Expensive running shoes are not better than more affordable trainers according to runrepeat.com


Based on 134,867 reviews of 391 running shoes from 24 brands, independent review aggrigator RunRepeat found that cheaper alternatives were more favorably rated than more expensive brands.

RunRepeat’s conclusions

  1. The higher the list price, the lower ratings the running shoes get.
  2. The 10 most expensive brands (avg. list price: $181) are rated 8.1% worse than the 10 cheapest trainers (avg. list price: $61).
  3. Running specialist brands are rated 2.8% higher than running shoes from broad sports brands.
  4. The top three best rated brands are: #1 Skechers, #2 Saucony and #3 VibramFiveFingers, while the three worst rated are #22 New Balance, #23 Adidas and #24 Reebok. Adidas Group owns both Reebok and Adidas.
  5. The three most affordable brands are #1 Skechers, #2 Vivobarefoot and #3 Puma, while the three most expensive brands are #22 On, #23 Newton and #24 Hoka One One.

Expensive-running-shoes-are-not-better-1

Expensive-running-shoes-are-not-better-2

Expensive-running-shoes-are-not-better-3

RunRepeat’s full conclusions can be read here “We did this study to spread the word that ‘the higher the list price the more value’ does not apply to running shoes’” says Jens Jakob Andersen the founder of RunRepeat.com. “Brands have strong incentives to promote high end shoes, but our study very clearly outlines that runners buying more expensive items are less satisfied than runners buying mid-range or cheap running shoes.”