know what you’re getting with each stride. It’s incredibly simple and it just works. With the addition of a new rocker shape to the midosle, the Tomir 2.0 feels much more “runnable” than its predecessor. The shoe certainly feels softer than v1, thanks to a new supercritical molding process, but the thick midsole and full-coverage outsole remain just as durable.—Pat Heine-Holmberg
Why Trust Us
| Type | Trail |
|---|---|
| Weight | 10 oz (M), 7.0 oz (W) |
| Drop | 5 mm |
If you look closely, there are hints of the previous version in the silhouette, but the Tecton X 3 is a complete overhaul of Hoka’s carbon-fiber-plated trail racer. While the previous version was better suited to buffed-out, fast trail courses, the Tecton X 3 is basically a lifted, burlier build for more adventurous off-road terrain.
The new PEBA midsole delivers a much more energetic and softer underfoot feeling, which, our testers noted, remains more comfortable for longer races. “I topped out at 15 miles during testing,” said one tester, “but based on the cushioning, I could easily see myself wearing them for at least a 50K. They felt fast and responsive like the La Sportiva Prodigio I just tested but were much more comfortable for distance.”
Hoka also added small “winglets” to the parallel carbon plates running between two slabs of foam to add stability to the soft material. The lugs are slightly shallower at 3.5mm, but with a new shape and more outsole coverage, the shoe feels grippier in more technical or wet conditions.
The most noticeable visual difference is the addition of a sock-like gaiter on the upper to keep out debris. While it certainly does keep things out of the shoe, testers who prefer short socks found that it can rub against the ankle, creating discomfort over the course of longer runs.—P.H.H.
Jeff is Runner-in-Chief for Runner's World, guiding the brand's shoes and gear coverage. A true shoe dog, he's spent more than a decade testing and reviewing shoes. In 2017, he ran in 285 different pairs of shoes, including a streak of 257 days wearing a different model.
Amanda is a test editor at Runner’s World who has run the Boston Marathon every year since 2013; she's a former professional baker with a master’s in gastronomy and she carb-loads on snickerdoodles.
