Hoka Tecton X 2 Multi Tester Review: 11 Comparisons

Article by Dom Layfield , Jeff Valliere, and Mike Postaski

Hoka Tecton X 2 ($225)

Introduction

Dom:  The Tecton-X exploded onto the trail running scene in June 2022 amid a slew of excitement.  Jim Walmsley had been seen running in prototypes for months ahead of launch.  Since the introduction of the Nike Vaporfly in 2017, plated road shoes have become ubiquitous at almost every level, but similar tech has been slow to translate to trail running.  There were a few pioneering attempts (notably, the 2019 Skechers Speed Trail Hyper), but in late 2021 and throughout 2022, we witnessed a surge of plated trail shoe launches (RTR Reviews at the links): (Speedland SL:PDX, SL:HSV, GS:TAM; Scott Sports Speed Carbon RC; Scarpa Golden Gate Kima; Saucony Endorphin Edge; Adidas Terrex Agravic Pro;  STR/KE MVMNT Vimana; Hoka Tecton X, TNF Flight Vectiv)

Dom:  Like everyone else at RTR, I was excited to test the original shoe.  I had assumed that the plate would make it an excellent choice for short distance (i.e. fast) races on smooth trails.  What I hadn’t anticipated was that it would also make a capable ultra distance shoe.  The combination of a thick foam stack and sandwiched plate provide tons of rock protection at a very light weight.  I wore the original Tecton-X at Angeles Crest 100, UTMB, The Bear 100 and the first 100k of Javelina Jundred.

A mere ten months later, Hoka released the Tecton X 2.  This feels like an incremental change rather than a major revision to the shoe.  There is a new Matryx upper, but little else seems to have changed.  The plate in version 2 feels stiffer than the original, but I’m not sure whether this is just a consequence of my having several hundred miles in the old shoe.

Pros:

• Very light for the amount of cushion and protection - Dom, Jeff, Mike

• Version 1 was impressively durable- Dom, Mike

• Decent traction given small lugs - Dom, Jeff, Mike

• Upper improved - more substantial w/ no weight gain - Mike P

Cons:

• Minimal ground feel - Dom, Jeff

• Shoe doesn’t feel fast  - Dom

• Oversprung heel can occasionally launch you sideways in rough terrain- Dom

• Pricey - Dom, Jeff

• Despite two independent parallel plates, shoe can feel tippy in technical terrain - Jeff

• Race-fit upper could feel snug for some- Mike P

Stats

Weight: men's oz  / g (US9) 

  Samples: men’s 9.5 oz  / 270 g (US10)

Tecton 1 weighed 9.5 oz / 268 g (US9.5)

Stack Height: (estimated) men’s 33 mm heel / 28 mm forefoot (5 mm drop)

First Impressions, Fit and Upper

Dom:  Compared to Tecton X v1, the new upper feels similar.  When running with a v1 on one foot and v2 on the other, I could barely tell the difference.

Dom:  If you’re not familiar with v1, what that means is a lightweight, minimally-structured upper.  The forefoot fit is a little narrower than I would like, but I have a wide foot and enjoy room for my toes to spread out.  People with narrower feet, or those who like a snugger fit, might describe the forefoot as roomy.  So, basically, the shoe is nicely gauged to a happy medium.  The back end of the shoe fits my narrow heels well, with no slop or looseness.  

Dom:  One notable aspect of the new upper is that the toe bumper is softer than before.  I didn’t experience any problems during training runs, but found that the X1 v1 would aggravate my toenails during long races (50+ miles).  Hopefully, this subtle revision will resolve the issue.  I’ll report back when I’ve run my first race in version 2!

Dom:  I also noticed, during side-by-side comparison, that v2 felt a little more cushioned than v1.  I’m not clear at this point whether this is just due to v1 shoes having several hundred miles on them, or whether Hoka has tweaked the foam composition.  Sole molds appear to be completely unchanged.   Similarly, while I couldn’t tell the difference on foot, I found the v2 felt stiffer when hand-flexing the shoes.  Again, this may just be due to many hard miles logged on the original shoes.

Dom:  Other minor items to note about the new upper:  The lacing on the original Tecton X extended unusually far forward on the vamp, past the toe crease (“ghillie lacing”).  Lacing in version 2 reverts to a more conventional configuration.  

Version 2 ventilation is exceptionally good.  It is possible to see straight through the shoe.  The original Tecton drained and dried out very rapidly after water crossings: version 2 promises to be better still.

Jeff V:  Out of the box the Tecton X 2 presents a very similar vibe to the 1st version, although with a completely new Matryx upper.  I liked the previous version of the shoe just fine, but will admit that I struggled a bit with the upper, where I had to really choke up on the laces to get a proper foothold, but yet in doing so was creating some bunching of the upper just forward of the lowest eyelet.  There simultaneously seemed to be too much upper, yet not enough, or at least not in the right configuration.  

Additionally, with v1, there are a lot of eyelets, 6 total (7 if you count the extra secondary one at the top), which are too many in my opinion and run too far down the shoe.  While I have a thin, low volume foot and put a high value on foothold and security, I found the fit of the v1 to be somewhat confining and after two or so hours could not wait to take them off.  

With v2, my concerns of the previous version have been addressed by reducing the amount of eyelets to 5, adjusting the volume of the upper such that I have no more bunching, or that confined feeling. They just feel “normal”.  

The Matryx upper, while not stretchy, has just that right amount of give to be a bit more accommodating.  

The heel is secure and the collar adequately padded.  

The tongue is thin as in the previous version and not padded, though sturdy enough to prevent any lace bite or discomfort.  

As Dom mentioned, the toe bumper has been reconfigured a little, which for me has not made a difference, but I can see the new design being better if you had any rubbing as Dom mentioned he had during longer races.

I find overall performance of the upper to be very good, secure and comfortable no matter the terrain or speed and without feeling confining.  Breathability is good, though I have not run them in temps much higher than the high 70’s yet.

Mike P: The Tecton X was my trail shoe of the year for 2022 - and deservedly so as I rode them to wins at Standhope 100M and IMTUF 100M. It’s an amazing shoe in that it has all the stack height and protection that you need for a long ultra, yet maintains an amazingly low weight for all that stack and protection underfoot. The shoe was great for me last season, the only quibble I had was that it seemed like the upper could be dialed in a bit. V2 addresses that, as Dom and Jeff have described above.

[Exterior overlays + vertical Matryx stitching = great foothold]

In general, the extended lacing is gone - basically the lower row of eyelets has been removed. I could see why they went with that in V1 as the upper was a bit less rigid and slightly loose, so the added eyelet allowed you to snug up a real race-type fit. V2’s new Matryx upper is far more substantial, and gives more lateral support and foothold. Now with a standard lace setup (and no gillies), you have that same race-type secure fit without relying on snugging down the lacing.

I find that I can leave the lower few rows of laces somewhat looser and have no issues with foot security. The Matryx upper wraps my foot well and I can feel my foot pressing into the sides when needed without the material giving out and letting my foot slide around.

[Inner collar padding is beefed up for better heel lockdown]

I’ll just point out a couple of other small details I noticed. Heel hold in V1 was probably a slight weak spot. It’s always tricky with a stiffer, or plated shoe to keep the heel locked in, which I did notice in V1. In V2, the padding on the inner collars and heel seems to have been bolstered just a bit. It just looks and feels like there’s more padding on the inside to wrap over and around your heel to hold it in. 

[V2’s tongue has a nice padded section below the laces]

The tongue has also been improved in V2 - it’s more padded, with vertical bars of padding running along each side. This is an improvement over V1’s very thin tongue. No issues at all with lace bite in V2. The tongue still feels a bit short to me, but it’s the same height as V1, and I had no issues over 100 miles, so I’ll chalk it up as a non-issue.

[Tongue may be short if you utilize the second lace-lock eyelet]

Midsole

Dom:  The signature feature of the Tecton X (both original and v2) is the pair of long, thin carbon plates embedded in the midsole.  See illustration.  

I feel conflicted about this construction.  Having two separate plates allows the shoe to provide some ground feel and compliance, where a single undivided plate would make the shoe uncomfortably stiff in torsion.  That’s a clear win.  The plated construction also probably explains why this shoe is able to offer amazing rock protection at a very light weight.  On the other hand, the shoe doesn’t feel fast.  Maybe the limited underfoot sensation makes me run more conservatively.  Whatever the reason, I don’t pull on the Tecton and expect to crush PR’s.

Dom:  It’s worth noting that some other runners feel precisely the opposite.  David Roche, for example, apparently wears the Tecton X for almost all his training runs and races, and has been destroying his own CR’s in them.  I really need to run timed loops, holding a steady HR, and see if there is a quantifiable performance benefit from the plate.  Or perhaps I just need to run faster: David is very, very fast!

Dom:  Whether or not the plates provide a meaningful performance boost, I’m not convinced that the plates need to diverge at the rear of the shoe.  In regard to trail shoe heels, I generally like them to be softer at the sides.  The fact that two plates spread out at the back of the shoe, making the ‘X’ shape after which the shoe is named, means that the sides of the heel are stiff and springy.  If your gait needs correction, this can be a good thing, but it also makes heel landings in rough terrain something of a lottery.  Every once in a while, I feel my heel launch violently off a rock that I would hope the sole would just deform around. 

Jeff V:  The midsole here remains unchanged from v1.  As Sam had described that midsole so well, I will put his description here:  “The midsole features a bottom layer of Hoka’s new responsive supercritical CMEVA foam. Above we have a slightly softer bouncier layer of foam. Together the construction is what Hoka calls ProFly X.  The weight to cushion ratio is outstanding here as we have an 8.8 oz / 249 g shoe with the same big 33/29 stack height as the now lighter Speedgoat 5 in a shoe that weighs less than the Speedgoat.  Embedded in the midsole are dual parallel carbon plates. Unlike “conventional” carbon road race shoe plates, the Tecton X has some moderate longitudinal as well as lateral flex for contouring trail terrain and climbing.”  

My impressions remain the same on the performance of both shoes.  I was able to test the Tecton X 2 on a wide variety of terrain including dirt roads, paved roads, buffed singletrack, semi technical singletrack, very steep technical trails and even on some snow.  I found performance to vary depending upon gradient, trail surface and pace.  In general, on uphills of any gradient, I do not find the carbon plates to provide as much advantage as I would expect (hope), but they are light, lively and responsive overall.  When feeling strong on lower gradient uphills however, I did find them to offer a little more pop when really pushed, but on steeper and especially more technical terrain, I do not find them to be an advantage.  

When  running on flats or low gradients, not too technical downhills, I could feel the plate

working to generate energy when moving at faster speeds and when I really opened up my stride.  

I find protection to be very good and can feel the carbon plates flexing over varied terrain, though they feel a bit stiff when running through technical terrain and I am not 100% confident when running through technical rocky sections of trail.

Cushioning is adequate, but I find them to be somewhat on the firm side and noticed this more at higher speeds and on longer downhills.  While not a dealbreaker, for longer distances I would favor the Speedgoat 5 for longer efforts (especially if terrain were more technical) due to the more forgiving cushion and overall more plush feel.

Mike P: Midsole is unchanged from V1, so I won’t go into too much detail here, as Dom and Jeff V. have also covered the particulars. You can go back and check out the V1 review, which still applies to V1 as far as the midsole and also outsole.

As Dom notes in the review, it also seems to me that the midsole as a whole may be a touch stiffer than V1. But I’m in the same boat as him - I’m going by pure recollection as both of my V1 pairs have hundreds of miles in them at this point. But I do remember distinctly noticing the softer feel of the upper, softer Profly foam layer in V1. In V2 the softness directly under the foot feels less noticeable, so my gut feeling is that it’s possibly a touch firmer. It could also be the plate needing to “break in” a bit within the sandwiching foam. But again, no way I can do an accurate A/B test at this point with my V1 pairs.

I’ll just reiterate here, that the Tecton X for me is the perfect 100M midsole. It’s the happy medium between overly soft, marshmallowy cushion and dense, firm, heavy feeling foam. It’s substantial enough to protect your feet, eliminating some ground feel (necessary over very long ultras), yet still responsive and light feeling on foot. You don’t feel like you have to drag around heavy slabs of foam to get the protection you need in the latter stages of a long run or race.

Outsole

Dom:  The Vibram Litebase outsole of the Tecton X 2 is unchanged from the original.  And that’s a good thing.  During my (many hundred) miles of running in the original shoe, I found that traction was consistently good, in both wet and dry conditions.  Don’t get me wrong, the shallow lugs mean this is not going to be your shoe of choice for wet grass, but most runners will find excellent, reliable grip at startlingly low weight.  Perhaps more surprising to me has been that the durability of this outsole rubber is quite impressive.  I see very little wear on either of my two pairs of Tecton X v1.

Jeff V:  Dom sums up the outsole well. The Tecton provides surprisingly good traction overall despite how minimal the lugs are. I have run them over a wide range of trail conditions as well as off trail, some snowy frozen trails. While I have not made it to the rough stuff yet,  if you find yourself there, you will not be left stranded and can get by with just a little care.  Their sweet spot for me are buffed out singletrack and dirt roads of lower to moderate gradients and door to trail.

Mike P: I’m on board with Dom as far as durability. I find shockingly little wear to my V1 outsoles considering the amount of miles and terrain I’ve put them through. That was not what I expected when I first got them. I thought for sure they would wear down easily and perhaps the strips of outsole would shear off over time. Not so at all! 

The exposed midsole under the midfoot has also been surprisingly durable. There’s a bit of slight wear in my V1 pairs - but they’re not completely chewed up as I would have thought they’d be.

With the shallower, flattish style lugs, surely the Tecton X outsole doesn’t match up to say, the Mafate Speed 4 for example. So it’s not a shoe for deep mud, obviously. But they’ve performed well enough over the speeds that I’m maintaining over the course of 100M. I do feel like the shoe contours well over most terrain - better than most max stack shoes. So that factor helps to offset the shallower lugs a bit.

Ride

Dom:  The combination of a thick sole stack (estimated 33/28 mm) and carbon plates mean that ground feel is very limited, a rare weak point of the Tecton X.  Consequently, I don’t personally like them as a daily training shoe.   Conversely, these same attributes, coupled with a very competitive weight (270 g for US M10) make the shoe an excellent choice for ultra distance races.  I wore the original Tecton in four different hundred-mile races in 2022.  

Dom:  As a side note, I might mention that after the first hundred-miler, I purchased a second pair of Tectons, moving up half a size.  The larger shoe provided room to switch out the stock footbed, which is very thin, with an Inov-8 ‘boomerang’ TPU-beaded footbed.  This change made the shoe feel noticeably more plush.   In my testing, version 2 feels a little softer underfoot than the original, so this tweak may no longer be so useful.  But I don’t have a ton of confidence that the difference that I feel is not just due to the midsole foam having lost a little resilience in the old shoe.

Jeff V:  The ride is smooth, quick and precise, quite versatile, responsive and protective, with just enough flex to allow for fast running on moderate trails and even a bit of technical trails, though certainly not a top pick for primarily rough trails.  The Tecton X 2 shines when running fast on moderate to less technical trails and fire roads where the carbon plates can be felt and be somewhat of an advantage.

Mike P: I’m on board with Dom in feeling that the Tecton X doesn’t “feel” like a fast shoe - on the run. BUT - in looking back at stats post-run, I’ve consistently noticed that I was actually running faster than I felt, and usually at lower effort levels or heart rate ranges. This is the case more so on the low end of the pace/speed spectrum. To clarify - if I take them out for an easy run, typically it feels like I’m just cruising along, going pretty slow. But when I get back I notice my pace was a bit quicker than I’d thought. 

This to me illustrates that the Tecton X is certainly an efficient shoe. I’ve noticed the above scenario many times. The parallel carbon plates to me are essentially not noticeable on the run. Some front to back stiffness is felt, but nothing overwhelming, and I can’t feel the actual plates underfoot. For me - this is a good thing. 

I also feel like the level of lateral flex is as good as it gets for the amount of cushion underfoot - and importantly - without being overly soft and conforming. I find the Tecton X quite maneuverable in technical terrain and not panic-inducing as some high stack shoes can tend to be. It’s all a matter of preference though - Jeff V. mentions in the comps how the Mafate Speed 4 feels more stable, as it’s softer and contours more over terrain. I certainly can see this point and it’s 100% spot on. But for my preferences, that softness is a bit too much, and I feel more comfortable and less tippy with the firmer feel and less flex of the Tecton X.  

I both agree and disagree with Dom about using the Tecton X as a training shoe. My fresher V2 pair does feel like a bit “much” for training. They’ve still got that fresh cushion in them, best reserved for race day. But my well worn-in V1’s are perfect for training. The cushion has been compressed a bit, so there’s more ground feel than they had initially, and the weight is low enough to feel good for a long training day shoe.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Dom:  The original Tecton X provided exceptional cushion and rock protection at a lighter weight than anything else in sight.  While personally I didn’t notice any clear speed boost from the plate, I’ll admit that I’ve not attempted to time myself in a reproducible manner.  And it may be that any performance benefit only manifests at speeds faster than my typical plodding pace.  Nevertheless, I found that the heavily-cushioned Tecton X made an excellent ultra distance racing shoe.  

To my surprise, I also found that durability was also very good.  Version 2 of the shoe leaves the sole stack unchanged, but provides a new, airy upper with small but useful improvements to fit and comfort.  If you liked the original shoe, you’ll like the update.  I did, and plan to wear the Tecton X 2 in my upcoming races.  If you can stomach the price premium, the Tecton X stands well clear of the competition.

Jeff V:  The Tecton X 2 is better than the first version due to the new Matryx upper that fits my foot much better and with a much more normal fit.  I am still not entirely convinced where the Tecton X (1 or 2) fits into my rotation though.  Yes, it has a lot of protection and cushion for the weight, so that would be great as Dom says for long distance racing.  I personally find the cushioning to be more firm than I would prefer for very long races and where I would certainly not be running fast enough to activate any advantage the plate might provide.  For really long days, I prefer softer (yet still supportive) cushioning and maybe a still more relaxed upper than the Tecton X 2 and this despite the improvements to the upper in that direction.  I think for me, the sweet spot would be shorter (like perhaps 10 - 30 miles) of running fast on less technical trails at higher speeds and on moderate gradients.  Shorter than that, or with anything steep and technical, I’ll look elsewhere.  Door to trail though is another great strength of the Tecton and they definitely perform well there.

Jeff V’s Score:  9.4/10

Ride: 9.5, Fit: 9.5, Value: 9, Style: 8, Traction: 9, Rock Protection: 10

😊😊😊😊

Mike P: My 2022 trail shoe of the year has essentially been improved with a better, more structured and secure upper - while maintaining the same amazing low weight. This is for me, the top 100M shoe on the market right now for terrain comparable to the American West. Jim has run them at UTMB so certainly the shoe is not limited in technical terrain either.

Many shoes can provide elements of what the Tecton X provides - but with tradeoffs that offset those elements. The Tecton X 2 finds the sweet spot or happy medium in all regards - cushion vs. stability, security vs. comfort, propulsion vs. stiffness, softness vs. firmness, traction vs. durability, all of the above and low WEIGHT.  If you are in the market for a shoe for a long ultra - the Tecton X 2 needs to be on your list of must-trys. 

The only change in scoring I have from V1 is improving the Style score from 9.5 to 10. The new colorway I received is so gorgeous! Even my daughter loves the purple accents.

11 Comparisons

Index to all RTR reviews: HERE

Tecton X v1 (RTR Review)

Jeff V:  Compared throughout, with the only difference being the upper, where it has been improved to a more “normal” fit and Matryx material vs. the previous engineered mesh that I found to be a bit confining in part because of the extended lacing which has also been reduced in V2.

Mike P (10.0 & 10.5): Details throughout the review - essentially V2 provides an improved upper. It feels more substantial and secure - yet weight is unchanged from V1. Foot shape is the same, I do think sizing is a bit more accurate though - my standard ultra-sized 10.0 feels like it will work fine, whereas I had to go up to a US 10.5 for my 2nd 100M in V1. 

Hoka Speedgoat 5  (RTR Review)

Jeff V:  For faster, less technical running, the lighter weight, lower profile tread, responsive supercritical foam and carbon plate of the Tecton X 2 is advantageous, whereas the softer cushion, better flexibility, grippier more aggressive outsole of the Speedgoat is much better for longer duration technical running.  I personally prefer the softer cushioning and more relaxed ride of the Speedgoat 5 for most of my running.

Dom:  For my taste, both Speedgoat and Tecton are over cushioned for daily runs.  These are shoes I only wear for ultra racing.  The Speedgoat is nominally available in narrow and wide widths, although I found that SG5 in wide is not really ‘wide’, but comparable to Tecton X.  

Tecton X is significantly lighter (9.5 oz vs 10.5 oz per shoe in US M10, 270 g vs 298 g) and plated.  In challenging conditions, grip is better in the Speedgoat, with more outsole coverage and deeper lugs. Stack height is similar, but the plate in Tecton X provides more rock protection, and possibly a performance boost at higher speeds on smoother terrain.  The downside is that plate makes the shoe less stable: it can tip over when landing on prominences, rather than conforming around them.  So perhaps a matter of personal preference.   For what it’s worth, I wore the original Tecton X for all my hundred-mile races in 2022. Speedgoat 5 is significantly less expensive, at $155 vs $225 for Tecton X 2.

Mike P (10.0): The Speedgoat is a known entity for most trail runners. The recent version brought a more responsive and lighter weight foam, making it feel a bit faster and less marshmallowy than past versions. I still have issues with the SG upper though - it’s not as foot-shaped as the Tecton X and I find, really relies on lace tension to strap your foot onto the midsole. I much prefer the more fitted and well-shaped Tecton X upper. 

Hoka Mafate Speed 4  (RTR Review)

Jeff V: Surprisingly, the Mafate Speed 4 weighs 2 ounces more than the Tecton X 2, however it runs lighter than its weight would imply and is surprisingly responsive and agile.  The Mafate Speed 4 has bottomless soft cushion feel with enough support underfoot to not feel tippy and marshmallowy, whereas the Tecton X 2  feels much firmer underfoot and perhaps is a bit more stable on smooth terrain at least with the Mafate Speed 4 better on technical. The Tecton X 2 is more responsive, but best suited for less technical and Mafate is superior on a wider variety of terrain and has superior traction/deeper lugs.

Dom: Mafate Speed 4 is heavier, but as Jeff observes, runs lighter than its weight would suggest.  It is plateless, softer, and has that pillowy, bottomless cushion that Hoka is famous for.  The Mafate would be my choice for high-volume training.  Tecton for race day

Mike P: There’s a huge difference in underfoot feel between the two shoes. The MS4 feels very soft and cushy, while the Tecton X has just as much cushion, yet a firmer feel and ride. The Tecton X definitely feels and is faster. The MS4 is more conforming over terrain underfoot, and it’s a matter of personal preference as to whether that’s a good thing or not. I find them a bit too soft in technical terrain for my liking, and I feel better focusing on foot placement and having the firmer feel of the Tecton X underfoot. Both shoes have great, foot-shaped and well fitting uppers. They are much more alike than the Speedgoat. The MS4 upper does have a bit more layers going on - it’s not as stripped down and lightweight as the Tecton’s Matryx material. 

For me, the MS4 is a great long distance trainer when I want a soft feel, and perhaps for racing if its much more substantial outsole is needed. But for most racing conditions, the Tecton X wins hands down.

Speedland GS:TAM  (RTR Review soon)

Jeff V: The GS:TAM has the option to add a carbon plate, so both shoes are carbon equipped.  The GS:TAM is a much larger, more plushly cushioned shoe featuring a dual BOA fit system and weighs about 2 ounces more.  The Tecton X 2 is a much faster shoe mostly due to being lighter weight and is also more nimble and responsive, whereas the GS:TAM in my opinion is better for longer distances at more moderate paces, with superior traction and has better technical trail capabilities.

Dom: I’ve only had one run in GS:TAM, and don’t feel confident saying much about them yet.  While both shoes are plated (plate optional, removable in TAM), they feel very different. The GS:TAM is much heavier, at 342 g per shoe (12.1 oz) vs 270 g (9.5 oz) for Tecton X 2 .  So while Tecton is at the low end of normal weight ranges, GS:TAM is at the upper end.  But GS:TAM provides features that Tecton does not, for example the dual, bidirectional BOA buckles and a pure Pebax midsole.

Mike P: I haven’t quite gotten along with the GS:TAM. It has such a large and wide on the ground platform, which doesn’t really work for me. It seems to restrict my natural ankle movements which causes me problems. I can tell that it’s a great shoe though - super durable, with a similar efficient-feeling ride as the Tecton X. I don’t quite get the same secure fit with the dual BOAs though as with the standard lacing of the Tecton X. The fit overall of the GS:TAM upper is much more voluminous. It’s a better fit for larger runners than me, and those with higher volume feet.

Hoka Zinal  (RTR Review)

Jeff V: I find the Zinal to be speedier and more agile than the Tecton X 2, as it is a lighter shoe and lower profile overall. That said, I would limit use of the Zinal to shorter, faster paces on less technical terrain, where the Tecton X 2 is more protective and energy saving over the longer haul (both best suited for less technical terrain though).

Scarpa Golden Gate Kima RT  (RTR Review)

Jeff V: The Kima plate benefits a bit more on the uphills, but for me the main benefit of the Kima plate is rock protection and while flexible, I feel as though I need to exercise a bit of finesse on really technical terrain.  Tecton X 2 is better suited for faster running on less technical trails and shines most on flats or slight to moderate downhills.

Mike P: The Kima’s carbon plate does feel more active than the Tecton’s parallel plates, but it’s also much more tippy. The Kima rides faster than its weight, but it’s still overall a heavy shoe, especially compared to the Tecton X 2. It also has an oddly shaped upper, very wide across the forefoot, long, yet very tapered. They’re more suited for shorter-mid distances is more rugged alpine terrain. 

Saucony Endorphin Edge (RTR Review)

Jeff V: Perhaps my favorite carbon plated trail shoe, the Endorphin Edge is light, fast and can also handle technical terrain reasonably well, whereas the Tecton X 2 is a bit more limited to moderate to less technical trails for me.

Dom: This is perhaps the most important comparison here, as both shoes are carbon-plated (only a single Carbitex plate in Endorphin Edge), both heavily cushioned (Endorphin Edge stack nominally 35/29 mm), and both strikingly lightweight.  Both shoes weigh within a couple of grams.  The foam in EE is a little softer, giving the shoe a cushier feel; Tecton is firmer.  Tecton X upper is more secure, particularly in the heel (for me at least), and the split plate arguably makes it more stable on rough surfaces.  Both shoes feel fast, although subjectively I’d give the nod to Saucony in a straight line dash.  Saucony has a slight edge (!) on price, at $200 vs $225.

Mke P: Have to disagree with Jeff V here, for me the Endo Edge is absolutely a blast, but can feel very hairy in technical terrain. It feels sometimes that the very active plate + PB foam can launch my foot in any direction at any moment with the wrong foot placement. But, if you can keep them in line, they are probably the fastest most dynamic trail shoes out there. Choose your terrain carefully with those, and save the Tectons for the longer stuff.

Altra Mont Blanc (RTR Review)

Dom:  Altra don’t yet make a plated trail shoe, but the closest cushioning is their race-oriented Mont Blanc, with 30 mm of foam, front and rear.  The Mont Blanc foam is just lovely, and I would be effusive in my praise of this shoe if it were not for the loose-feeling heel.  Mont Blanc ground feel is far better, but weight is unimpressive at 297 g, 10.5 oz per shoe (US M10) vs 270 g, 9.5 oz for Tecton-X.

Altra Timp 4.0 (RTR Review)

Dom: Similar stack to Mont Blanc, but with more structure to the upper and less bouncy foam.  Timp 4.0 is a shoe that I have really enjoyed for long training runs.  But on race day, I’ll typically select something with lighter weight.

Mike P (10.0): The Timp 4.0 is a nice shoe, but really can’t touch the Tecton X in any regard. The wide forefoot is sooo wide, really not suitable or secure in technical terrain unless your foot really does fill up the upper. The EGO Max foam is nice, but not as responsive as the Hoka’s Profly mix, and with no carbon plates in the mix, they don’t feel fast like a race-day shoe. 

Brooks Catamount 3 (RTR Review)

Mike P (10.0): The Catamount 2 has a great fitting upper - every bit as comfortable and secure as the Tecton X. The only difference I’d say is that the Cat 2 is slightly wider across the forefoot - it does feel a bit more comfortable in that regard. Stack height is a bit less, with a similar wide, but not too wide on the ground platform as the Tecton X. Both shoes hit the sweet spot with that on the ground platform. 

Cat 2 feels firmer, with more active flex at the ball of the foot - it feels faster on the run. But the Tecton X is very efficient over very long distances. These are my current top 2 trail shoes right now. I could easily run all of my races in either of them, unless I feel like testing something else. Generally I’d say the Cat 2 is more suitable for short through mid distance ultras for most runners while the Tecton X 2 is better for mid through very long distances. More efficient runners could take the Cat 2 into the longer ranges. I’m on the fence myself as to whether I could run them for a full mountain 100M.

The Hoka Tecton X 2 is available now at our partners

RUNNING WAREHOUSE US

Men's & Women's SHOP HERE

REI 

Men's & Women's  SHOP HERE

FLEET FEET

Men's & Women's SHOP HERE

Tester Profiles

Dom 51, trains and competes mainly on trails in Southern California.  In 2017 he was 14th at Western States 100 and in 2018 finished 50th at UTMB and 32nd at the 2018 Los Angeles marathon in a time of 2:46.  In 2019, his only notable finish was at the multi-day Dragon’s Back race in the UK.  In 2022 Dom finished 4th in the Angeles Crest 100 and was 10th in his age group at UTMB.

Jeff Valliere loves to run and explore the mountains of Colorado, the steeper and more technical the better. He has summited all of the 14ers in the state and can be found on mountain trails daily, no matter the weather, season, conditions or whether there is daylight or not.  On the side he loves to ski (all forms) bike and hike, often with his family, as he introduces his 12 year old daughters to the outdoors. Jeff was born and raised in New Hampshire, but has called Colorado home for over 25 years. He is 5’9” and 145 lbs.

Mike Postaski currently focuses on long mountainous ultras - anywhere from 50K up to his favorite - 100M. 5'10", 138 lbs, midfoot/forefoot striker - he typically averages 70 mpw (mostly on trails), ramping up to nearly 100 mpw during race buildups. A recent 2:39 road marathoner, his easy running pace ranges from 7:30 - 9:00/mi. In 2022 Mike won both the Standhope 100M and IMTUF 100M trail ultras within a 7 week period - both extremely rugged Idaho mountain races. Mike's shoe preferences lean towards firmer, dense cushioning, and shoes with narrower profiles. He prefers extra forefoot space, especially for long ultras, and he strongly dislikes pointy toe boxes.

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

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

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'.

RUNNING WAREHOUSE US

Men's & Women's SHOP HERE

FREE 2 Day Shipping EASY No Sweat Returns

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

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

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