Article by Mike Postaski, Renee Krusemark, and Jeff Valliere
Brooks Catamount 4 ($170)
Introduction
Mike P: One of my favorite trail shoes of all time returns with a big update, potentially changing the entire character of the shoe. The headline here is that the Catamount 4 receives a stiffer, more sculpted and speed oriented SkyVault plate, looking to offer a speedier and more dynamic ride in runnable terrain while also adding 2mm of Brooks newest and highest performance supercritical Flash v2 foam. I loved the version 2 & 3 iterations, racing V2 several times, and logging many miles in both versions across a wide variety of terrain. Will V4 keep the Catamount on my “all-time” list? What will be gained, or potentially lost with this update?
Pros and Cons
Pros:
Overall comfort: Renee, Mike P,Jeff V
Noticeable cushion/protection increase under forefoot Mike P, Jeff V
A true budget super shoe Mike P, Jeff V
Cons:
Weight gain: Renee, Mike P, Jeff V
Small lugs not ideal for overly loose ground: Renee
Extra 2mm + newer Flash foam doesn’t add softness Mike P, Renee
Feels like weight could be stripped out somewhere Mike P, Renee
Most comparable shoes
Catamount 3 Mike P, Renee
La Sportiva Prodigio Pro Mike P
Saucony Endorphin Edge Mike P, Renee
Please find the testers full run bios at the end of the article after Comparisons.
Stats
Spec Weight: men's 9.5 oz / 269g
Sample Weight: men’s 9.9 oz / 282g US 10 (Prior Version: men’s 9.5 oz / 268g (US 10)
women’s 8.34oz / 236g US8
Stack Height: men’s 34mm heel / 28mm forefoot (6mm drop spec)
First Impressions, Fit and Upper
Mike P: For a detailed look at the upper - please check out my initial video review HERE where I try on both shoes side-by-side. From the midsole up, V4 doesn’t look all that different from V3, but there are a few key differences to note. First off - sizing wise I find the fit exactly the same. I size up by a half size in Brooks so my sample is a US 10. I could possibly get away with a 9.5, but I prefer to have the extra space.
V4 features the same broad and spacious toebox as versions 2 and 3. It’s comfortable across the forefoot, nicely rounded out by the toes, and generally for me, one of the nicer shapes on the market. Midfoot hold again is excellent, you can dial it in easily to your liking.
The heel cup sees a big update with a much larger area of interior padding. I never had any issue with heel hold in previous versions. I suspect with the stiffer plate in the mix, they want to make sure the heel stays locked in. It works fine, but this is probably an area where they could have put more time in to strip out some weight. But I shouldn’t say anything because I probably have more complaints about stripped down, over-engineered heels.
The material itself is a new single layer TPEE mesh - the website calls out a precise 42.2% (?) amount of recycled materials in the upper. I have no issues with foothold or stretch, and it also looks to be quite durable. Notable is that there are no longer any underlays around the midfoot as in the previous two versions. This hasn’t been noticeable at all for me.
The tongue has also been revamped - it’s now a fully integrated neoprene-type material with some padding added in the center below the laces. It’s a single layer of material which combines into the gussets along the sides. It feels soft and comfortable - a bit thinner than the previous traditional tongue, with no change in performance. I imagine a few grams were saved here, and it’s likely made of more recycled content.
Unfortunately, the rear velcro tab and front gaiter loop have not returned, which is a bummer. You’ll have to rig something up yourself if you need to.
Renee: As Mike wrote, the toe box is roomy without being sloppy and the midfoot hold is great and easy to adjust with the laces. I agree that the heel padding seems overdone initially but I imagine it’s needed to offset the stiffness.
At first step-in, the heel felt bulky and obtrusive around my ankle, seemingly affecting the nimbleness and agility of my ankles. However, that feeling is not noticed while running. I’m inclined to think this is an area where the shoe could cut weight, but that’s likely to mess up the comfort and security.
Jeff V: Mike sums up the mechanics of the upper exceptionally well and I do not have anything to add here. For me the fit feels true to size and in line with my typical size 10 in Brooks and most other brands.
While the Catamount is by no means a wide shoe, I find them the be pleasantly accommodating, while still maintaining adequate foothold for most trail running scenarios (secure when going fast over less technical to moderately technical terrain). They do well for short stints in technical terrain if you find yourself there, but certainly not the shoe I would pick for difficult trails or off trail.
I find them to be quite comfortable, with no pressure points or hotspots and are well ventilated.
While I agree with Mike and Renee about the heel padding being a bit excessive and I am not sure there was really a need to beef it up THAT much, it certainly works very well.
Lacing is very secure and easy to get right the first time.
Midsole & Platform
Mike P: Check the specs below compared to version 3. The foam is updated to DNA Flash V2, and 2mm more is added front & back. DNA Flash is a nitrogen-infused EVA. It’s honestly a bit difficult to isolate the difference in foam from Flash V1 to V2 in this shoe, especially with the stiffer plate in the mix. I’m not sure how the foam rates in terms of softness and/or responsiveness. Again, the new plate probably plays a bigger factor here in how the shoe feels underfoot.
Overall, the foam itself is likely a bit softer, plus you get 2mm more underfoot, but that’s offset by the increased firmness of the new SkyVault plate. So for me it’s kind of a wash, in terms of feel - it doesn’t feel softer.
That said the increase in pure volume of foam underfoot is clearly noticeable compared to the previous 2 versions, especially under the forefoot. Just not “more” in the sense of softness - definitely more protective though. More in the ride section below.
[Catamount 4 top, V3 bottom]
The SkyVault plate has been revamped, and that is the major change with this model. It’s now stiffer, and we were told that it “scoops” down more under the forefoot for a more propulsive effect. The plate is a full length, injected Pebax-Renew material. The previous plate was more segmented, and clearly much more flexible as seen in my First Look video. The stated intention was to make the shoe faster in more runnable terrain, and hence more of a race-day option.
Renee: Mike has the details. The 2mm more stack is clearly noticed. And I know that might be a grumble for those who liked the ground feel of the previous version. Yes, v4 is heavier and has more stack, but this is an update that makes the shoe better for long distances for me, and I normally loathe any and all weight gains. The 2mm does not provide a soft cushion, so this isn’t an all day cruiser by any means or a shoe for those wanting all out plush for an ultra. More underfoot means more protection and less wear from hitting the forefoot repeatedly. The feel is firm but not hard. I found the shoe comfortable for easy paces too (most of my paces are “easy”).
I couldn’t feel the plate necessarily during my first run on single track because of the switchbacks and constant, although small, inclines and declines (290ft vert per mile).
When running on rolling and flat terrain, the curve of the plate is apparent from a forefoot landing. The shoe is faster on runnable terrain than the previous terrain while still being nimble and controllable. It’s a win-win.
Jeff V: I appreciate the extra 2 mm of stack and for me, it makes a positive difference adding some nice added cushion underfoot when running on rocky trails. It does not necessarily feel softer (as Mike and Renee mention, perhaps as a result of the new plate), but I think strikes an appropriate balance of good cushioning for longer runs and performance intended responsive, predictable and stable characteristics.
I personally feel that the Skyvault plate rivals any of the carbon plated trail supershoes in terms of snappy speed and overall performance, while maintaining good, if not better than most carbon shoes flexibility over rocks and roots, or any other obstacles one may expect on trails (though the 4 is not quite as contouring and flexible as the 3 in uneven terrain).
Outsole
[Catamount 4 top, V3 bottom]
Mike P: TrailTack Green here (25% recycled content) with the same 3.5mm lug depth. The lug shape has been updated slightly and also some segmentation has been added between the midfoot area and the heel. There are now 3 separate segments of outsole rubber where as before there everything was interconnected. See above
Again, I suspect the segmentation was added to offset the increased stiffness from the new plate and the increased stack height. I’ve put lots of miles in my earlier Catamounts, especially V2, and durability has been excellent. It’s not the stickiest compound out there - but it’s not treacherous and I’d rate it as a solid all-around outsole. 3.5mm lugs will only get you so far in loose terrain, but this shoe is clearly oriented towards more runnable terrain, so that shouldn't be a concern.
Renee: The 3.5mm lugs and TrailTack Green rubber are a good combo for most terrain. For loose terrain, mud, gravel or heavy leaf/dirt debris, the shoe works fine although obviously bigger lugs are better for those surfaces. The lugs are perfect for the shoe’s purpose and I wouldn’t want larger lugs for this shoe.
I found the outsole good for snow and packed snow, with some expected slipping (minor, I was still able to run strides). I landed on a pointy tree root under the exposed area and thought for sure I’d ripped a hole there. No rips or damage yet.
Minor note that for running on smaller rocks or rooted areas, you might feel them under those exposed areas, but given the stack height and midsole firmness, it’s not a factor.
Jeff V: I echo Mike and Renee’s comments that the outsole with 3.5mm lugs perform as intended for the purpose of the Catamount 4. The lug design and TrailTack Green rubber provides good grip on all but the most loose, technical trails and off trail (not what the shoe is intended for), but I have taken them on some steep loose trails and off trail and did OK with some caution, but as Mike says 3.5mm will only get you so far.
Ride, Conclusions and Recommendations
Mike P: As with most big updates, some is gained here and some is lost. But you can’t fault Brooks too much as they’ve definitely hit their stated intention. The new plate definitely adds some “pop” to the Catamount, clearly bringing it into faster, racing territory. Previous versions were great, but did lack the propulsive effect of modern trail super shoes, and tended to have a firmer, thinner feel underfoot.
Those versions were great, and highly versatile, but personally I didn’t choose to race the Catamount 3, and that’s pretty much why. Other shoes just offered more cushion, more response, and most importantly, more speed. The Catamount 4 raises the bar - clearly into borderline super shoe territory - which is striking considering the $170 price point.
On the run, the ride is fast and dynamic, with a noticeable lever-action from the new plate. Whereas V3 flexed and contoured, V4 now pulses you forward. Yes, you do lose that flexibility, versatility, and some ground feel from V3, but V4 is clearly faster, clearly more energetic, and also more protective underfoot which is a big factor over longer distances.
The Brooks Catamount 4 is back on my radar as a racing option. In fact, I have an early season 50K coming up in 3 weeks, and this one is on the very short list for my pick. It may come down to course conditions - if it’s tending more dry and runnable - this will likely be the pick. If not, I’m certain other race day opportunities will present themselves for the new Cat.
Mike P’s Score: 9.88 / 10
Ride: 10 - Still a 10, but in a different way, faster now
Fit: 10 - Again, still a 10, great forefoot/toebox for me
Value: 10 - Upped this to a 10 - now more of a race option at $170 !
Style: 10 - I like the bigger, bolder Brooks lettering and logo
Traction: 9.5 - Works great in intended terrain
Rock Protection: 9.5 - This is better now with some extra foam and the firmer plate
Smiles 😊😊😊😊😊
Renee: Mike is fast. I am not. We both like this shoe. Brooks delivers a great update here that will appeal to many runners. Sure, the additional stack height and changes to the plate make the newest version less agile with less ground feel. But this is minor compared to what is gained. The shoe is still easy to control and it now becomes a faster, more dynamic ride capable of ultra distances.
The shoe worked well on single track for me (290ft vert per mile with lots of switchbacks) and on rolling gravel (100ft vert per mile). Despite the firm midsole, I also find it comfortable for easy paces as well. Of course, the plate starts to work for you at faster paces, but if you aren’t running fast, the plate is not uncomfortable. The shoe is not heavy although I wish it was a bit lighter. I’m not sure where weight could be cut.
My only note for improvement would be a slight weight reduction. Given the firm midsole and plate, the durability seems high especially for runners who tend to get 100s of miles more than expected from a “super” shoe.
Renee’s Score: 9.75/10
Ride: 10/10 (good for a variety of paces, even for “speed-challenged” runners like me)
Fit: 10/10 (secure and comfortable)
Value: 9.5/10 (expensive but on par with similar top-end racing options; plus it works great for slow and training mileage)
Style: 10/10 (bold, not annoying colors; shows some dirt just as a trail shoe should)
Traction: 9.5/10 (good for its use)
Rock Protection: 9.5/10 (stack and plate are protective; exposed area under heel/midfoot)
😊😊😊😊😊
Jeff V: Mike and Renee both provide great summaries in different ways. I very much relate to Mike’s assessments as to the performance of the Catamount when pushing them to the limit and would be a very fine pick for (me), for mid distance trail races that are no more than moderately technical in overall good conditions. While they have gained a little weight over the previous version, I do not really notice that on the run and they do feel pretty light and quite snappy and quick, great for opening up your stride on the flats and downhills, while also offering nice response when powering uphill. The added 2mm of cushioning is welcome to help dull the impact underfoot, though there is a slight penalty when it comes to trail feel, though I think it is a fair trade. To Renee’s point, I also find that for such a fast shoe, they are also quite civilized when just out jogging casually or even hiking and I forget that I am wearing such a high performance shoe.
Jeff V’s Score: 9.7 / 10
Ride: 9.5, Fit: 10, Value: 10, Style: 10, Traction: 9.5, Rock Protection: 9.5
😊😊😊😊😊
9 Comparisons
Brooks Catamount 3 (RTR Review)
Mike P (10.0): Compared throughout this review as well as my video review HERE. Fit and sizing is the same - true-to-size or half size up if you want more space as I do. V4 loses some overall flexibility and ground feel, but its ride is more dynamic, and faster. The new plate gives the noticeable lever effect of plated shoes, but doesn’t verge into the overly tippy territory. The added foam is noticeable underfoot, although it’s not noticeably softer. It should give more protection for longer miles and feels way less thin under the forefoot. Outsoles are comparable, although you might lose a bit in V4 with less flexibility. A worthy trade off. Cat 4 does gain some weight, but the difference in cushion underfoot makes it feel like at least it’s going towards something.
Renee: I agree with Mike on all points, and he’s significantly faster than me. The v4 is heavier and loses ground feel as compared to v3. The midsole stack doesn’t necessarily add more softness, just more underfoot. Yet, it’s a positive trade off. The shoe is still fun, easily controllable despite the added stack, and a better option for ultra distances without losing any speed.
Brooks Catamount Agil (RTR Review)
Mike P (9.5): I do have the Agil in my normal true to size 9.5, which works since it’s designed for much shorter distances. As the name suggests, the Agil is much lower to the ground, on a much narrower platform, and much more Agile. It’s really designed for shorter, faster, efforts in potentially rougher terrain. There’s not much underfoot, which is good for its intended design. It’s a great complement to the now more runnable, faster, regular Catamount.
Renee: I have the same size in both shoes. The length is similar, and as both Mike and I write, the Catamount has good length. I agree that a person could half size down in the Agil, if already between half sizes, because of its use. The Agil has an overlay across the forefoot that is uncomfortable on my foot, not an issue with the very comfortable yet secure Catamount. Mike has it right. The Agil is a short distance only, fast shoe for technical or vert running.
Saucony Endorphin Edge (RTR Review)
Mike P (9.5): This now-defunct model, is bouncer, with a stiffer and more energetic plate. The Pb foam feels softer underfoot, but in conjunction with the highly active carbon plate, it can easily throw you off track if you’re not careful. The Edge is faster, but the Catamount more stable and more suitable for longer distances. The Catamount upper and general foot shape is also better overall, at least for me. The wider toe box is more comfortable and I feel gives a more solid foot strike.
Renee: I really enjoyed the Edge (still have it). I’m hoping Saucony has an update in 2026. The midsole is bouncier and the shoe rides more like what a runner expects from a super road shoe as compared to the firmer ride of the Catamount. The cushion underfoot is also better for ultra distances, if you need a bit of softness underfoot. As Mike wrote, the Edge can be dicey on some surfaces (ie wet/muddy rock) because of the upper fit, plate, softer midsole and probably the outsole. Sizing is comparable, and as Mike wrote, I find the Catamount upper more secure and with a wider toe box.
La Sportiva Prodigio Pro (RTR Video Review)
Mike P (10.5): Sizing is equivalent here - LS 10.5 = Brooks 10. I could go a half size down in both shoes for a snug fit, but I prefer the sizes I have. The Prodigio has more flexibility, and a softer bouncier feel with its core of TPU foam. It’s a solid mountain shoe - with its energetic ride, and no plate to get in the way of some ground feel. The Brooks leans more runnable, and is a faster shoe, although it wouldn’t work quite as well in more rugged terrain where the LS would shine. The Pro gets the edge in traction with slightly deeper lugs and a stickier rubber compound. I love the LS integrated gaiter/collar, and really wish the Catamount had the same (like the Agil). Both have similarly wide toe boxes with a slight edge to the LS in terms of a dialed in fit. These are both excellent, high value, training/racing options for 2025.
Adidas Terrex Speed Ultra (RTR Review)
Mike P (10.0): One of the top ultra race shoes on the market - the Brooks doesn’t quite get up to the level of the Adidas, but it’s striving in the same direction. The Adidas clearly has a more advanced foam - evidenced by the fact that there’s a lot more of it underfoot and the shoe is still almost half an ounce lighter. The Adidas is not very versatile though - best for highly efficient runners, and primarily faster paces. It can be unstable otherwise. That’s where the Catamount can step in - still fast, yet much more stable for most runners. It also has more range and versatility than the very specific, runnable-ultra oriented Adidas.
Merrell Long Sky Matryx 2 (RTR Review)
Mike P (9.5): The Long Sky Matryx 2 leans more versatile as a fun training shoe, and is probably more comparable to Catamount V2/3. It’s much more flexible, with no plate and thinner midsole volume. It’s a fun, lightweight shoe that I like to take out when I can for short-mid distance training runs. I don’t think it has quite the dynamic ride I’m looking for for races, but it could be an option if you prefer the low, old school, close to the ground feel. The Catamount 4 is more new-school, plated, and dynamic.
VJ MAXX 2 (RTR Review)
Mike P (9.0): Definite odd sizing with the MAXX 2, be aware of that. The MAXX2 is closer to the Long Sky 2 than the Catamount 4. It’s similarly lightweight, flexible, and closer to the ground. It does have a more energetic foam than the Merrell, but a thicker, less refined upper and fit. I like the MAXX 2 for the same kinds of runs as I do in the Long Sky 2, and I similarly don’t consider it for racing. At $10 cheaper, the Catamount 4 is a better package and value if you’re thinking about going faster and potentially racing in it.
Renee: Sizing is an issue with the MAXX 2, especially for runners between half sizes. I wore the same size in both shoes. The length is similar, but the MAXX 2 toe box length is shorter, meaning the comfort of the toe box depends on how the shoe fits. For me, the forefoot creased/flexed in an awkward area across my toes. Otherwise, the MAXX 2 midsole is more dynamic and has a bit more “pop” than the firmer Catamount. As Mike wrote, the Catamount is a better value given its use for a variety of terrain and distances. It’s also the safer bet in terms of fit and comfort.
Jeff V: The Maxx 2 for me is the ultimate fast shoe for any terrain and especially technical terrain, with superior traction, agility, speed, cushion and protection. The Catamount though would be a better pick for fast running over longer distances on less technical terrain.
Salomon S/LAB Genesis (RTR Review)
Mike P (9.5): The Salomon is more technical mountain/ultra oriented - really not in the same class. But I do like it as a versatile option for all kinds of terrain and scenarios. It doesn’t have the speed factor of the Catamount though, so I’d clearly go with the Brooks in runnable terrain, but anything technical the S/LAB Genesis is going to run away with it.
Jeff V: Agreed with Mike.
The North Face Vectiv Pro 2 (RTR Review)
Mike P (10.0): I had the specs of the VP2 listed at 32/26, but I found out at TRE that they typically list pure midsole heights only. At least 6mm should be added for a total effective stack closer to 40mm at the heel. So the VP2 does have more foam underfoot and its Dream Foam is also softer in feel. The width of the platform is also wider front to back, giving even more feel of cushion underfoot. Both shoes behave in the same way with a dynamic, plated, propulsive ride. The VP2 is tuned for longer distances with more cushion, wider base, and a more pronounced rocker to move all that foam along. If the Cat 4 shines in the range of 50K to 50M, the VP2 shines in the range of 50M - 100M. There’s some overlap depending on skill level. The VP2 is a pure racing shoe, no sense training in it. The Cat 4 can be both raced and trained in effectively, and is way cheaper.
Jeff V: Again, agreed with Mike on the above
Index to all RTR reviews: HERE
Tester Profiles
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 100+ mpw during race buildups. A recent 2:39 road marathoner, his easy running pace ranges from 7:30 - 9:00/mi. From 2022-23 Mike has won the Standhope 100M, IMTUF 100M, and Scout Mountain 100M trail ultras, winning the Scout 50M in 2024. He also set a CR of 123.74M at the Pulse Endurance Runs 24H and completed the Boise Trails Challenge on foot in 3 days 13 hours, besting the previous record by 7 hours. 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.
Renee is a former U.S. Marine journalist, which is when her enjoyment of running and writing started. She isn’t that awesome of a runner, but she tries really hard. Most of her weekly 50-60 miles take place on rural country roads in Nebraska, meaning mud, gravel, dirt, hills, and the occasional field. She has PR’s of 1:30:59 for the half marathon and 3:26:45 for the marathon.
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, many 13ers and other peaks in Colorado and beyond, plus, he has summited his local Green Mountain over 2,100 times in the past 20 years. He 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 twin 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.
Comments and Questions Welcome Below! Please let us know mileage, paces, race distances, and current preferred shoes
Europe only: use RTR code RTR5ALL for 5% off all products, even sale products
7 comments:
hello,
thanks for this great review!
would you say that the catamount have the same stiffness as the shoes with carbon plate (vectiv pro 2, tecton X3...) or are they more flexible?
thanks
Envoyer des commentaires
It's hard to say because the plates of the Vectiv Pro 2 and Tecton X3 are sandwiched in so much more foam. For sure with the X3 you don't feel the stiffness because the PEBA foam is so soft. I'd say its closer in feel to the Vectiv Pro 2, but even that one has more foam and a softer feel.
Now that you mention it, I'll probably add a Vectiv Pro 2 comp to the review.
I'm a bit confused when you say the fit is wide? My experience is that Catamount is usually narrow even compared to say Salomon Genesis? Any chance you can elaborate?
Anon- Catamount 4 is absolutely wide across the forefoot - even more so than the S/LAB Genesis and way more than the regular Genesis. The Cat 4 even has a bit more vertical space in the toebox. Which version did you think was narrow? I think 2 & 3 were comfortably broad, and 4 is even more spacious given the vertical space. V1 was possibly narrow, but that was a totally different shoe than 2--3-4.
Hello,
I agree with you both, for the catamount 3 I find that the forefoot is wide but the midfoot is narrow, so much that I had to return them...
Are the Cat 4 the same midfoot?
Thanks
Brooks should apologize to the ladies for that horrendous color scheme. If sales strategy is anything like the 3, then good luck getting any other color in local stores. Do we know if Brooks is going to offer more color choices in the States? Sweet color choices for the 3...if you lived anywhere outside of the US that is. At least one other option would be nice.
I never had any issues with the midfoot. Compared to other non-Altra shoes, I wouldn't call the midfoot narrow at all. Pretty much "regular" compared to all the shoes I've tested. Comparing 3 vs. 4, not much different, perhaps a slight increase in volume in V4. I can see a slight bit of extra material along the inside of the foot.
Perhaps take a close look at my First Look video? If you look closely I think you can see that there looks like slightly more volume over the top of the foot in the V4 upper.
Post a Comment