Adidas has done a much better job than Nike at cranking out high-performance shoes and track/training shoes with high-end foams in such a manner that the best bits quickly filter down even to their low-priced trainers. Their top flight racing shoes and gear are top of the heap. They also produce enough inventory and filter it out to so many outlets that deals are ALWAYS available for excellent Adidas shoes and running clothing.
Nike came out with their high-performance elf shoes many years ago now and they've not changed them up that much, while also continuing to charge BIG $ for every pair ever since. It seems they sink huge amounts of their revenue into stunts like the sub-2:00 festival, along with Oregon football, along with crazy expensive advertising, but their focus on running tech seems fleeting.
Now, both Nike and Adidas ebb and flow when it comes to focus on running. There have been long periods in the last forty years when either, or both, had few/no great running shoes and were focused on other sports or fashion (see: Michael Jordan BBall and Tiger Woods Golf).
Still, at this point, it appears that Adidas continues to innovate and to push their best tech into shoes everybody can afford. Adidas was also first out of the gate with ETPU/Boost, years before the rest of the pack. At this point Nike offers a small line of elf shoes with PEBA-based foam and sometimes added zoom air pods, but they are incredibly expensive and have become stale IMO.
Adidas FTW.
I would vehemently disagree regarding the track shoes comparison. Adidas mid/long distance spikes are just not that great when compared to Nike. The Adfidas spikes will be the same with zero anatomic changes in 4 years, just a different color. This is the way that it has been since the 80's (yes, I'm that old). I would also argue that the Vaporfly has changed for the better since its inception (initially the nike 4%). I believe the Adidas shoe analogous to the VF in terms of both racing (5k-10k), cost ($250usd vs $250usd), and durability is the Adios Pro 4. It would be interesting to see how the Adios Pro 4 and VF compare in efficiency testing (I'm too lazy to look it up.) Another comparison might be the Alphafly ($300usd) and the EVO 2 ($500usd) in regards to durability and efficiency. There's a man out of Austin, Texas that does quite a bit of this type of thing, and hopefully he sees this post. Salvatore Stitchmo is likely also a very good resource.
I would also encourage you to reevaluate your statement on ZOOM X vs Boost. I believe that this is where Nike's great improvement in efficiency comes from, but could certainly be wrong. I hope people with more knowledge that me are able to confirm/refute this because it really is a good conversation. Cost seems fairly consistent at both companies in terms of racers (except for AF versus EVO 2). It would also be interesting to see where the new Asics model fits in amongst the VF and Adios Pro 4.
I would vehemently disagree regarding the track shoes comparison. Adidas mid/long distance spikes are just not that great when compared to Nike. The Adfidas spikes will be the same with zero anatomic changes in 4 years, just a different color. This is the way that it has been since the 80's (yes, I'm that old). I would also argue that the Vaporfly has changed for the better since its inception (initially the nike 4%). I believe the Adidas shoe analogous to the VF in terms of both racing (5k-10k), cost ($250usd vs $250usd), and durability is the Adios Pro 4. It would be interesting to see how the Adios Pro 4 and VF compare in efficiency testing (I'm too lazy to look it up.) Another comparison might be the Alphafly ($300usd) and the EVO 2 ($500usd) in regards to durability and efficiency. There's a man out of Austin, Texas that does quite a bit of this type of thing, and hopefully he sees this post. Salvatore Stitchmo is likely also a very good resource.
I would also encourage you to reevaluate your statement on ZOOM X vs Boost. I believe that this is where Nike's great improvement in efficiency comes from, but could certainly be wrong. I hope people with more knowledge that me are able to confirm/refute this because it really is a good conversation. Cost seems fairly consistent at both companies in terms of racers (except for AF versus EVO 2). It would also be interesting to see where the new Asics model fits in amongst the VF and Adios Pro 4.
Hmm... someone above here mentioned Nike focus on stunts like the sub 2... I wouldn't be surprised if Nike is working "under cover" with Peter Thiel and The Enhanced Games to release something completely new, like a sub 9:50 shoe for 100 meter runners, or a sub 25 minutes shoe for 10000 meter runners. I also wouldn't be upset, totally okey with such shoes if they make them available for regular runners the week after.
The effect of such a thing on the market would be ground breaking. Everyone expect The Enhanced Games to be about doping - what if they surprise us and make it about super-super-duper-shoes instead?
Adidas has done a much better job than Nike at cranking out high-performance shoes and track/training shoes with high-end foams in such a manner that the best bits quickly filter down even to their low-priced trainers. Their top flight racing shoes and gear are top of the heap. They also produce enough inventory and filter it out to so many outlets that deals are ALWAYS available for excellent Adidas shoes and running clothing.
Nike came out with their high-performance elf shoes many years ago now and they've not changed them up that much, while also continuing to charge BIG $ for every pair ever since. It seems they sink huge amounts of their revenue into stunts like the sub-2:00 festival, along with Oregon football, along with crazy expensive advertising, but their focus on running tech seems fleeting.
Now, both Nike and Adidas ebb and flow when it comes to focus on running. There have been long periods in the last forty years when either, or both, had few/no great running shoes and were focused on other sports or fashion (see: Michael Jordan BBall and Tiger Woods Golf).
Still, at this point, it appears that Adidas continues to innovate and to push their best tech into shoes everybody can afford. Adidas was also first out of the gate with ETPU/Boost, years before the rest of the pack. At this point Nike offers a small line of elf shoes with PEBA-based foam and sometimes added zoom air pods, but they are incredibly expensive and have become stale IMO.
Adidas FTW.
IMO, if we're talking top to bottom (racers to trainers), Asics has got the best overall lineup out of every brand, and soon next year this'll probably only be even more true once we get the Magic Speed 5 with FFLeap.
Puma is also legit with the VN4 + Fast R 3.
Saucony still decent, we'll see if the Azura is relevant in 2026.