Running Shoe Brand "Tiers"

Subjectively, I have Skechers in Tier 2. Nike and Adidas clearly belong in Tier 1, as does Asics. Having a confusing lineup of lifestyle shoes is a problem for the biggest companies, but the running shoes are still top tier.

Are you joking? Look at revenue.

Namebrands: Nike, Adidas, Asics, New Balance, Saucony, Brooks.

Non-Namebrands: Everyone else. The quality of their shoes suck. No idea why people buy shoes in this category.

That classification is more confusing than all the running shoes lineups at the different companies.

Every company makes bad shoes and good shoes. They all fit differently and are good for different people (and some are not good at all!). It's easy enough to ignore the brand and just go for the best reviewed shoes in a specific category, test them, then buy them on sale. Worked for me every time!

Worst is ON running shoes.

Puma’s are only sold at Academy Sports.

Based on your tier list you must be a hobby jogger or a barefoot runner

Asics is ranked too low. They're def above Skechers and Mizuno.

Lately, New Balance and Saucony are the best. The tech is there, the quality is there, the aesthetics are there.

Brooks has the quality but not the tech or visuals.

Nike has the tech and aesthetics but not the quality.

On has the hipster look but nothing going for it running wise. It's one of the worst.

Tier 1

Brooks, HOKA, Nike

Tier 2

adidas, New Balance, Saucony, Salomon, Altra, Asics

Tier 3

Under Armour, Mizuno

Tier 4

Puma, ON, Skechers, The North Face, Reebok

had PUMA spikes. have nothing but nice things to say.

This looks better

Brooks - fat overpronating hobbyjoggers

ASICS - fat overpronating hobbyjoggers and people who were fast in 1998

On - hobbyjoggers who spend a disproportionate amount on gear compared to their abilities

New Balance - old people

Saucony - not old enough for New Balance

Altra - beard waxers

Atreyu - mustache waxers

Skechers - 8 year olds

Mizuno - baseball players

Saloman - grizzly adams

Nike - people who don't know that other shoe companies exist

Adidas - people who don't know that other shoe companies exist and are cheapskates

Hoka - nobody fast

Reebok - nobody

Under Armor - Morgan McDonald

streak wrote:

Nike has the tech and aesthetics but not the quality.

.

Nike has exponentially more money for research and design and making quality products. Look who’s at the front of marathons and what’s on their feet. At least 90+% of the Olympic Marathon Trials qualifiers were in Vaporfly’s. Those who weren’t were being paid by other companies, while complaining about being at a disadvantage to Nike. It’s game over for other brands right now trying to catch up to the quality of Nike shoes.

Tier 1) Nike.

They win the most medals in world championship & Olympic competition, have the best athletes, coaches, federations, ad infinitum.

Name someone who has medaled wearing Hoka, Brooks, and other brands the original poster named.

I’m waiting.

namebrand shoes for the win wrote:

streak wrote:

Nike has the tech and aesthetics but not the quality.

.

Nike has exponentially more money for research and design and making quality products. Look who’s at the front of marathons and what’s on their feet. At least 90+% of the Olympic Marathon Trials qualifiers were in Vaporfly’s. Those who weren’t were being paid by other companies, while complaining about being at a disadvantage to Nike. It’s game over for other brands right now trying to catch up to the quality of Nike shoes.

I understand they have good tech, but the quality control has slipped a lot recently. Lots of reports of alphaflys, tempo next %s arriving with glue flaws, paint flaws, and foam imperfections. I just ordered streak lt 4s in the newest colorway, and they arrived with bits of the foam dug into as if with some sharp object.

SAVAGERY BEYOND COMPREHENSION wrote:

Tier 1:

Skechers

I've never run in Skechers, but I just can't wrap my head around them as a legit running brand. I've heard they make good shoes, but I just can't get past the fact that they made ShapeUps.

ShapeUps, for god's sake. They've got Howie Long telling you how comfy they are. They make ugly gimmick shoes for old people.

kirkandorules wrote:

Brooks - fat overpronating hobbyjoggers

ASICS - fat overpronating hobbyjoggers and people who were fast in 1998

On - hobbyjoggers who spend a disproportionate amount on gear compared to their abilities

New Balance - old people

Saucony - not old enough for New Balance

Altra - beard waxers

Atreyu - mustache waxers

Skechers - 8 year olds

Mizuno - baseball players

Saloman - grizzly adams

Nike - people who don't know that other shoe companies exist

Adidas - people who don't know that other shoe companies exist and are cheapskates

Hoka - nobody fast

Reebok - nobody

Under Armor - Morgan McDonald

Solid take.

The fact that Brooks are in your Tier 1 automatically destroys the integrity of your theory. Any shoe company that thinks they can change loading force with a shoe makes crap shoes

This friggin killed me lmaooooo

lmaoooooooooo wrote:

The fact that Brooks are in your Tier 1 automatically destroys the integrity of your theory. Any shoe company that thinks they can change loading force with a shoe makes crap shoes

saying brooks makes crap shoes is just ignorant. not saying they are the best or anything crazy but they have some good shoes that work for a lot of people

for everyday trainers there is a shoe made by one of: nike, asics, adidas, saucony, new balance, brooks that will work for you

if not then you have some niche shoes like altra, hoka or newton. can be good for people but wouldn't say they are a "safe" option for everyone

shoes like ON, mizuno, saloman, reebok, sketchers, UA are just worse versions of the first group and provide nothing else unique like the niche shoes that cater towards a specific population

streak wrote:

I understand they have good tech, but the quality control has slipped a lot recently. Lots of reports of alphaflys, tempo next %s arriving with glue flaws, paint flaws, and foam imperfections. I just ordered streak lt 4s in the newest colorway, and they arrived with bits of the foam dug into as if with some sharp object.

I run high mileage, go through a lot of shoes, and I’m going to disagree. For Nikes the defects is like 1 out of 10 pairs. For other namebrands it’s 2 out of 10 pairs.

Trying any of the non-namebrands, the possibility of defects goes up to at least 50% are defective. Hoka and Altra are the worst IMHO. I don’t get it why people seem to love Hoka. I couldn’t try any pair without feeling something wrong or quality control issues in fit between different colors of the same shoe. Maybe that’s not noticeable for someone running on trails or running 20 miles per wk, but a serious marathoner is going to feel it. Altra has themself pigeonholed with their zero drop shoes.

No serious runner at the Olympic Marathon Trials was wearing Hoka/Altra unless they were paid to wear them. The namebrands simply have more money to make quality products, and it shows in who’s up front.