Runner’s World Shoe Awards 2024 – Training Shoes

On Cloudmonster 2

On Cloudmonster Hyper

Until the first Cloudmonster, On’s running shoes had always felt, well, a little off. Its “CloudTec” pod cushioning was too firm to warrant the name, and too stiff for comfortable cruising on a weekend long run. The ’monster was the first model that really softened up those hollow pods underfoot and, as a result, led many runners to discover—or rediscover—the brand. Since then, On has followed up with more daily trainers that share this plush vibe, such as the updated Cloudsurfer and the new Cloudeclipse.

Neither the first Cloudmonster nor this second version is as soft as those two models that followed. But nearly every tester in v2 pointed to its revamped cushioning as their favorite feature. “It has the type of supportive cushioning I like. Not the kind that makes me sink into the midsole, but the kind that propels me forward,” said senior newsletter editor Pavlína Černá, who trains at 9:00 pace and also loves Saucony’s Triumph. “They are so fun on downhills—so much fun that I ran the same route a few times more in the following days. It was like running on little trampolines. The shoe softens the impact, then bounces you back up in the air.”

My daily jogs are at a slower pace than Pavlína’s, but I still felt that trampoline-like response in the Cloudmonster. On creates the sensation with its honeycomb-shaped pods, which compress when you land and spring back when you toe off. That experience intensifies when you’re landing with full force on steep downhills. In the Cloudmonster 2, those pods are the largest On has ever put into one of its shoes. It’s widened the cavities within the pods as well, which gives them even more space to rebound.

The upper still needs work, though. I had some quibbles on the first version about the fact that the material can bunch and pucker when you lace up. Overall, the lockdown was okay, but not great. I’d hoped this version would be tidied up a bit. Unfortunately, the upper is still pretty baggy—especially on runners with narrow feet. The good news is that there’s a boatload of room in the toebox. This is a shoe I’d highly recommend for wide-footed folks. But the larger fit issue may be that the whole shoe runs at least a half size long.

Even when you account for the extra length, this second version of the Cloudmonster is still heavier than its debut. And by today’s standards, well over 10 ounces for a men’s size 9 puts the shoe on the hefty side of the spectrum. Despite that, some wear-testers found the shoe carried its weight well. “I liked how the shoe’s rocker rolled my foot through my stride. It felt smooth, just heavy,” said Quin Conde, an overpronator who runs with a heel strike. He also noted a key difference in stability from other max-cushioned shoes he’s worn. “Unlike my Hokas, which nest your foot inside the tall midsole, the Cloudmonster doesn’t seem to cradle you quite as much for lateral support.”

As another tester piled miles on the shoe during her training for the Boston Marathon, she noticed that the cushioning softens up quickly. She had no issues with performance right out of the box, but even from one run to the next, the Cloudmonster became progressively springier and more pliable.—Morgan Petruny

On Cloudmonster Hyper

BUY MEN’S BUY WOMEN’S

Even though I’m an Endorphin Pro diehard, I never seemed to mesh with its counterpart, the Endorphin Speed. I was in the minority; wear-testers raved about the past three iterations, praising the energy return and versatility to handle both high mileage and true speedwork. This fourth model shares similar accolades.

Despite high ratings among our testers, staff, and even my PT, I never laced up an Endorphin Speed that I liked—until now. I chalk up my distaste of the first three Endorphin Speeds to their fit. Past models had a narrower toebox and midfoot. Saucony slightly widened the 4’s base to make the fit more accommodating and the ride more stable. This change didn’t go unnoticed by me, a wide-footed runner, or other testers.

Men’s

Saucony Endorphin Speed 4

Women’s

Saucony Endorphin Speed 4

“My frame of reference is the original Endorphin Speed. In comparison, the Speed 4 is significantly more roomy,” said tester Jeff Deschler. “I never felt stable in the original Speeds, but the wider platform on these gives me way more confidence. I also think they’re more cushioned, as longer distances felt easier on my body.”

Deschler’s theory is on point. The Speed 4 features a new supercritical foam sockliner that provides more bounce to your stride. Saucony also added grooves to the midsole’s nylon plate, which allows for more flexion in the forefoot while maintaining stability.

I’ve been using the Speed for marathon base building and all kinds of workouts: fartleks, tempos, race-pace intervals. It lets me feel a little super-shoe magic similar to the Pro, without wearing down my carbon fiber–plated pair before race day.—Amanda Furrer

The first illegally thick shoe rolled out in 2022, when New Balance launched the SuperComp Trainer. That shoe won us over, and won Gear of the Year honors. One staff tester said, “No shoe has ever inspired me to want to run more often. I just look at them on the top of my test-shoe pile and think about tacking extra miles onto today’s run.” I present that here in a Mizuno shoe review because the Neo Vista is the first shoe since that has landed on my shoe pile and brought me the same amount of joy.

Sure, there are a heck of a lot of shoes that are fun to wear on a run. But the Vista, like the Trainer, puts a huge smile on my face, and I reach for it more than anything else. The darn thing is a pogo stick. I get the sensation of just bouncing along down the road, unbound by gravity.

Key to that sensation is the extra thick sole made from Enerzy Nxt, an EVA-based foam that has a liveliness more typically found on the techier supercritical foams. Part of that cushioning power and bounce is attributable to the channel that runs along the length of the shoe (a feature also found on the NB Trainer). It helps to reduce weight but also allows the midsole to compress more easily than a massive solid block would.

The pair you see here is a prototype colorway that you won’t be able to buy, as it was provided before the shoe’s launch when I visited Mizuno at their Japan headquarters. There, I got to see how the brand prototypes shoes—they have what amounts to a small-scale factory, where they can quickly build and test just about any product they want. They can dream up crazy ideas like the Wave Rebellion Pro 2 racing shoe, with the exaggerated rocker and heel-less sole, and prove the concept. Some of the same learnings from that shoe come to this daily driver, but it’s with far less radical geometry, making it a sound choice for high training volume—or even racing for runners who expect to be on a course longer than elite and advanced competitive runners.

One concern would be for runners who have exceptionally narrow feet or have any foot rotation during their gait cycle. In early runs, I could feel my left heel shifting as I advanced toward toe-off, but I eliminated the feeling by cinching down harder on the laces than I normally would. The stretchy knit upper doesn’t have any traditional structural elements and fits relatively loosely.—Jeff Dengate

There’s a lot to like about the all-new Rebel. First, it looks aggressive, thanks to the angular shape of the midsole, which mirrors the company’s speedier SuperComp Elite v4. The midsole is noticeably thicker than the previous version of this shoe, but don’t make the mistake of thinking the Rebel has become a cushy cruiser. Instead, New Balance retooled the shoe to use a blend of PEBA and EVA foams, making the shoe just slightly more comfortable than v3 if you’re wearing it for long runs. But, it still has a relatively firm and snappy underfoot sensation when you push it through track intervals or tempos.

That chunky appearance also is deceptive when it comes to the shoe’s weight. The Rebel v4 is shockingly light—more than an ounce lighter than the SuperComp Elite v4 marathon racing shoe. Some of that weight savings comes from the extremely thin upper that New Balance calls FantomFit. It’s a nearly see-through mesh that testers reported feels stiff and wrinkly, like you’d find on a budget shoe, but which fits fine and doesn’t cause irritation on runs of any length.

That budget sensation is likely because this, technically, is a budget-friendly shoe, as costs have risen in recent years. The $140 price here represents a good starting point for a performance running shoe in 2024, and the Rebel brings good value and versatility for that cost.

Men’s

New Balance FuelCell Rebel v4

Women’s

New Balance FuelCell Rebel V4

“The weight and bounce of the shoe is great,” said wear-tester Trevor Conde, who has a marathon PR of 2:21. “It is a classic lightweight trainer that is comparable to some of my favorite shoes in terms of versatility—Brooks Launch, New Balance Beacon, Saucony Kinvara.”

Other features that help keep the weight down include an extremely thin and simple tongue, plus a flexible heel cup free of any rigid plastic. Any concerns about that tongue shifting are alleviated, thanks to gusseted bands that attach it to the midsole on both sides. Meanwhile, that stripped-down heel structure performed well for our testers. It’s a sporty fit that wraps securely around the back of your foot, not far off from what you’d get with a track spike.

Those are the kind of features you find on shoes like the ones Conde highlighted in his feedback. They’re also all shoes that, historically, have performed well over mid-distance training and events—shoes highly capable for 10K races, for example. But if you’re looking for something softer and bouncier that’s more suited for marathon racing, the SuperComp Elite v4 would be a better option.—J.D.

While a Google image search for “male Andean condor” certainly does not disappoint, I’d argue the Condor 3 is much easier on the eyes than its namesake. “Veja made such huge advances from the previous version, most evident just by the physical appearance. Dare I say this is a dang good-looking shoe?” RW Runner-in-Chief Jeff Dengate wrote in a Slack message after a six-mile jog in his test pair. But the improvements go beyond just the mesh.

“Really quite impressive pair of shoes,” he added after a few more runs. “The forefoot is going to feel a little thin and firm to some runners, and the balance is a bit off from the chunky heel—it’s tall. But they can kind of do anything you ask. Going down steep hills, the heel felt protective and cushy. Uphills, the shoe let me bound effortlessly. On flats, I just cruised. I’d say they’re basically like a slightly softer Pegasus. When I was tuned into an audiobook, and I really checked out of the feeling of my feet, these could have been Brooks Ghosts or Nike Pegs.”

So what changed to give the Condor some Peg vibes underfoot, compared to what our testers described as “extremely hard” and “zero propulsion” in v2? The midsole is now an eco-friendly EVA made from sugarcane and Amazonian rubber. The heel cup uses Pebax Rnew, a castor bean–based compound. To be clear, the combination doesn’t deliver the pep of Brooks or Nike trainers at the same price. But I agree with Dengate’s analysis—it’s a comfortable ride for daily miles that achieves that “forget what’s on your feet” feeling.

We both had our gripes on the lacing, which comes from the outside in. So if you want to tie a heel-lock, as I always do, you’ll have to redo the whole setup before heading out. And even then, the laces are quite long and stringy.—M.P.

We’ve long surpassed the “shrink it and pink it” era of creating women’s running shoes (i.e., when a company merely made smaller versions of its men’s trainers in new colors). Most brands now acknowledge the gender-specific differences between men’s and women’s feet and how a shoe’s construction affects the wearer’s biomechanics. Lululemon’s senior vice president of footwear, Simon Atkins, says the Beyondfeel addresses this with seven key distinctions between the men’s and women’s models.

“Some of these differences are more visible,” Atkins said. “In terms of the outsole configuration for him, for example, he needs a little bit more longitudinal stiffness. For her, she needs a little bit more flexibility.”

Putting the men’s outsole alongside the women’s, the latter has visibly more flex grooves on the medial side. The shoes’ lasts are also unique to women’s and men’s feet. Because men tend to have flatter arches and wider feet, the Beyondfeel men’s last is wider with a flatter arch. The men’s shoe has more cushioning as well, since men’s footfalls generally land with greater force.

Men’s

Lululemon Beyondfeel

Women’s

Lululemon Beyondfeel

On my first run in the Beyondfeel, I ran a new route in my neighborhood and got lost turning left where I should have turned right. The hilly detour and the extra miles should have felt less forgiving on my legs and feet, since I wasn’t physically prepared to run that far after coming off an injury. The Beyondfeel was the shoe to get lost in.

Compared to the Blissfeel, this shoe feels heavier and requires some more effort to get going in the very first mile. Once I became acquainted with the Beyondfeel, however, I was cruising. It’s not propulsive, nor built for speedwork. But it served as the ideal shoe for building back fitness as I slowly added miles. The fit also accommodated my wide feet well.

The ultimate test was seeing what our male wear-testers had to say about wearing a Lululemon shoe for the first time. Tester Jim Warrenfeltz, who runs an average of 40 miles per week at 7:30 pace, described the Beyondfeel as extraordinarily comfortable, yet he was dismayed at how heavy and flat they rode.

“The cushioning feels less snappy and responsive. So for speedwork, it’s a little sluggish. But it works really well as a daily jogger,” he said. “It’s plush but not a marshmallow, and seems well-built. Almost like like a plussed-up Nike Pegasus, it can eat up the miles and soften impact on long runs.”—A.F.

In the age of $500 carbon-fiber super shoes, I’m giddy for the launch of this $140 daily trainer. Sure, maybe that’s just the telltale sign of a true shoe geek. But it’s also a testament to the Novablast’s impressive performance and evolution, model after model. The Novablast 3 was one of my all-time favorite shoes. (At this point, I’ve got more than 800 miles on my pair of the 3s.)

Like the previous version, I found this shoe runs a touch long. I usually sit between a women’s 9 and 9.5. A size 9 definitely would have fit me better in terms of length. If you have a wide foot, however, you may be fine going true-to-size, or even picking the larger of the two. This is because the toebox itself is not broad around the pinky toes—it actually feels a touch narrow around the edges of the forefoot. Despite that, it does not feel cramped because the toebox is deep. There’s not a lot of space around the toes, but there’s plenty of room on top of them.

The biggest difference between the 3 and 4 is not the amount of responsiveness, but rather what that responsiveness feels like. The 3 had more of a bouncy, trampoline-like sensation. (If you remember the first version of the shoe, it’s quite removed from that. Jeff said staying upright on sidewalks was a pure exercise in self-preservation not to roll an ankle on turns.) I don’t notice that bounce as much, and that’s perhaps because this foam feels a touch firmer and I don’t sink into it as much. At the very least, it’s not quite as cushy upon step-in, but does soften up as you start moving.—M.P.

The Mach is back, baby! Or, well, close enough. The Mach 4 was universally loved around these parts. The fit was generously roomy and the midsole seemed capable of handling anything you threw at it. The foam was thinner than you’d expect from a Hoka, but delivered plenty of cushioning and comfort without slowing you down. Then along came the Mach 5 (too firm) and the Mach X—a plated super trainer that, to me, didn’t particularly feel too super, except in price, which made me question whether the Mach would ever really return to be the speedy daily trainer we loved.

Underfoot, the shoe has received a complete overhaul. Now, it uses just a single slab of supercritical foam that makes landings softer and heel-to-toe transitions smoother. But, that new foam needs a little protection, so Hoka added a thin layer of rubber to the full length of the sole—the Mach 4 and 5 both had a bottom layer of foam specifically formulated to be durable enough for contact with paved surfaces.

Our testers appreciated the mix of comfort and speed from the new construction. “The Mach 6 is a very balanced shoe in terms of its cushioning,” said one collegiate runner who logs 60 miles per week with his track team. “They feel very soft, but in a responsive way—not a sink-your-feet-in way. I got in some pretty solid long runs, which progressed nicely in pace, and these shoes felt great at each one of those paces.”

Another tester used the shoes for shorter, speedier efforts, with happy results. “They don’t feel as fast as my carbon-plated shoes (Asics Magic Speed and Saucony Endorphin Pro), but these definitely bring the speed in a non-carbon option.”

All of our testers loved the secure fit from the creel jacquard upper. The construction places a soft polyester mesh closest to your foot, covered by a thinner polyester layer on the outside which resists stretching. That last point, though, proved problematic for some testers, as the forefoot of the shoe is relatively narrow. You won’t get much relief from the fabric if the fit isn’t wide enough.—J.D.

The Guide has evolved over the past couple of years, transitioning from old-school medial post stability tech to Saucony’s Hollow-Tech (an unobtrusive plastic arch that bridges the heel and midfoot). The Guide 17 introduces the brand’s “new idea of support” called Center Path Technology, named so because it keeps pressure centered within the foot strike. This design rejects the old treadmill test the industry used to evaluate runners’ ankle and foot rolls. Instead, the Saucony team focused on pressure underfoot, observing how this impact is distributed. The team dialed in the support on the high-impact zones with the new tech, which provides more cushioning across a broader base for a more stable platform. The Guide 17 has a visibly more sculpted sole than the Guide 16, promoting support throughout the foot instead of isolating it on the medial side like it did in older versions. The shoe also has higher sidewalls for a comfier fit that cradles your foot.

Tester Alex Avery, a Division I collegiate runner and overpronator with a high arch and midfoot strike, didn’t think much of the shoe at first, saying how it looked “basic.” Appearances can be deceiving, however. After a couple of runs, she found the shoe “molded” to her foot, which supported her high arch. The ride was stable, she said, but there wasn’t as much bounce compared to other shoes she’s worn.

“The comfort was very good, however, there was not much spring to the shoe,” said Avery, who averages 7:30 pace during workouts. “I would recommend the Guide 17 for regular runs or long runs.”—A.F.

Saucony Ride 17

Buy Men’s Buy Women’s

Reebok launched its ZigTech Slash basketball shoe back in January 2010. It came alongside images of University of Kentucky point guard John Wall draining threes and flexing in hightops dubbed “the energy drink for your feet.”

As a high school kid running in Nike Shox (designed to look like the compression rings inside a piston engine), I was smitten by both the marketing and the funky midsoles, regardless of whether the latter actually worked. Reebok showed the zigzag shape transferring a wave of energy rippling through the midsole, absorbing shock and jolting you forward. The result was boosting the energy returned to your running stride while reducing impact on your shins and upper leg muscles, specifically the glutes and hamstrings.

In the new FloatZig 1, the premise is similar. And while the zigzag-shaped midsole is by no means revolutionizing the running-shoe game, it works well to harness the capable midsole foam that Reebok’s already been using.

That midsole foam is one you’ve likely already read about on these pages: Floatride Energy. It’s a beaded TPE material that you’ll find in Reeboks like the Energy 5 and the Symmetros. Despite the fact that its chemical composition hasn’t changed, it feels peppier here.

I headed out for back-to-back jogs in the FloatZig and the Floatride Energy 5. The shoes are too wildly different—the Zig has significantly more foam—to chalk it up to the zigzagging midsole shape alone. But there’s a touch more bounce and softness. The larger benefit of the triangular cutouts is that, without them, the FloatZig would be much too heavy and inflexible. The heel still feels a little blocky; the sensation doesn’t carry through the full ride of the shoe. It’s a stable landing that smooths out nicely as you move through your stride.

Those stable landings were one thing nearly every tester, myself included, agreed upon. This shoe keeps you planted. That’s partially due to the heel-toe drop, lower than both the 8mm Floatride Energy 5 and 10mm Symmetros 2. And the wide forefoot and heel platforms certainly help. But the rearfoot stability still comes at a cost.

“The heel of the shoe itself just seemed overwhelmingly large, which I think also led to the ‘clunky’ feel,” said tester Aaron Bealer, who runs with a midfoot strike and averages 40 miles per week. “There was enough bounce, but not like the propulsion of a performance shoe—you had to work a little to get them going.”—M.P.

The Ghost is Brooks’s most popular shoe. But for a time, the Glycerin trumped it on all fronts: comfort, cushioning, rebound. The Ghost 16 gets a boost to better contend with its softer sibling. Brooks replaced the Ghost’s DNA Loft v2 midsole with DNA Loft v3, the same nitrogen-infused foam in the Glycerin 20 and 21. The Glycerin remains Brooks’s plushest trainer, in part because the Ghost 16 has a lower heel and forefoot stack height and a 2mm-higher offset. (The Glycerin has a 28/18mm stack height; the Ghost 16 is the same as the Ghost 15, at 24/12mm.) With similar comfort to the Glycerin at a lower weight, the Ghost is back to form as our go-to workhorse shoe. —A.F.

Here’s what three of our longtime wear-testers had to say about the Ghost 16:

“I felt like I was nestled down inside the cushioning and in control of the midsole’s stack height. I could compare it closely to the Saucony Triumph, but the Ghost 16 feels less stiff. My previous Brooks experience was with the Launch, and I thought the Ghost felt peppier in comparison. The Ghost felt light on my feet, and didn’t have a clunky feel to them, despite definitely being well-cushioned.”—Lianne Greco, high arch, neutral pronation, midfoot strike

“What I liked most was the stability and support throughout the shoe. From the secure heel cup to the snug midfoot and lacing to the spacious toebox, I was pleased! The fit is similar to the Glycerin 20. Both have a wider platform in the heel and forefoot, which feels stable on uneven surfaces and around turns.”—Kylie Rodriguez, high arch, neutral pronation, heel strike

More of the Best Shoes of the Year

Amanda is a test editor at Runner’s World who has run the Boston Marathon every year since 2013; she’s a former professional baker with a master’s in gastronomy and she carb-loads on snickerdoodles. 

Jeff is Runner-in-Chief for Runner’s World, guiding the brand’s shoes and gear coverage. A true shoe dog, he’s spent more than a decade testing and reviewing shoes. In 2017, he ran in 285 different pairs of shoes, including a streak of 257 days wearing a different model.