The Baby Jogger Summit X3 has been one of the most popular running strollers available for several years and it has been a useful addition to our household during testing, making it easy to get out for a run while my infant son sleeps. 

It’s an expensive purchase and there are areas where the design could be improved, such as the non-adjustable handlebar, but the Summit X3 is a great all-round stroller that copes brilliantly with off-road runs and walks.

Baby Jogger Summit X3: Price And Availability

The Baby Jogger Summit X3 was originally launched in 2016 and costs $549.99 in the US and £529 in the UK.

How I Tested This Running Stroller

I’ve been running regularly with the Summit X3 over the past four months, and my wife has also used it during this time. I have used it mainly for runs in a local forest, which has been muddy for most of my testing, as well as on runs on paved surfaces.

Design And Assembly

The Summit X3 is a stroller with three air-filled wheels, all of which have suspension. The large front wheel can be set to fixed, which you need when running, or swivel, which is more useful for everyday use. You can change the wheel setting using a lever on the side of the stroller.

There is a brake on the handlebar and a strap you can use to tether yourself to the stroller, both are important for staying in control when running downhill. The height of the handlebar can’t be adjusted and it was a little low for me when running—I’m 6ft and my wife is 5ft 8in, and the height suited her better.

The reclining seat is padded and the five-part strap, while is fiddly to do up at times, holds your child in place comfortably and, most importantly, securely when running. There is a large adjustable hood that provides protection from the sun (it’s UV 50+-rated), and it folds down far enough to keep the wind out of a child’s face when running. There are mesh windows on top you can use to check on your kid while running.

There is a rear pedal brake you can use to anchor the stroller. Once this got muddy I found it hard to operate the brake with my foot and often had to reach down to press it into place with my hand. Although the instructions weren’t particularly clear, it was easy enough to assemble the stroller in around 10 minutes. 

Running With The Baby Jogger Summit X3

The Summit X3 is smooth to run with thanks to the large wheels with suspension, even when taking it off-road. Most of the runs I did with the stroller were on forest paths with muddy and rutted sections, and it handled them well. The stroller feels sturdy and I’ve not had any punctures.

One problem with runs in the mud or along leaf-strewn paths was that the front wheel can get clogged up quickly. On one outing I had to poke a stick through the gap at the top of the wheel several times to clear it out. My wife has also experienced some front wheel wobble when running with the Summit X3, which hasn’t been a problem for me yet.

Running with any stroller isn’t the most natural movement, but this was exacerbated for me because of the fixed handlebar, which was low for me. The stroller is wide and has some weight to it, which is good for stability especially on uneven ground, but means it can feel heavy to push up hills on the trails. This wasn’t such a noticeable problem when on asphalt though, and you can run quite quickly with the Summit X3 when on hard, flat ground. I’d prefer to save my speed sessions for when I’m not pushing a stroller.

I can’t speak for every child, but mine always fell asleep quickly when I ran with the Summit X3—it was generally an easier and more reliable way to get him down for his afternoon nap than pushing him in his pushchair.

Folding And Daily Use

The Summit X3 has a one-handed folding system where you pull the strap in the center of the seat up and the whole stroller collapses into place. There’s a knack to this. First you pull the small loop with a finger and then the larger loop with the rest of your hand. 

It can be done one-handed, but only with practice, and then actually lifting the stroller with one hand isn’t that easy, since it weighs 28.4lbs/12.8kg and is large and awkward. I needed two hands to unfold it because of this. The wheels are so large it’s not the easiest to store even when folded, especially as it doesn’t stand unsupported, but it did fit the trunk of our small car comfortably.

The wide base of the wheels is useful for running, but makes it hard to maneuver the Summit X3 at times, especially in narrow store aisles. While we did use the Summit X3 regularly when not running—and it’s great for walks on rough terrain—it can be cumbersome to use around town compared with a non-running stroller.

There is a large compartment under the seat for storage, which is useful for shopping, and a mesh pocket on the back of the seat you can pop a water bottle in when running, though I found it hard to reach into the pocket without coming to a stop.

Is The Baby Jogger Summit X3 Worth It?

The Summit X3 is an expensive purchase but one that can make a huge difference in fitting in your exercise while looking after children. My wife and I enjoyed using it for regular runs and it was ideal for the forest paths we predominantly used it on. I used a Out ‘n’ About Nipper Sport (UK only) with our eldest child and found the Summit X3 to be an improvement on that, with a smoother ride especially when off-road, though the Nipper is cheaper. 

Hoka was one of the first brands to release a carbon plate running shoe designed for easy daily training runs, with the Hoka Bondi X coming out in 2022. That was not a good shoe. It was firm, lacking in bounce, and generally not fun to run in.

The Hoka Skyward X is a different beast. It’s bouncy, comfortable and great fun to use for easy and long runs. It’s too big and heavy for my taste, and I didn’t enjoy it as much for fast runs, but if the price doesn’t put you off then the Skyward X is a springy option for daily training.

Hoka Skyward X: Price And Availability

The Skyward X launched in April 2024 and costs $225 in the US and £185 in the UK. That surprising disparity in prices means it’s a little cheaper than similar super-trainers like the Asics Superblast and New Balance SC Trainer v2 in the UK, but more expensive than those same shoes in the US. Wherever you are in the world, however, it’s not a cheap shoe.

How I Tested This Running Shoe

I ran just shy of 40 miles in the Skyward X, using it for a range of marathon training runs including a 15-mile long run. I’ve also tested Hoka’s other carbon plate shoes, including the Mach X and Bondi X, and a range of super-trainers from other brands.

Design And Fit

There’s a lot going on in the midsole of the Skyward X, which contains two foams and a convex carbon plate. The main foam is a bouncy Peba-based material, with a supercritical EVA foam used to create a frame that makes the Skyward X more stable. Your foot also sits within the foam at the back of the shoe, and there’s a large plastic heel counter, both of which increase stability.

The stack height is high—48mm at the heel and 43mm at the forefoot in the men’s shoe, and 46mm at the heel and 41mm at the forefoot in the women’s—with a 5mm drop, and the ride is smooth thanks to the rocker design. All that stack adds up to a heavy shoe: The Skyward X is 11.3oz/320g in my UK size 9, which is heftier than most other super-trainers, with the similarly stacked Asics Superblast weighing 8.8oz/251g.

Hoka says the convex carbon plate, which bows upwards in the center, creates a more cushioned and “suspended” feel to the ride. It’s not a full plate, and the gaps in it are visible in the large cut-out on the bottom of the shoe. 

The Skyward X has a knit upper with a lot of padding on the tongue and collar for added comfort. I found it fitted well in my usual running shoe size and it’s not as narrow as some other Hoka shoes, such as the Mach 6. There is good rubber coverage on the forefoot and heel, with a thick outsole that should be durable, and which gripped well in wet conditions. I’ve taken the shoe on some light trails too, with no signs of wear and tear from that rougher ground.

Running Performance

The Skyward X is a big shoe, but a deceptively smooth and quick one. My first run in it was 15 miles where most of the first half was downhill and the second half uphill. It protected my legs well when pounding down hills; even when going uphill I was surprised by how smooth and easy to pick up it was for such a big shoe.

Throughout my runs, I’ve consistently found myself moving faster than I expected for the effort level put in. That’s partly because it’s harder to judge speed when you have such little feel for the ground because it’s such a cushioned and tall shoe, but also because the foam and plate combination does a good job of propelling you on your way efficiently.

There’s an upper limit to how fast you can run comfortably in the shoe. I did a couple of progressions runs, including one in which I finished at around my marathon pace of 3min 30sec/km and it felt cumbersome for that kind of pace. It’s not as versatile as other super-trainers like the Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 or Asics Superblast, but the Skyward X is more cushioned and comfortable. Cruising through easy runs in the shoe felt great.

Yet, even with all its positives, it will be too big a shoe for some. I prefer the lighter, nimbler feel of other super-trainers or more regular shoes, like the Hoka Mach 6 and New Balance Rebel v4, for most runs, including easy plods. But if you love a cushioned ride, the Skyward X delivers.

Is The Hoka Skyward X Worth It?

You don’t need to spend so much money to get a great daily trainer. The Hoka Mach 6 or plated shoes like the Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 offer more versatility at a lower price than the Hoka Skyward X. If you’re planning to just use it for easy and long runs then a more normal cushioned shoe like the Brooks Glycerin 21 will do a brilliant job at a much lower price.

The Hoka Skyward X is something a little different from most shoes, however, which may make its high price more palatable to some. It’s more cushioned than other super-trainers, while still pretty versatile and stable enough for daily training. I prefer a lighter and smaller shoe, even for easy runs, and even if you love a max-cushioned shoe the Asics Superblast is another cushioned (and expensive) option that is lighter and more versatile than the Skyward X. The Hoka is bouncier and more comfortable, and it won me over during my testing.

If the On Cloudmonster Hyper was $140 instead of $220, I’d still tell you to buy something else. Yes, this is a comfortable shoe you can roll through a lot of miles in—that’s true for many shoes—but the best running shoes offer more in versatility and how enjoyable they feel underfoot. Most are much cheaper, too.

Even when set against other On running shoes I’m not convinced the Cloudmonster Hyper is your best bet for daily training, The On Cloudeclipse is similarly well cushioned and delivers a smoother, rockered ride. It’s good to see On’s Peba-based Helion HF foam brought to a training shoe, but the overall design of the Cloudmonster Hyper didn’t work well for me.

On Cloudmonster Hyper: Price And Availability

The Cloudmonster Hyper launched in March 2024 and costs $219.99 in the US and £210 in the UK. That’s a high price for a daily trainer like this and more than you pay for the best super-trainers, such as the Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 and Asics Superblast, or other On options like the Cloudeclipse or Cloudmonster 2.

In the US the Cloudmonster Hyper is initially available from On Running and Marathon Sports.

In the UK the Cloudmonster Hyper is initially available from On Running and Sports Shoes.

How I Tested This Running Shoe

I ran 32 miles in the Cloudmonster Hyper, using it for arange of runs during the high-mileage weeks of marathon training that the shoe seems perfect for. I’ve tested most of On’s other shoes, and a range of super-trainers from other brands.

Design And Fit

The Cloudmonster Hyper takes the design of the Cloudmonster 2 and upgrades it through the addition of Helion HF foam to the midsole. This is the Peba-based foam used in the On Cloudboom Echo 3 racing shoe, and it’s bouncier and lighter than On’s other materials.

There is a slab of the Helion HF foam under the forefoot of the Cloudmonster Hyper, with the brand’s signature CloudTec pods used at the heel and underneath the Helion HF. The CloudTec layer is firmer and adds stability, but is also heavier and less springy than the Helion HF foam.

The Cloudmonster Hyper, which weighs 9.5oz/270g in my UK size 9, isn’t a heavy shoe, but it’s not as light as many super-trainers. The Asics Superblast is 8.8oz/251g in my size and has a higher stack height: The Cloudmonster Hyper is 37.5mm at the heel and 31.5mm at the forefoot for a drop of 6mm, where the Superblast is 45mm high at the heel.

On has opted against adding a Speedboard to the midsole of the Cloudmonster Hyper, which is unexpected given that it’s designed to handle faster runs. The lack of a Speedboard makes it less stiff and more comfortable for daily training, though. The shoe has a lightweight woven mesh upper with padding around the collar and a thin tongue. The fit was good in my usual running shoe size, with enough room in the toe box to make it comfortable for long runs.

There is rubber covering the pods on the outsole at the forefoot and heel to provide grip and durability in the main impact areas, though I found it slipped a bit on wet paved surfaces at times. There’s a groove at the back that is shallower than on previous On shoes, though it still looks likely to pick up the odd stone if you’re running on gravel tracks. 

Running Performance

Price aside, I was initially excited about running in the Cloudmonster Hyper. The Cloudboom Echo 3 is a good carbon plate running shoe and its use of Peba-based Helion HF foam was a step up on other On midsole materials. Unfortunately, while the chunk of Helion HF under the Cloudmonster Hyper’s forefoot delivers bounce, it’s muted and overwhelmed by the firmer CloudTec material in the midsole. The CloudTec layer is also heavier, and I found the Cloudmonster Hyper felt heavier than it actually is while running.

As a result, I never felt comfortable running at faster paces. It doesn’t have the propulsive feel of a plated shoe like the Saucony Endorphin Speed 4, nor the nimble, enjoyable ride of the best non-plated daily trainers like the New Balance FuelCell Rebel v4 or Hoka Mach 6, which are lighter and have more responsive midsole foams.

I liked the Cloudmonster Hyper more when cruising along at an easy pace and, having used it for runs during high-mileage weeks, it does protect the legs. The stability it has by virtue of the firmer-than-average midsole is also supportive of tired legs, though it isn’t a shoe that screams “expensive super-trainer” to me. 

Instead, it feels like a typical cushioned shoe, and it’s not as rockered as the On shoes that have the brand’s CloudTecPhase midsole design, like the Cloudsurfer and Cloudeclipse, which have smoother rides as a result.

Is The On Cloudmonster Hyper Worth It?

On has put a target on the Cloudmonster Hyper’s back with the high price. Any daily trainer is going to struggle to be worth $220/£210, though if it delivered an amazing ride then you could perhaps start to justify the outlay; many have done this with the Asics Superblast, which is expensive but impressive.

Unfortunately, the Cloudmonster Hyper isn’t impressive. It will handle a lot of miles, but it’s not particularly versatile or fun to run in, and it’s easy to find shoes that offer more for less money, including the Superblast.

I consider the Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 the best daily trainer because of its versatility, but if you don’t want to train in a plated shoe then the Hoka Mach 6 and New Balance FuelCell Rebel v4 are more enjoyable options than the Cloudmonster Hyper, and significantly cheaper.

No one really wants to hear this, but running shoes are terrible for the environment. One of the biggest reasons why is that they’re difficult—and therefore uneconomical—to recycle, so they’re either sent to landfill or incinerated.

A few brands have made strides to improve this situation and one of the main players is Asics, which began to print the carbon footprint of its shoes on insoles last summer.

Today, Asics announces the Asics Nimbus Mirai, a performance running shoe designed to be returned and recycled. It goes on sale on April 12 in limited quantities in limited markets, to better manage the untested process of taking the shoes back to be recycled. The shoes cost $180 in the US, £180 in the UK and €200 in France and the Netherlands, making it more expensive in the US (and as expensive in the UK) than the popular Asics Nimbus 26 cushioned shoe.

What Makes This Shoe Different?

The development that enhances the ability of the shoe to be recycled is a new one-piece upper and glue that melts away at high temperatures, leaving the material of the upper unaffected and able to be recycled. 

In 2021, Coach spoke to Dr Mark Sumner—a lecturer at the University of Leeds School of Design who specializes in sustainability—about recycling running shoes and he highlighted the elements of running shoes that are particularly problematic. “What makes it hard to recycle shoes is you've typically got a complex mixture of different materials,” he says, and that’s before you get to the bonding methods. “This makes it difficult to deconstruct, to extract those individual materials to try and work out how you can recycle them.”

Asics’ tests show that 87% of the upper can be turned into usable polyester material. It intends to collect returned Mirais then share with its recycling partner TerraCycle, which acts as a broker, moving them on to recycling centers.

It’s a first step, but Rohan van der Zwet, senior product marketing manager for Asics EMEA, said that the aim is to be able to say, “all our shoes can or should return because we can repurpose most parts”. While he couldn’t say when Asics would achieve that, his horizon was a few years.

What’s It Like To Run In?

Asics isn’t the first brand to launch a more recyclable shoe, or one that is designed to be returned, but we haven’t tested a more sustainable shoe that can match the performance of the best running shoes—that’s been the upshot of our testing of the On CloudNeo and AllBirds Tree Dasher 2.

That looks to be the case again here, although Asics is confident enough of its performance that it’s placed the Mirai in its popular Nimbus line of cushioned shoes. 

“In terms of pure shock absorption technology, the current Nimbus [26] would win,” says Van der Zwet, “but this is still up there. That’s why we were able to give it the Nimbus name because it’s still a comfortable shoe to run in.”

Where Can You Buy The Asics Nimbus Mirai?

In the US, the Mirai will be available in Asics stores, online from Asics as well as in the following specialty stores:

• A Runner's Mind, CA 
• Athletic Annex, IN 
• Big Red Running, CO 
• Charm City Run, MD 
• Farley Enterprises, VA 
• Fleet Feet Rochester, NY 
• Gazelle Sports, MI 
• Mill City Running, MN 
• Naperville Running Co, IL 
• Palmetto Running Company, SC 
• Playmakers, MI 
• Potomac River Running, VA 
• Road Runner Sports Shop, NJ 
• Running Logistics LLC 
• Skinny Raven Sports, AK 
• Sope Creek Enterprises, GA 
• The Exchange Running, TN 
• Three Amigos Running Co.

In Europe the shoe will only be available in three Asics stores and won’t be sold online.

• Paris, France 
• Amsterdam, Netherlands 
• London (Oxford Street), UK

It’s a big day for Nike Pegasus fans. Along with the announcement of the latest version of the regular shoe, the Nike Pegasus 41, the Nike Pegasus Premium has been revealed. This is an all-new addition to the Pegasus line with a different midsole set-up to the Pegasus 41 that will be available in spring 2025.

The most eye-catching part of that midsole is the full-length, visible Air Zoom layer. Nike has used Air Zoom units in many versions of the standard Pegasus, including the Pegasus 41, but these have been small, flat pods concealed in the midsole. New tech has allowed the brand to create the sculpted Air Zoom layer in the Pegasus Premium, which curves in line with the foot.

There’s also a layer of Nike’s best foam in the midsole, the springy ZoomX used in the Nike Vaporfly and Alphafly racing shoes, plus some ReactX foam at the heel. The combination of the Air Zoom layer and two foams in the midsole should create a bouncy ride.

In comparison, the new Nike Pegasus 41 has a full ReactX foam midsole that contains a couple of Air Zoom pods, one under the heel and one under the forefoot. There’s no ZoomX foam in the Pegasus 41, and the Pegasus Premium will probably be the lighter shoe, too.

The Nike Pegasus Premium is not to be confused with the Premium version of the current Pegasus, which is very similar to the standard Nike Pegasus 40, just with exclusive upper designs that cost a little more.

The combination of materials and inclusion of ZoomX will have some, including myself, hoping that the Pegasus Premium might act as a long-awaited successor to the popular Nike Pegasus Turbo, which was surprisingly discontinued after just two generations. 

Nike did release the Pegasus Turbo Next Nature two years ago, but this used recycled ZoomX and didn’t match the ride of the original, which was one of the most versatile and enjoyable daily trainers at the time. If the Pegasus Premium can reproduce that, it could be one of the best running shoes available.

The upgrades in the midsole of the Pegasus Premium lead me to believe that it will cost more than the Pegasus 41, but Nike is yet to give the price for either of the new shoes, nor an exact release date. The Nike Pegasus Premium is set to launch in spring 2025, while the Pegasus 41 will come out in June.

The Nike Pegasus 41 is coming this June, and it looks to be one of the most significant updates to the popular shoe line in years, with a completely redesigned midsole. Nike is also launching a new version of the shoe—the Nike Pegasus Premium—to give runners more options than ever within the Pegasus franchise.

Nike has used its React foam as the main material in the midsole for the last few versions of the Pegasus, but is updating this to ReactX with the Pegasus 41. ReactX is softer and delivers 13% more energy return than standard React, and is also more environmentally friendly, reducing the carbon footprint of a pair of midsoles by 41%.

The Nike InfinityRN 4 was the first shoe to use ReactX foam in its midsole when it came out last year and while I found the new foam softer and bouncier, the InfinityRN 4 was a heavy shoe and I wasn’t a big fan overall. 

I’m hoping that the ReactX foam is integrated into the Pegasus without making the 41 substantially heavier than the Nike Pegasus 40. Along with the ReactX foam the Pegasus 41 has two Air Zoom units in the midsole, one under the heel and one under the forefoot, which should help keep the weight down and add more pop to the ride. 

Nike has also updated the upper on the Pegasus 41, which is designed to be lighter, more breathable and more comfortable than the one of the Pegasus 40, with an internal band wrapping around the midfoot to ensure a secure fit.

There is also an EasyOn version of the Pegasus 41, and a winter version that has a waterproof upper with a Gore-Tex liner. Nike is also launching the Pegasus Trail 5, and the Pegasus Premium, which uses a mix of Air Zoom, ReactX and ZoomX materials in its midsole.

The price of the Nike Pegasus 41 is still to be confirmed, along with an exact release date beyond the month of June.

The Nike Alphafly is one of the best carbon plate running shoes and probably the hardest one to get hold of. It has previously been available on two different occasions in the UK so far, but in limited quantities that sold out in hours.

If you missed out, or just fancy picking up another pair, this is your pre-spring marathon chance. The yellow Volt colorway went on sale again at 8am BST on Thursday April 11 on the Nike UK website.

It’s not going to be a cheap purchase—the Alphafly 3 is one of the most expensive racing shoes ever, costing £284.99, but it does deliver a high level of performance. I’ve run 125km in the shoe now and rate it as the best Alphafly yet, with a bouncy, fast ride that’s great for any distance. My Nike Alphafly 3 review goes into more detail. This is also likely to be your last chance to buy the Alphafly 3 before the London Marathon, if you’re hoping to have it on your feet for that.

The Alphafly 3 is certainly great, but it’s not actually my favorite carbon racing shoe right now. I’ve tested pretty much all of the racers released by major brands in recent years and my top pick is the Asics Metaspeed Sky Paris—it costs £220 and is in stock in most sizes on the Asics website. 

Having run more than 100km in both the Alphafly 3 and Metaspeed Sky Paris, it’s the latter I’m planning on lacing up for the London Marathon. If you don’t want to wait for Thursday, or miss out again on the Alphafly 3, the Asics super-shoe is a strong alternative.

 The Nike Alphafly 3 originally launched in early January when a white ‘proto’ colorway of the shoe sold out in rapid fashion. It’s since been made available in a yellow Volt colorway in other parts of the world, where it promptly sold out in hours again, so you’ll need to move fast to grab the shoe when the Volt color goes on sale in the US today.

It’s no surprise that the shoe is selling out so fast, despite its $285 price. It’s one of the best carbon plate running shoes and was used by Kelvin Kiptum to set the marathon world record last year at the Chicago Marathon. If you’re lining up a PR attempt at the upcoming Boston Marathon or London Marathon, this might well be your last chance to get the shoe in time.

To do so you’ll need to be a Nike member—it’s free and easy to sign up—and then be ready to hit buy when the shoe goes on sale. The Nike website says this will be at 3pm GMT+1 (UTC), which is quite a confusing way to give the time on the US site, so here’s the time the shoe will be on sale in each US time zone:

• GMT+1 (UTC): 3pm
• ET: 10am
• CT: 9am
• MT: 8am
• PT: 7am
• AKDT: 6am
• HST: 4am

Good luck getting hold of the shoe, but if you miss out then don’t despair, I’ve tested almost all of the best carbon plate racers available and right now there is one I prefer to the Alphafly 3, which is the Asics Metaspeed Sky Paris. There are no time concerns with the Asics either, it’s on sale right now and cheaper than the Alphafly 3 at $250. 

The best carbon plate running shoes do not come cheap, so when Decathlon announced the original Kiprun KD900X—a carbon racing shoe for £130—I was excited. However, the Kiprun KD900X was a firm shoe that lacked the feel and performance of top super-shoes, and while still a fast and durable option for training, it didn’t really rival the likes of the Nike Vaporfly.

Decathlon has come back stronger with the Kiprun KD900X LD. It’s more expensive than the KD900X, but still relatively cheap, and offers a higher level of performance thanks to the updated midsole foam. If you want the best racer then there are faster shoes available, but the Kiprun KD900X LD is an excellent option for those on a budget.

Kiprun KD900X LD: Price And Availability

The Kiprun KD900X LD launched in April 2024 and is available from Decathlon. It costs £159.99 in the UK and €180 in the EU, but it’s not sold in the US. It’s £30 more expensive than the Kiprun KD900X, the first carbon plate shoe from Decathlon, but significantly cheaper than most carbon super-shoes, which usually cost at least $250/£220.

How I Tested This Shoe

I have run just over 30 miles in the Kiprun KD900X LD, using it for a mix of training runs including a testing track session and a progression run finishing at my goal marathon pace. I have also tested the Kiprun KD900X (although it was stolen before I could complete my testing for a full review) and almost all of the best carbon plate running shoes available from major brands.

Design And Fit

The main change to the Kiprun KD900X LD compared with the KD900X is in midsole foam. It’s changed from VFOAM to VFOAM PLUS, and while both are Peba-based materials, the PLUS is softer, lighter and bouncier. 

Decathlon has halved the drop of the shoe to 4mm, with a 36.8mm stack height at the heel and 32.8mm at the forefoot. This means there’s more foam under the forefoot, which will also increase the comfort of the ride compared with the firm feel of the Kiprun KD900X.

Despite the extra foam, the weight has gone down. The Kiprun KD900X LD weighs 8.1oz/230g in a UK size 9/EU 44. That’s a lot lighter than my review sample of the Kiprun KD900X, which was 8.8oz/249g in a slightly smaller size, an EU 43.5.

Like the KD900X, the KD900X LD came up long for me, and I would recommend going at least a half size down on your normal running shoe size. There’s too much room in the toe box, and although I didn’t experience any slipping at the heel, I did find the plastic strip on the upper that contains the lace eyelets cut into the top of my right foot just below the ankle. 

This was particularly bad on my first and longest run in the shoe, which was around 13 miles. On my runs since I haven’t had the problem to the same extent, so hopefully it’s something that goes away when the shoe breaks in a bit, but it’s a concern if you’re planning to use the shoe for a marathon.

Aside from this, the breathable open-knit mesh upper was fine and held my foot securely when running fast. It’s a lightweight material and has minimal padding around the collar and tongue, as you’d expect from a racing shoe. 

A midsole cut-out on the bottom of the shoe displays the carbon plate. There is exposed foam in the middle of the bottom of the shoe, but two patches of rubber at the heel and a larger section on the forefoot cover the main impact areas. The Kiprun KD900X was built to last 1,000km and while the softer midsole might reduce the lifespan of the Kiprun KD900X LD, I still expect it to be a long-lasting shoe.

Running Performance

The Kiprun KD900X LD is notably softer and bouncier than the KD900X, and feels more in line with other super-shoes. It’s not as springy as shoes like the Nike Alphafly 3 or Hoka Cielo X1, but VFOAM PLUS is a pretty bouncy material and it’s a lot more comfortable than VFOAM.

That’s particularly noticeable under the forefoot, where there’s more foam. You get a springier toe-off as a result, and I had no discomfort under the forefoot on my longest run in the KD900X LD.

I did a track session in the shoe running four miles at 5min 40sec/mile, my goal marathon pace, followed by 12 reps of 400m alternating 72sec and 77sec per rep. The Kiprun KD900X LD was comfortable when cruising along at marathon pace and sprightly enough for the shorter reps.

It has a flatter ride than many super-shoes owing to the low drop, and it’s not a highly rockered shoe. I noticed the day after the session that my legs were more beaten up than usual the day after training in a super-shoe. The Kiprun KD900X LD also puts a bit more strain on your calf muscles than higher-drop racing shoes, which may affect heel-strikers like myself more than forefoot-strikers.

The ride is less propulsive and feels less fast than the best super-shoes, and the KD900X LD suffered in comparison with the very bouncy and rockered Hoka Cielo X1, which I was using at the same time. However, the Kiprun shoe has quite a natural feel, and I was comfortable using it for easy paces as well as fast ones, which is not true of some super-shoes that feel worryingly wobbly and unnatural at slow speeds.

Is The Kiprun KD900X LD Worth It?

If you’re willing to spend big money on your racer, the Kiprun KD900X LD is not among the best carbon plate running shoes. My standout picks at the moment are the Asics Metaspeed Sky Paris, Nike Alphafly 3, Nike Vaporfly 3 and Hoka Cielo X1. 

However, it is significantly cheaper, and there’s no shoe available for a list price of £160 I’d rather race in—if I could get the fit right to avoid any unwelcome friction with the plastic strip on the upper. Even the best super-trainers like the Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 or Adidas Boston 12, which are closer in price, don’t match the speed of the Kiprun KD900X LD.

The biggest competition to the Kiprun KD900X LD for those who are looking for a cheaper racing option comes from the discounts available on older carbon shoes. The likes of the Asics Metaspeed Sky+, Adidas Adizero Adios Pro 3 and Saucony Endorphin Pro 3 are often available in sales, and if you can get them or other older carbon shoes for around £160, they are stronger racing options.

I was impressed by the Kiprun KD900X LD, though, and it’s not far off the standard of those shoes. It’s now a racing alternative at a lower price that’s worth considering, whereas the original KD900X was more of a long-lasting training option than a true racer.

The Salomon S/Lab Spectur will live and die on whether you accept the idea behind its design, which is that people running at slower speeds need a different racing shoe to elite athletes. It’s meant to be a super-shoe for those running marathons in around four hours, rather than setting world records, and cater to their needs by being more stable.

I don’t accept the notion that elites run in one way and, say, 4hr marathoners another. Watch any group of runners at any speed and you’ll see variations in running style. That said, the S/Lab Spectur is a versatile shoe that can handle a variety of training, but its price is too high, and using one of the best carbon plate running shoes is going to deliver a higher level of performance on race day for any runner.

Salomon S/Lab Spectur: Price And Availability

The Salomon S/Lab Spectur launches in May 2024 and will cost $220 in the US and £210 in the UK, which is cheap for a super-shoe but expensive for a super-trainer—which is what I consider it to be. The S/Lab Phantasm 2 is the more performance-focused super-shoe in Salomon’s range and costs $275/£240. The brand also has the standard Spectur shoe, which is a cheaper training option.

How I Tested This Running Shoe

I ran 30 miles in the S/Lab Spectur, using it for several training runs at a range of speeds. I’m a 2hr 28min marathoner, so not the target for the shoe, but used it at a mix of easy and fast paces to see how it felt compared with other carbon plate shoes. I’ve also tested the S/Lab Phantasm 2 and a range of the best super-trainers and super-shoes from other brands.

Design And Fit

How do you make a super-shoe for the average runner? Well, basically, you make it less of a super-shoe and more of a souped-up trainer. The S/Lab Spectur has elements of the S/Lab Phantasm, adjusted to make it less aggressive and unstable. 

The dual-density midsole has a top layer of the brand’s Peba-based Energy Foam+, with a bottom layer of Energy Foam, which is a blend of EVA and Olefin and is firmer and more stable than the bouncier top layer. There are sidewalls of foam that your foot sits within at the back for increased stability. The shoe has a stack height of 38mm at the heel and 30mm at the forefoot for a drop of 8mm, and weighs 9oz/254g in a UK size 9.

There is a carbon plate running through the midsole, which is winged at the back for stability, and the shoe is quite wide at the heel—again for stability. The R.Camber rocker has been moved further back in the shoe to cater more to heel-strikers. This is because Salomon suggests slower runners tend to land on their heels, which is presented as a difference from elites, though research has repeatedly shown most runners are heel-strikers regardless of pace.

The upper on the shoe is lightweight and breathable in the forefoot, but has a lot of padding around the collar and a high heel tab, to add more comfort for runners taking longer to complete events like a marathon. The fit was good in my usual size, though the long heel tab irritated my achilles tendon on long runs.

There is a cut-out on the bottom of the shoe to reduce its weight, but most of the bottom is covered with a Contagrip rubber outsole. The S/Lab Phantasm 2, which also uses Contragrip rubber, didn’t grip well in wet conditions, but I had no problems with the S/Lab Spectur when running in the rain.

Running Performance

The S/Lab Spectur provides a firmer ride than I expected. It’s not harsh by any means, but you don’t have the feeling of sinking into that top layer of Peba-based foam, which is firmed up by the plate and bottom layer of foam.

I’m a heel-striker and I felt, and enjoyed, the rocker on the shoe, which moves you onto your toes nicely at a range of paces. There isn’t a big propulsive feeling as you toe-off, however, which you get from most of the best carbon shoes.

The shoe felt at its best when running at faster paces, going down to around 3min 30sec/km. Although this is not the pace it’s aimed at, I think most runners change their gait a little when running at faster speeds, and the S/Lab Spectur has a smoother and more enjoyable ride when you’re pushing the pace. 

It’s too bulky for really fast running, though. The heel section is large and noticeable, and while it provides a stable landing zone it makes the shoe feel more like a daily trainer than a racing shoe. The fact it’s also comfortable at slow paces means it works better as a versatile training shoe than one I’d consider racing in. It’s not at the level of a super-shoe like Salomon’s S/Lab Phantasm 2, but I’d prefer racing in a number of other, faster super-trainers like the Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 and Adidas Adizero Boston 12. 

The Salomon feels more like the Saucony Kinvara Pro to me: A bulky, stable shoe with a plate in it that’s good for training and works well for heavy runners and those who don’t get on with unstable super-shoes. It has its purpose, but doesn’t feel like it brings any major benefits to the table for racing.

Is The Salomon S/Lab Spectur Worth It?

Although I don’t agree that slower runners need different super-shoes from fast ones, there is something to the idea of a more stable super-shoe because most of the best carbon shoes are pretty wobbly. Unfortunately, the features that bring stability to shoes often make them less “super” and the S/Lab Spectur is an example of this. It just doesn’t feel like a fast racing option.

There are shoes that provide a better balance of stability and speed, like the Saucony Endorphin Pro 4 and Saucony Endorphin Speed 4, which are fast and more stable than most super-shoes, especially the Endorphin Speed 4. The Brooks Hyperion Elite 4 is also stable, for a super-shoe, though that’s partly down to its midsole foam being less springy than others.

The S/Lab Spectur needs to be convincing in its role to make spending such big sums of money on it, and while it works fine as a versatile trainer it’s too expensive for that role, and is still outperformed by shoes like the Endorphin Speed. With regards to racing, I don’t feel like it’s a shoe that delivers as much as other options, no matter what your goal pace is.

The Kiprun KS900.2 adds a max-cushioned option to Decathlon’s range of running shoes and it sits above the Kiprun KS900 Light in terms of the amount of foam underfoot and its price. 

It’s cheaper than many of the best cushioned running shoes (though this isn’t a budget shoe) and while it performed well enough, there are more comfortable and enjoyable cushioned options available for a similar price. This makes Decathlon’s cushioned cruiser a tricky sell.

Kiprun KS900.2: Price And Availability

The Kiprun KS900.2 launched in February 2024 and costs £119.99 in the UK and €140 in the EU. It’s not available in the US, and there’s no indication that it will be. It’s the most expensive cushioned shoe in Decathlon’s Kiprun range, sitting above the KS900 Light, which is £89.99/€100.

How I Tested This Running Shoe

I ran 35 miles in the KS900.2, using it mainly for easy and recovery runs during marathon training. I’ve tested other Decathlon shoes like the Kiprun KD900 and KS900 Light, as well as a variety of the best cushioned running shoes from other brands.

Design And Fit

The KS900.2 has a stack of Decathlon’s MFOAM material in the midsole, standing 39mm at the heel and 33mm at the forefoot for a 6mm drop. The M stands for mattress, though MFOAM isn’t a soft material. It’s well balanced to offer support and comfort, with sidewalls of foam helping to add stability despite the high stack. All that foam makes it a heavy shoe: It weighs 11oz/314g in a UK 9.5, which is comparable to other highly cushioned shoes, such as the Asics Gel-Nimbus 26 and Nike Invincible 3.

The mesh upper has a lot of padding on the tongue and heel to create a comfortable and secure hold, while an internal heel counter adds more stability. I tested a shoe half a size up on my regular size and it was a little too long, so I’d stick with your usual running shoe size. 

There is exposed foam on the bottom of the shoe but the heel, sides and forefoot are all well covered with a thick layer of rubber that should last a long time. It gripped well for me on wet paved surfaces. I’d expect the KS900.2 to last a long time, with its durable midsole and outsole materials.

Running Performance

The KS900.2 is built to be a comfortable and supportive shoe for racking up easy miles, and that’s exactly what it is. The midsole foam isn’t very soft or squishy, but it’s undoubtedly comfortable, and the shoe rolls through quite smoothly when ticking along at a relaxed pace.

It’s not versatile and I didn’t enjoy doing any kind of fast running in it, but ideally it would be used in a running shoe rotation with lighter, faster options for your speed session. The MFOAM didn’t feel bouncy and there are livelier materials used on cushioned shoes from other brands. It will soften a bit over time and last hundreds of miles, but don’t expect the most exciting ride from the KS900.2 compared with cushioned shoes that use Peba foams or nitrogen-infused materials.

The KS900.2 is quite a bit narrower than other high-stack cushioned shoes. Many max-cushioned shoes have a wide base to ensure they’re still stable, and while the KS900.2 has sidewalls of foam (and the firmer midsole means it didn’t feel unstable) it may not work as a stable-neutral option for those who overpronate a little.

Is The Kiprun KS900.2 Worth It?

The KS900.2 isn’t exciting or versatile, but it is comfortable and durable and will cover all your easy runs. It’s also good for beginners who want a protective shoe that isn’t as wildly expensive as some cushioned cruisers, which now often cost more than $150/£150.

However, most of the best cushioned running shoes provide better rides, offering a softer, bouncier feel thanks to the more advanced midsole materials they use. Some are not much more expensive than the KS900.2, while some are even cheaper. The Puma Velocity Nitro 3 and Puma Magnify Nitro 2 are better cushioned shoes that offer more value, especially as they are often in sales as well as having a fairly low list price.

If price isn’t a consideration, the Brooks Ghost Max and Brooks Glycerin 21 are excellent cushioned shoes, as are the Saucony Ride 17 and Saucony Triumph 21. The KS900.2 is a good addition to Decathlon’s range, but it’s a very competitive cushioned shoe market right now, and it doesn’t do enough to stand out on either price or performance.

The On Cloudmonster Hyper has arrived and it looks like a shoe to get excited about, with a dual-density midsole that contains a thick wedge of On’s Peba-based Helion HF foam as well as the brand’s signature CloudTec pods.

On has billed it as the ultimate daily trainer, combining a high level of comfort and protection for your legs during high mileage weeks, while also having enough pop for faster runs thanks to the bouncy Helion HF in the midsole.

I wasn’t all that enamored of the On Cloudmonster 2, but the Cloudmonster Hyper has already impressed me more after just one run, and its versatility will make it one of the best On running shoes for those seeking cushioning and a bit of speed.

The price is very high though, with the Cloudmonster Hyper costing $219.99 in the US and £210 in the UK. That’s very expensive for a daily trainer, and a high price even for a super-trainer that uses the foam from On’s carbon plate running shoe, the On Cloudboom Echo 3.

For my first run in the On Cloudmonster Hyper I took it out for an easy hour the day after a half marathon race, so I was on tired legs. The shoe did feel comfortable and I was surprised at the pace I was running at for an easy effort level and low heart rate, and the midsole certainly has more bounce than On’s other cushioned shoes, like the Cloudeclipse and Cloudmonster 2.

I’m not sure the layer of Cloudtec pods on the bottom add much though. They’re heavier than the Helion HF foam and firmer, and the way the pods and the rubber on the bottom of them hit the ground creates a ‘slappy’ feel at times.

This firmer layer will help make the shoe more stable, which is needed with Peba-based foams, especially as the Cloudmonster Hyper doesn’t have the carbon plate of the Cloudboom Echo 3 to stabilize it. Removing this stiff plate makes it more comfortable and suitable for daily training, although you lose the propulsive boost of a plate.

I picked up the pace for short periods on my run in the shoe and you do get more bounce from the midsole when you do so, but I’m not convinced it will be a great option for faster training sessions, partly because it’s pretty heavy at 9.5oz/270g. I’ll do some fast runs in it for our full review to check on that though.

My first impressions of the shoe are that it should be a great daily trainer for high mileage runners, who also have a faster shoe in their running shoe rotation for sessions. The price is prohibitively high, however, especially when there are excellent options available for less, like the Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 if you are happy to train in a nylon-plated shoe, or the Hoka Mach 6 and New Balance Rebel v4 if you’d rather go plateless. 

Even the Asics Superblast is cheaper, and it's lighter and that has so far set the gold standard for high-stack super-trainers without a plate. The On Cloudmonster Hyper will have to really impress over further testing to convince me it’s worth the money.

Asics didn’t rush to bring out a successor to the Metaspeed Sky+ racing shoe, which was launched in spring 2022. However, taking its time has paid off because the Metaspeed Sky Paris includes important upgrades and is now clearly one of the best carbon plate running shoes. I put it at the top of the tree—even ahead of the Nike Alphafly 3—and the fact that it’s cheaper than many super-shoes is a bonus.

Asics Metaspeed Sky Paris: Price And Availability

The Asics Metaspeed Sky Paris launched in February 2024 and costs $250 in the US and £220 in the UK. That’s the same price as the Metasped Sky+ in the US, and £5 cheaper than the older shoe in the UK. The Metaspeed Sky Paris is at the cheaper end of the super-shoe spectrum: the Nike Alphafly 3 costs $285/£285. Asics also has the Metaspeed Edge Paris in its line-up, another carbon super-shoe designed to suit higher-cadence runners.

How I Tested This Running Shoe

I’ve run 60 miles in the Metaspeed Sky Paris, using it for a range of marathon training runs, including a 20-mile long run and an all-out parkrun. I have also tested the Metaspeed Sky and Metaspeed Sky+, along with the older models in the Edge line-up. I'm yet to review the Metaspeed Edge Paris but will be testing it soon. Aside from the Adidas Pro Evo 1, I have also tested all the leading carbon plate running shoes from other brands.

Design And Fit

The Metaspeed Sky Paris is one of the lightest super-shoes I’ve tested, weighing just 6.6oz/188g in my UK size 9. That’s a drop of 0.7oz/20g from the Metaspeed Sky+ and, while weight isn’t everything even with racing shoes, it’s significant how light the Metaspeed Sky Paris is. Most super-shoes, including the Nike Vaporfly 3, are more than 7oz/200g in my size.

Despite this, Asics hasn’t skimped on the cushioning. The stack height is 39.5mm at the heel and 34.5mm at the forefoot for a 5mm drop. Key to the reduction in weight is the new FF Turbo+ foam in the Metaspeed Sky Paris, which is softer, lighter and bouncier than the FF Turbo used on previous Metaspeed shoes.

The Motion Wrap 2.0 upper is lighter than the material used on the older shoes, though Asics has still been able to add a touch of padding at the heel for extra comfort over long distances. The shoe fitted well in my usual running shoe size, the same size I’ve used for all previous Asics racing shoes. 

Asics has made weight savings on the outsole. The forefoot is well covered with rubber that has lots of holes in it to reduce weight, though the strips of rubber running towards the back of the shoe stop short of the heel to leave some exposed foam. With previous versions of the Metaspeed, I’ve ripped this foam a little as a heel-striker; after 60 miles I’ve not seen the same wear on the Metaspeed Sky Paris, but it’s something to look out for if you do land on your heels.

The Metaspeed Sky Paris is Asics’ super-shoe for “stride” runners, who mainly increase their stride length when running faster. The Metaspeed Edge Paris is for “cadence” runners, who mainly increase their cadence (number of steps per minute) when running faster. The Paris editions have fewer differences than older models of the two shoes did. The shoes have the same stack height and drop, and similar weights, while the main differences are that the Edge has a longer rocker at the forefoot and more scooped carbon plate to aid turnover with a higher cadence. The Sky’s plate sits higher in the foam to give more energy return to bounding runners.

Running Performance

I’ve been a fan of the last two versions of the Metaspeed Sky and my PRs for the 10K and half-marathon were set in them (10K in the Metaspeed Sky, half-marathon in the Metaspeed Sky+). Although I’m a cadence runner with a shuffling gait, I’ve preferred the bouncier Sky to the Edge, though I’ll reserve judgment on comparing the Edge Paris and Sky Paris until I’ve tested the former.

However, it’s going to take something special to make me like it more than the Metaspeed Sky Paris, which I’ve found sensational. I’ve done a variety of sessions in it: three long progression runs including a 30km with 10K at 3min 30sec/k pace, along with probably the best track workout of my life running 6 x 5min 20sec/mile reps with float recoveries and a parkun in 15min 51sec.

On every run it’s felt amazing. The light design comes across late on fast runs when it helps to keep turning over your feet, but the shoe still has the spring you expect from a high-stack super-shoe. It’s less bouncy than some racers, like the Nike Alphafly 3 and Hoka Cielo X1, but the Metaspeed Sky Paris has a faster transition and a more aggressive feel while still being comfortable for long distances. 

Some may prefer a softer super-shoe for the marathon, but I had no discomfort even when running hard up to distances of 20 miles and would have no fears about going the full 26.2 in it. Over shorter distances the lightness and aggressive design is an obvious boon, especially when accelerating out of corners; while it’s not a stable shoe, I found the Metaspeed Sky Paris nimble enough on a parkrun course with a few sharp turns. The grip was good when running fast in wet conditions, despite the relatively small amount of rubber on the outsole. 

Is The Asics Metaspeed Sky Paris Worth It?

The Metaspeed Sky Paris is a perfect modern racing shoe for all distances. It’s light, but still springy and cushioned enough for the marathon, and the updates Asics has made put it at the top of my list of carbon racers. There are, however, still excellent alternatives to consider, including the Nike Alphafly 3 and Nike Vaporfly 3, which are equally impressive all-distance racers. There is also the bouncy Hoka Cielo X1 for the marathon. 

Everyone needs to find the racer that suits them, so I’m not saying the Metaspeed Sky Paris is objectively the best, but it’s my preferred pick right now. The shoe is cheaper than many top racing shoes, and it’s welcome news that Asics didn’t raise the price compared with the Metaspeed Sky+ despite making significant updates to the shoe.

Most of the best carbon plate running shoes stick to a similar design, so when one bucks the trend it’s always an interesting development. The Altra Vanish Carbon 2 launches on March 27, 2024 and offers runners who prefer a zero-drop shoe a high-performance option for race day.

The same was true of the Altra Vanish Carbon, but I didn’t find that it delivered the propulsive speed required from a top super-shoe. Altra has made significant updates to the Vanish Carbon 2 to improve its performance, while retaining the key features of a more naturally foot-shaped toe box and a zero-drop stack height that’s the same at the heel and forefoot.

The Vanish Carbon 2 has a full-length carbon plate, rather than just the half plate used in the original. The new shoe also has more foam in the midsole, with the stack height being increased from 33mm to 36mm to create a more comfortable and bouncy ride.

The foam used has also been updated. It’s still called EGO PRO, but it’s now lighter and more pliable, according to Altra. I found the original shoe lacked bounce compared with others, so hopefully the midsole updates deliver that springy feel you want on race day.

As with the Vanish Carbon, the new shoe has a long forefoot rocker, which I found made it feel like a low-drop rather than a zero-drop shoe because of the way it rolls you onto your toes. The Vanish Carbon 2 has a wider upper that allows your toes to splay on the run, as opposed to the more tapered toe boxes you get with most running shoes that cause some runners discomfort.

One thing yet to be confirmed about the new shoe is whether Altra has changed the outsole material. The hardened EVA used on the original wore down quickly and compromised its durability, so hopefully a more hardy outsole rubber is in place with the Vanish Carbon 2.

The Amazon Spring Sale has started and there are some great running shoe deals available, whether you’re looking for a comfortable cushioned shoe or a carbon plate running shoe to set PRs in.

I review running shoes and have tested hundreds of pairs of shoes in recent years, and so I know which shoes included in the sales are actual bargains, and which are worth avoiding. I’ve also checked the best running shoe discounts from the Amazon sale against prices elsewhere, and found better deals on a couple of shoes.

With all that in mind, here are the top running shoe deals available in the Amazon Spring Sale, plus info on where you can get the shoes for less if there is a better deal available.

For more great options, read my selection of the best cheap running shoes.

Asics Gel-Nimbus 25

The Asics Gel-Nimbus 26 came out earlier this year but I found that the updates to the new shoe were minimal, with upper tweaks and a new outsole that improves the grip slightly, but also makes the ride of the new shoe slightly less comfortable compared with the Gel-Nimbus 25. The Asics Gel-Nimbus 25 is available in lots of colors and sizes for $119.95 in the Amazon sale, a 25% reduction that is matched on the Asics website. However, Footlocker has the shoe for less, reducing it to $99, though there are fewer colors and sizes available.

Brooks Glycerin 20

Like the Gel-Nimbus 25, the Brooks Glycerin 20 is another comfortable cushioned shoe that’s great for newer runners, and those who want a shoe that protects the body well on long runs. The Brooks Glycerin 21 recently came out and I do think the new shoe is an upgrade, with more foam in the midsole and a lighter overall design, but the Glycerin 20 is still a great shoe and reduced by $50 to $109.95 in the Amazon sale. There are plenty of sizes and colors available in the sale, and that’s the best price I can see for the shoe, though Brooks does match the 31% discount if you’d prefer to shop direct.

New Balance FuelCell SC Elite v3

The SC Elite v3 is a last-gen carbon plate running shoe, but even though the New Balance SC Elite v4 is a better shoe, in my opinion, the older one remains a very fast racing option and it’s available at a big discount in Amazon’s sale. The price varies with size and color, but if you can find one that fits you for under $170 it’s a deal worth considering, and I’ve not seen a better deal on the shoe elsewhere.

Adidas Ultraboost

Amazon has reduced the Ultraboost 23 in its sale, with the exact price changing depending on the size and color you pick. However, I would urge you to instead head to the Adidas website and pick up the Ultraboost Light in its sale instead. The 50% discount you get is bigger than the Amazon saving on the UB23 and the Ultraboost Light is a better running shoe than the UB23, while having a very similar design for casual wear.

The Brooks Glycerin was once the most comfortable running shoe available, with its stack of cushioning making it stand out. Now, however, many of the best cushioned running shoes have higher stacks and softer foams than the Glycerin—and the Brooks Glycerin 21 is relatively lightweight and low-stack for a cushioned shoe. This makes it a more versatile daily training option than many cushioned shoes, and I rate the Glycerin 21 among the best running shoes for those looking for a protective shoe that has pop for faster runs.

Brooks Glycerin 21: Price And Availability

The Brooks Glycerin 21 launched in February 2024 and costs $160 in the US and £165 in the UK. That’s the same price as the Glycerin 20 now, though the older shoe initially launched with a UK price of £155. It’s far from cheap, and although many of the best cushioned shoes now cost a similar amount, there are cheaper options like the Puma Magnify Nitro 2 and Saucony Ride 17.

How I Tested This Running Shoe

I ran 32 miles in the Glycerin 21, using it mostly for easy runs during my marathon training, including one longer run of about 13 miles. I’ve also tested each of the previous six versions of the Brooks Glycerin line, along with the Brooks Ghost Max and Ghost 15, and many other cushioned shoes from other brands.

Design And Fit

The new Glycerin has had its upper, midsole and outsole updated. Of these I’d say the most important is the 2mm increase in stack height. The Glycerin 21 is 36mm tall at the heel and 26mm at the forefoot for a 10mm drop, and while it’s only 2mm the extra cushioning is notable while running.

The foam used is Brooks’ DNA Loft v3, a nitrogen-infused EVA that offers a good balance of softness and responsiveness. It’s not as squishy as most foams used on cushioned shoes, but still protects the legs well, while being stable and giving a bit back when you run at faster paces. 

Despite adding more foam Brooks has been able to reduce the shoe's weight. The Glycerin 21 weighs 10.2oz/290g in my UK size 9, whereas the Glycerin 20 is 11oz/314g in the same size. Part of this is due to the redesigned upper, which Brooks describes as more streamlined, but it still has a lot of padding around the tongue and collar to provide the high level step-in comfort you expect from the Glycerin line. The shoe fitted well in my usual running shoe size, the same one I’ve used for previous versions of the Glycerin.

There is a new RoadTack rubber outsole on the shoe, which has more exposed foam on the bottom than the Glycerin 20, but all the key impact areas are covered with a thick layer of this rubber and it gripped well for me in wet conditions.

Running Performance

I’ve long been a fan of the Glycerin as a comfortable shoe for easy runs, and the Glycerin 20 went beyond that thanks to the introduction of the nitrogen-infused DNA Loft v3 foam, which made the shoe more versatile and enjoyable for faster running. The Glycerin 21 continues along that road by being lighter than the 20 while adding more foam, which increases its comfort. The ride isn’t particularly bouncy or as soft as other cushioned shoes, but it’s well balanced and works for a range of running.

It’s still a shoe that’s best for easy runs and it excels on long runs in particular. As with the Glycerin 20, my favorite runs in the Glycerin 21 were my longest ones, when the foam provided a resilient and protective base to work against. The 10mm drop and lack of a big rocker mean the ride is traditional and less smooth than more rockered shoes, but the transition from heel to toe isn’t so snappy that your forefoot slaps the ground. The Ghost Max is a more rockered option in the Brooks range that feels smoother, which some runners may prefer.

When I ran faster in the Glycerin 21 it still felt bulky to me so I’d use it in a running shoe rotation with faster shoes, but if you prefer a cushioned shoe for all your runs then it’s a good daily training option. Almost all my runs in the shoe were in wet conditions and the grip from the outsole was reliable even when pounding down hills streaming with water. The thick layer of rubber will also be durable and the DNA Loft v3 foam has a well-earned reputation for retaining its bounce over hundreds of miles, so you can expect the Glycerin 21 to be a long-lasting shoe.

Is The Brooks Glycerin 21 Worth It?

If you like a cushioned daily trainer, the Glycerin 21 is one of the best options. It’s also a great pick for marathon training, and running the race itself if you’re not shooting for as fast a time as possible, because of the way the foam retains bounce and comfort during long runs.

If you want as soft a ride as possible, check out the New Balance Fresh Foam X 1080v13 or Asics Gel-Nimbus 26, although these are not as versatile as the Glycerin 21 and I prefer its feel for long runs even at easy paces. There are cheaper alternatives that do the same job, like the Puma Magnify Nitro 2 and Saucony Ride 17, which are cushioned but still versatile shoes. The Puma Velocity Nitro 3 also has a similar level of cushioning to the Glycerin 21 and is lighter and cheaper, though it’s not as comfortable as the Brooks shoe.

For me, the Glycerin 21 is a more enjoyable shoe to run in at any pace than Brooks’s Ghost 15, which lacks the pop you get from the DNA Loft v3 foam (which will be used in the forthcoming Ghost 16). However, the Ghost Max is a good alternative to the Glycerin 21 if you prefer a smoother, more rockered ride.

The Brooks Hyperion Elite 4 is the most impressive racing shoe Brooks has released so far and an improvement on the underwhelming Hyperon Elite 3. Yet it still suffers in comparison with the best carbon plate running shoes from other brands.

This is mostly down to its midsole foam, which lacks the bouncy, propulsive feeling you get from shoes like the Nike Vaporfly and others. The Hyperion Elite 4 is a fast shoe and more stable than some other super-shoes, but it’s not as fast—and it’s too expensive considering the performance it delivers.

Brooks Hyperion Elite 4: Price And Availability

The Brooks Hyperion Elite 4 launched in January 2024 and costs $250 in the US and £220 in the UK. It’s at the cheaper end of the scale for carbon plate racing shoes, but still expensive, and the price has gone up £30 in the UK compared with the Brooks Hyperion Elite 3.

How I Tested This Running Shoe

I ran 33 miles in the Hyperion Elite 4, using it for two progression runs and a track session during my marathon training. I’ve tested the past three versions of the Hyperion Elite, along with almost all the carbon plate running shoes launched by major brands in the past few years.

Design And Fit

Given the shortcomings of the Hyperion Elite 3, I was hoping for a major update to the design, including a new midsole foam. Brooks has obliged on the latter, but only with an updated version of its nitrogen-infused EVA DNA Flash foam, rather than bringing in a Peba-based foam like those used in most carbon racers.

The DNA Flash v2 foam is lighter and softer than the foam used on previous versions of the shoe, and the Elite 4 is a lot lighter than the Elite 3 in general. The new shoe weighs 7.9oz/224g in a UK size 8.5, while the Elite 3 was 8.8oz/249g in a UK 9. 

Some of that drop in weight is due to the new upper. Instead of the chunky knit used on the Elite 3, the Elite 4 has a breathable woven upper that holds the foot well during fast runs. I used a shoe that is half a size smaller than my usual UK size because I’m often in between a UK 8.5 and a 9, and Brooks shoes often come up a little long for me. I’d say using your usual size will be fine for most runners, but if you’re between sizes I’d go for the smaller one.

An Arris carbon plate runs through the midsole. This has an open lattice design and adds more stiffness to the already fairly firm DNA Flash v2 midsole. There is a large cut-out on the bottom of the midsole to reduce weight. The stack height is 40mm at the heel and 32mm at the forefoot for a drop of 8mm, which is a 5mm rise in stack height on the Hyperion Elite 3.

As with most carbon shoes, the outsole coverage is minimal to help keep the weight down. Most of the forefoot is covered, though there are gaps in the rubber. I found the shoe gripped well in wet conditions.

Running Performance

Brooks was one of the first brands to launch a carbon plate shoe with its Hyperion Elite, which was firm, a bit of a disaster and quickly followed by the Hyperion Elite 2. This was a good shoe at the time, with its lightweight DNA Flash midsole that delivered a fast ride, and though it didn’t match the Nike Vaporfly it was still a viable racing option.

Since then, however, almost every other major brand has adopted a similar style of carbon shoe, with a high stack of a springy Peba-based foam. Instead of doing this, Brooks just changed the upper on the Hyperion Elite 3, which made it a heavier and less effective racing shoe than the Elite 2.

The Hyperion Elite 4 is an improvement, but because Brooks has stuck with an nitrogen-infused EVA foam the ride still lacks the bouncy, propulsive feeling you get from other carbon shoes, as well as their comfort levels. By the end of 10-mile runs the ride had started to feel too firm, and I wouldn’t consider the Elite 4 a marathon racing option for most people.

It is a light and fast shoe, and when I did a track session running three sets of 2K and then 5 x 400m reps, the Elite 4 felt pretty good. The firmer foam is less noticeable on a track and helps to keep turning your feet over at fast paces on short reps. While it’s not going to stop you running fast, the lack of punch is noticeable compared with the best carbon shoes. Running in the Hyperion Elite 4 is harder on the legs than in softer, springier shoes. It also feels harder to sustain fast paces over longer distances. If you’re spending this kind of money on a plated super-shoe that helps you run more efficiently, and thus faster, you simply won’t get the same level of benefit from the Elite 4 as you would from other shoes.

One advantage of the firmer foam is that the Hyperion Elite 4 is more stable than most super-shoes and I’d expect it to be more durable. You can use the Hyperion Elite 4 more frequently in training as a result, and it might be a racing option for some who have found softer super-shoes too wobbly.

Is The Brooks Hyperion Elite 4 Worth It?

The Brooks Hyperion Elite 4 is a fast shoe and the best Brooks running shoe for racing, but it doesn’t reach the standards set by other brands’ carbon shoes. It’s around the same price as excellent racing shoes like the Nike Vaporfly 3, Saucony Endorphin Pro 4 and Asics Metaspeed Sky Paris, and simply doesn’t deliver as fast and propulsive a ride as those shoes.

I rate the Elite 4 more in line with the best super-trainers, like the Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 or Adidas Adizero Boston 12. It feels a little faster than them, but it’s more expensive. Until Brooks updates the midsole foam to use a more dynamic material, it’s hard to see the Hyperion Elite line competing with the best racers.

The Hoka Mach 6 builds upon the fine reputation of the Hoka Mach 5 in being a simple, lightweight daily trainer that can handle a range of training runs. It’s comfortable for easy cruises, but light and poppy enough for when you want to up the pace. The Mach 6 is a great alternative to plated training shoes like the Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 for those who’d rather run plate-free outside of races.

It’s one of the best running shoes and is in competition with the New Balance FuelCell Rebel v4 and Asics Novablast 4 for the title of best daily trainer without a plate. I think the Rebel v4 just edges the battle, but the Mach 6 is more cushioned and some may prefer it for easy runs.

Hoka Mach 6: Price And Availability

The Hoka Mach 6 launched in February 2024 and costs $140 in the US and £140 in the UK, which is the same price as the Hoka Mach 5. It’s similar in price to other daily trainers, and cheaper than super-trainers like the Hoka Mach X, which use plates and foams from the best carbon plate running shoes.

How I Tested This Running Shoe

I’ve run just over 30 miles in the Hoka Mach 6, using it for a variety of training runs including an easy to steady 15-mile progression run finishing at my marathon pace. I have also tested the Mach 4 and Mach 5, and a variety of the best running shoes available from other brands.

Design And Fit

The Hoka Mach 4 and Mach 5 were excellent shoes that stuck to a similar design, with a dual-density midsole with a layer of Supercritical EVA foam on top and a standard EVA foam on the bottom—with this bottom layer also acting as the outsole since there was no rubber on the underside of either shoe.

Hoka has made significant updates to the design of the Mach 6, which now has a single-layer midsole that’s made from Supercritical EVA, and a rubber outsole, which adds weight but should improve the durability and grip of the shoe. Even with the outsole the Mach 6 is a lightweight shoe at 8.2oz/233g in my UK size 9. That’s a slight gain in weight on the Mach 5, but just a few grams, which is a fair exchange for a rubber outsole.

The Mach 6 has a drop of 5mm: The men’s shoe has a stack of 37mm at the heel and 32mm at the forefoot, and the women’s has 35mm at the heel and 30mm at the forefoot. That’s a lot of cushioning for such a light shoe, which is the benefit of making the midsole from the lightweight Supercritical EVA foam.

I found the shoe fitted well in my usual running shoe size, but that’s because I have a narrow foot. As with many Hoka shoes, the Mach 6 might be a bit tight around the midfoot and forefoot if you have a wide foot. The creel jacquard mesh upper is comfortable and breathable, with padding around the collar of the shoe to cradle the back of the foot.

Running Performance

I’ve been a big fan of the past two versions of the Hoka Mach, with the Mach 4 and 5 offering versatility and a natural feel. By that I mean they were shoes that it was easy to forget about while running—they rolled along nicely at easy or fast paces without intruding on my thoughts.

The Mach 6 retains that admirable characteristic. It’s comfortable from the moment you pull it on and, whatever pace you’re running at, it provides a smooth ride. It’s not as explosively bouncy or propulsive as a plated shoe, but the new midsole set-up has spring in it, and the rockered shape of the shoe helps move you through your footstrike and up onto your toes.

Since it’s so light, picking up the pace feels good in the Mach 6, especially for short bursts. On my longest run I did the last five miles of a 15-mile run at sub-6min/mile pace, speeding up to around 5min 40sec/mile for the last three. While holding those paces is easier to do in a plated shoe like the Saucony Endorphin Speed 4, the Mach 6 still feels good for them, and it’s more comfortable for easy runs.

I did a couple of relaxed recovery runs and it was comfortable and stable at slow paces. It’s a shoe you can tackle almost all of your training in, and would also make a great marathon racing option if you don’t want to use a plated shoe. That said, based on performance alone I’d prefer to use a faster plated shoe for key workouts and races.

Is The Hoka Mach 6 Worth It?

The Mach 6 is a good daily trainer, offering the perfect blend of comfort and speed and certainly an option for a running shoe rotation. That’s especially apt if you prefer to train in non-plated shoes, since the Mach 6 is one of the fastest and most enjoyable plate-free options, rivaled only by the FuelCell Rebel v4. The Rebel has more bounce and is lighter still than the Mach, but the Mach is more cushioned for easy runs,

Within Hoka’s line-up the Hoka Mach X is the plated super-trainer that you could use for the same kind of runs as the Mach 6. I prefer the feel of the Mach 6, and it’s lighter and cheaper, and so gets my vote over the Mach X. The Hoka Clifton 9 is a more cushioned and less speedy Hoka option for those who find the Mach 6 too speed-focused, though I’d prefer to be in the Mach over the Clifton.

If you are happy to use plated shoes in training then the Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 and Adidas Adizero Boston 12 are among the best running shoes with regards to versatility. They have a more propulsive feel than the Mach 6 and are better for holding fast paces, and also comfortable for easy pace runs—though the Mach 6 feels more cushioned for those.

The Saucony Peregrine line has been a fixture on my round-ups of the best trail-running shoes, and the Peregrine 14 lives up to the high standards of its predecessors by being an excellent off-road shoe that’s comfortable on a variety of terrains. However, it’s also similar to the Peregrine 13, so the better value is to be found in hunting for a deal on the older shoe. 

Saucony Peregrine 14: Price And Availability

The Saucony Peregrine 14 launched in February 2024 and costs $140 in the US and £135 in the UK. That’s the same price as the Peregrine 13 in the US, but a £5 rise in the UK. There is also a Gore-Tex version of the shoe with a waterproof upper that costs $160/£155.

How I Tested This Running Shoe

I’ve run 35 miles in the Peregrine 14, mostly on muddy forest tracks and grass, with stints on harder, gravel trails and the road. I have also tested several past versions of the Peregrine, including the Peregrine 12 and Peregrine 13 GTX, as well as a range of the best trail-running shoes from other brands.

Design And Fit

The main changes to the Peregrine 14 are all in the upper, which has a more comfortable tongue and has been tweaked to offer better debris protection. I tested the Gore-Tex version of the Peregrine 13 so can’t precisely compare the uppers between the generations, but it doesn’t seem like an alteration that will make a huge change to many runners. 

It’s a good upper and the fit was comfortable and secure in my usual running shoe size—the same I’ve used for several generations of the Peregrine. A toe bumper protects the foot from inadvertent contact with roots and rocks, and the padding around the collar and tongue is comfortable and helps to hold the foot in place when pounding down hills.

As with the Peregrine 13, the 14 has a midsole made from Saucony’s PWRRUN foam, with a PWRRUN+ sockliner that’s softer and bouncier than the midsole foam. Saucony says the PWRRUN foam on the 14 is softer to increase the comfort of the new shoe on long runs. The stack height is 28mm at the heel and 24mm at the forefoot for a 4mm drop, which is enough cushioning for longer runs while allowing you to feel nimble on zigzag trails. There is a rock plate under the midsole to protect the foot on rocky trails.

The Peregrine 14 weighs 10.4oz/295g in my UK size 9, which isn’t especially light, though it’s  not heavy—especially considering the 5mm chevron lugs on the PWRTRAC outsole. These bite well into soft ground and also stick well to harder surfaces, even in the wet. They are the key to the Peregrine 14’s all-terrain versatility.

Running Performance

I’ve long heralded the Peregrine as an all-round trail shoe that can handle the bogs seen on many trails during the British winter. This remains true for the Peregrine 14. It’s also comfortable on harder, dry ground and rocky trails, and the outsole grips well on soft stuff, even when the mud is deep.

During testing the Peregrine 14’s outsole also shed mud pretty well during runs, which is important in maintaining good grip and not getting too heavy by picking up chunks of mud. I’d opt for a more mud-focused shoe with 8mm studs for fell running or cross-country—when you’ll spend almost your entire time on grass and mud— but the Peregrine 14 handles most soft ground you’re likely to come across on runs, and is more comfortable and grips better on hard trails.

My longest session in the shoe was a 90-minute easy run on forest trails, covering around 12 miles at the end of a big week of marathon training. The shoe was comfortable throughout, and I’ve found it protects the legs well on recovery runs the day after a workout, but I don’t think it’s notably softer than the Peregrine 13. If you’re lining up long trail runs like ultramarathons, then the more cushioned feel of some shoes, like the Saucony Xodus Ultra 2, may be preferable.

The Peregrine 14 is a pretty nimble shoe that feels lighter than its weight when running fast down hills or along twisty single-track paths. It’s not light enough that I’d use it for short trail races, when I’d prefer a shoe like the Inov-8 Mudtalon Speed, but for longer events on mixed terrain the Peregrine 14 is a good trail-racing option.

Is The Saucony Peregrine 14 Worth It?

The Peregrine is an easy shoe to recommend to people looking for a general trail shoe, and indeed it’s the one I most often suggest to friends and family when they ask for a tip. It can handle mud and frozen ground in winter, and is comfortable on hard and dry trails.

It’s also a shoe that’s often in sales, especially if you opt for an older version, which is what I’d do right now. The Peregrine 14 is an outstanding trail shoe but similar to the Peregrine 13, which is being widely discounted at the time of writing.

Other good all-round trail shoes include the Saucony Xodus Ultra 2, which is more cushioned and bouncy than the Peregrine, and the Puma Voyage Nitro 3, another comfortable and good-value shoe with an outsole that can handle most trails.

The Saucony Guide 17 is one of the best stability running shoes thanks to its comfortable, wide design, which supports without feeling overbearing. The shoe provides a smooth, cushioned ride that works best for easy runs, but there is versatility too, and the Guide 17 is a good daily trainer for those who need stability.

Saucony Guide 17: Price And Availability

The Saucony Guide 17 launched in February 2024 and costs $140 in the US and £135 in the UK. It’s the stability version of the Saucony Ride 17, which is a neutral shoe, and is cheaper than some of the top stability shoes, such as the Asics Gel-Kayano 30.

How I Tested This Running Shoe

I’ve run about 30 miles in the Guide 17, using it mostly for easy runs during my marathon training, as well as for warm-up and warm-downs before and after workouts. I have run in the Ride 16 and tested other stability shoes, and though I’m a neutral runner I appreciate the extra support at times, especially during the high-mileage weeks I logged while testing the Guide 17.

Design And Fit

The Guide 17 looks a lot like the Guide 16 on paper, with the same PWRRUN foam in the midsole and similar stack height and weight. However, Saucony has made a series of updates to the shoe that really change how it feels while running.

Instead of traditional stability elements—like a plastic insert on the medial side, which the Guide 16 used—the Guide 17 aims for stability through Saucony’s CenterPath Technology. This means features like a wider base than the Guide 16 and sidewalls of foam that help guide your foot into a neutral position when running. The drop has also been lowered from 8mm on the Guide 16 to 6mm, with a stack height of 35mm at the heel and 29mm at the forefoot. The lower drop and rocker profile helps to roll you through your foot strike smoothly.

Despite the wider design and an increase in stack height under the forefoot, the Guide 17 is a similar weight to the Guide 16. At 10.4oz/295g in my UK size 9, the Guide 17 is lighter than many stability shoes. Part of that is based on the minimal rubber coverage on the outsole. There is rubber at the heel and around the edge of the forefoot, but there’s a lot of exposed foam on the base. This didn’t negatively affect grip during testing, but may reduce durability, especially if you take the shoe on gravelly tracks or light trails.

The upper is padded enough around the tongue and collar to feel comfortable without being oppressive, and I found the Guide 17 fitted well in my usual running shoe size. There is a PWRRUN+ foam sockliner that is softer and bouncier than the PWRRUN midsole foam underneath, which also creates a more comfortable step-in feel.

Running Performance

The Guide 17 is a supportive cruiser. I found it just the ticket for easy and recovery runs during marathon training. Although it’s quite a big and wide shoe, the ride was smooth and the stability elements weren’t intrusive. It lives up to its name by guiding the foot into a neutral position by providing support on all sides, rather than using medial posting or a similar method to prevent overpronation.

I’d use the shoe in a running shoe rotation as an easy-day option because I prefer lighter shoes for tempo runs or speedwork, but the Guide 17 could be used as an all-rounder if you want a highly cushioned ride on every run. It’s not that heavy, and the rockered ride helps when picking up the pace.

The 2mm decrease in drop, compared with the Guide 16, is more noticeable than I expected. The Guide 16 provided a snappier ride that was firmer, whereas the Guide 17 felt smoother and notably more cushioned even though both shoes have similar amounts of foam underfoot; the Guide 16 also has a 35mm stack at the heel, which drops to 27mm at the forefoot.

Overall, the changes have improved the shoe’s running performance, though some may find the firmer feel of the Guide 16 makes it a more versatile daily trainer. The Guide 17 is more a cushioned cruiser, but I’d say the changes will appeal to fans of the Guide line, and might win over some new ones. Even as a neutral runner the support you get is appreciated at times, and the wider base means the Guide 17 feels as stable as the Guide 16.

Is The Saucony Guide 17 Worth It?

The Guide 17 is a good cushioned daily trainer for those who want extra support, and plays its part well as a more supportive counterpart to the Ride 17. The Ride 17 has a more responsive midsole, made entirely of PWRRUN+ foam, and is more versatile, but I found the Guide 17 had a smoother, more comfortable feel.

The shoe will work best in rotation with a faster option, such as the Saucony Tempus, which also has a stable design, though the Guide 17 also works as an all-rounder for newer runners who want a stable shoe. 

The Asics Gel-Kayano 30 is another option for those seeking a cushioned stability shoe and it has more foam underfoot for those seeking maximum comfort and protection on the run, but the Kayno is more expensive and less versatile than the Guide 17.

It took time for Hoka to launch a competitive modern racing shoe, but now it has two: the Cielo X1 and Rocket X 2. Both are among the best carbon plate running shoes, with the Cielo X1 offering more bounce and protection for longer events than the Rocket X2, which is lighter and nimbler.

The Cielo X1’s weight will put off some runners, but I was blown away with its performance. It’s springy, fun and fast, and doesn’t feel like a heavy shoe when running. It’s one of the best marathon running shoes too, competing with top options like the Nike Alphafly 3.

Hoka Cielo X1: Price And Availability

The Hoka Cielo X1 launched in February 2024 and costs $275 in the US and £250, making it Hoka’s most expensive carbon shoe, with the Rocket X 2 priced at $250/£220. The price is on par for top super-shoes though, and still shy of the $285/£285 the Alphafly 3 costs.

How I Tested This Running Shoe

I’ve run 37 miles in the Cielo X1, including a long track workout running 15 x 1km reps and a 24-mile long run as part of my marathon training. I have also tested the Hoka Rocket X 2, plus all the Carbon X line of shoes, and most of the best carbon plate running shoes.

Design And Fit

The Cielo X1 certainly looks the part of a super-shoe, with its decoupled midsole and aggressive rocker showing off the fact it’s built for speed. The midsole is made from two layers of a bouncy Peba-based foam, with a winged carbon plate sandwiched between them. The shoe has a drop of 7mm and stack height of 39mm at the heel and 32mm at the forefoot for the men’s shoe, and 37mm at the heel and 30mm at the forefoot in the women’s.

There are several cut-outs in the midsole to reduce weight, but the Cielo X1 is still heavy for a super-shoe, weighing 8.9oz/253g in my UK size 9. That’s around the same as the Puma Fast-R 2 Nitro Elite, but heavier than the other new super-shoes I’ve tested this year like the Nike Alphafly 3 and New Balance FuelCell SC Elite v4, while the Rocket X 2 is 7.9oz/225g.

The Cielo X1 has a knit upper with a partially gusseted tongue, and I found it fitted in my usual running shoe size, with a secure but comfortable hold around the heel and midfoot for fast running. This is despite the laces, which are made from a strange and stiff material that makes them hard to tie. The odd material made me concerned the laces would come undone during runs, but it hasn’t happened yet—after they were triple-knotted.

Aside from the cut-outs that show off the carbon plate, the bottom of the shoe is covered with a rubber outsole that has gripped well on my runs, including on a wet track and an all-weather path with muddy patches.

Running Performance

My first run in the Cielo X1 was the hardest workout of my London Marathon training block so far: three sets of 5 x 1km reps with a 100m jog recovery. The first set was done at 3min 30sec/km, my marathon pace, the second at 3min 20sec/km, and the third at 3min 10sec/km.

It was a great chance to judge the Cielo X1 at different speeds, and at marathon pace it felt amazing, with a bouncy ride that helped me cruise through the reps with a lower perceived effort than most shoes. That’s what I expected given the shoe’s marathon focus, but it also felt good for the faster reps, including the all-out reps in the final set of five. I thought the Cielo X1 would be cumbersome for those, but it felt nimbler on the foot than anticipated. It wouldn’t be my first pick for a 5K or 10K race—it’s not as agile and light as others—but it’s still fast over short distances thanks to its propulsive ride.

Where it really shone was on a progressive 24-mile training run, moving from easy pace to around 5min 45sec/mile for the final three miles. Even at easy paces the shoe felt comfortable and natural thanks to the rocker, and it only feels better as you speed up, with extra bounce and a faster transition onto your forefoot.

It also protects the legs well, and I felt reasonably fresh at the end of the 24-miler and bounced back to run the next day with minimal soreness. It’s better on this front than the Rocket X 2, which is still a great carbon shoe but less protective and bouncy by the end of long runs.

Is The Hoka Cielo X1 Worth It?

I didn’t expect to love the Cielo X1 as much as I did. I rate it as one of the best marathon running shoes, providing stiff competition to the Nike Alphafly 3, which I currently have as the best carbon racer overall. The Hoka is bouncy and protects the legs brilliantly while still providing a fast ride.

The weight does stick in the mind, though, and I don’t think it’s as well-rounded a racer as the Alphafly for shorter events. However, once you start running in the Cielo X1 it doesn’t feel heavy, and I wouldn’t be deterred from picking it for longer events.

I think it’s Hoka’s best carbon shoe yet, though those who prefer a lighter and more grounded shoe—and who mainly stick to shorter events—will probably prefer the Rocket X 2, which is cheaper and still a good long-distance option.

The Saucony Endorphin Speed was launched as a fast training shoe, but quickly became established as one of the best running shoes and one of the most versatile, thanks to its comfortable, speedy ride. Given its popularity, Saucony has mainly stuck to a similar design with subsequent editions of the shoe, and that is still true of the Endorphin Speed 4.

There are updates to the shoe, though, and these have made the ride better at fast paces and improved its grip and fit. Picking up the Endorphin Speed 3 in a sale is still a good option, but the Endorphin Speed 4 is now the shoe to beat for runners looking for a versatile daily trainer.

Saucony Endorphin Speed 4: Price And Availability

The Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 launched in February 2024 and costs $170 from Saucony US (men’s | women’s) and £180 in from Saucony UK. That’s the same price as the Endorphin Speed 3 in the US, but in the UK it’s a £15 price rise. It’s far from a cheap shoe but the price is in line with the best super-trainers from other brands.

How I Tested This Running Shoe

I’ve run just over 30 miles in the Endorphin Speed 4, using it for a mix of fast and slow training runs. I have reviewed all past editions of the shoe, racking up more than 300 miles in the original, as well as a range of the best running shoes from other brands.

Design And Fit

As with each of the three generations of the shoe, the Endorphin Speed 4 has a midsole made from Saucony’s Peba-based PWRRUN PB foam. This is not as soft and springy as some Peba-based foams used by other brands, but still delivers a responsive and comfortable ride, with a Speedroll rocker that helps move you onto your forefoot quickly.

The stack height of the shoe is the same as the Endorphin Speed 3: 36mm at the heel and 28mm at the forefoot for an 8mm drop. This is lower than the stack of the Saucony Endorphin Pro 4 carbon racer, and the Speed sometimes feels less comfortable under the forefoot than higher stack super-trainers and racing shoes.

There is a winged nylon plate running through the midsole to add propulsion without being as stiff and hard as a carbon plate. Saucony has also brought in a new sockliner with the Endorphin Speed 4, which is meant to be bouncier than the sockliners on previous versions of the shoe.

By my measurements, the Endorphin Speed 4 has a wider base than the Endorphin Speed 3 through the heel, midfoot and forefoot. Saucony has added some sculpting to the back of the midsole foam and overall the updates have made the new shoe heavier than the Speed 3. The Speed 4 weighs 9oz/255g in my UK size 9, whereas the Speed 3 is 8.5oz/240g.

One change Saucony made with the Speed 3 was a wider design and fit than the Speed 2. I found it a little too wide. The mesh upper on the Speed 4 has more of a locked-down fit and I haven’t had any heel-rubbing with the shoe, which I experienced with the Speed 3. I’d stick to your usual running shoe size with the Speed 4.

The outsole has been redesigned with a lattice pattern on the rubber that covers the forefoot and heel sections, and this has improved the grip of the shoe. I’ve run in torrential rain without slipping on paved surfaces in the Speed 4.

Running Performance

I’ve been a fan of the Endorphin Speed line since its launch and when the Speed 4 landed it slipped straight into my running shoe rotation as the perfect daily trainer for my marathon training. I’ve used it for several longish runs, including a steady hour running just over 10 miles, plus an easy recovery run done the day after a hard workout. It felt great for pretty much everything.

When running faster, the reshaped midsole felt snappier and quicker at moving you onto your toes than the Speed 3, but the Speed 4 remained comfortable and felt natural at slow paces too. The Speedroll rocker is the key feature of the shoe because the Speed 4 is not a particularly bouncy super-trainer. Its speed comes from the smooth, rockered ride, which helps you to keep turning your feet over quickly, with some pop added to your toe-off by the nylon plate.

As with the Speed 3, I got forefoot discomfort on longer fast runs in the Speed 4, which I didn’t get with the Endorphin Pro 4, which has more foam in the midsole. The Speed 4 is by no means uncomfortable, but it is lower-stacked than many super-trainers these days, especially under the forefoot. That gives the shoe a more grounded feel and helps with stability. The Speed 4 isn’t a stable shoe but it’s not as wobbly as 40mm-high carbon racers or training shoes with softer foams in the midsole.

Is The Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 Worth It?

The Endorphin Speed 4 is the best all-round running shoe, though only a small upgrade on the Endorphin Speed 3, so that remains a good option if you see it in sales. The only other shoes I’ve found that come close to the Speed’s versatility are the Adidas Adizero Boston 12—which is more speed-focused and let down by its uncomfortable upper—and the Asics Superblast, which is wildly expensive but lots of fun.

For daily training, the Puma Deviate NItro 2 is another great plated option. While it’s heavier and not quite as fast or comfortable as the Speed 4, it has a better outsole that grips well in wet conditions. 

For those looking for a cheaper alternative, or who don’t want to use a plate for daily training, the New Balance FuelCell Rebel v4 is an excellent, lightweight all-rounder. It doesn’t have the propulsive feel of the Speed 4 when doing long fast runs, but is more comfortable and stable for easy runs while still good for intervals as well.

Without too much fanfare, Reebok has been making some of the best-value running shoes of recent years with its Floatride Energy line. The latest generation of the shoe—the Floatride Energy 5—is versatile, durable and a lot cheaper than many rivals.

The Floatride Energy foam from that line is now being used in the Reebok FloatZig 1, a striking new running shoe that aims to marry the performance of the Floatride Energy shoes with the looks of the Reebok Zig. As a good-looking shoe that feels fine to run in, the FloatZig 1 can be considered a modest success, but there are many better daily trainers, and I still prefer the Floatride Energy 5, which is cheaper.

Reebok FloatZig 1: Price And Availability

The Reebok FloatZig 1 launched in March 2024 and costs $130 in the US and £120 in the UK. It’s inexpensive for a running shoe, though notably more expensive than the Reebok Floatride Energy 5, which is $110/£85 and one of the best-value running shoes available.

How I Tested This Running Shoe

I’ve run 30 miles in the FloatZig 1, using it for a variety of training runs. I have also tested the past three versions of the Floatride Energy line, along with a variety of the best running shoes from other brands.

Design And Fit

The zigzag design of the midsole is the most eye-catching feature on the FloatZig 1. The Zig shape isn’t just for looks, as the intention is to deliver more energy return from the Floatride Energy foam, which has proven a durable and responsive material in other Reebok shoes I’ve tested.

It’s 31mm tall at the heel and 25mm at the forefoot, for a 6mm drop, making the FloatZig 1 a fairly low-stacked shoe by current standards—which means its weight of 10.2oz/289g in a UK size 8.5 seemed surprisingly high, especially as the Floatride Energy 5 is 9oz/256g in the same size. 

The shoe has a full-length carbon rubber outsole with one large cut-out at the rear of the midfoot that is, unfortunately, the ideal size to catch and hold large stones. The rubber outsole gripped well during runs on slick paved surfaces and, like the midsole foam, it seems built to last.

The mesh upper has a reinforced section around the midfoot that uses stiff material. There is padding on the tongue and at the back of the collar of the shoe, but I found the collar was stiff and uncomfortable at times. I also had to heel-lock the shoe to stop my foot moving around in it. I was wearing a half size down on my usual UK size with the FloatZig 1 and it fitted well for length; it's a pretty roomy shoe, so going half a size down is my advice. 

The FloatZig 1’s design is a big part of its appeal. To me, it’s a great-looking and distinctive shoe that will be worn as much when not running. Unless you get yours covered in mud, like I did when I made a poor route choice on one of my early runs in the shoe.

Running Performance

The FloatZig 1 is a versatile daily trainer. It doesn’t excel at any one kind of run, but can be used for a variety of them successfully. It’s not the most cushioned shoe but isn’t uncomfortable for plodding around short runs at an easy pace. It’s not the lightest and liveliest either, but you can do faster runs in it.

However, it is a dull experience underfoot. The Floatride Energy foam is well balanced, in that it’s not too soft or too hard, and the FloatZig 1 is a stable shoe, but it doesn’t have much bounce. The Floatride Energy 5 relied on being lightweight to increase its versatility, especially for faster efforts, but the FloatZig 1 is, and feels, bigger and heavier on the foot.

It’s not a shoe I enjoyed running in at faster paces, and for long easy runs the FloatZig 1 isn’t as cushioned as I’d like—especially during high-mileage weeks of marathon training. Over shorter distances it’s more reliable and if you stick to runs of around 5-10K, at a mix of paces, the FloatZig 1 will do a good job, while also being a good-looking option to wear outside of running.

Is The Reebok FloatZig 1 Worth It?

The FloatZig 1 is only going to be worth it if you value its looks highly, because as a running shoe it’s just OK—and there are better options available for around its price or less. The Puma Velocity Nitro 3 is more comfortable, bouncy and a superior running shoe on every front, as is the New Balance Rebel v4, which is lighter and more fun to run in at any pace.

The FloatZig 1 is a serviceable running shoe with a great design, and I think it will last a long time as well, but I hope Reebok continues with its traditional Floatride Energy line of shoes alongside the FloatZig. I rate the Floatride Energy 5 as a better all-round shoe than the FloatZig 1, and it’s now available for half the price of the FloatZig in sales.

The Saucony Endorphin Pro 3 was one of the best carbon plate running shoes, but after Saucony followed it with the Endorphin Elite—a more aggressive and expensive racing shoe—it’s easy to now see the Pro as a second-tier racing option. I think this would be a mistake. 

The Saucony Endorphin Pro 4 is an excellent racing shoe and while its ride is not as bouncy as some shoes, it’s still quick—and I think it will work well for a wider range of runners than many other super-shoes, including the Saucony Endorphin Elite.

Saucony Endorphin Pro 4: Price And Availability

The Saucony Endorphin Pro 4 launched in February 2024 and costs $225 from Saucony US and £230 from Saucony UK. That’s the same price in the US as the Endorphin Pro 3, but a £20 rise in the UK. Even with that rise, the Endorphin Pro 4 is cheaper than most carbon plate running shoes including the Endorphin Elite, which costs $275/£280.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run 32 miles in the Endorphin Pro 4, most of which were done in two long workouts during marathon training. I have also tested every generation of the shoe to date, along with the Saucony Endorphin Elite and most of the best carbon plate running shoes from other brands.

Design And Fit

The main update to the Endorphin Pro 4 is its new dual-density midsole, which combines the two foams found in the Endorphin Pro 3 and Endorphin Elite. The top layer of the Pro 4’s midsole is made from the firmer, bouncier PWRRUN HG foam from the Elite, while the bottom layer is PWRRUN PB. A full-length carbon plate runs through the midsole.

The shoe still has the same stack height as the Pro 3 (39.5mm at the heel, 31.5mm at the forefoot, for an 8mm drop) but Saucony seems to have widened the base of the shoe at the heel. It is a little heavier, at 8.2oz/233g for a UK size 9, compared with 7.65oz/217g for the Pro 3.

There is a new sockliner in the shoe, which is designed to add more bounce to the ride. The Endorphin Pro 4 still uses Saucony’s Speedroll rocker geometry, which is designed to speed the transition onto your forefoot. The outsole has been changed to have a lattice pattern, with rubber covering the forefoot and sections of the heel, and a large cut-out in the center of the shoe that helps to reduce weight. The shoe gripped well for me during fast runs on wet roads.

Saucony has updated the upper on the shoe, which is a lightweight mesh material with minimal padding around the heel. It’s comfortable and holds the foot securely for fast running without creating irritation. I found the shoe fitted well in my usual running shoe size, the same one I’ve used for all past versions of the Endorphin Pro.

Running Performance

Given its relatively low price, and the fact that the Elite is above it within Saucony’s range of racing shoes, the Endorphin Pro line has lost a little of its luster as a top carbon racing option. The Pro 4 actually feels quite natural on the foot and isn’t as bouncy as many carbon shoes, which would seem to cement the idea that it’s not a rival for the best shoes.

However, the shoe’s performance during testing quickly dispelled the idea that it’s not a carbon contender. The ride may not be as springy as shoes like the Nike Alphafly 3 or New Balance FuelCell SC Elite v4, but it’s smooth and efficient thanks to the Speedroll rocker. The addition of PWRRUN HG foam into the midsole makes the Pro 4 more responsive than its predecessor.

I loved the Endorphin Pro 3 but, over extended testing, I found that the forefoot lost some of its bounce during longer runs. That isn’t the case with the firmer PWRRUN HG foam in the Pro 4. Crucially, moreover, the new midsole doesn’t make the ride as harsh as that of the Endorphin Elite, which I found fast but also too firm for my taste because I experienced forefoot discomfort on any hard run in the shoe over 10K.

I’ve done two hard workouts in the Endorphin Pro 4. The first was a session with 20 x 60sec on/60sec float (still running hard, but not as hard) followed by four miles at 5min 40sec/mile pace. The second was longer still, doing 10K at 5min 38sec/mile pace, then a parkrun, then another five miles at 5min 38sec/mile pace. 

In both workouts the shoe was comfortable and quick. In the first I was falling apart halfway through the four-mile tempo section, but the fluid ride helped me to get back into a groove and finish strong. I ran a 16min 44sec parkrun in the middle of the second workout, and rolled through the other sections—which were at my goal marathon pace—feeling reasonably controlled.

The shoe performs like a top carbon shoe at a significantly lower cost, and will suit a lot of runners who don’t like the bouncier, more unstable rides of other options. It may not be the carbon racer that feels the most like a super-shoe, but the Endorphin Pro 4 delivers when it matters. It’s also a more versatile and comfortable carbon shoe than others in that it feels good at slow paces as well and can be used for a range of training.

Is The Saucony Endorphin Pro 4 Worth It?

I think the Endorphin Pro 4 is a great racing option that will suit a variety of runners, and it may well work better for those racing at slower paces than other super-shoes, which are more aggressive and unstable. I prefer it to the Endorphin Elite, which might have more raw pace but its aggressive rocker doesn’t suit my gait. I found it uncomfortable over long distances. I also think the Endorphin Pro 4 is an upgrade on the Pro 3, though the latter is still a good racing shoe with similar characteristics, and it’s well worth looking out for in sales.

When picking my top racing shoe for my upcoming PR attempt at the London Marathon, I’ll still opt for the Nike Alphafly 3 or Nike Vaporfly 3 because they’re lighter. I find them quicker and, in the case of the Alphafly 3, bouncier. There are other carbon shoes I consider bouncier and more propulsive than the Endorphin Pro 4 too—but I think it’s as good as most. And just because it’s cheaper than most super-shoes absolutely doesn’t indicate that it’s inferior to them—the appealing price is a genuine bonus.

The Asics Metaspeed Sky Paris and Metaspeed Edge Paris will be available to buy from Monday March 4, with both shoes priced at $250/£220, which is the same price as the Asics Metaspeed Sky+ and Metaspeed Edge+ in the US and an unexpected £5 drop in the UK.

It’s been almost two years since Asics launched the previous versions of the Metaspeed Sky and Edge, and though both are still competitive with the best carbon plate running shoes, the changes made to Metaspeed Paris shoes will hopefully help them challenge for the top spots.

The main update to both shoes is a new foam in the midsole, which is now made from Asics’s FF Blast Turbo Plus foam, a lighter and bouncier material than the FF Blast Turbo used in the Sky+ and Edge+ shoes.

Asics has also made the new shoes lighter by around 0.8oz/22g, which should make them the lightest carbon plate running shoes on the market, aside from the barely-available Adidas Adizero Pro Evo 1. Along with the new midsole foam, a lighter and more breathable Motion Wrap 2.0 contributes to the drop in weight. Asics has also adjusted the carbon plates in the shoes in a bid to improve performance.

As with previous generations of Metaspeed shoes, the differences between the Metaspeed Sky Paris and Metaspeed Edge Paris relate to the type of runner they are aimed at. The Sky shoes are designed for bounding runners who mostly speed up in races by lengthening their stride, while the Edge shoes are for those who mainly increase their cadence in races. 

The geometry of the shoes are tailored to each running style. The carbon plates are positioned differently within the midsole foams, though the drop of both the Sky Paris and Edge Paris is now the same at 5mm, whereas in the past the Sky shoes had a lower drop.

I am definitely a cadence runner, but have always enjoyed using the Metaspeed Sky more than the Edge, and I set both my 10K and half marathon PRs in the Sky shoes, so I wouldn’t say the stride and cadence labels should completely determine your choice. However it’s certainly an interesting idea and some other brands now have two carbon shoes that seemed tailored to different running gaits.

The Asics Metaspeed Paris shoes are cheaper than many other carbon options, and if they can improve upon the performance of the excellent Metaspeed Sky+ and Edge+ they will be an exciting new option for runners seeking PRs to consider.

Find out more about each shoe on the Asics UK website.

In a world where many of the best running shoes are getting more complicated and expensive, the New Balance FuelCell Rebel v4 is a breath of fresh air. It has a simple design and a reasonable price, and delivers a versatile and enjoyable ride for a range of training runs.

It’s the perfect option for runners seeking an all-rounder that eschews the trends of a high midsole stack and a plate. Those features have their place in shoes, and the best all-rounder on the market is the Saucony Endorphin Speed 3, which has both—though if you prefer a simpler and cheaper shoe for daily training, the Rebel v4 can do it all.

New Balance FuelCell Rebel v4: Price And Availability

The New Balance FuelCell Rebel v4 launched in the US in January 2024, with the global launch on February 29. It costs $140 in the US and £140 in the UK, which is a rise of $10/£10 on the price of the New Balance FuelCell Rebel v3.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run 35 miles in the Rebel v4, using the shoe for a mix of daily training, including a track session, two easy runs and a 15-mile long run moving from easy to marathon pace. I have also tested every past generation of the Rebel, and most of New Balance’s other FuelCell shoes like the SC Elite v4 and SC Trainer v2.

Design And Fit

The Rebel has always been a lightweight shoe with a fairly low stack height, and that remains the case with the Rebel v4, though the stack has risen slightly. There’s also a new version of New Balance’s FuelCell foam in the midsole. This is now made from a blend of EVA foam and a Peba-based material, and while it’s not the full Peba midsole you get on the New Balance SC Elite v4, it’s a softer, bouncier material than the FuelCell used in past Rebels.

It’s also lighter, which means that although the shoe’s stack height has risen to 30mm at the heel and 24mm at the forefoot, the Rebel v4 is still only 7.7oz/219g in my UK size 9.5. That makes it one of the lightest shoes of the 50-plus pairs I’ve tested in the past year, and it’s actually around 1oz lighter than the New Balance SC Elite v4 racing shoe—though the Elite has a stack height of 40mm at the heel.

The Rebel v4 is also wider than its predecessor, which helps make it more stable, but sticks to the same 6mm drop. This is the biggest update to the Rebel since its launch, but the new shoe retains the lightweight, fun feel of the line.

I’ve run in a UK 9 when testing previous versions of the Rebel, but opted for a 9½ in the Rebel v4 because the Rebel v3 was tight around my toes. The new shoe has a wider fit around the front of the midfoot that was actually a little loose for me because I have a narrow foot, but overall the fit was good when I went half a size up. That’s in my UK size though, and if you are using US sizing you may be best sticking with your usual size because of the way New Balance converts US to UK sizes.

There is minimal padding on the tongue and collar of the shoe, which has a lightweight mesh upper. The lack of padding means the hold around the back of the shoe is quite loose, but I didn’t experience any rubbing, and the shoe didn’t irritate my achilles tendon, which I sometimes have trouble with in highly padded shoes.

The Rebel v4 doesn’t have a full rubber outsole and there’s a lot of exposed foam in the middle of the shoe but there is good coverage of the forefoot, plus two large rubber sections at the heel, so the main impact areas are covered. The shoe gripped well for me on my runs, even in wet conditions.

Running Performance

I loved the Rebel v3 as a lightweight daily trainer that could handle any kind of run—up to a certain distance. It felt nimble and speedy, but lacked the cushioning and stability I’d want for running more than 10-12 miles regularly.

The Rebel v4 has a different feel underfoot, but matches the performance of the Rebel v3 for short stuff, while adding comfort and stability for long runs. Some runners may want more foam underfoot for long runs, but during a 60-mile week of marathon training the Rebel v4 felt comfortable to me every time I used it. This included my 15-mile Sunday long run and a 40-minute recovery run the day after a track session.

It’s not as nimble a shoe as its predecessor, in that you notice the extra ground contact of the wider design. You can feel the support on either side of your foot, which is great for easy runs, and it doesn’t diminish the shoe’s performance for fast stuff. I did a track session running one mile and 400m reps in the Rebel v4 and it was sprightly enough that I didn’t miss the extra bounce of propulsion of a plated trainer like the Endorphin Speed 3.

You will get more pop from one of the best super-trainers with a plate, or one with a full Peba-based midsole and a higher stack, but the Rebel v4 felt great underfoot and the shorter stack and simple design were appealing. I’ve had no trouble doing a lot of training in plated shoes, but many runners now prefer to reserve plated shoes for race day and key speed sessions, with the Rebel v4 having a more natural feel.

Is The New Balance FuelCell Rebel v4 Worth It?

The Rebel v4 is an excellent shoe and the best daily trainer available without a plate. I even prefer it to the Asics Superblast, which is an outstanding shoe with more bounce than the Rebel, but it’s more expensive and has a high midsole stack, which makes it more unwieldy unless you’re on flat, straight roads.

I’d say $140/£140 is pretty good value too, given that the super-trainers you’d use for the same kind of runs can now cost more than $200/£200. If you’re happy to spend that money and use a plated shoe, the Saucony Endorphin Speed 3 or Adidas Boston 12 (which has rods, rather than a plate) are excellent all-rounders that are better than the Rebel v4 for longer hard runs in particular. I found New Balance’s own super-trainer, the SC Trainer v2, cumbersome and I prefer the Rebel v4 as an all-rounder.

Other impressive plateless all-rounders include the Puma Velocity Nitro 3 and Asics Novablast 4, which are more cushioned and comfortable for easy runs but lack the lightness and pop of the Rebel v4 for faster stuff. The Hoka Mach 5 is another great shoe without a plate and a smoother, more rockered ride than the Rebel v4, but the Rebel v4 is springier.

The Under Armour Infinite Elite is a cushioned shoe with a durable design that will handle many hundreds of miles of easy running. It’s not as versatile or as lively as the best cushioned running shoes, but if you want a cruiser to protect your legs during high-mileage weeks it will get the job done. 

However, there are more impressive options to be the cushioned shoe in your running shoe rotation, such as the Saucony Triumph 21, Brooks Ghost Max or Puma Magnify Nitro 2. That’s particularly true if you’re looking for a cushioned daily trainer that can handle a variety of runs because the Infinite Elite is excessively heavy for anything beyond easy pace.

Under Armour Infinite Elite: Price And Availability

The Under Armour Infinite Elite launched in January 2024 and costs $160 in the US and £145 in the UK. That’s about on par for a top cushioned shoe in the US, and cheaper than most such shoes in the UK. Under Armour released the cheaper Infinite Pro cushioned shoe at the same time, which is $130/£120 and contains less of the brand’s top HOVR+ foam in its midsole.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run 32 miles in the Infinite Elite, using it almost entirely for easy runs, including one long run of 12.5 miles. I did some faster running as part of that long run, just to see how the shoe felt at higher speeds, though it is designed primarily for slow runs. I’ve also tested a range of the best running shoes from other brands.

Design And Fit

The Infinite Elite is built for comfort and the main way it delivers that is through the stack of foam in its midsole. The shoe has a stack height of 36mm at the heel and 28mm at the forefoot for an 8mm drop, and the HOVR+ material used is a beaded TPU foam that reminded me of the feel of the Adidas Ultraboost.

Along with having a high stack, the Infinite Elite has a wide base to help with stability. This makes it a pretty large and heavy shoe, though. My UK size 9 weighs 12oz/339g, which is heavier than most of the best cushioned running shoes, even those that hit 40mm in stack height.

A plastic clip runs around the back of the shoe, which also has an internal heel counter to create more stability. Although it’s a neutral shoe, the Infinite Elite is a stable option that provides a lot of support on either side of your foot. The Intelliknit upper is comfortable and has a lot of padding around the tongue and collar. I found that the shoe fitted well in my usual running shoe size, with the roomy toe box and stretchy upper material making it comfortable to use for easy running.

The shoe has a thick rubber outsole that covers most of the bottom of the shoe, with the foam left exposed in a channel down the center that shouldn’t hit the ground much. In my experience, beaded TPU foams are durable in running shoes and the outsole also looks sturdy. I’d expect the Infinite Elite to be a long-lasting shoe.

Running Performance

I did all my running in the Infinite Elite as part of a 100km week, using it for most of my easy mileage during that time. In my opinion this is how the shoe should be used—as a workhorse that's great for easy miles and protects your legs, while you then use something lighter and faster for workouts.

In this role the Infinite Elite performed well. It was a little firm on my first couple of runs in it, but the midsole softened after as it broke in. The foam isn’t squishy and provides a comfortable but stable platform for easy runs, with some bounce to help you keep ticking over.

At anything faster than my easy pace, the size and weight of the shoe came into play. It’s not designed for fast running and doesn’t perform well for it. Normally, a shoe with Elite in the name would suggest a speedy racing shoe, but to my mind, here it refers to the fact elite runners rack up many miles and need a cushioned shoe for those runs.

The ride wasn’t especially lively over long runs, and there are more rockered cushioned shoes like the Brooks Ghost Max and Asics Gel-Nimbus 26 that have a smoother feel, while others like the Puma Magnify Nitro 2 have bouncier foams in the midsole.

Is The Under Armour Infinite Elite Worth It?

The Infinite Elite is a good cushioned shoe that fits into a rotation as a durable, stable and protective shoe for high-mileage runners doing a lot of easy runs each week. It would also work as a running shoe for heavier people perhaps doing running to support other sports, or logging a few miles on the treadmill before hitting the weights during workouts.

It doesn’t feel as good underfoot as the best cushioned shoes, and I prefer the ride of the Brooks Ghost Max and Puma Magnify Nitro 2 for easy runs. Both are also lighter while having as much (or more) cushioning underfoot.

If you’re a one-shoe runner looking for a cushioned all-rounder, the Infinite Elite isn’t your best bet. I’d look at the Saucony Triumph 21 or Saucony Ride 17, or the Ghost Max and Magnify Nitro 2, as cushioned options that feel better than the Infinite Elite at faster paces.

Inov-8 has a well-earned reputation for making some of the best trail-running shoes for soft ground. The impressive grip you get from its X-Talon and Mudclaw shoes makes them ideal for fell running, cross-country (XC) and mud runs.

So to say the Inov-8 Mudtalon Speed is the best soft ground shoe I’ve tried from the brand is high praise. It’s not a particularly versatile shoe—it isn’t designed to be—but for muddy conditions it’s the best trail-running shoe available.

Inov-8 Mudtalon Speed: Price And Availability

The Inov-8 Mudtalon Speed launched in January 2024 and costs $140 in the US and £130 in the UK. It’s not expensive for a trail-running shoe, although you can get cheaper mud-running shoes from Inov-8, such as the X-Talon 212.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run 30 miles in the Mudtalon Speed, using it mostly for training runs in my local forest, which isn’t short of muddy areas to test out the shoe’s grip. I also used the Mudtalon Speed for a five-mile XC race on a hilly course that offered a mix of mud and frozen ground.

Design And Fit

The Mudtalon Speed combines some of the features of Inov-8’s Mudclaw and X-Talon shoes. You’re getting best-in-class grip for the mud and the lightweight feel of the X-Talon shoes, plus some of the comfort and protection of the Mudclaw.

This is no featherweight shoe, but the Mudtalon Speed—weighing just 9oz/257g in my UK size 9—is remarkable given the 8mm lugs on the outsole. These are made from Inov-8’s STICKYGRIP rubber and shaped to provide reliable grip when running fast up and down hills on grass and mud, and to shed any mud the shoe picks up quickly so you’re not carrying extra weight. The rubber provides traction on harder surfaces as well, including wet rocks, and though the Mudtalon Speed was more at home on soft ground I found it comfortable for short stints on harder trails. 

There is a flexible rock plate in the shoe to protect your foot when running on jagged rocks, and while it’s far from a cushioned shoe, the midsole is 11mm thick at the heel and 7mm at the forefoot, which is taller than past Inov-8 X-Talon shoes I’ve tested. The stack is 26mm at the heel and 22mm at the forefoot for a 4mm drop. The midsole is made from Inov-8’s POWERFLOW PRO foam and the shoe has a 6mm thick sockliner made from a beaded TPU foam, which provides more comfort and bounce than you may expect from what is still a low-stack shoe.

Inov-8’s mud-running shoes have often had quite a narrow fit in the past, which has suited me, but the Mudtalon Speed has a foot-shaped toe box and comes in two fit options: Precision and Wide. These refer to the width of the toe box, with Precision being narrower. 

I opted for a Precision fit and it was great in my usual running shoe size. I also found the Mudtalon Speed more open at the collar than the X-Talon shoes I’ve tried, which made it easier to get on and off. The shoe has a ripstop upper designed for durability and fast drainage, with added protection around the toes for when you inadvertently bump into rocks and other debris.

Running Performance

I’ve been a fan of the Inov-8 X-Talon shoes for some time and have used the X-Talon 210 for many XC races to great effect over the past few seasons, as well as other muddy runs. I didn’t use the Mudclaw so much because I found it heavy for my taste, but the idea of the Mudtalon Speed combining some of the comfort and protection of that shoe with the speed of the X-Talon appealed to me, and the shoe hasn’t disappointed.

It still gives you flexibility and feel for the trails, but the Mudtalon Speed is more comfortable than the X-Talon, which makes it better for longer races or events with a mix of terrain where you have to spend some time on hard surfaces, as well as for easy training runs. I’ve done several of those easy runs in the Mudtalon Speed, having rarely used the X-Talon 210 for them because it doesn’t offer much cushioning.

The Mudtalon Speed is also still lightweight and nimble enough for racing. I used it for a five-mile XC race where it was great for speeding down frozen hills and chugging up muddy climbs, and where the reliable grip was invaluable in making the ascents less taxing. I found the lugs shed mud pretty well, which isn’t always the case with heavy clay soil. The upper drains well too, so you’re not adding water weight over the course of a run in wet conditions.

Is The Inov-8 Mudtalon Speed Worth It?

Some may want even more cushioning for soft ground runs, but I think the balance of comfort, speed and grip is pretty much spot on with the Mudtalon Speed. I rate it as the best trail-running shoe for the mud, especially when you’re aiming to move fast. However, if you’re doing long runs on soft ground there’s a case for looking at a more cushioned shoe.

The Mudtalon Speed is a shoe that serves a specific purpose though, and if you want a more versatile option there are shoes like the Saucony Peregrine 13 or Inov-8 Trailfly G 270 V2 that handle mud well while being more comfortable on firmer trails.

Another great option in the category of soft ground speedsters is the Adidas Terrex Agravic Speed SG, which is lighter than the Inov-8, though I’ve found the grip of the Mudtalon Speed to be superior on both hard and soft surfaces.

The On Cloudmonster 2 is quite different from most cushioned shoes. It has a firmer, stiffer ride than most of the best cushioned running shoes, and traditional geometry that snaps you onto the forefoot of the shoe rather than a smooth rocker.

As a result, it will suit some runners who are not widely catered to in the cushioned shoe market, but I don’t think the On Cloudmonster 2 will be the best pick for most, and I still prefer the original shoe. I found the 2 a little too heavy and hard to really enjoy on easy runs, and prefer the rockered ride of shoes like the On Cloudeclipse or Brooks Ghost Max, or the springier, more versatile ride of the Puma Magnify Nitro 2 or Saucony Triumph 21.

On Cloudmonster 2: Price And Availability

The On Cloudmonster 2 launched on February 15, 2024 and costs $180 in the US and £170 in the UK. That’s a $10/£20 price rise on the original Cloudmonster, and although cushioned shoes are getting more expensive in general, the Cloudmonster 2 still sits at the top end of the price range.

How I Tested This Shoe

I have run 30 miles in the On Cloudmonster 2, mostly using it for easy and recovery runs during my marathon training. I have also tested the original On Cloudmonster, and a range of the best On running shoes, including the On Cloudsurfer and On Cloudeclipse cushioned shoes.

Design And Fit

The On Cloudmonster 2 sticks to a similar set-up to the original shoe, but increases the cushioning in the midsole. This cushioning is still a combination of the brand’s Helion foam on top of On’s signature CloudTec pods, and has a nylon Speedboard running through it to add some stiffness to the ride and make the transition through your foot-strike more efficient.

With a stack height of 35mm at the heel and 29mm at the forefoot the Cloudmonster 2 stands 6mm taller than the original, though it’s still not as high as many cushioned shoes. It still has a drop of 6mm, but the extra cushioning on the shoe has increased its weight. The Cloudmonster 2 weighs 10.7oz/302g in my UK size 9, while the original was 10oz/284g in the same size. 

The Cloudmonster 2 has a breathable mesh with a little padding around the collar of the shoe. Although it has less padding than other max-cushioned shoes, I found the upper very comfortable and the Cloudmonster 2 fit well in my normal running shoe size.

On has removed the deep cut-out on the bottom of the shoe that on the original Cloudmonster had a habit of catching stones, but the 2 still has the podded design on the bottom rather than a full-contact outsole. There is rubber covering the heel and forefoot pods and the shoe gripped well for me in wet conditions.

Running Performance

The original Cloudmonster was a shoe that grew on me. While it wasn’t especially soft, it did make up for that by being light and versatile for a cushioned shoe, and it was still comfortable for long runs. 

The Cloudmonster 2 trades in that versatility for the extra cushioning underfoot, but it is still not a particularly soft or bouncy shoe, and it’s heavier. I found that it was a bit too heavy for me even on relaxed recovery runs, and without a rocker or a particularly springy foam, it wasn’t as easy or enjoyable to tick along in the Cloudmonster 2 as in other shoes.

It is naturally quite stable, though, and the ride isn’t uncomfortable. The Cloudmonster 2 does a good job of protecting the legs at easy paces and some will find the natural, firm ride a welcome difference to softer or highly rockered cushioned shoes.

I think you could get all the same things from the original Cloudmonster, though, and it felt a bit more fluid and easy to run in at a variety of paces. I also prefer On’s other cushioned shoes—the Cloudsurfer is softer and smoother, and the Cloudeclipse more rockered and versatile.

Is The On Cloudmonster 2 Worth It?

Given the price rise and the changes to the shoe that have made it heavier, I don’t think the On Cloudmonster 2 is one of the best cushioned running shoes available. It’s a good-looking shoe you can wear when not running, and some will like its firmer ride, but there are better alternatives available.

Those include the original Cloudmonster, which shares a similar design but is lighter and more fun to run in, and On’s other cushioned options, the Cloudsurfer and Cloudeclipse. I also prefer several other cushioned shoes for both comfort and versatility, including the Puma Magnify Nitro 2, Brooks Ghost Max and Saucony’s Triumph 21 and Ride 17.

The Adidas Adizero Takumi Sen 10 isn’t a typical modern racing shoe. Instead of having a stack height that hits the 40mm limit set by World Athletics and a full carbon plate, it’s a nimble shoe with a relatively low stack and uses glass fiber rods rather than a carbon plate to provide added pop on the run.

As a result, the Takumi Sen 10 can’t match the propulsive feeling of the best carbon plate running shoes. I wouldn’t fancy using it for a marathon, but its lightweight and agile design makes the shoe a fantastic racing option for shorter events, especially on twisty courses.

Adidas Adizero Takumi Sen 10: Price And Availability

The Adidas Takumi Sen 10 launched in January 2024 and costs $180 in the US and £170 in the UK. That’s the same price as the previous two generations of the shoe and cheaper than top super-shoes like the Nike Vaporfly, which usually costs more than $200/£200. I got my sample for this review from SportsShoes.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run 30 miles in the Takumi Sen 10, using it for three training runs, including two hard workouts and a five-mile race where I set my PR of 26min 6sec. I used the Takumi Sen 8 extensively, running more than 120 miles in the shoe including racing at 5K, 10K and half marathon distances, and have also tested most of the best carbon plate running shoes and Adidas shoes including the Adidas Adizero Adios Pro 3 and Prime X 2 Strung.

Design And Fit

Adidas didn’t alter much about the Takumi Sen between the eighth and ninth generations of the shoe and, while the midsole set-up has been changed with the Takumi Sen 10, it still has a similar look and feel to its immediate predecessors.

The stack height is still 33mm at the heel and 27mm at the forefoot for a 6mm drop, which is notably lower than most current super-shoes, which hit 40mm at the heel as standard. The Takumi Sen 10 also has a narrow design and feels more like a souped-up racing flat than a trimmed-down super-shoe.

There are two layers of Adidas’s Lightstrike Pro foam in the midsole that surround glass fiber rods. The EnergyRods 2.0 system in the Takumi Sen 10 extends the rods to the back of the shoe in one continuous piece, whereas the Takumi Sen 8 and 9 had rods under the forefoot and a small carbon plate under the heel. 

This design means the Takumi Sen 10 weighs more than the previous two versions of the shoe. The 10 weighs 7.3oz/206g in my UK size 9, whereas the Takumi Sen 8 weighed 6.8oz/184g. The Takumi Sen 10 is still light compared with most super-shoes, although the Nike Vaporfly 3 is the same weight despite its 40mm stack.

The Takumi Sen 10 has a lightweight mesh upper with minimal padding on the tongue and collar of the shoe. The tongue annoyed me because it was hard to get it into the right position when lacing the shoe, though it didn’t affect my running experience. I found the shoe fitted well in my usual running shoe size, but it does have a racing-focused fit, in that it’s narrow and tight around the toes. This works well for me because I have a narrow foot, but if you have a wide foot it may be cramped in the toe box.

There are cut-outs in the midsole foam to reduce the shoe’s weight, but the Takumi Sen 10 retains good outsole coverage. The Continental rubber used is durable and delivers great traction on wet roads. It also gripped well on a greasy track during my testing.

Running Performance

I loved the Takumi Sen 8 and used it for a lot of training and races, even though higher-stack carbon shoes delivered more propulsion. This was because, at times, the trade-off of that bouncier midsole for the agile, light design of the Takumi Sen 8 was worth it—especially when doing short reps in training or racing on courses with lots of twists and turns.

The same is true of the Takumi Sen 10, which still doesn’t match the spring of a full super-shoe like the Vaporfly, but is still fast, and is ideal for certain conditions. It’s just a lot of fun to run fast in such a light and narrow shoe, and a welcome change from the bigger feel of most modern racers. The changes in the midsole have made the Takumi Sen 10 firmer than the Sen 8, and I think you get a little more spring from the new EnergyRods 2.0, but I found the overall feel of the two shoes was similar.

I used the Takumi Sen 10 for a five-mile race in Victoria Park, London, on a mostly flat and fast course and it didn’t disappoint. I ran a PR for the distance of 26min 6sec and the shoe felt great, with the lightweight design helping me to turn my feet over and keep the pace up as I tired late in the race.

On that kind of course, however, with mostly sweeping turns and lots of flat straights, I’d still probably lean towards using a higher-stack shoe for the extra bounce. There are lots of courses where the Takumi Sen 10 has the edge, though, and for training runs I found it helpful to have a lighter shoe that took turns easily.

I did a progression 10K run in the shoe, moving from 3min 45sec/km pace to 3min 13sec/km pace on the streets around me. There were many moments during the run where I felt the benefit of the more agile design, such as when running on cambered paved surfaces, dodging other people and slipping through barriers.

The Takumi Sen 10 also felt brilliant when doing shorter reps at the track. I used it for a set of 10 400m reps straight after using the Puma Fast-R 2 for 10 1K reps, which showcased the different benefits of the shoes. The Fast-R 2 is considerably heavier but packed more of a punch and was great for helping me to cruise through the longer reps at speed, while the Takumi had the raw pace and lighter feel for the shorter reps.

Is The Adidas Adizero Takumi Sen 10 Worth It?

The Takumi Sen 10 is a brilliant shoe, and one I love, but it’s still a tough one to recommend because it doesn’t fit that well into a traditional running shoe rotation. For that I’d have a cushioned shoe, a versatile daily trainer that can handle some speed, and then one of the best carbon plate running shoes for races. 

The Takumi doesn’t fit any of those categories perfectly, unless you only do short races. However, it would be the fourth shoe I’d add to my rotation because it’s such a fantastic and fun option for fast training sessions and certain races. I found it a practical shoe for speed sessions on the roads near me, where it’s not easy to find flawless, flat asphalt with few obstructions.

At its full price it’s hard to say it’s worth picking up the Takumi Sen 10 for this purpose, when the Nike Vaporfly 3 is just as light and even better for most short races, then more propulsive for longer ones. However, the Takumi Sen line is often reduced, and I’d not hesitate to recommend the shoe if it drops nearer $120/£100, which has happened on many occasions with the Takumi Sen 8 and 9. 

You could also look to grab one of the older Takumi Sen models in the sale now the 10 has been launched because I found the new shoe similar to the Takumi Sen 8, despite the updated midsole.

One of the best carbon plate running shoes is about to get an update, with the Saucony Endorphin Pro 4 due to launch in the US on February 29, while those in the UK can already order the shoe on Saucony’s UK website.

Saucony opted not to update a successor to the Endorphin Pro 3 in 2023, instead launching a new carbon shoe called the Saucony Endorphin Elite, which now sits above the Endorphin Pro in the brand’s range.

While I found the Endorphin Elite a great racing shoe for shorter distances (and picked it as the best racer in my selection of the best Saucony running shoes), the new PWRRUN HG foam used in the midsole gives it a harsher and more aggressive ride than the Pro 3. As a result the Saucony Endorphin Pro 3 remained a popular pick as a cheaper shoe with a more natural and accommodating ride that many runners preferred, especially for longer events like marathons.

Saucony has also launched the Endorphin Speed 4 training partner shoe, which costs $170/£180 and is the successor to the excellent Saucony Endorphin Speed 3, which I rate as the best all-round shoe I’ve tested.

Hoka was one of the first brands to release a carbon plate racing shoe, with the original Carbon X coming out not long after the original Nike Vaporfly debuted at the 2016 Olympics in Rio. However, the three Carbon X models to date, along with the first Rocket X, didn’t make it into my selection of the best carbon plate running shoes, lacking the bounce and propulsion of the top racers.

Last year the Hoka Rocket X 2 came out and, for me, was the brand’s first proper super-shoe, with a lightweight and bouncy Peba-based midsole foam. Today sees the launch of the Hoka Cielo X1, which has a bolder, more innovative design than the Rocket X 2, and could well be Hoka’s best racing shoe yet.

The Cielo X1 has a 39mm stack height and a 7mm drop. Its midsole is made from two layers of Peba-based foams that sandwich a winged carbon plate. The shoe is bigger and heavier than the Rocket X 2, but designed to deliver a more propulsive ride to offset that weight gain.

There are cutouts in the midsole that reduce the weight of the shoe, which has a lightweight knit upper and minimal rubber on the outsole. The shoe has a pronounced rocker design, which is another key difference with the Hoka Rocket X 2.

In many ways, the Hoka Cielo X1 looks to be the Nike Alphafly 3 equivalent in the Hoka range, while the Rocket X 2 is more akin to the Nike Vaporfly 3. The Cielo X1 is the bouncier, more propulsive shoe and might be better suited to the marathon, while the Rocket X 2 is lighter and more agile, giving it an edge in shorter events. I’m speculating for now because I’ve yet to run in the Cielo X1, though my review sample is arriving soon.

The Hoka Cielo X1 is Hoka’s most expensive carbon shoe to date, costing $275 in the US and £250 in the UK, which is $25/£30 more than the Rocket X 2. It will be exciting to test the shoe and see if it can live up to a price that makes it one of the more expensive carbon shoes—though it’s still cheaper than the Nike Alphafly 3.

The original Puma Fast-R Nitro Elite turned heads with its eccentric design, which featured a decoupled midsole with separate chunks of foam under the heel and forefoot.

Puma has kept the decoupled design, but made other notable changes such as increasing the stack height and using a new midsole foam. The Puma Fast-R 2 is a bouncy and impressively propulsive racer, especially for the marathon, and stands up well against the best carbon plate running shoes—even if there are some I prefer like the Nike Vaporfly 3 and Nike Alphafly 3.

Puma Fast-R 2 Nitro Elite: Price And Availability

The Puma Fast-R 2 was announced in November 2023 and there was a limited release of the Ekiden colorway I tested in December, with the full launch on February 22, 2024. It costs $260 in the US and £230 in the UK, which is a $10/£10 rise on the price of the original Fast-R. 

How I Tested This Shoe

I've run 30 miles in the Puma Fast-R 2, completing two hard training sessions as well as an all-out parkrun and an easier training run. I’ve also tested Puma’s other carbon plate racers, including both generations of the Deviate Nitro Elite and the Fast-FWD, as well as the original Fast-R.

Design And Fit

The Puma Fast-R 2 has all the usual ingredients of a modern racing shoe, with a high stack of bouncy lightweight foam and a carbon plate running through the midsole, but there are design innovations that make it stand out from the crowd.

For starters, the Nitro Elite foam in the midsole is not a Peba-based material. It is made from aliphatic TPU, which Puma says returns more energy. Most of the best racing shoes use Peba foams so it’s a bold move from Puma.

The first Fast-R had two different foams in its midsole, with a firmer EVA foam for the heel chunk and the Peba-based Nitro Elite in the forefoot. The Fast-R 2 uses the same updated Nitro Elite foam throughout the midsole and it is notably softer under the heel. The new shoe also has a higher stack than the original Fast-R, with the Fast-R 2 standing 40mm tall at the heel and 32mm at the forefoot for an 8mm drop.

Puma has also bucked convention with its carbon PWRPLATE, which extends beyond the midsole to create what looks like an underbite. This design is meant to create extra leverage and propulsion from the plate.

The Ultraweave upper is a lightweight material that has strips of Puma’s PWRTAPE on it to add stability. The heel fin that sticks out from the back of the shoe acts as a heel counter for added support there. I found the toe box fit was good in my normal running shoe size, but the heel design did irritate my Achilles tendon a little if I used the shoe for longer runs. 

A cut-out on the forefoot of the shoe helps to reduce its weight, as does the decoupled midsole, but the Fast-R 2 is still pretty heavy for a racing shoe. It’s 9oz/255g in my UK size 9, which is 0.6oz/17g heavier than the original shoe. Puma suggests the Fast-R 2 is for more powerful runners who benefit enough from the extra propulsion of its design to overcome the weight gain, while those seeking a lighter shoe are better served by the Deviate Nitro Elite 2.

The outsole of the shoe is made from a thin layer of Pumagrip that covers the forefoot, with two sections of rubber at the heel. This grips exceptionally well on greasy and wet asphalt, and Pumagrip has also proved durable for me with Puma’s other racing shoes.

Running Performance

Like the original Fast-R, the Fast-R 2 feels odd and unwieldy when running at easy paces—the two chunks of foam in the midsole feel disconnected. Once you get up to your race paces, however, the ride is smoother and it’s certainly bouncy—much more so than the original shoe.

The midsole foam combined with the plate does produce a highly propulsive ride, and while the shoe doesn’t feel light and nimble it’s certainly fast thanks to the amount of spring it puts into your step. It’s also more comfortable than the original Fast-R, which I found would give me forefoot discomfort if used for long hard runs, something I didn’t experience at all with the Fast-R 2.

My first run in the shoe was an hour-long progression run, doing 20 minutes apiece of 6min/mile, 5min 42sec/mile and 5min 30sec/mile paces. The Fast-R 2 was ideal for this run. The booming bounce of the shoe helped me roll through the session well while the Pumagrip outsole provided reliable traction on a slightly slick all-weather park path.

It didn’t feel like a shoe that would work well for a short race, but when I did a parkrun in the shoe it was surprisingly quick. It doesn’t help the legs turn over quickly, or have the aggressive tip forward I get from the Nike Vaporfly, but the bouncy midsole protects the legs and helps to push you forward. 

I also ran a session of 10 two-minute reps in the shoe, and again I was surprised by how fast and explosive it felt for these shorter efforts. Still,  I preferred wearing it for the longer session—if I was picking a race to wear the Fast-R 2 in, it would be a marathon.

It feels like a shoe that will suit certain runners better than others. If you are a stronger runner with more of a loping stride who puts more force into the shoe, it will deliver more bounce. I’m more of a shuffling runner, especially when tired, and rely on a high cadence more than stride length for speed, so a lightweight shoe like the Deviate Nitro Elite 2 feels a little more natural to me late on in hard runs or races. That said, the Fast-R 2 does feel quicker overall despite this, and I think it’s Puma’s best racing shoe to date.

With regards to the innovative features of the shoe, some work better than others. The aliphatic TPU foam feels very bouncy, though a little firmer than some Peba-based foams like Nike’s ZoomX. The extra-long carbon plate didn’t do a lot for me, aside from making me nervous about jabbing someone when running in a pack; trimming that back to the forefoot of the shoe might save a little weight, which is something the Fast-R 2 could benefit from because it’s among the heavier super-shoes.

Is The Puma Fast-R 2 Nitro Elite Worth It?

The Puma Fast-R 2 is a great racing shoe and a fantastic option for the marathon. I’m not sold on every innovation Puma tried with the shoe, but I do like the new foam and it feels like a shoe that will benefit runners with a longer stride than me.

As with all new carbon shoes, the problem is the competition, especially from long-established favorites like the Nike Vaporfly and Nike Alphafly, which have served runners well for several years. The Nike Alphafly 3 is currently the carbon shoe I consider the best available, and it’s lighter than the Fast-R 2 while delivering the same kind of propulsive feel. The Vaporfly 3 is lighter still and cheaper than the Fast-R 2.

The difference in performance between most carbon shoes is now very slight and the Fast-R 2 is competitive with anything over long distances, but it’s not a shoe that will work equally well for every runner. While Puma’s carbon shoes continue to impress with their innovation, for flat-out performance I’d still rank a few shoes ahead of the Fast-R 2.

The Puma Velocity Nitro and Velocity Nitro 2 were among the best running shoes available, offering great bang for your buck as versatile daily trainers that cost less than most equivalents from other brands.

The shoes became fixtures in my running shoe rotation after I reviewed them, ahead of the more than 100 others I’ve tested since the Velocity Nitro came out. So I’m pleased that the Velocity Nitro 3 is an evolution of the 2, rather than something reimagined. It's an excellent shoe and easy to recommend to runners of all levels, though I wouldn’t shy away from grabbing a deal on the Velocity Nitro 2 instead if you see one.

Puma Velocity Nitro 3: Price And Availability

The Puma Velocity Nitro 3 launched in January 2023 and costs $130 in the US and £110 in the UK. That’s an increase on the Velocity Nitro 2, which is $120/£105, but the third version of the shoe is still cheaper than its rivals from other brands, such as the Nike Pegasus 40 and Adidas Supernova Rise.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run just over 30 miles in the Velocity Nitro 3, using it for a range of training runs, including a 13-mile long run and also a progression run to check its performance at faster paces. I tested the Velocity Nitro and Velocity Nitro 2 extensively, and have tested a range of the best running shoes from other brands.

Design And Fit

The Velocity Nitro 3 is a neutral running shoe with a high level of cushioning: It’s 36mm high at the heel and 26mm high at the forefoot for a 10mm drop. This is a 2mm increase in stack height on the Velocity Nitro 2, though by current standards the Velocity Nitro 3 is not a max-cushioned shoe. Puma has the Magnify Nitro 2 in its line-up for those who want even more foam underfoot.

As with the previous models, the Velocity Nitro 3 has a dual-density midsole with a top layer of Puma's Nitro foam, which is a nitrogen-infused TPEE material and softer and bouncier than the ProFoam Lite EVA foam underneath it. With the extra stack height comes extra weight. The Velocity Nitro 3 weighs 10oz/283g in my UK size 9, which is a 0.5oz/12g increase on the Velocity Nitro 2, though it’s still a fairly lightweight shoe for its category, especially considering its thick outsole.

This outsole is made from Pumagrip rubber and provides outstanding traction on paved surfaces in all conditions, as well as being suitable for light trails. The outsole of the Velocity Nitro 3 is one of its best features and makes the shoe a practical option for winter training.

The shoe has a mesh upper with a lot of padding around the collar. The shape of this padding has been changed, compared with the Velocity Nitro 2 to hold the achilles more from the sides than the back. I found it made for a more comfortable fit around the heel. The shoe fitted well in my usual running shoe size, the same size I’ve used for all generations of the Velocity Nitro.

Puma has added strips of its PWRTAPE to the upper to add more structure and support. The upper is not the most breathable material and some runners have found the past versions of the shoe to be a bit warm when running in hot conditions. I haven’t had this problem with any edition of the shoe, but I don’t think the Velocity Nitro 3 is more breathable than its predecessors.

Running Performance

I used the Velocity Nitro 3 for my Sunday long run, logging a half marathon in just under 90 minutes. My main emotion on that first run was relief that Puma hadn’t made significant changes to one of my favorite running shoes. The Velocity Nitro 3 has the same fluid, comfortable ride as its predecessors, and it feels easy to tick over in the shoe at relaxed paces.

I also did a short run on the same day with the Velocity Nitro 2 on one foot and the 3 on the other. I didn’t notice a major difference in the ride feel of the shoes. The Velocity Nitro 3’s upper holds the foot a bit more securely, and the extra cushioning is welcome for long runs, but mostly the new shoe feels like the old shoe.

This means it remains a versatile shoe. The Velocity Nitro 3 doesn’t have any kind of plate—the Deviate Nitro 2 is the plated super-trainer in Puma’s range—but the dual-density midsole delivers a responsive ride for faster runs. It’s not one I’d use for all-out track sessions because it’s heavier and less aggressive than the shoes I use for those, but the Velocity Nitro 3 handles tempo runs and fartlek intervals. It would also be a good marathon running shoe for those who aren’t using a carbon plate running shoe.

The Pumagrip outsole remained as reliable as ever during my testing, which included runs on wet and slushy paved surfaces, as well as on a canal towpath and in my local forest. The Velocity Nitro 3 is pleasingly practical in this regard. There are daily trainers with more exciting rides and higher stacks of softer foams, but the Velocity Nitro 3 is a more reliable and stable option when I’m running on cambered paved surfaces or light trails just as much as flat asphalt. The grip is welcome during winter.

Is The Puma Velocity Nitro 3 Worth It?

The Puma Velocity Nitro 3 is a good option for runners of all levels and worth its fairly modest price. I would pick it up to use as a cushioned daily trainer in my running shoe rotation, mainly using it for easy and long runs, but it has the versatility for faster runs too, and is a good all-rounder for those who use one pair of shoes at a time. 

The Velocity Nitro 3 is not only cheaper than most similar shoes from other brands, like the Nike Pegasus 40, Adidas Supernova Rise and Saucony Ride 17, but also more enjoyable to use for a range of runs. Those are all good shoes, but I prefer the ride feel of the Velocity Nitro 3, and it also has a better outsole.

The Asics Novablast 4 provides sterner competition as a more cushioned and bouncy option that’s also lighter than the Velocity Nitro 3. The Novablast 4 is more expensive and its outsole is not as impressive, but it’s a solid alternative to the Velocity Nitro 3 if you want more cushioning underfoot.

The Velocity Nitro 3 is not a major upgrade on the Velocity Nitro 2, so if the older shoe is available at a lower price I’d get it instead to do the same job. The extra cushioning on the Velocity Nitro 3 is no bad thing, especially on longer runs, and may help the shoe retain more bounce over its lifespan, but I didn’t notice a big change to the ride of the shoe.

The New Balance FuelCell SC Elite line has changed a lot with each generation and the SC Elite v4 is a significant update on the 3, with a new midsole foam and redesigned geometry. It’s heavier than previous models but the new foam delivers more bounce, and the SC Elite v4 is undoubtedly a fast shoe.

It’s hard to say where it sits among the best carbon plate running shoes, however. The SC Elite v4 is a great marathon running shoe, and its high level of comfort may make it more inviting to slower amateur runners than other super-shoes. But on pure performance I rate other racers more highly, including the Nike Vaporfly and Alphafly 3.

New Balance FuelCell SC Elite v4: Price And Availability

The New Balance SC Elite v4 goes on sale on February 1 and will cost $250 in the US and £260 in the UK. It’s a little more expensive than the SC Elite v3 and costs more than some notable carbon plate shoes including the Nike Vaporfly 3.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run 30 miles in the SC Elite v4: a 90-minute long run, a track session doing threshold mile reps and a 10-mile progression run. I have also tested the three previous models of the shoe, and most of the best carbon plate running shoes available from all brands.

Design And Fit

Although it’s still called FuelCell, the foam in the midsole of the SC Elite v4 is different to the FuelCell found in previous versions of the shoe, and across New Balance’s range in general. It’s a Peba-based foam that is the material used in most of the best racing shoes, and it’s lighter and bouncier than foams used in the SC Elite line before this.

The shoe has a full-length carbon plate running through the midsole, and a rocker profile to speed up the transition onto your forefoot with each stride—though this rocker felt less dramatic to me than the one on the New Balance SC Elite v3.

As is the case with most carbon shoes, the SC Elite v4’s stack height is 40mm at the heel, the maximum allowed in road races according to World Athletics regulations. The stack is 36mm at the forefoot for a 4mm drop, which is lower than most super-shoes, though the rocker on the shoe means the drop felt a little higher to me.

At 8.6oz/243g the SC Elite v4 isn’t a weighty shoe, but it is a little heavier than many carbon racers. It’s also heavier than the previous versions of the shoe, perhaps because New Balance has increased the amount of foam underfoot.

The upper is made from a lightweight, breathable mesh. The collar and tongue have minimal padding, and so I have concerns that the heel collar in particular has the potential to rub. I heel-locked the shoe because it felt loose at the back on my first run and haven’t had any problems since. Otherwise, the shoe fitted well in my usual running shoe size.

There’s a deep cut-out running along the middle of the bottom of the shoe that shows off the carbon plate, but aside from that there’s pretty good rubber coverage on the outsole, with strips at the back and most of the forefoot covered. I found the SC Elite v4 gripped well in the rain, even on a greasy track surface.

Running Performance

The SC Elite v4 delivers in the way you’d expect a chunky carbon super-shoe to. It’s bouncy and, while it’s not the lightest, once you get up to race pace it feels comfortable to hold that pace for long periods thanks to the springy foam and propulsion from the plate.

On my first run I did 14 miles in 90 minutes, including a five-mile pick up at around 5min 50sec/mile pace. I was running on tired legs after an XC race the day before and the shoe felt comfortable and helped me to push to faster paces. 

It felt like a big shoe though, especially when running into the wind. It doesn’t tip you onto your toes as quickly as other carbon shoes, with the pace coming from the bouncy foam. It’s also not the most nimble of shoes, instead shining on long straights on flat asphalt and then feeling cumbersome when rounding corners at speed.

For me the speed sweet spot in shoe was half marathon to marathon pace, and I enjoyed using it for a track session running six mile reps at 5min 30sec/mile pace, with 400m recovery in 95 seconds. The session ended up being 7.8 miles in total where I averaged my marathon pace of around 5min 42sec/mile. The shoe felt brilliant throughout, helping me to cruise through the reps and maintain a good pace through the float recoveries.

It was also comfortable for a long warm-down after that session, which is not always the case with carbon shoes. I think the SC Elite v4 is one of the more comfortable carbon racers and more approachable for slower runners than shoes like the Vaporfly. This was also true of the SC Elite v2, which had a softer, less aggressive ride than the SC Elite v3.

For pure speed over short distances, I prefer the more rockered ride of the SC Elite v3 and, indeed, the SC Elite v1, though the SC Elite v4 is the bounciest version of the shoe yet and the fastest for longer races. I’ve found that the shoe grips well in wet conditions, since I’ve been unfortunate enough to do most of my runs in the shoe in the rain. It’s not too unstable despite the high stack of soft foam, with the central cut-out on the underside of the shoe helping to keep you centered rather than rolling to either side.

Is The New Balance FuelCell SC Elite v4 Worth It?

Competition in the super-shoe market is stiff and since it’s unlikely that most runners will buy more than one or two expensive carbon plate running shoes, it’s hard to recommend buying a shoe that I don’t rate as highly as others.

The New Balance SC Elite v4 is a fantastic racing shoe, especially for the marathon, but I’d use the NIke Vaporfly 3 or Nike Alphafly 3 ahead of it. I also believe other shoes, like the Asics Metaspeed Sky+, Saucony Endorphin Elite and Mizuno Wave Rebellion Pro, are more impressive racers.

Much comes down to personal preference, though, and the SC Elite v4 will undoubtedly help you run fast in races. It’s a more comfortable option than most carbon shoes and, like the Saucony Endorphin Pro 3, it’s a shoe I’d recommend as a first carbon option if you’re concerned that shoes like the Vaporfly will be too aggressive and unstable. 

Overall, my first recommendation to most runners seeking a racing shoe would be to try one from Nike, especially since the Vaporfly is cheaper than the SC Elite v4.

The Arc’teryx Norvan LD 3 GTX is an excellent waterproof trail-running shoe that I found comfortable over long distances in particular. The outsole provides reliable traction on a range of terrains, and the waterproof upper can be a godsend in cold and wet weather.

It is expensive, however, and some of the best trail-running shoes with waterproof uppers are cheaper, like the Saucony Peregrine 13 GTX and Puma Voyage Nitro 3 GTX. Unless you’re tackling a lot of extremely long runs, those other shoes will probably prove better value than the Arc’teryx.

Arc’teryx Norvan LD 3 GTX: Price And Availability

The Arc’teryx Norvan LD 3 GTX launched in summer 2023 and costs $200 in the US and £180 in the UK. This is a big step up on the price of the standard version of the shoe without a waterproof upper, which is $165/£150. It’s also considerably more than other great Gore-Tex trail shoes, such as the Saucony Peregrine 13 GTX which is $160/£140.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run 33 miles in the Norvan LD 3 GTX, including a couple of two-hour long runs in the Pentland Hills in Scotland in freezing temperatures. I’ve run on a mix of terrain, such as deep mud, rocks and grass, with some steep climbs and descents on waterlogged trails. I’ve also tested a range of the best trail-running shoes from other brands, including waterproof options. 

Design And Fit

The Norvan LD 3 has a mesh upper with added protection from a toe cap and other reinforced sections to protect your feet and provide abrasion resistance. There is a Gore-Tex liner under the upper to make the shoe waterproof.

Even with the waterproof liner, the upper is comfortable and flexible, and I found it was a good fit in my usual running shoe size. The padded heel holds your foot securely on uneven ground, and there’s enough room in the toe box for it to be comfortable on long runs and when pounding down hills. The midsole is made from a blend of EVA and Polyolefin foams, and it’s well balanced—comfortable over long distances but not squishy or unstable on rocky ground. The stack height is 29mm at the heel and 23mm at the forefoot for a 6mm drop.

Arc’teryx has used a Vibram Megagrip outsole on the shoe, with 4mm lugs that grip well and create a smooth ride on flatter, harder ground. There is bite to the lugs too, so you can stray onto softer ground without problems, though I slipped around in deep mud when wearing the shoe. At 10.5oz/297g in my UK size 9, the Norvan LD 3 is light considering the lugged outsole and waterproof liner, and it felt nimble to me when running/hiking up hills.

Running Performance

My testing of the Norvan LD 3 GTX coincided with a winter trip to Scotland, which was fortunate because the waterproof upper was invaluable on trail runs in freezing conditions. I did two long runs in hills, running on asphalt, grass and rocky ground, with large frozen puddles to contend with. The upper kept my feet warm and dry right up until the last mile of the second run, when I tried my luck with a puddle deep enough for water to come in over the collar of the shoe. That’s one point against waterproof uppers, of course, and if you’re crossing rivers on your runs then water will get stuck inside the shoe.

Before then I had happily splashed through a lot of water, including running down a rocky path that had essentially become a shallow river. My runs would have been significantly less enjoyable in a non-waterproof shoe because my feet would have been cold and wet almost from the first mile.

The shoe gripped well on icy trails, and I was comfortable coming down fast descents on grass—if it wasn’t too muddy. When I hit muddy stretches, the lugs weren’t deep enough to provide reliable traction and I had to slow right down. The trade-off is that the lugs were comfortable on the long road stretches I had on one run. Admittedly, they slipped on hard, icy patches, but that’s a problem for basically any trail shoe without specialist studs.

On both long runs the midsole was comfortable and I didn’t have any stability problems with the shoe, even on jagged ground. On a shorter run when I picked up the pace it felt a bit big and heavy; this isn’t a shoe I’d pick for short distance races up to 10K, but the comfort is there for longer runs.

Is The Arc’teryx Norvan LD 3 GTX Worth It?

If you want a waterproof trail-running shoe the Norvan LD 3 GTX is up there with the best, and would be my pick if you wanted a waterproof shoe for very long runs. Mind you, it’s a great long-distance trail shoe, period. So, if you’re not convinced by the need for a waterproof upper, the standard version is a cheaper option.

The Saucony Peregrine 13 GTX costs less and is also a great shoe with a Gore-Tex upper. I found that the Peregrine offered better grip than the Arc’teryx on soft ground, though it’s not as comfortable when moving from road to trail. The Norvan LD 3 GTX has a more cushioned feel for long runs.

Another contender is the Puma Voyage Nitro 3. I’ve tested only the standard version of the shoe, but you can get it with a Gore-Tex upper for less than this Arc’teryx. The Puma is a good all-round trail shoe with excellent grip, though it’s less comfortable than the Norvan LD 3 for long runs on harder ground.

The Asics Gel-Nimbus 25 was a major update for the long-running Asics Gel-Nimbus line, with Asics increasing the midsole stack height and changing the foams used to make it a more comfortable shoe than ever. I rated it among the best cushioned shoes and didn't expect Asics to make sweeping changes with the Gel-Nimbus 26. On paper the minor updates look good: the 26 has a new outsole material to improve its grip and the upper has been adjusted to create a more secure fit around the midfoot.

However, having run 40-50 miles in both sets of shoes, as well as doing a short run with one on each foot, I can't say that the changes have improved the shoe. I found the Gel-Nimbus 25 a little slippery on greasy paved surfaces in my first couple of runs in it, but after that the outsole roughed up a little and I had no grip concerns when running on asphalt.

The fit of both shoes in my usual running shoe size was equally good for me. Both are comfortable and great for long and easy runs, with a smooth and soft ride that helps you to tick over at relaxed paces. It's one of the best marathon running shoes thanks to the way it helps you roll through long distances.

Given how similar the shoes are, the improved grip on the Gel-Nimbus 26 should make it a better shoe, yet the added traction doesn't come without drawbacks. I found the outsole material on the 26 felt harder than the rubber on the 25, which made the ride “slappier” because the impact of the shoe on the sidewalk felt harder, and was louder.

I also noticed forefoot discomfort with the newer shoe when I did a fast intervals session in it, and the ride was a little less comfortable than the 25 on long runs as well. The Gel-Nimbus 26 is still a comfortable shoe for long runs, but I prefer the feel of the Gel-Nimbus 25.

Since the shoe's main purpose is to be a comfortable cruiser, the Gel-Nimbus 25 is arguably a better shoe since it did that role better for me. I'd have no qualms in recommending that you look to buy the older shoe at a discount rather than the Gel-Nimbus 26.

Asics Gel-Nimbus 26 vs Asics Gel-Nimbus 25: Price And Availability

The Gel-Nimbus 25 launched in January 2023 and cost $160 in the US and £175 in the UK at launch, but is available for significantly less in sales: it's $130 at Asics right now, for example. The Gel-Nimbus 26 went on sale in January 2024 and is also $160 in the US, but the price increased to £180 in the UK. It's one of the most expensive cushioned shoes, especially in the UK.

The best deal I can see on the Gel-Nimbus 25 at the moment is the $30 saving at Asics, which has a range of colors and sizes of the shoe available for $129.95. 

In the UK the shoe has been widely reduced to around £122, with Asics, SportsShoes and Pro:Direct all offering the Gel-Nimbus 25 for this price.

The Nike Alphafly 3 originally launched on January 4 in a white “proto” colorway in limited quantities that sold out in hours, leaving a lot of runners who were hoping to get their hands on the shoe disappointed. Nike has announced when the next colorway of the shoe is to go on sale, and it’s great news for UK runners in particular.

That’s because they have the chance to buy the Nike Alphafly 3 from March 7 at 8am GMT, according to the Nike app. Meanwhile, those in the US have to wait until April 4 at 3pm GMT+1. Wherever you are in the world, you’ll need to be a Nike member to buy the shoe when it initially goes on sale (it’s free to sign up, you just need to hand over your email).

The Nike Alphafly 3 is undoubtedly one of the best carbon plate running shoes, and I rate it as the best available after my testing. It’s the lightest version of the Alphafly and combines the bounce of the Alphafly line with the aggressive transition from heel to toe of the Nike Vaporfly.

After the relatively subdued white-and-orange proto colorway, Nike has gone for a more distinctive look for the full launch of the shoe. The Volt upper is a bright yellow/green, with the same color on the front half of the midsole, which then fades into blue at the back. 

Since this is the first proper colorway of the shoe, I hope it will be available in greater quantities than the proto shoe, so anyone willing to spend $285/£285 on the Nike Alphafly 3 is able to get hold of it. The good news for all is that the shoe comes out before spring marathon season kicks into gear. The Boston Marathon is on April 15 and the London Marathon is on April 21, so you should just about have a chance to get the shoes and do a trial run or two in them before race day. 

My usual advice is to do at least one good long run in a shoe before racing a marathon in it, but if you have used Nike’s other super-shoes in the past I’d say you’ll probably be familiar enough with the Alphafly 3 to use it on the big day without much prior testing.

Nike Alphafly 3 Release Notes

Nike has made several major changes to the Alphafly 3 compared with the Alphafly 2, and the new shoe is notably lighter and sleeker. The Alphafly 3 weighs 7.7oz/220g in my UK size 9, compared with 8.7oz/247g for the Alphafly 2. It’s also lighter than the original Alphafly.

The midsole now has a continuous bottom, instead of the large cutout separating the ZoomX foam at the heel and the Air Zoom pods at the forefoot in the first two generations. The new design is meant to create a smoother transition for runners of all levels—no matter where your foot initially lands during your stride.

Under the forefoot are two Air Zoom units, which are the main feature that distinguishes the Alphafly from the Nike Vaporfly 3, which has a full ZoomX foam midsole. The Air Zoom pods deliver even more energy return than the foam alone. Nike says the updates made to the Alphafly 3 mean the pods will be better engaged.

The carbon fiber Flyplate runs the length of the shoe and has been widened on the medial side (the inside of your foot) to create greater stability. The Atomknit upper has also been tweaked, with new integrated stays for the laces to achieve a more comfortable fit.

There is not a lot of rubber coverage on the outsole of the shoe, and there are substantial cutouts there to reduce weight. The Fast Shot outsole is designed to (mainly) deliver grip under the forefoot, with two small sections of rubber at the heel, too.

Nike has also made a point of saying that the Alphafly 3 should be quite durable, having been used for a minimum of 200 miles by its testers. This is a note that is, perhaps, directed at Adidas and the Adios Pro Evo 1, which is, apparently, only at its best for one marathon, though I’ve not tested the shoe yet myself.

Nike Alphafly 3 In Brief

I run almost every day and, for the most part, I don’t mind doing so through the winter. Layering up with one of the best running jackets usually keeps me warm and dry enough to enjoy my run, but if there’s one part of me I find very hard to protect, it’s my hands.

I’ve been testing the best running gloves for several years but even so I struggle to make it through winter without getting chilblains or very dry hands from running in the cold weather, and I have had runs marred by freezing hands when I didn’t wear warm enough gloves.

As a result, I often look for thicker gloves that are typically aimed at cyclists or hikers rather than runners, and choose waterproof or at least water-repellent gloves for extra protection. Sealskinz has a wide range of excellent gloves for sports and general use, and there are options for runners to suit all weathers.

I’ve been testing five different pairs of Sealskinz gloves on the run this winter, ranging from lightweight gloves to fully waterproof mitts. Here’s what I made of them.

The Best Sealskinz Gloves For Running

For each of the five sets of gloves I tested, I’ll recommend the best use for them, and highlight any areas where they didn’t work for me. I used each set of gloves for several runs in varied conditions and temperatures. The coldest temperature I ran in was around -3°C/27°F.

This is the lightest set of gloves I tested and the only pair that aren’t fully waterproof. The Acle gloves are still water-repellent though, and my hands stayed dry on a short run in light rain wearing them. They were not quite warm enough for long runs in the cold—my fourth and pinkie fingers went numb while using the gloves—and I would definitely use a thicker set as soon as the temperatures neared freezing.

However, there are advantages to the thinner design, with the main one being dexterity. I was able to use my phone while wearing the Acle gloves pretty easily while running, and the silicone pattern on the palm helps to keep a firm grip of your phone. They are also machine washable and comfortably soft, which isn’t always the case with thicker waterproof gloves.

I’ve had the Gissing gloves for a couple of years and they are a great option for winter running thanks to their fairly lightweight but waterproof design. They are warmer than the Acle gloves without being too hot, and still allow for some dexterity, though using a phone for anything beyond a couple of taps is tricky.

There are a couple of downsides, though. I found they were a bit too breathable for really cold days. I still get cold hands wearing these on the run, and certainly do when cycling. They are also quite tight and hard to get on and off, which is a bit annoying, and they are more expensive than some thicker gloves in SealSkinz’s range.

For those who like a knitted glove but don’t want to give up on waterproofing, there are the Anmer gloves. They’re warm and cozy thanks to the soft, knitted design, but still kept any rain I encountered at bay. The outer knit does absorb more water than a non-knitted glove though, which means the Anmer gloves need more time to dry after a wet run.

I didn’t love the fit of the Anmer gloves though. The fingers were too short for me, which created “webbing” between my fingers from the palm section on the glove. This reduced my dexterity, and even though they have touch panels it wasn’t easy to use a phone with them on. They were also not warm enough for really cold days during my testing, partly because the knit would absorb some cold rain and hold on to it.

Although they are designed as cycling gloves, these were my favorite gloves for running of all those I tested. The Bodham gloves are quite thick and fully waterproof, with a cozy inner liner. They kept my hands warm enough throughout my testing, and while it’s not easy to use a phone with them, they do have touch panels.

There’s a nice suede section on the thumb for wiping your nose too, which is more comfortable than doing it on the stiff fabric used on other parts of the glove. Even with the Velcro fastening to open up the gloves, they’re not the easiest to get on and off, but the extra thickness you get here makes the Bodham gloves a better pick than the Gissing for those with really cold hands.

The nuclear option for freezing days, the Swaffham waterproof mittens will keep your hands warm and dry on runs in wintry weather, although they can get too hot and sweaty if you take them out on milder days. I really appreciated the extra warmth on a long run in freezing conditions in the Pentland Hills in Scotland, and also when doing runs with a running stroller, when my hands are fixed in an exposed position throughout the run.

The Swaffham gloves are expensive and will be too warm for many runners, but if you need the highest level of protection from the cold they are worth it—and they also double up as great winter gloves for general use because they are so warm.

The Adidas Supernova Rise is built to fill a gap in the Adidas running shoe range, which has long lacked a good daily trainer to rival something like the Nike Pegasus 40. The Adidas Ultraboost and even Adidas Ultraboost Light are too heavy to fill this role, while shoes in the Adizero range like the Boston have traditionally been seen as more speed-focused options (though the Boston 12 is an excellent daily trainer, in my opinion).

It’s a good shoe and a strong alternative to the Pegasus in particular, but I never quite clicked with the Supernova Rise and don’t rate it among the best running shoes. It’s a jack-of-all-trades shoe, but there are more accomplished all-rounders available.

Adidas Supernova Rise: Price And Availability

The Adidas Supernova Rise costs $140 in the US and £130 in the UK. It’s cheaper than many of the best Adidas running shoes, with the Boston 12 costing $160/£140 and the Adidas Ultraboost Light $190/£170, but in line with the price of similar daily trainers like the Nike Pegasus 40 or Saucony Ride 17. I received my review sample of the Adidas Supernova Rise from SportsShoes.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run 32 miles in the Adidas Supernova Rise, using it for a mix of runs, including a 13.5-mile long run and a couple of progression runs. I have used an Adidas Supernova in the past, though it was a much heavier shoe, as well as several generations of the Adidas Ultraboost and Boston shoes, and a wide range of the best running shoes from other brands.

Design And Fit

The Supernova Rise introduces a new Peba-based midsole foam from Adidas called Dreamstrike+. Adidas’s best foam remains the Lightstrike Pro material used in its Adizero shoes, but Dreamstrike+ is a bouncy foam. The shoe has a stack height of 36mm at the heel and 26mm at the forefoot for a 10mm drop, and weighs 10.1oz/287g in my UK size 9, which is fairly light for a cushioned trainer.

As with many of the shoes in the Adizero racing range, the Supernova Rise has rods in its midsole, but the Support Rods used are wider and softer than the EnergyRods in shoes like the Boston 12, and geared towards stability as much as providing extra pop. The mesh upper is well padded at the heel and tongue, and I found the Supernova Rise had a comfortable fit in my usual running shoe size. This is one area where it improves on the Boston 12, which has a thin racing upper that isn’t comfortable.

The Supernova Rise doesn’t have a Continental rubber outsole, which is often a stand-out feature of Adidas shoes, but the Adiwear rubber used has gripped reliably for me on wet paved surfaces. It looks to be a durable outsole, with no signs of wear and tear after 30 miles.

Running Performance

On paper, the Supernova Rise looks like a winner, and I hoped it would feel a lot like the Boston 12 but with a more comfortable upper for easy runs. However, while I think it’s a versatile daily trainer, I didn’t love the Supernova Rise for any of the runs I did in it.

The Dreamstrike+ foam is well balanced—in that it’s pretty comfortable but has bounce for faster runs—yet it doesn’t feel like a super-foam, and Adidas’s Lightstrike Pro delivers greater energy return. I also found the forefoot wasn’t that comfortable over long distances or when doing faster runs. The stack height at the front of the shoe isn’t that high, and the Dreamstrike+ feels thin and dull there, whereas it is bouncier and more cushioned at the heel where the stack is 10mm higher.

The Supernova Rise works as an all-rounder, though. On a long, slow 13.5-mile run there was enough cushioning for it to be comfortable, and the shoe felt nimble on faster runs too, when I was running around 5min 55sec/mile pace. 

It ticks the boxes it aims to tick as a daily trainer, and fills this role better than many shoes on the market in the same category, but I have preferred other shoes for same job such as the Puma Velocity Nitro 2, Hoka Mach 5, Asics Novablast 4 and New Balance Rebel v3. The Nike Pegasus 40 and Saucony Ride 17 are both less versatile, for me, but more comfortable for easy runs than the Supernova Rise.

I also think the Adidas Boston 12 is more enjoyable for every kind of run, as long as you can get a comfortable fit from the thin upper. Adidas might class the Boston as a speed shoe, but I consider it among the best all-rounders going, and it’s not much more expensive than the Supernova Rise.

Is The Adidas Supernova Rise Worth It?

The Supernova RIse is a good daily trainer and if you find the Boston 12 too lightweight and racy for daily training, it’s the best all-rounder in the Adidas line-up. It also stands up well against rivals from other brands, though I prefer several other shoes myself.

If you pick it up I doubt you’ll be disappointed, especially if you can find it in a sale nearer the $100 mark because it works well for a range of runs. I just found it a bit of let-down given the promise it offered, and wished that rather than introducing a new foam that’s not quite as good as Lightstrike Pro, Adidas had instead popped the Supernova Rise’s comfortable upper on top of the excellent midsole of the Boston 12. 

The Asics Gel-Nimbus 25 was a substantial update for the Nimbus line and so the Gel-Nimbus 26 was always likely to receive a relatively modest update. Asics has mostly stuck to the same max-cushioned design of the 25, with a new outsole designed to improve grip, and a tweaked upper modifying the fit.

Given that the Gel-Nimbus 25 was one of the best cushioned shoes available, I expected these minor changes would only more firmly establish the 26 as a top option. However, I’ve found the new outsole on the shoe “slappy”—distractingly noisy when it hits the ground—and the Gel-Nimbus 26 is less comfortable than the 25, which means I’d recommend trying to find a deal on the older shoe myself.

Asics Gel-Nimbus 26: Price And Availability

The Asics Gel-Nimbus 26 will be available from January 15, 2023 and costs $160 in the US and £180 in the UK. The US price, while expensive, is on par for a max-cushioned shoe that’s at the top of Asics’s training range. However, the UK price is above par, and a £5 rise on the list price of the Gel-Nimbus 25.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run about 50 miles in the Asics Gel-Nimbus 26, using it mostly for easy runs, along with one 90-minute long run and a hard interval workout. I have also tested the past two versions of the Asics Gel-Nimbus line, along with a range of the best running shoes from other brands.

Design And Fit

The big change Asics made with the Gel-Nimbus 25 was to increase the stack height and turn it into a max-cushioned shoe. The midsole on the Gel-Nimbus 26 is mostly the same, with a big chunk of FF Blast Plus Eco foam and a little PureGel under the heel, but the stack height is 0.5mm higher than on the Gel-Nimbus 25: 42mm at the heel, 34mm at the forefoot.

This keeps the drop at 8mm, the same as on the previous version of the shoe, but the weight has increased slightly with the Gel-Nimbus 26. It weighs 11.2oz/318g for my UK size 9, compared with 11.1oz/315g for the Gel-Nimbus 25 in the same size.

Asics has made adjustments to the upper on the new shoe, which features redesigned eyelets to create a more secure hold around the midfoot. It’s an engineered knit upper with a stretchy tongue. I found that the shoe fitted well in my usual running shoe size, but didn’t notice an improved fit or more comfort compared with the Gel-Nimbus 25.

The most noticeable change with the new shoe is the outsole, which is now a blend of Asics AHAR and ASICSGRIP materials, with the aim of creating a better grip than with the Gel-Nimbus 25. I found the Gel-Nimbus 25 a bit slippery on greasy paved surfaces when I first used it, but didn’t have any substantial problems with grip after that. The Gel-Nimbus 26 is tackier on slick paved surfaces.

However, this improvement in traction doesn’t come without a cost. The new rubber on the outsole is firmer and I found I could hear the shoe hitting the ground more; it’s less comfortable under the forefoot as a result of this.

Running Performance

For the most part, the Gel-Nimbus 26 performs like the Gel-Nimbus 25 on the run: It’s a great cushioned cruiser for easy and long runs. The ride is soft and comfortable, but not squishy in a way that makes the shoe feel unstable, and the slight rocker profile helps to roll you through your footstrike.

It’s at its best for slowly ticking off long runs and easy daily training runs, but it’s too heavy for fast sessions. I used it for one hard workout while on vacation, since I didn’t have a speedier shoe to hand, pushing through two miles in 11 minutes, followed by timed intervals and another hard mile.

It didn’t feel great for this, not only because it’s a heavy shoe designed for slow runs, but also because I started to feel significant forefoot discomfort because of that slappy ride. I also noticed this a little on an easy long run, though it only became pronounced during the session when I was running hard and putting more force through the shoe.

I haven’t experienced this discomfort with the Gel-Nimbus 25 on any of the several long runs I’ve done in the shoe, though I haven’t done a fast session in it. I think the new outsole on the Gel-Nimbus 26 reduces its comfort, marginally—though what it takes away there, it gives back in improved grip.

Is The Asics Gel-Nimbus 26 Worth It?

Early in my testing of the Gel-Nimbus 26 I considered it only a small improvement on the 25, in that it was the same with slightly better grip. I’d have recommended getting the older shoe in a deal as a result. Now that I’ve done more running in the new shoe, I’m clearer about why I feel the Gel-Nimbus 25 takes precedence. I found it more comfortable, as well as being the better-value option.

There are many other great cushioned shoes you should look at, with the Puma Magnify Nitro 2 and Brooks Ghost Max being similarly comfortable shoes that are cheaper than the Gel-Nimbus 26. The Saucony Ride 17 is another good shoe that is more versatile than the Gel-Nimbus 26 because it has more pop for faster runs. 

I also suggest checking out the Asics Novablast 4, which is cheaper and lighter than the Gel-Nimbus 26 and a better all-rounder, and proved just as comfortable during my testing. 

The Asics Novablast 4 is the best version of this shoe yet, even though it loses some of the bounce of previous iterations. The ride is tamer, but smoother, and I found the shoe a great all-rounder and one that’s particularly enjoyable for longer runs.

It’s up there with the best running shoes and reasonable value too, though on that front there’s a case for finding a deal on the previous model, which is a good shoe itself and likely to pop up in sales regularly now the Novablast 4 has launched.

Asics Novablast 4: Price And Availability

The Asics Novablast 4 costs $140 in the US and £135 in the UK, the same price as the Novablast 3. The price is in line with other daily trainers like this, and similar to rivals like the Nike Pegasus 40, Adidas Supernova Rise and Saucony Ride 17.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run around 32 miles in the Asics Novablast 4, using it for a mix of training runs, including a 13-mile long run, an interval session and a progression run. I have also tested the past three generations of the shoe, as well as a range of the best Asics running shoes and daily training options from other brands.

Design And Fit

Asics has made changes to the upper, midsole and outsole of the Novablast 4, and while they’re all minor, they add up to make the shoe feel different to the Novablast 3. The most minimal change is in the upper, which is now made from a woven material and is meant to be more breathable. It’s a comfortable upper that holds the foot well, and the shoe fits well in my usual running shoe size, but that is true of the Novablast 3 as well.

More notable changes are found in the midsole and outsole. The latter now offers slightly better grip, and while the Novablast 4 is still not an outstanding shoe for wet paved surfaces—Adidas and Puma in particular offer road shoes with better outsoles—I didn’t slip too much in the shoe even on greasy all-weather paths.

The midsole is now made from FF Blast Plus Eco foam, rather than the standard FF Blast Plus used in the Novablast 3. It’s not the most eco-friendly of foams, since only 20% is made from bio-based materials. But it is nice and bouncy, and Asics promises even more energy return.

With a stack height of 41.5mm at the heel and 33.5mm at the forefoot, the Novablast 4 has an 8mm drop and is slightly higher and wider than the Novablast 3. This has increased the weight, with the new shoe 9.5oz/270g in my UK size 9, compared with 9oz/257g for the Novablast 3. It’s still a light shoe given its stack height, and didn’t feel heftier than the Novablast 3.

Running Performance

While I thought the Novablast 3 was a good shoe, I found that the bounce I got from the midsole dulled after a few runs, and I didn’t find it as enjoyable an all-rounder as many other reviewers, preferring to use it only for easy runs.

Although it’s less springy than the Novablast 3, I’ve found the Novablast 4 a more versatile shoe. The ride is smoother and the foam is firmer, which gives a more responsive ride that I found helped me pick up the pace in the shoe.

For my first run I did a session running 20 x 60sec on, 30sec recovery, before going into a parkrun pacing a friend to a sub-20min. The Novablast 4 felt smooth and lively on the short reps, running around 5min 20sec/mile pace, and cruising through the parkrun felt great in the shoe.

The next day I did a hilly half-marathon long run in the shoe and again I was impressed with its versatility. It was comfortable and protective when running at an easy pace, but lightweight enough to not be a burden when ascending hills, or when speeding up in the last few miles of the run.

It wouldn’t be my go-to pick for all-out speedwork, or hard long runs aiming for race paces, when I’d use a plated racing shoe or super-trainer, but it can do those runs if you don’t have a running shoe rotation. The Novablast 4 is great for anything at slower paces, especially long, relaxed runs.

I’ve also found the bounce from the midsole, while less noticeable than the springy feel of the Novablast 3 initially, is more long-lasting. The Novablast 3 would lose some of its lively feel over the course of long runs while the Novablast 4 is more resilient.

Is The Asics Novablast 4 Worth It?

The Novablast 4 is a great daily trainer and good value at its list price. For me, it’s an improvement on the Novablast 3, though if you can find the older shoe available at a substantial discount it’s the better-value pick, since the difference between generations is not night and day.

There are other great options in this category, like the Puma Velocity Nitro 2, which is cheaper than the Novablast 4 and has a better outsole, though it’s less cushioned. The Nike Pegasus 40 is another strong option, as are the Adidas Supernova Rise and Saucony Ride 17, but I prefer the ride feel of the Novablast 4 to those shoes and find the Asics more versatile.

If you don’t mind paying the extra $60, the Asics Superblast is also worth looking at. It does everything the Novablast 4 does, but a little better, thanks to the bouncier FF Turbo foam in the midsole. The Superblast is expensive though, and so the Novablast 4 is better value.

The original Nike Vaporfly was the shoe that kick-started the carbon plate running shoe revolution and the latest version, the Vaporfly 3, remains one of the best available. However, I rate Nike’s newest racing shoe, the Alphafly 3, more highly than the Vaporfly 3. 

It’s a close call, and there’s certainly a case for buying the Vaporfly 3 instead, especially if you concentrate on shorter races. I’ve raced and logged a lot of miles in both the Alphafly 3 and Vaporfly 3, as well as the previous generations of the shoes. Here are the key differences to consider.

Nike Vaporfly 3 Vs Nike Alphafly 3: Price And Availability

The Nike Vaporfly 3 launched in February 2023 and costs $250 in the US and £235 in the UK, with some versions like the Eluid Kipchoge colorway being slightly more expensive. The Nike Alphafly 3 launched in January 2024 and costs $285/£285. As the older shoe of the pair, the Vaporfly 3 is more likely to pop up in sales and was widely reduced in the UK on Black Friday 2023.

How I Tested These Running Shoes

I have run more than 100 miles in the Nike Vaporfly 3 and around 50 miles in the Nike Alphafly 3. I have raced twice in both shoes, including running 2hr 33min at the London Marathon 2023 in the Vaporfly, as well as doing several hard training sessions in both. I have also tested every generation of both shoes, running my current marathon PR of 2hr 28min in the Vaporfly 2, as well as sub 2hr 30min marathons in the Alphafly 1 and 2.

• Nike Vaporfly 3 review
• Nike Alphafly 3 review

Design And FIt

There are more similarities than differences in the overall designs of the two shoes. Both use Nike’s lightweight and springy Peba-based ZoomX foam in the midsole, and both have a full-length carbon fiber plate running through that foam to help create a more efficient and propulsive ride.

Both shoes also have a stack height of 40mm at the heel and a drop of 8mm. The shoes are close in weight too: The Vaporfly 3 is 7.3oz/206g in my UK size 9, while the Alphafly 3 is 7.7oz/220g.

The main difference between the shoes is the addition of the Air Zoom pods under the forefoot of the Nike Alphafly. These pods are firmer than the ZoomX foam, and according to Nike they deliver more energy return than the foam alone.

The Alphafly is also a slightly wider shoe and its plate is wider on the inside of the foot to create more stability than you get with the Vaporfly, though neither is a particularly stable shoe given the high stack of soft foam underfoot.

In the past, the Alphafly had a large cut-out in the center of the midsole which divided the foam at the front and back of the shoe, but the Alphafly 3 now has a continuous midsole, which creates a smoother ride and a more similar feel to the Vaporfly 3.

Both uppers are lightweight and breathable. The Alphafly 3 uses Nike’s AtomKnit 3.0 material and has a bootie-style fit, whereas the Vaporfly 3 has a Flyknit mesh upper and a more traditional tongue design.

I found that both shoes fit me well in my normal running shoe size, but I prefer the heel design of the Alphafly 3, which creates a comfortable and secure fit. With the Vaporfly 3 the thin band of padding at the back would sometimes irritate my Achilles or cause heel rub, and I had to heel-lock the shoe to reduce this.

Both shoes have fairly minimal rubber coverage on the outsole to keep the weight down, but while the Alphafly 3’s rubber seems quite hard-wearing, the Vaporfly 3 outsole started to show wear and tear after only 30 miles, especially at the heel. 

This wear hasn’t been too bad for me and I’ve not noticed any drop in performance after 100 miles, but other runners I know have completely ripped off the rubber at the heel of the shoe, so the Alphafly 3 appears to have the edge on durability.

Running Performance

I consider the Vaporfly 3 and Alphalfy 3 the two best racing shoes on the market (though I’ve not tested the wildly expensive Adidas Pro Evo 1 yet) and they share some characteristics. Both tip you forward onto your toes and help to propel you on your way, and they have the comfort for long events while also being lightweight and fast enough for short ones.

I’ve run wearing both shoes at the same time and also tested them during a workout where I did one set of reps in the Vaporfly 3 and another in the Alphafly 3, and the Air Zoom pods were the main difference I noticed between the two. The Alphafly 3 has a firmer feel in the forefoot and the pods add a little more spring to your toe-off.

The Alphafly 3 also feels more stable for cruising along at your race pace, but the narrower Vaporfly 3 does feel lighter and more agile when you’re accelerating or rounding tight corners. 

When I was tiring in races I found that the Vaporfly 3’s lightness means it’s easier to keep turning your legs over in the shoe—in fact it feels similar underfoot to when you’re fresher. The Alphafly 3 felt at its best for me when I was running with control early on in races, and it helps you to hold on to a pace as you tire, but it’s not quite as easy to get the same booming bounce from the shoe when you’re fatigued.

Verdict

For me, the Nike Alphafly 3 is the better overall racing shoe. That's especially true if you are planning to run a marathon, where the extra propulsion you get from the shoe and the way it helps you hold onto your race pace even as you tire make it the best bet for PR seekers.

However, the Vaporfly 3 is an equally excellent option for shorter races, and still a very, very good marathon shoe. It’s cheaper too, especially since it now crops up in sales fairly frequently, and if you already have the Vaporfly 3 I don’t think you should feel compelled to rush out and buy the Alphafly 3.

Strava has launched its annual Year In Sport report, which draws on data from the app’s 120 million-strong user base to highlight trends in fitness and sport. There are all kinds of interesting nuggets in the report, but as a running shoe obsessive, I immediately checked to see what the most popular running shoes worn by Strava users were.

Top of the charts globally was the Hoka Clifton—no data is given on the exact version of the shoe, with the latest being the Hoka Clifton 9—with the runner-up being the Nike Pegasus, with the Nike Pegasus 40 coming out in 2023.

Interestingly, the Hoka Clifton also topped the charts when just looking at US and UK users, with the Pegasus also being the runner-up in the UK, while the Brooks Ghost was runner-up in the US.

This data is from Strava users who log their shoes in the app, which is a minority of users in my experience, but the Year In Sport report is bolstered by a new survey of 6,990 active people from around the world in 2023.

I’d also say that the shoes that have come out on top are not huge surprises. The Clifton, Pegasus and Ghost are all well-established shoe lines that are good value and will work for a variety of runners. 

You can usually find these shoes in sales too, especially if you’re happy to opt for an older version. That’s wise with the Nike Pegasus 40 and Brooks Ghost 15 in particular, since the most recent versions aren’t substantial improvements, though I do much prefer the Clifton 9 to its predecessor.

It is a bit surprising that the Clifton has edged out the Pegasus and Ghost, since those are more established shoes from what are traditionally seen as bigger brands. 

The report also contains some interesting facts about which shoes have quickly grown in popularity, with the Asics Novablast and Saucony Endorphin Speed both standing out as shoes that have become much more popular in 2023 compared with 2022, along with the Clifton itself, which has surged all the way to the top of the charts. There is also a gender divide on shoe choice, with the Pegasus being the most popular pick with men globally, and the Clifton being number one for women.

You don’t need to buy a lot of gear to start running, but one of the purchases it’s worth making is a pair of the best beginner running shoes. Running in the right shoes will make you feel a lot more comfortable, and should set you on the path to enjoying the sport in the long term.

While every runner differs in the types of shoe they like, I’ve tested hundreds and, for me, the best running shoes for beginners are generally cushioned shoes that prioritize comfort and protection—so you can get used to the activity without putting too much impact through the body. 

Versatility and value are important. You want a long-lasting running shoe that feels good for the different types of runs you might be doing when following a running training plan, especially if you’ve started running with marathon training because you got a spot in an event.

How I Test Running Shoes

The Quick List

Before diving into more detail on the best options available, here’s a top-line overview of the beginner running shoes I recommend. Click on any shoe to jump to it in the full list for more details.

• Back to the top ⤴

Best Beginner Running Shoes 2026

Best overall

The Nike Pegasus 40 is a well-balanced running shoe. It’s comfortable but fairly light and can be used for faster runs as well as easy ones. It’s durable and looks good, so you can wear it outside your training. It’s also a long-running and popular shoe, so it’s often found in sales, especially if you look at the previous version. The Pegasus 39 is just as good as or maybe even a little better than the Pegasus 40, in my opinion.

If you’re a heavier runner, or one just looking for the maximum amount of cushioning you can get, there are better options on this list. If you’re unsure of your preferences and want a reliable shoe that’s likely to please, the Pegasus 40 is a safe bet.

Read more in my Nike Pegasus 40 review

• Back to the top ⤴

Best value

The Velocity Nitro 3 is an outstanding all-rounder running shoe that offers a good balance of comfort and versatility to new runners. It’s great value at its list price, and a regular in sales. However, for those seeking even better value, you can opt for the Velocity Nitro 2 if you find the older shoe in a sale because it’s similar to the newer shoe.

A standout feature on the Velocity Nitro 3, and most Puma shoes, is the Pumagrip outsole rubber, which grips brilliantly on wet paved surfaces and also light trails, something I appreciate because I run outside during the soggy British winter (and spring, summer and autumn).

Read more in my Puma Velocity Nitro 3 review

• Back to the top ⤴

Best for marathon training

If you’ve taken up running with a view to tackling a marathon, then you’re going to need a great running shoe to carry you through the months of training and the event itself. The Glycerin 21 is perfect for the job because it excels over long distances thanks to the nitrogen-infused midsole foam it uses, which retains bounce and comfort no matter how far you’re running.

It’s a well-cushioned shoe that provides good protection for the legs, but the Glycerin 21 is also fairly light for a cushioned shoe, and versatile too. If you’re using a marathon training plan with different types of run on it—like intervals or hill reps, as well as easy and long runs—the Glycerin 21 will work well for them all.

Read more in my Brooks Glycerin 21 review

• Back to the top ⤴

Best stability shoe

If you’ve undertaken gait analysis and been told you should get a stability shoe, the first thing to know is you’re not obliged to do this. In general, the advice we’ve always had from physios is to opt for a running shoe that feels good regardless of stability. But if you want a stable shoe to start running in, the Asics Gel-Kayano 30 is an excellent option.

This is mainly thanks to the high stack of soft cushioning in the midsole, which makes the Gel-Kayano 30 so comfortable. The shoe has a wide base and sidewalls of foam that your foot sits in, so it’s still stable despite being such a tall shoe. The rocker design means the ride is smooth. Even if you haven’t been told you need a stability shoe, the Gel-Kayano 30 is a great, protective option for new runners. It is expensive, though, and if the price is too high, the Puma ForeverRun Nitro is a good stability option for beginners that comes in cheaper.

Read more in my Asics Gel-Kayano 30 review

• Back to the top ⤴

Most versatile

The Saucony Triumph line has long been a great option for new runners—it was the shoe I used when getting into the sport—and the Triumph 21 would have been the perfect pick here if not for Saucony updating its Ride shoe to be similar to the Triumph 21, but cheaper.

The key similarity is the midsole, which is made from Saucony’s PWRRUN+ foam. This is soft without being too squishy, so it’s comfortable but doesn’t make the Ride 17 unstable. It also has a little bounce, so the Ride 17 can be used for a variety of training and races when you’re first starting out, as opposed to just being a comfort-focused shoe.

Read more in my Saucony Ride 17 review

• Back to the top ⤴

Best for heavier runners

Heavier runners will often put more impact through their running shoe, and indeed their body, so it’s worth having extra cushioning in your shoe to protect from that impact as you get into running. The Ghost Max is a more cushioned version of Brooks’s popular Ghost 15 shoe, which is also a great beginner option. I prefer the Max to the Ghost 15 because of that extra cushioning but also the rocker design of the shoe, which creates a smooth ride that also helps to reduce the impact of running, while increasing the Ghost Max’s versatility.

Read more in my Brooks Ghost Max review

• Back to the top ⤴

Once you’ve decided which running shoes to buy, the next step is to choose a running training plan. This free couch to 5K plan is a great place to start.

The type of running shoe that excites you most as a runner is a matter of taste, but speedy shoes get my pulse racing and 2024 looks to be laden with thrilling new speedsters.

Contenders for the best carbon plate running shoes, as well as exciting super-trainers that bring super-shoe magic to your daily training, are all on the horizon. There are also intriguing cushioned shoes and daily trainers on the way in 2024, too, although details are more scarce.

Working off the announcements brands have made about their launches, as well as a bit of speculation about what may be to come, here are the running shoes I’m most excited to try in 2024.

Nike Alphafly 3

Admittedly, this is something of a cheat, as I’ve finished my Nike Alphafly 3 review and given it the full five stars, but it goes on sale January 4 so I’m counting it. I’m excited to see how runners take to it, having loved every step I’ve done in the shoe. I expect this will be the shoe Kelvin Kiptum uses in an attempt to break the two-hour mark for the marathon in an official race in 2024.

Puma Fast-R 2 Nitro Elite

Slated to be released in February, this outlandish super-shoe has a carbon plate that sticks out the front of the shoe to create more leverage. It also features a decoupled midsole made from aliphatic TPU, which Puma suggests delivers even more energy return than the Peba-based foams that have become standard in super-shoes. 

The Fast-R 2 is another shoe I’ve been testing (and enjoying) already, but I can’t say more until the review embargo lifts on February 1. Puma is also set to launch the Puma Velocity Nitro 3 early in 2024, which I’m equally excited about as a huge fan of the Puma Velocity Nitro 2.

Hoka Mach X 2

The Hoka Mach X super–trainer was a disappointment. I expected big things from a plated version of the excellent Hoka Mach 5, which also added a layer of Peba-based foam to the midsole, though it didn’t have much bounce and was unwieldy for fast runs. The Hoka Mach X 2 has more Peba and hopefully will be more super than trainer. It comes out in the second half of 2024. There are also rumors of a new carbon racer from Hoka landing in early 2024, which sounds exciting.

Brooks Hyperion Elite 4

Brooks has not been at the races with its carbon super-shoes, but the Hyperion Elite 4 will hopefully change that thanks to the introduction of a new-and-improved midsole foam. British runner and 1500m world champion Josh Kerr has been using the shoe to great effect already, winning the 5th Avenue Mile in New York, as well as logging a 61min 51sec half marathon in them. The Hyperion Elite 4 is scheduled to come out in February 2024.

New Balance SC Pacer v2

The whole of New Balance’s fast running line-up is set to undergo an exciting update in 2024, with new, angular looks and a Peba-based midsole foam. The SC Elite v4 is the top-of-the-range racing shoe and due to launch soon, but the most intriguing shoe may be the SC Pacer v2. This comes out late in 2024 and looks to be more cushioned than the original New Balance SuperComp Pacer, though at 32.8mm at the heel the stack is still a lot lower than most super-shoes that hit the 40mm limit set by World Athletics. That low stack means it’s light, at around 6.5oz. The Pacer v2 has been designed with the input of elite athlete Emily Sisson, who holds the US record for the marathon.

The Saucony Ride 17 is not a carbon copy of the Saucony Triumph 21 but it certainly has a lot in common with Saucony’s top cushioned cruiser, which suggests the Triumph 22 will feature significant updates when it comes out in 2024.

For now, the Ride 17 is the best cushioned running shoe available from Saucony’s range because it’s so similar to the Triumph 21 but cheaper. It’s not as light and versatile as the previous Ride models, although it is a comfortable workhorse that will handle your daily training well.

Saucony Ride 17: Price And Availability

The Saucony Ride 17 launched in November 2023 and costs $140 in the US and £135 in the UK, which is considerably cheaper than the Triumph 21, which is $160/£170.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run 35 miles in the Saucony Ride 17, using it for a mix of daily training, including an easy long run and an interval session. The last Ride I tested was the Ride 15, and I’ve also reviewed each of the past nine versions of the Triumph line, along with a range of the best cushioned running shoes from other brands.

Design And Fit

The big change to the Ride 17 is that it now has a PWRRUN+ midsole and sockliner, instead of using the PWRRUN foam on the previous versions of the shoe. The change makes the Ride 17 softer and bouncier than its predecessors, but also contributes to it being heavier: The Ride 17 weighs 10.8oz/306g in my UK size 9, whereas the Ride 15 (I didn’t test the 16) was 9.1oz/258g.

The Ride 17 has a stack height of 35mm at the heel and 27mm at the forefoot, giving it an 8mm drop. This differs from the 10mm drop of the Triumph 21, which is 37mm at the heel. The Ride 17 is also wider than the Triumph 21, especially around the midfoot, which will make it more stable.

I found that the Ride 17 fitted well in my normal running shoe size, the same size I’ve used for Saucony shoes for years. The mesh upper is comfortable and breathable, but I’m not a fan of the fabric eyelets used, after ripping one of them open the first time I used the shoe. Take care not to yank the laces too hard.

There is good rubber coverage on the bottom of the shoe and I’ve had no problems with grip on wet paved surfaces during my testing of the Ride 17 during the UK winter. The rubber used is also durable, and I’d expect the Ride 17 to be long-lasting thanks to the PWRRUN+ midsole material, which has proved durable in other shoes I’ve tested.

Running Performance

On the run, the Ride 17 feels like the Triumph 21, which is not unexpected given the similar materials used. The PWRRUN+ midsole is comfortable, though not especially soft or squishy, so it’s quite a naturally stable shoe.

I ran with the Ride 17 on one foot and the Triumph 21 on the other to compare the two and they feel alike, with the only noticeable difference being that the Triumph 21 is more nimble. In becoming more like the Triumph 21, the Ride 17 now feels different from older Ride models. It’s softer and heavier, and less versatile as a result, although it is more comfortable for easy runs.

There’s enough bounce in the PWRRUN+ midsole that you can use the Ride 17 for faster running, yet to me it felt too big and heavy to be enjoyable for speedwork. If you have a running shoe rotation the Ride 17 would slip in as a cushioned option for easy runs, but it is a good all-rounder for newer, or heavier, runners.

Is The Saucony Ride 17 Worth It?

The Saucony Triumph 21 is an excellent shoe and the Ride 17 is similar but much cheaper, so it’s worth weighing up a purchase if you’re looking for a cushioned daily trainer. I still slightly prefer the feel of the Triumph 21, though, because it’s lighter. 

It will be interesting to see what happens with the Triumph 22 and whether Saucony uses the lightweight, bouncy PWRRUN PB foam from its Endorphin shoes to make the Triumph a clear upgrade over the Ride once again.

If you’re a long-term fan of the Ride line then the Ride 17 may not be to your taste, since it’s softer, heavier and less versatile—the Nike Pegasus 40 or Puma Velocity Nitro 2 could prove better alternatives as lighter daily trainers.

However, the Ride 17 will probably have broader appeal thanks to the new, more comfortable design, and if you’re a fan of the Triumph line you can now get a similar experience at a lower price. The Ride 17 is also one of the best beginner running shoes as a protective, cushioned option with enough versatility to do a mix of training in.

The advantages of having a waterproof running shoe to hand during the winter months cannot be overstated, especially when it’s a good-looking and versatile shoe like the On Cloudvista that you can use for a variety of runs, or just when you’re out on the town and want warm, dry feet.

Thanks to the REI sale, you can now pick up the Cloudvista for $135.93, a rare discount on an On running shoe, which I noticed were hard to find anywhere in the most recent Black Friday sales.

I found the On Cloudvista to be a capable road-to-trail shoe during my testing, with the outsole being comfortable on road runs but then having the bite needed to grip on light trails. It’s not the best pick for highly technical trail runs, or very muddy ones, but if you plan on tackling a mix of roads and light trails during your running it’s a comfortable cushioned shoe that will serve you well on both.

As ever with On, you also get the bonus of the Cloudvista being a good-looking shoe you can wear when not running, and the waterproof version is particularly handy to have available for general use during the colder, wetter months.

The On Cloudvista Waterproof is a good alternative to the Nike Pegasus Trail 4 Gore-Tex, though if you prefer the look of the Nike shoe you can get it for just $111.97 in the Nike sale.

The Nike Alphafly 2 was not a hit with everyone. Although I loved it, the chunky design meant many runners steered clear and stuck with the original Alphafly or Nike’s Vaporfly, or one of the best carbon plate running shoes from other brands.

I find it hard to believe that the Nike Alphafly 3 will split opinion in the same way because it’s pretty much the perfect modern racing shoe. It’s the lightest Alphafly yet, but still bouncy, and fast over any distance—though especially good for longer events. The Nike Vaporfly 3 is the only shoe I rate as highly, but even then the Alphafly 3 would be my pick for a marathon.

Nike Alphafly 3: Price And Availability

The Nike Alphafly 3 will officially launch in its Prototype colorway on 4 January 2024. It costs $285 in the US and £285 in the UK, making it one of the most expensive carbon plate running shoes.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run 40 miles in the Nike Alphafly 3, using it for several hard training runs and 5K and 10K races. I have also tested each previous version of the shoe, running sub-2hr 30min marathons in both, as well as every generation of the Nike Vaporfly and most of the best carbon shoes available. I’ve not tested the Adidas Pro Evo 1 yet, which may be one of the few shoes able to hold a candle to the Alphafly 3.

Design And Fit

Compared with the Vaporfly, to which Nike has only made minor adjustments with passing generations, the Alphafly has been significantly updated with each version. The Nike Alphafly 2 was a heavier, more stable shoe than the first Alphafly, and even bouncier for me, though the added weight and size meant some runners felt it lost the magic of the original.

Nike has trimmed that weight down with the Alphafly 3, which is the lightest version of the shoe. My UK size 9 weighs 7.7oz/220g, whereas the Alphafly 2 was just shy of 250g in the same size, and the Alphafly was around 230g.

The first two versions of the shoe had cut-outs in the midsole separating the ZoomX foam at the heel and the Air Zoom pods at the forefoot but the Alphafly 3’s midsole is continuous, which creates a smoother transition from heel to toe. The shoe has an 8mm drop, with a stack height of 40mm at the heel and 32mm at the forefoot.

As with all Nike racing shoes, the light and exceptionally bouncy Peba-based ZoomX foam is central to the Alphafly 3’s success. The Alphafly line differs from the Vaporfly by having Air Zoom pods under the forefoot along with ZoomX, which are firmer and return more energy than the ZoomX foam alone.

The Alphafly 3 has a carbon fiber plate running the length of the shoe, and has been widened on the medial side to increase stability. There is a large cut-out running down the center of the shoe to reduce weight, which shows off the plate in the midsole.

Nike has tweaked the Atomknit 3.0 upper on the shoe, redesigning the lacing system to have integrated eyelets. Nike’s laces are among the best on racing shoes, with a bobbly design that ensures they stay tied. I found the Alphafly 3 fitted well in my usual running shoe size, the same size I’ve used on the previous versions of the shoe.

One problem runners had with the previous Alphafly shoes was that they created pressure around the arch. Nike says it has taken steps to reduce this with the Alphafly 3, but I didn’t have those problems with the Alphafly 1 and 2, so I can’t say I noticed a difference with the 3.

The Fast Shot rubber outsole has minimal coverage at the heel, but the forefoot is well covered and I found the Alphafly 3 gripped well on wet runs, even when running fast. Unlike the Vaporfly 3, which showed wear and tear on the outsole after 30 miles, I’ve seen no signs of wear on the Alphafly 3 so far, and Nike says its testers got a minimum of 200 miles of use out of the Alphafly 3.

Running Performance

I had huge expectations of the Nike Alphafly 3 and it has met them. It’s an outstanding racing shoe and I loved using it for a range of fast runs, including two races running a 5K in 16min 23sec and a 10K in 33min 19sec.

The ride feels less squishy and bouncy than the Alphafly 2, but the transition onto your forefoot is noticeably faster and you still feel the propulsion from the plate and Air Zoom pods. The Alphafly 3 is lighter and nimbler than its predecessor too, which helped me to keep turning my feet over late on in races, and when doing hill reps.

I’ve run with the Alphafly 2 on one foot and the Alphafly 3 on the other, and done the same with the Vaporfly 3 and the Alphafly 3, and the new shoe feels like a mix of the two older ones. It has the aggressive transition of the Vaporfly, with the extra pop from the pods under the forefoot of the Alphaflys.

I found that the Alphafly 3 felt best for me when cruising at speed, so in the first half of races or during a steady 10K run at around my marathon pace. It feels like the Alphafly, in that you can lock in to a fast pace and holding it feels almost effortless.

For me, it then doesn’t feel quite as nimble as the Vaporfly 3 when pushing to very fast paces or late in races, when I tend to shorten my stride and increase my cadence. The Alphafly 3 still feels great for this, but it’s best when you are in control and bounding along. 

Runners with a bouncier stride than my shuffle will probably enjoy the shoe even more than me for shorter, faster events, but it feels ideally suited to the marathon when it will help you roll efficiently through the distance at your race pace, whatever that might be.

Is The Nike Alphafly 3 Worth It?

The Nike Alphafly 3 is the best carbon plate running shoe I’ve tested for longer events, and only the Vaporfly 3 can rival it for shorter events. It’s expensive, but the best shoe you can get if you want one racer to conquer all distances, and the durability looks good for a super-shoe, certainly better than the Vaporfly 3.

The Adidas Adizero Pro Evo 1 may rival the Alphafly 3—elite runners will be battling it out in the two shoes throughout next year, I’m sure—but I’ve not tested it yet. The Adidas shoe also costs an absurd $500/£450 and is meant to only last one or two races, so the Alphafly 3 is undoubtedly better value.

If you didn’t like the Alphafly 2, but loved the original, the Alphafly 3 will be more to your taste. Really, it’s hard for me to imagine a runner who won’t enjoy using the shoe for racing unless they object to the idea of carbon plate shoes in general.

Looking back at the 50-plus pairs of running shoes I’ve reviewed in 2023, I wouldn’t say it’s been an outstanding year for new shoes. Most of the picks in my best running shoes round-up are actually older shoes. Shoes like the Saucony Endorphin Speed 3 and Puma Velocity Nitro 2, which did not get updates in 2023 and are yet to be surpassed by new shoes in their category.

However, a lot of great shoes have come out this year, and narrowing down the shoes I’ve tested to my five favorites was not easy. It’s been a good year for brands playing catch-up with their carbon plate running shoes, with Hoka, On, Under Armour and Mizuno all finally launching a quality racer, and another big trend this year has been max-cushioned shoes, with loads of easy day cruisers with 40mm-plus stack heights coming out.

There has also been a proliferation of ‘super-trainers’, daily training shoes that use some tech from a brand’s super-shoe like a particularly springy foam or a carbon plate. For me most of these have disappointed, compared with the Endorphin Speed 3, but a new super-trainer is one my favorites of 2023. 

The list below contains my five favorite new shoes of 2023. That doesn’t necessarily mean they are the best running shoes for everyone, they’re just the ones that have particularly excited me or become a regular in my rotation long after I finished testing them.

My Top Five Shoes Of 2023

Here are my top five new shoes of 2023, in reverse order.

One of the most interesting and exciting carbon plate shoes to come out in a couple of years, the Wave Rebellion Pro is incredibly bouncy and fun to run in. The heel cut-out and exaggerated rocker mean it won’t work for all runners, and I had to steer clear of it at times myself while dealing with Achilles tendinopathy, but it’s a terrific racer and it will be interesting to see where Mizuno goes next with its super-shoes.

Read my review of the Mizuno Wave Rebellion Pro

A lot of max-cushioned shoes have come out this year and there are others which have proven more popular with runners like the Asics Gel-Nimbus 25, but my favorite is the Magnify Nitro 2. It’s lighter than most max-stacked shoes, not to mention cheaper, and has a comfortable ride for daily training and an excellent outsole for gripping on wet or even icy pavements.

Read my review of the Puma Magnify Nitro 2

Another carbon plate racing shoe, and the first super-shoe from Hoka that’s able to compete with the best on the market like the Nika Vaporfly. The Rocket X2 is lighter and faster than any past Hoka shoe, with a bouncy PEBA-based midsole foam, and a bit more stable than many super-shoes. It also has a great outsole for a racing shoe and has become my go-to option for sessions on rainy days. I’ve also enjoyed racing in it several times in 2023.

Read my review of the Hoka Rocket X2

The best all-rounder to come out in 2023, the Boston 12 is outstandingly versatile thanks to its dual-density midsole and the rods that run through it to add some extra pop to your stride. Aside from the upper, which I didn’t find that comfortable, I love everything about the Boston 12 and have used it for a wide variety of runs this year, from slow, easy plods to 400m reps.

Read my review of the Adidas Adizero Boston 12

The latest version of Nike’s famous carbon racing shoe is not to everyone’s tastes—some prefer the firmer feel of the Vaporfly 2—but I think it’s a more or less perfect super-shoe. It’s springy and comfortable enough for the marathon, while being lightweight and aggressive enough for short-distance events. I used it to run the London Marathon and a 4.8km relay leg during my testing, and would say there’s no shoe I’d prefer to have on my feet for either. Though the upcoming Nike Alphafly 3 might change my mind about that. 

Read my review of the Nike Vaporfly 3