Nike ZoomX Invincible Run 3 Flyknit Multi Tester Review

Article by Jeff Beck, Ryan Eiler, Sam Winebaum, and Sally Reiley

Nike Invincible Run 3 Flyknit ($180)

Introduction

Jeff: The Nike Invincible Run Flyknit series is the answer to everyone asking the question “What if they took the foam out of a racing super shoe and made it a massive daily trainer?” The result is one of the most protective and bouncy shoes on the market. 

The first version was polarizing with most runners either in the “love it” or “hate it” camp, and the second version was largely unchanged with a mild upper revision. 

This all new Invincible Run 3 shares a lot of DNA with the original, but with lots of little changes - most prevalent including a more breathable upper and even more ZoomX midsole underneath. But is it all a step forward? Well, “all” is a pretty nebulous word, read on for details.

Sam: Jeff has it right. The first two Invincible Run were polarizing: loads of fun but not practical or even appropriate as all around trainers for more than a few runners. 

With version 3, Nike in addition to the new upper adds a firm lasting board below the sockliner, conventional in most shoes but not included in the first 2 editions with before the foot sitting essentially on ZoomX foam below the sockliner. 

They also beef up the outsole with a waffle lugged design. These changes, along with potentially the upper,  add 0.5 oz / 14g to the Invincible to have it come in at 10.13 oz / 287g in my US8.5 sample, still respectable for the 40mm heel / 30.6mm forefoot stack height and broad platform but creeping up.

In my initial video review I said the bread in the sandwich of ZoomX foam (unchanged) is now toasted (firmer) as opposed to soft bread as an attempt to add some stability to the foam between. Does it work? Is the magic still there but now more practical? Please read on to find out!

Pros:

Improved stability - Ryan/Jeff/Sam/Sally

Still delivers unbeatable protection - Ryan/Jeff/Sam/Sally

ZoomX energy is both fun and effective - Ryan/Jeff/Sally

Improved breathability and upper fit - Ryan/Jeff/Sam

Better shaped toebox - Jeff

More effective platform shape - Jeff

Excellent traction on a variety of surfaces adds to the versatility of the shoe - Sally

Cons:

Poor heel lockdown - Ryan/Jeff/Sally

Overly low rigid heel achilles collars- Sam

Noticeable volume and weight on foot - Ryan/Sam/Sally

Overly rigid: lasting board and extensive new outsole make rocker and toe off less effective-Sam/Sally 

Magic of ZoomX somewhat masked by lasting board and outsole: Sam

Stats

Estimated Weight: men's 10.35 oz  / 293g (US9)  /  women's 8.6 oz / 245 g (US8)

  Samples: men’s 10.12 oz / 287g (US8.5), 11.04 oz  / 313g (US10.5), 10.76oz / 305g (US9.5)

                    women’s: 8.6 oz / 245 g (US W8)

Invincible Run 2: 9.63 oz  /  273g US men’s 8.5 so  +0.5 oz / 14g for IR3

Stack Height: men’s 39mm heel (measured) / 30.6mm forefoot ( 8.4mm drop spec) :: women’s ( 9mm drop spec)

First Impressions, Fit and Upper

Ryan: The beefy, burly, bounce house returns. Which is no surprise, when you see the massive loaf of ZoomX foam staring back at you as soon as you open the box. By its looks alone, it’s immediately apparent that this shoe is meant to be a high-mileage workhorse that may need taming. At rest, it feels about the same as version 2 did, with giddy amounts of bounce and an absolutely massive footprint. 

The Flyknit upper on V3 is a welcome improvement over V2. Its fit hugs and holds the foot better, and it feels less baggy overall. The knit pattern also produces a noticeably more breathable upper, which was a problem for a few of us in the previous version. V3 also adopts a sportier appearance, dropping the waffled patterns and beaded, round laces for a sleeker and flashier design with a couple more Nike logos and some iridescent touches on the heel and outsole.

There seems to be a touch less space in the forefoot, which I personally appreciated – V2 felt a little too loose for such a lively ride, especially after 200 miles. A minimal but effective toe bumper nicely sculpts the forefoot and prevents the toes from crowding. Underneath the insole, the Invincible now has a firm lasting board which runs the length of the foot. In my opinion, this is by far the biggest change over last year’s design. While it isn’t noticeable when standing still, it makes for an improved ride, which we’ll touch on below.

The heel clip has undergone a moderate redesign here, now extending further forward by a couple millimeters, which bodes well for stability. The tongue is still fairly thick and unstructured (no gusseting here), and works well with the flat laces to prevent lace bite. Toward the back of the shoe, the heel is built like a tank, incorporating a robust heel cup to try and rein in the slab of ZoomX beneath it.

Despite the burliness of the heel, it didn’t provide me with enough lockdown. This is perhaps my biggest gripe with V3. There is still a ring of padding around the upper edge of the heel collar, so there isn’t an obvious reason why this should be an issue. However, I felt my heel floating upward after the ZoomX would release its energy late in my stride. This was mostly remedied by lacing the shoe through its upper eyelet, but with more tension than I’d usually apply.

Fit is true to size.

Jeff: I skipped the v2, but put hundreds of miles on the first Invincible, and I find myself agreeing with most of what Ryan wrote above. The lasting board change stood out right away, as did the change in midsole shape. I supinate, so I spend a lot of time on the outer edge of a shoe - especially one filled with ultra soft midsole material - and the reworked shape was an improvement right out of the box. 

The upper material change is also a nice shift. Previously the upper was thick, almost like a Christmas sweater, which made summer runs a little ugly. The toebox is about the same width as before, but it’s shaped slightly differently, and I find the new shape gives just a little more room around small toes - which is exactly where I usually notice the lack of room. The upper feel is a little rough to the touch, but it seems like they wanted to favor durability over comfort, though it isn’t uncomfortable, just not noteworthy plush.

All in all the upper is a nice step forward from the previous version, however, ultimately it’s a big miss for me for the same reason Ryan struggled with it. The heel hold is truly abysmal. Rarely do I experience heel slip, and when I do, a simple runner’s knot is usually enough to solve the problem. Not so in this case, where the runner’s knot did virtually nothing to solve the problem. I found that I needed to clamp the laces down so tightly they were uncomfortable so that the shoe didn’t pull the back of each sock down. Beyond the self-inflicted lace bite, I had to wrench them so hard my feet would start going numb from lack of circulation in less than 30 minutes. That’s a big problem.

The fit is true-to-size in length, and width is ample enough, even for my slightly wider-than-normal foot. It has room, but isn’t “ponderous”, as Sam likes to refer to shoes that are a little too roomy.

Sam: The guys describe the upper well. Whereas before we had a somewhat comical looking upper with a 3D mesh design and puffy ankle collars, now we have a thin, dense and quite stiff and smoother Flyknit mesh with more vertical dimensional knit stitching. 

From the toe box to midfoot we have a very secure performance oriented fit that is consistent in feel but not exactly plush. I wish Nike would move away from Flyknit to more conventional engineered mesh. 

As remarked by Ryan and Jeff, the heel hold may be problematic. It wasn’t particularly so for me but I do think the collars are too low in combination with the firm padding. I am well held lower down at the heel, less so higher up. 

With such low collars deeper plush padding to accommodate different heel shapes are in order or…why not a more elf-like achilles collar. I resolved the low feeling by adjusting to slightly thicker medium weight socks.

The fit is true to size for me with moderate toe box room and great midfoot hold.

Sally: I was surprised to find myself such a fan of the V1 and V2, but I have really enjoyed easy runs and all day wear in both of them. As a petite female runner I have typically shied away from the “big” heftier shoes such as Hokas, but the IR 1 and 2 were an exception. I enjoyed the bouncy wildness of the ride, and the shoes fit my foot well. 

Needless to say I was excited to try the “improved” IR V3. The fit out of the box is likewise comfortable and true to size (W8 in all three - but I size up to 8.5 in Nike VF and AF for races). I received the 

Midsole

Ryan: In the same way you might look at a burger and think “that’s gonna be juicy”, you’ll likely spy this pillow of ZoomX foam and think “that’s gonna be deep”. And you won’t be wrong.

The way I see it, the Invincible is all about the midsole. Everything else plays a supporting role in allowing this special slab of foam to do its thing, as well as to keep it in check. It’s both propulsive and impact damping, in that distinctly ZoomX way.

The amount of bounce and impact protection is second to none. However, that comes at a small price, which is a high-volume, slightly heavy feeling underfoot. I completely understand why plenty of high mileage athletes, elites included, wear the Invincible on a regular basis. It’s without a doubt a star talent in the injury-prevention department. Whether or not it’s your preference, the shoe feels completely disconnected from the road. For training, I think it’s a welcome feeling to be able to clomp along for mile after mile and be a bit less attentive to the quality of the road surface.

As mentioned above, the new lasting board sits atop the midsole, helping to control the wilder impulses of the ZoomX. With a solid platform to distribute the foot’s force across such a lively stack of foam, the shoe now feels like it sways less and is more predictable than the comparatively wild V2. Just by twisting the shoe in hand, I can tell that V3 is torsionally stiffer than its predecessor. I don’t see this as detracting from the fun factor at all, as there is still as much bounce as you could reasonably ask for.

Jeff: If you’ve run in any ZoomX equipped shoe, then you know what’s coming. There’s so much soft bounciness you’re going to almost forget the ground is there. That was true the first time around, but I found if I ran in them too much my achilles would act up - too much of an out of control good thing. The lasting board inclusion tames the shoe just a bit, though I can’t imagine anyone is going to call this shoe boring. 

The new shape of the midsole works well to creatingcreate a more stable platform. When breaking out the calipers, it is only a few millimeters wider in a few places, but if football is a game of inches, running shoes is a game of millimeters. I’ve yet to get the feeling that I’m on the lateral edge of the shoe, something that the first version had me fighting with every step.

While the first version had a bit of a heel clip, it was fairly short and didn't seem to do a whole lot, while the 3’s heel clip extends just a little bit further and I think factors into the shoe’s stability. 

Unlike the Infinity Run, which has a heel clip that familiarizes itself with your arch pretty quickly, this one never gets in the way of a fun ride. And make no mistake, this is a fun ride.

Sam: The giant slab of fun Zoom X foam remains unchanged but for some relatively minor geometry changes. However, it is now quite dramatically stabilized and I would say toned down in sheer explosive effect by the lasting board and new outsole with the extended plastic clip playing a supporting role, so to speak, but an obtrusive one unlike many such clips including the “nasty” overdone one in the Infinity Run for me.

The combination of elements creates a new top (lasting board) and bottom (outsole) containment of the ZoomX that keeps the springy rebound of ZoomX but overly stiffens the shoe (especially up front) and reduces the impact of the wild magic rebounding ride. I especially noticed this in cold outside making me think the outsole is stiffening and getting harder and while on the indoor track in warm temperatures far less so, 

In particular, the front of the platform is now stiffer at toe off relying more on the rocker which is quite minimal. I think the key culprit is the outsole and especially the wrap up outsole elements on each side and secondarily the new stiffness introduced by the lasting board.

Now mind you this new midsole, lasting board, outsole combination is far more stable than before and more practical for more runners that is for sure. I do wonder if instead of all of that Nike might have instead firmed up the Zoom X a touch (as in Zegama Trail), left out the lasting board and kept the new outsole design which tries to introduce some flex up front through its cutouts.

Sally: I don’t try to hide the fact that I LOVE my Zoom X race shoes. They give me magic powers and provide a bouncy flying sensation that makes me feel fast (at least in my mind). The previous versions of the IR were likewise bouncy and fun but in a heavier burlier daily trainer package, and I enjoyed wearing them for longer runs with a more relaxed pace. I recall they were designed to help prevent injuries. This new version likewise has Zoom X, but it is masked by the full strobel board and firm outsole (again, bear in mind that all my running has been outdoors in the New England winter; so, as Sam points out, the cold might be making the shoe feel stiffer). The increased width at the midsole makes this version more stable, which might appeal to a greater range of runners. There is a lot of midsole here, but the bounce and resultant energy return is not proportionate to the massive stack. This is a tamer, more controlled midsole, whether you like it or not. 

 

Outsole

Ryan: Continuing with the theme of ‘abundance’, here we have plentiful rubber underfoot, which might even be thicker than last year’s outsole. While the design pattern is reminiscent of V2, in V3 we have a more aggressively waffled rubber with some small cutouts in the heel/forefoot, which punch all the way through to the midsole. These cutouts presumably improve the outsole’s flex, since having this much rubber underfoot could otherwise start to cause some issues with ride quality. A platform this wide and this much toothy rubber underfoot has no issues with traction. And if the durability of V2 is any indicator, the lifespan of V3 is likely to be just as impressive, if not better. 

Jeff: I’m with Ryan, I think the cutouts in the rubber, as well having multiple segments, helps the shoe’s ride just a bit. Rarely does “giant slab of rubber” make a shoe run smoother, so I’m glad they mixed it up, but in a way that likely won’t impact long term durability. Traction is fantastic.

Sam: The V3 has a great outsole. Nothing like classic waffles for grip and practicality in winter and on dirt roads and even mellow paths which with its newly found stability the Invincible can now venture onto.  It clearly is thicker and should be very durable. On the run, it clearly adds some at the ground platform stability and heft, maybe a bit to much so for fans of the thinner more all of a piece original outsole. 

I also noted that outside in the cold the outsole got harder and stiffened the shoe whereas on the indoor track at warm temperatures this stiffness (affecting ride) was less noticed and the rocker and toe off more effective.

Sally: I like the changes they made to the outsole with the cutaway rubber at the midfoot, the grooves that segment the outsole to provide more flexibility, and the revised waffle with tiny nubs rubber. In keeping with other Nike shoes, this is not the quietest shoe out there (but not as loud as the AlphaFly!). I found the traction excellent on wet surfaces and even on snow and gravel, adding to the shoe’s versatility. I can not speak yet to the durability, but I would expect it to be excellent due to the large amount of rubber. 

Ride

Ryan: Thanks to the new board sitting directly under the insole, the ride is more predictable and behaved. I still wouldn’t label it a ‘stable’ shoe, as a chunk of unplated ZoomX of this size is certain to have a large personality, but it is a nice improvement over last year’s model. The arch cutout on the medial side of the midsole has been reduced, making for a wider midfoot which I think helps with transition and stability.

This ride is all about getting a feel for how the ZoomX midsole returns energy, and then leaning into that feeling. The sensation is always one of being disconnected from the asphalt, so you have a lot of leeway in tailoring your ride to fit your style. I personally find that a fairly flat, midfoot impact to compress the ZoomX and ‘pop’ off of the forefoot works well. But I could understand how heel mashers might like the deep, explosive cushion in the heel, too. However you approach it, the shoe’s transition is very smooth, thanks to a flat and continuous geometry underfoot.

Jeff: I’m going to have to steal “heel mashers” from Ryan for future reviews, and otherwise I agree with what he wrote. The road protection is among the best on the market, and dialing in the stability from the first two iterations has been huge in improving the shoe’s versatility. There’s so much squish under the forefoot, midfoot, and heel, that it is hard to run “wrong” in the Invincible 3. 

Sam: The new sandwich of board and outsole make for a more stable, if not quite as fun ride. There is a lot of energetic cushion here but for me it is overly tamed and harder to take advantage of for big smiles due to the new found stiffness of the platform and only moderate rocker. I am a heel striker at slower paces and found it hard to roll forward and up and away. For sure the ride is more practical for more runs and for more runners than the previous editions as now the Invincible can range from daily trainer to long run or recovery shoe. That said some of the magic is gone for me as the Invincible is no longer that wild riding super rebounding all ZoomX experience (find that in the Streakfly!). I wish Nike had tamed the ride a bit less or changed the overall geometry to improve the rocker or better yet make the front of the shoe more flexible,

Sally: The others have summarized the ride well. Suffice it to say it is indeed a more controlled, tamer ride than its predecessors, for good or for bad. Personally, I prefer the wild ride and will miss that (why do they always change a shoe that you love to “improve it?”). 

The Invincible is now more like other max cushioned trainers out there that are suited for long slower runs, cushioning your foot to absorb impact and providing protection from the road. 

There is a slight rocker, but not to the extent that you feel your foot roll forward to a springy toe-off. This is a more conservative, stable, controlled ride; It is no longer the highly bouncy and springy ride that made me smile.  But perhaps I like to live on the edge more than other runners do! (My favorite shoe is the Adidas Prime X Strung, so what does that tell you?!) 

Conclusions and Recommendations

Ryan: The Invincible 3 toes the line of being overbuilt in many ways, but it ties everything together in an effective and enjoyable package. For everyday training, and especially for high-mileage runners, the Invincible is absolutely worth considering. The rebound characteristics of a ZoomX midsole of this volume are hard not to love. New improvements to the upper and to the shoe’s stability are nice refinements over V2, however heel lockdown has suffered somewhat. I’ll be reaching for these for a large percentage of my recovery runs.

Ryan’s Score:  9.5/10 (Deductions for heel lockdown, weight/volume underfoot)

Smiles Score: 😊😊😊😊😊

Jeff: The Invincible 3 gets virtually everything right under foot, which is the most important aspect of the shoe. Its protection and dynamic bounce are among the very best out there, but the upper has one major problem. While its more streamlined upper is much appreciated, the lack of heel hold has me still struggling to make them work after more than ten runs. While the heel slip is frustrating, the fact that I’m nowhere near giving up on them should speak volumes on just how great the ride is. If I can get the fit dialed in, this shoe would be flirting with a perfect 10.

Jeff’s Score 8.9/10

Ride: 10 (50%) Fit: 7 (30%) Value: 9 (15%) Style: 9 (5%)

😊😊😊😊😊

Sam: The Invincible “matures” in this iteration. It is more stable yet still has its super fun all ZoomX midsole. Gaining some weight and getting somewhat more ponderous and stiff in ride for me, it is a changed and more practical shoe moving from a unique sometimes overly exuberant riding not every day shoe to a really fine more conventional max cushion trainer, something Nike was sorely lacking. 

I do think slightly firmer ZoomX (as in the Zegama Trail but a bit softer) and leaving out the new lasting board would have accomplished the “practical” needs of a bit more control and stability and changed the experience less. I have no real qualms with the upper except its low collars, only really noticed standing around or walking,  but do wish, and especially given the now more stable platform, Nike had gone with a lighter more conventional mesh upper to also reduce the overall weight. 

In fact, with more to come from them, it now sits as their best all around heavy duty non plated road trainer. That said for versatility and agility, if less cushioned, I will reach more often for the Pegasus Trail 4 (for road and any day over the regular Peg) and for fast fun (replacing the Invincible for me) the all ZoomX midsole Streakfly with the Tempo Next fo faster long runs.

Bottom line: I wish Nike had gone a little less far in trying to reign in the wild ride of the earlier Invincibles.

Sam’s Score: 8.97 /10

Ride: 8.9 (50%) Fit: 9 (30%) Value: 9 (15%) Style: 9.3 (5%)

😊😊😊1/2

Sally: I really wanted to love this IR3 as much as I loved the previous two versions, but it didn’t live up to my expectations. Nike changed too much on what I thought was a fun bouncy “alternative” day training shoe which was easy on the legs and downright enjoyable to run in. The ZoomX midsole is still there, but it is not allowed to shine, sandwiched between a stiff strobel board and a more substantial outsole. The previous easy fit for me is now a challenge to dial in due to a heel lift struggle.

And yet this is now a solid max cushioned trainer to compete with the other brands’ max cushioned trainers, tamer and more stable and probably more versatile than the previous versions. Many runners will love this shoe for their longer slower paced runs; I for one will miss the wild child. Nike, please bring back the Peg Turbo for my faster training days! 

Sally’s Score:  9/10

Ride: 9 (50%) Fit: 8 (30%) Value: 9 (15%) Style: 9 (5%)

😊😊😊😊

Watch Sam's Invincible Run Video Review (16:17)

Comparisons 

Index to all RTR reviews: HERE

Nike ZoomX Invincible FK 2 (RTR Review):

Ryan (M9.5): V2 is basically a less tame version of V3. While the amount of cushion and energy return is nearly identical, V3’s lasting board, thicker outsole, extended heel clip, and slightly wider midfoot give it more stability and responsiveness. The heel lockdown is the one category in which V3 falters. The upper of V3 is a bit more snug, provides better foot hold, and is much more breathable. As for the outsole, V3’s more aggressive waffle shape with small cutouts seems to be a minor improvement, despite its thicker rubber. 

Jeff: I had a very similar experience with the v1, it has improved heel hold over the v3, but the refined midsole of the v3 gives it the win in virtually every other way. The more stable ride makes the v3 easier to grab as an everyday trainer.

Sam: AI agree with Jeff the v3 is easier to grab as an everyday trainer but some of the magic of earlier versions is now over tamed and dulled down.

Sally:  What Jeff and Sam said! I was true to size (W8) in both. 

ASICS Gel-Nimbus 25 (RTR Review):

Ryan (M9.5): While both of these shoes aim to be high-mileage, highly cushioned workhorses, they go about their business in very different ways. The ASICS has a more plush upper but it doesn’t breathe as well as the Nike. While both midsoles feel equally wide under foot, the Nike’s ZoomX energy is hands down more explosive than the ASICS. I don’t think one midsole necessarily wins over the other though. The ASICS is just as protective as the Nike, and while it doesn’t return energy in as lively of a manner, it offers much more stability and a cleaner ride. These two shoes are among the best currently on the market for protective, neutral, high mileage trainers, and it largely comes down to choosing whether you prefer the docile, stable ride of the Nimbus, or the explosive, looser ride of the Invincible. Both fit true to size, although the ASICS forefoot is a touch roomier.

Jeff: I was blown away by how far the Nimbus 25 came from the already-good Nimbus 24, and it definitely holds its own against the Invincible 3 in a similar-but-different way. I agree with Ryan, the Nimbus midsole doesn’t have the performance of the ZoomX in the Invincible, though it’s no slouch either. I think of it like BMW/Mercedes a few years ago - both had a number of sport/luxury cars, though one focused more on sport/luxury, the other was more luxury/sport. No wrong answers, just depends on what you’re looking for. Upper comparison has the Nimbus 25 by a country mile, it is more comfortable and plush (with a bigger toebox!) but most importantly it holds the foot in place without cutting off circulation.

Sam: The Nimbus 25 clearly has a superior upper. Plusher, easier on the foot and almost but not quite as supportive as the IR3’s. Underfoot it gets more complicated. I found the Nimbus 25 heel overly broad and blocky in feel as unlike the IR 3 it strongly seeks to be inherently stable. Upfront the Nimbus 25 has a similar geometry trying to balance a mild rocker with some flex and a big stack and I think does so slightly more effectively than the IR3. It’s very close here for me. Upper win for Nimbus, foam win for Invincible, geometry a split.

Saucony Endorphin Shift 3 (RTR Review):

Ryan (M9.5): Another one of my favorites for everyday running, the Shift has a comparatively tall, but much firmer stack than the Invincible. Both shoes have a stout, solidly built heel to help manage the shoe’s tall height. The Saucony’s relative firmness delivers a much more controlled ride, and lacks the pillowy feel and soft edged outsole that the Nike offers. In the Shift, the energy is not returned as explosively – the transition is much tidier, providing a more guided ride from foot strike all the way through toe off. The Saucony also lacks the girthy feeling that the Nike produces underfoot. 

When comparing outsoles, these two take quite different approaches. The Invincible utilizes a ton of thick rubber to manage the ZoomX midsole, announcing its presence on impact with the road and playing a large part in the shoe’s dynamics. By contrast, the outer surface of the Shift is a mixture of foam and smoother rubber, creating a quieter, more fluid experience. 

Again, this choice is mostly a matter of preference – both shoes are highly protective and durable for slow, high mileage, and the decision comes down to whether you prefer the lively, wild edge of the Invincible, or would rather opt for a responsive, firmer ride from the Saucony. Both fit true to size.

Jeff: Both shoes ride well in completely different ways - Nike went with amazing material, Saucony went with advanced design geometry. Personally I prefer the softer landing of the Invincible, but the Shift’s stability is hard to beat.

Sam: Both are similar riding with the IR3 clearly getting the foam win. I prefer the higher drop of the Invincible over the 4mm drop of the Shift 3. The toe off Speed Roll of the Shift is somewhat more effective for me than the now stiffer similar geometry IR3’s geometry. The Shift is more all of a piece in feel given its more minimal outsole and firmer foam but is a bit more ponderous, especially at slower paces than the Invincible. Leaning IR3 in this match up.

Saucony Triumph 20  (RTR Review)

Jeff: Saucony’s softer and more upscale trainer got a major boost in the 20th version with a new formula of PWRRUN+ midsole. The result is a soft bounciness that favors comfort and consistency over the extreme squish and rebound of the Invincible 3. The Triumph was my shoe of the year for 2022, though when worn head to head, it’s clear that the added squish in the Nike is just that much more fun, and while it’s stack height is only a few mm higher in the forefoot and heel, it feels like a much more cushioned shoe. The Saucony wins on cost, weight, toebox width, foot hold, and stability - even though its platform isn’t as wide as the Invincible. The Invincible midsole is the biggest winner, as good as the new PWRRUN+ is, ZoomX really is on a whole different level. If only the Invincible 3 heel wasn’t such a miss, I’d probably have my 2023 Shoe of the Year write-up done in February. 

Sam: In this match up and despite not quite as energetic foam I lean towards the Triumph’s more conventional flexing geometry and fine upper. I just run smoother in them.

New Balance SC Trainer  (RTR Review)

Jeff: Potentially the only shoe I own that’s even more cushioned than the Invincible 3, the SC Trainer has a whopping 39mm/47mm of their premium Fuelcell midsole under the foot. While I’ve personally found that ZoomX is softer and springier than Fuelcell, having nearly an extra centimeter of material makes quite a difference, though it has a plate to help the shoe even resemble stability. The Invincible platform is wider, and its outsole has exponentially more traction than the much more subdued SC Trainer. With similar toeboxes, the NB has much better foot hold versus the Invincible 3’s fatal flaw, but ultimately the NB may be a great example of too much of a good thing, and the Invincible 3’s slightly refined midsole is much easier to live with.

Sam: The SC Trainer just moves along smoother and faster for me even though I prefer ZoomX foam over softer mushier (relatively speaking) Fuel Cell. The geometry, despite a softish heel at slow paces, and the plate of the SC Trainer put it over the top for me.ter surface of the Shift is a mixture of foam and smoother rubber, creating a quieter, more fluid experience.

Saucony Triumph 20  (RTR Review)

Jeff: Saucony’s softer and more upscale trainer got a major boost in the 20th version with a new formula of PWRRUN+ midsole. The result is a soft bounciness that favors comfort and consistency over the extreme squish and rebound of the Invincible 3. The Triumph was my shoe of the year for 2022, though when worn head to head, it’s clear that the added squish in the Nike is just that much more fun, and while it’s stack height is only a few mm higher in the forefoot and heel, it feels like a much more cushioned shoe. The Saucony wins on cost, weight, toebox width, foot hold, and stability - even though its platform isn’t as wide as the Invincible. The Invincible midsole is the biggest winner, as good as the new PWRRUN+ is, ZoomX really is on a whole different level. If only the Invincible 3 heel wasn’t such a miss, I’d probably have my 2023 Shoe of the Year write-up done in February. 

Sam: In this match up and despite not quite as energetic foam I lean towards the Triumph’s more conventional flexing geometry and fine upper. I just run smoother in them.

New Balance SC Trainer  (RTR Review)

Jeff: Potentially the only shoe I own that’s even more cushioned than the Invincible 3, the SC Trainer has a whopping 39mm/47mm of their premium Fuelcell midsole under the foot. While I’ve personally found that ZoomX is softer and springier than Fuelcell, having nearly an extra centimeter of material makes quite a difference, though it has a plate to help the shoe even resemble stability. The Invincible platform is wider, and its outsole has exponentially more traction than the much more subdued SC Trainer. Similar toeboxes, the NB has much better foot hold versus the Invincible 3’s fatal flaw, but ultimately the NB may be a great example of too much of a good thing, and the Invincible 3’s slightly refined midsole is much easier to live with. 

Sam: The SC Trainer just moves along smoother and faster for me even though I prefer ZoomX foam over softer mushier (relatively speaking) Fuel Cell. The geometry despite a softish heel at slow paces and the plate of the SC Trainer put it over the top for me.

Sally: (True to size in W8 in both): The SC Trainer was my favorite shoe of 2022: fast, fun, bouncy, comfortable, good-looking, versatile. The previous versions of the IR were more comparable, but the IR 3 is tamer, less bounce, flatter ride. I choose the SC Trainer.

adidas PrimeX Strung (RTR Review)

Sally: (M7 in Prime X which was way too large; TTS W8 in IR3) This is no comparison. The Prime X Strung is the wildest shoe I have ever worn: fast and unpredictable, uncontrolled and unparalleled FUN to run in! This is the first shoe that literally gave me the sensation of flight, and I love that wildness. Even though my sample pair was way too large for me, I love that shoe. The IR1 and IR2 would be better comparisons with their bouncy springy ZoomX ride, but the IR3 is tamer and more subdued and can’t be fairly compared. The IR3 has its max cushioned daily trainer niche, and the Prime X Strung fills a totally different one in my running shoe quiver. Apples to oranges!

Sam: The wildest shoe on the roads today with as Sally says a dramatic sensation of flight like no other. It weighs far far less than the Invincible sitting on a 10mm higher heel that is very narrow and not to be lingered on.  The Invincible 1 and 2 were more practical and the 3 yet more practical but not nearly as exciting.

The Nike Invincible Run 3 is available from our partners below

RUNNING WAREHOUSE US SHOP HERE

ROADRUNNER SPORTS SHOP HERE

FLEET FEET SHOP HERE

TOP4 RUNNING EUROPE  SHOP HERE

Samples were provided at no charge for review purposes. RoadTrail Run has affiliate partnerships and may earn commission on products purchased via shopping links in this article. These partnerships do not influence our editorial content. The opinions herein are entirely the authors'.

Tester Profiles

Ryan Eller A hopeless soccer career led Ryan to take up running, and after taking a decade-long break from competing, he is back racking up mileage whenever he can.  He calls the 2018 Boston Marathon the hardest race of his life, where he finished in 2:40, barely remembering his name at the finish line.  More recently he has solo time trialed the 2020-2021 super shoes, often sub 15 minutes for 5K. Ryan has a PR of 2:19 from the 2022 Maine Marathon.

Jeff Beck is the token slow runner of the RTR lineup, and as such his viewpoints on shoe and gear can differ from those who routinely finish marathons in three hours or less. Jeff runs 20 miles per week on roads and trails around Denver, CO (and sometimes on the treadmill when the weather gets too much for a Phoenix native). Jeff only got into running in his 30s, as a result his career PR's are 4:07 for the marathon and 5K at 23:39. Jeff has finished several ultra marathons, from 50K up to 50 miles, and is still debating if he wants to go down that road again.

Sally is a lifelong runner and mother of five who agreed against her better judgment to run her first marathon at age 54; she has since run the past nine Boston Marathons, two NYC Marathons, and one Chicago, with the WMM Six Star Medal now in her sights. With a Boston PR of 3:25:55 in 2022 (9th place in AG) and two consecutive 2nd place in Age Group awards in NYC, she is about to run in the Abbott World Marathon Majors Age Group World Championships at the London Marathon on October 2, 2022 (W60-64). She also competes in USATF races with the team Greater Lowell Road Runners. To add meaning to her Boston Marathon races she runs with Team Eye and Ear and has raised over $260,000 for Massachusetts Eye and Ear Hospital. Sally is 5’2’’ and 105 pounds and lives in Marblehead, MA, training outdoors year round.

Sam is the Editor and Founder of Road Trail Run. He is 65 with a 2018 3:40 Boston qualifier. 2022 was Sam’s 50th year of running. He has a decades old 2:28 marathon PR. These days he runs halves in the just sub 1:40 range, if he is very lucky, training 30-40 miles per week mostly at moderate paces on the roads and trails of New Hampshire and Utah be it on the run or nordic skis. He is 5’9” tall and weighs about 164 lbs, if he is not enjoying too many fine New England IPA’s.

Find all RoadTrailRun reviews at our index page HERE 

Google "roadtrailrun Shoe Name" and you can be quite sure to find just about any run shoe over the last 10 years

RoadTrailRun may receive a commission on purchases at the stores linked in this article. 

Your purchases help support RoadTrailRun and are much appreciated. Thanks!

Comments and Questions Welcome Below!

Please let us know mileage, paces, race distances, and current preferred shoes

RUNNING WAREHOUSE US

Men's & Women's SHOP HERE

FREE 2 Day Shipping EASY No Sweat Returns

EUROPE Men's & Women's SHOP HERE

Europe only: use RTR code RTR5ALL for 5% off all products, even sale products 

AUSTRALIA Men's & Women's SHOP HERE

ROADRUNNERSPORTS

Men's and Women's SHOP HERE

Join RRS VIP

• 10% Savings Every Day*  5% Back in Rewards Cash
• Test Run Shoes 90 Days Worry Free
• Crazy Fast, FREE Shipping
• NONSTOP PERKS

FLEET FEET

Men's & Women's SHOP HERE

REI 

Men's & Women's  SHOP HERE

BACKCOUNTRY

Men's & Women's  SHOP HERE

TOP4RUNNING EUROPE

Men's & Women's SHOP HERE

Use RTR code RTRTOP4 for 5% off all products, even sale products

MOOSEJAW

Men's & Women's  SHOP HERE

HOLABIRD SPORTS

Men's & Women's SHOP HERE

FREE Shipping on most orders over $40

AMAZON  

Men's & Women's SHOP HERE

NEW BALANCE

Men's & Women's SHOP HERE

SAUCONY

Men's and Women's SHOP HERE

WATCH OUR YOUTUBE REVIEWS ON THE ROADTRAILRUN CHANNEL

Enjoyed this post? Never miss out on future posts by Following RoadTrailRun News Feed

Please Like and Follow RoadTrailRun

Facebook: RoadTrailRun.com  Instagram: @roadtrailrun

Twitter: @RoadTrailRun You Tube: @RoadTrailRun