Norda Run 005 Multi Tester Review: A Marvel! 10 Comparisons

Article by Mike Postaski, John Tribbia, Dom Layfield, Jeff Valliere and Sam Winebaum

Norda Run 005 ($325)

Introduction

Mike P: I was fortunate to pick up one of the earliest test pairs of the 005 back at TRE in November.  So I’ve had the shoe for quite a while, and trust me, it’s been quite a challenge keeping my review thoughts under wraps!  It seems like the anticipation and curiosity about this shoe has been ever-growing since last summer. I’ve been able to test them across a variety of conditions, even taking them out for a decently rugged 20 mile race here in Idaho. 

Sam: At first glance, a very stylish “sneaker” that one could easily wear out on the town. Under the hood, a combination of the highest performance materials available today: Dyneema super strong and light mesh upper, 100% Anitel TPEE foam, and a new, and exclusive to Norda, Vibram MegaGrip Elite outsole all leading to an ultra light weight trail runner and more.

I had one run, a 5 miler on a dead flat hard granite dust rail trail, in Mike’s full size up from my normal Norda size pair before handing them off to Mike, I set a Strava segment PR on a segment I had done several times including in road super shoes.

I received a true to size pair a few days ago and, due to essentially closed trails here in Park City, took them for two all uphill road runs of 6 and 8 miles. 

Wow! Such a ultra light (7.87 oz/  223g with included racing insoles),  springy,  quick rebounding and rapid turnover ride. The first truly do anything, fly across any terrain super shoe? 

We know it has proven its rugged ultra chops as it took Norda athlete Jason Schlarb to 3d place in the 2024 Hardrock, a notoriously difficult course.

We can say that the hype is real - and of course hype can end up going in different directions - but there is definitely a lot to talk about with this shoe. So let’s leave the hype behind, and finally get into it !

Pros:

• Extremely lightweight for its size/stack Mike P/Sam/John/Dom/Jeff V
• Comfortable, secure upper with broad toebox Mike P/Sam/Dom/Jeff V
• Durable Dyneema upper material Mike P/Sam/Jeff V
• TPEE midsole is for real - very energetic ( 80% resilient), durable, and lightweight Mike P/Sam/Dom/Jeff V
• Elegant, subtle styling (I’m a fan of light uppers) Mike P/Sam/Dom/Jeff V
• Versatility for running, apres-run, casual, travel Mike P/Sam/Dom/Jeff V
• And a superb road running shoe from all training and for plateless racing Sam/John/Jeff V

Cons:

• Sizing runs short - size up ½ US Mike P/John
• Fit could be too wide/high volume for some Mike P /Sam/John/Dom
• Not 100% sold on the outsole/lug design  Mike P
• Problematic fit in the heel John

Most comparable shoes 

NNormal Kjerag Mike P

norda 002 Mike P

Salomon S/LAB Pulsar (OG gray) Mike P

Please find the testers full run bios at the end of the article after Comparisons.

Stats

Measured Sample Weights: 

                        8.04 oz / 228g US M9 with standard insoles.

                        7.87 oz/  223g US M9 with extra supplied racing insoles

                        8.5 oz / 240g US M10

Spec.Stack Height: 28.5mm heel /  21.5mm forefoot

Measured Heel Full Stack Height: 34mm

Platform Width: 85mm heel / 72mm midfoot / 115mm forefoot 

First Impressions, Fit and Upper

[This is even a thick sock from norda - shown above. It’s actually a very nice sock, comfy and wicks moisture well]

Mike P: Sizing was an initial concern for me.  From experience testing the 002 model - I knew they would likely run quite small. My 002 test pair was US 10.0 which was already my larger size, and it was extremely snug up front - very short length-wise in fact. I was able to barely squeeze out test miles in my thinnest sock, but then I gave them away after that.  

With the 005, I knew the sample size was a 10, and I didn’t have any choice due to availability, so I was concerned.

Luckily there is more space in this US 10.0 compared to the 002. That’s as much as I can say about comparative sizing, since I haven’t tried other norda models (yet).  

Length is comfortable for me in a US 10.0 with a normal sock, but I still think they run a bit short at that size. Most US 10.0s have more length.  But these fit securely and no problems at all in my 20 mile race. I do think if I were to take them for a really long ultra, my “ultra-size” in norda would be 10.5. 

The foot shape is quite broad from the toe box back through to the midfoot. No squeezing at all - this fit should work well for most feet except for very narrow. 

There are some internal stirrup-type elements which connect to the set of double lace gilles on both sides at the midfoot. 

They are not connected to the outer upper, so they wrap the foot more closely - norda calls this their Fit Lock System. 

This setup along with the gusset on the tongue serves well to secure midfoot hold without squeezing the entire upper around the foot in unwanted places. It’s also a nice design if you like to keep the lower laces looser - it kind of gives a separate tensioning area at the midfoot.

The Bio based Dyneema upper material (“the world’s strongest and lightest fibre”)  is of course well-tested and extremely durable. 

I’ve got 60+ miles of testing (I’ve been somewhat reserving them for better weather) and zero wear or abrasion spots on the upper. The material weave is somewhat tight, and closed.  Not super airy, but keeps dust and debris out, which I prefer. Also the light color helps with temperature issues.

[Not shown here, but the laces are also made from Dyneema, apparently 4x stronger than regular laces]

The tongue is a single layer, perforated, suede type material.  

Despite the lack of any additional padding, I get no lace bite at all. I think this is just due to the well-wrapping upper. I like the suede-type material here, as it adds some grip to the top of the foot and prevents movement. 

The heel area is well-shaped, with a good amount of volume.  Similar to the forefoot, this should work well for a wide variety of heel shapes.  I’d normally say perhaps it’s a bit too much room back there, but the shoe is so flexible that it’s not a detriment at all. 

Some light side bolsters help with heel hold, and no rigid or even semi rigid heel counter but nothing over the top of the rear heel.  I did not have any issues in technical terrain, although I must say - it’s not a heel counter designed to direct or control the heel.  It’s designed to be super light, and wrap well without slippage.  Again, the shoe is so flexible that you’re not relying on padding to hold your heel down.  It’s comfortable all around, with no rigid edges or pressure points. Well executed.

Sam: What a classy looking “sneaker” that really is an ultra lightweight highest performance trail runner packed with cutting edge technologies.

The upper, as Mike mentions, is Bio-Based Dyneema, a material often used in sails but here in textured thinner, softer and more pliable make up as compared to prior Norda. 

What an incredibly comfortable upper here with plenty of hold all over.

My pair is a half size up from my normal, as I am in all Norda, and fits just right on my narrow to medium volume feet with plenty of toe box room and thumb width front length behind the relatively stout toe bumper. 

I do have to lace them quite snug for hold due to the midfoot volume but have had no lace bite or discomfort even when running all uphill on a steep road for several miles. The heel hold has been just fine so far.

John: My first impression of the Norda 005 was overwhelmingly positive in terms of potential performance. 

The shoe is incredibly lightweight and responsive, and I really wanted it to work for me. However, fit became a significant issue. Like Mike, I received a sized up version. He went a half size up from his usual size 9.5 to a 10 and I went from my typical size 9 to a 10. 

While Mike found the length to be comfortable, I found the shoe to be wide, which is something Mike also noted. This width, combined with the flexible upper, made it challenging for me to achieve proper heel lockdown. 

I agree with Mike that the upper material, Bio-Based Dyneema, is exceptionally durable and shows no signs of wear. I also agree with Mike that the tongue is comfortable and prevents lace bite. Where my experience diverged was in the heel. While Mike found the heel area to have a good amount of volume and secure hold, I struggled with heel slippage, and in colder temperatures, I experienced heel irritation that led to bleeding. Sam, on the other hand, had a positive experience with heel hold, which further highlights the variability of fit. Overall, the upper is well-constructed with high-quality materials, but the fit, particularly in terms of width and heel lockdown, was problematic for me.

Dom: Whether or not you are a fan of its appearance, the Norda 005 is a striking shoe.  Personally, I think the muted off-white colorway is really nice.  This is a stylish shoe that you could wear casually without looking just like you were too lazy to change out of your running gear.  

Far more importantly, it’s really, really light for the amount of cushioning it provides. My pair of US M10.5 (Norda sizing is, uh, idiosyncratic, so this is equivalent to an M10 in other brands) weighed in at 247 g (8.7 oz) per shoe.  While that’s nowhere close to the improbably light Salomon Pulsar (186 g), the Norda 005 is a far more cushioned, versatile, and – we expect – durable shoe.  The 005 is about as light as any other trail shoe I’ve tested, and significantly lighter than anything else with comparable cushioning and comfort.  Impressive.

It’s hard to say with any confidence how the shoe will hold up to prolonged abuse, but our expectations are high: the shoe is built with high-performance materials (both the upper fabric and laces are made of bio-based Dyneema) and there is a full reinforcing rand around the perimeter of the upper.

The other RTR reviewers have already gone into detail above about the exemplary upper construction.  But I will note that the heel construction is unusual in that there is no conventional heel counter, only a seam at the rear and thin patches of foam on either side of the collar. 

Consequently, and particularly if you have slim ankles, heel retention suffers a little: this is a shoe that would get pulled off in deep sticky mud.  Similarly, if you’re a heavy heel striker running on off-camber ground, you might find the lateral heel hold is insufficient.  Personally, I’m fine with this: I’m prepared to accept small compromises in the name of lightness.   And I should emphasize that the compromise is small here: I was surprised how much effort it took to pull my heel out of the shoe.

Given its extraordinary weight, I view the Norda 005 as a race shoe, and that changes the metrics by which I judge a shoe.  The heavier Norda 002 (288 g/10.2 oz in same size) felt significantly less protective, and I considered it an “everyday trainer”.

On my first run, I was struck by the shoe’s (1) bounciness, (2) heavy rocker, and (3) surprisingly good rock protection. In regard to the latter, I initially assumed that there was an underfoot plate to diffuse impact pressure concentration.  The rocker of the sole also meant that the heel-to-toe drop feels less than the “8 mm” that Norda quoted in the specs.  From my perspective as a reformed heel-striker who runs frequently (and happily) in zero-drop shoes, this was a pleasant surprise, as I typically get grumpy when drop exceeds 5-6 mm, at which point the heel feels uncomfortably high and often unstable.  The Norda 005 rolls smoothly and swiftly.

Also of note is that this shoe is fairly wide in fit, certainly compared to most brands: Think Topo Athletic-ish width; less than Altra; more than Nike.  I like the width, but I have to acknowledge that runners with narrow feet might feel that there is too much room in the forefoot.  The underfoot platform is also on the flatter side (minimal arch support), which might be due to the thin “race” footbed supplied with my test shoes. The 5g heavier standard footbed as shown below in Sam’s midsole section is more sculpted but also thin.

One area of lingering concern for me is the tongue.  I’ve yet to take the 005 for a long run, and I wonder slightly about the lack of cushioning and structure in the thin tongue, which is a single layer of suede-like material.  On short runs (<2 hrs),  everything has been fine, but I plan to wear the Norda 005 in my next race, and will be interested to discover if the tongue becomes problematic.

Jeff V:  Out of the box, I am struck by several aspects of the 005.  First, it is a CLASSY looking shoe, so much so that I debated just preserving it for trips to the office, travel or date night with my wife.  

But, the 005 is so incredibly light, shockingly so for the substantial amount of midsole underfoot.  

Sliding into them, it is impressive to me how such a minimal upper, can provide such a good foothold and lockdown in a comfortable manner.  

In reading through my colleagues comments about sizing, I really had no such concerns in my usual size 10, though when pulling out my other Nordas, the 001 (spike) and the 002, I do note some inconsistencies.  The 001 is a size 10 and fits me PERFECT, among the best of any shoe I have tested.  The 002 is a 10.5 and fits me very good also, but is somewhat rare that I ever size up.  It is hard to say how a 10 would feel in the 002, but I suspect that it might work for me as well.  

Back to the 005, I was sent a size 10 and never once thought of them being short or wishing I had sized up.  The space from the tip of my toe to the end of the shoe is a little less than a thumb’s width, which is slightly less than normal, but not unusually so.  The toe box is roomy for my narrow, low volume foot, which I appreciate and is certainly an asset for long runs and hot days.  I wonder though if I had sized up, whether the shoe would feel too spacious or have trouble with heel lift.  For my foot though, true to size at size 10, they fit me like a glove.  

The heel, while minimal, is adequately secure, even when running on steep, technical trails, though is not particularly protective.  Midfoot hold is exceptionally good and certainly helps to keep my foot secure and stable despite the somewhat roomy toe box.

The toe bumper is surprisingly substantial and protective for such a lightweight shoe.

I am overall impressed by the foothold and upper security while still being an accommodating fit, as the 005 strikes an impressive balance.  

Even running down steep technical trails and off trail, off camber, the foothold is quite good.  The upper might be a bit minimal for really pushing it in the scree and talus of the higher peaks, but might be just enough to get through when needed without too much bashing.

Midsole & Platform

Mike P: 100% Arnitel TPEE - NO PLATE.  This TPEE midsole foam makes the 005 go.  Nick Martire, co-founder of norda describes it as a “pure” 100% Arnitel TPEE - not blended with any other foams or fillers, and I don’t think it’s gas-injected either.  

It has a really unique feel, even when pressing by hand. It feels both extremely soft and extremely reactive at the same time.  You can feel the softness when pressing your thumb into it, but at the same time, you can also feel the force of the foam pressing back. 

Stack height is listed at 28.5/21.5mm, but manually I measure 34mm at the heel - from the top of the insole to the ground.  Despite the impressive low weight of 8.5 oz in my US 10, this is not a papery-thin shoe.  There’s a healthy, although not max, amount of foam underfoot.  They actually told us that this was intentional.  

They didn’t want to go “max” stack with the midsole, as they felt that the benefits of the extreme light weight with a more moderate stack would be more unique and performant. It’s definitely a different approach in today’s market, made possible by the awesome Arnitel TPEE foam. 

Sam:  For me, above all else in a shoe, it is about the midsole and its ride and here Norda knocks it out of the park with its 100% Arnitel TPEE foam. 

As Mike describes the midsole it is soft to pressing and softer than most trails shoes that is for sure but in hand and on the run, and recall my runs to date all on nicely frozen pavement it returns quickly, very quickly from a friendly landing. 

The foam is called out as having a very high 80% resilience which I associate with “energy return”. Some plated road shoes claim higher resiliency, for example the Saucony Endorphin Elite 2, but its foam would be too soft, not dense enough or stable enough for a trail shoe. 

And recall no plate so Norda had to balance energy return with stability with the Vibram outsole in the mix as a stabilizing and  quick response element as outsoles often can be in a plateless shoe, be it road or trail. 

Here there is a lot of quick, quite soft but not out of control rebound sensation from the midsole, about as much as any shoe I have tested. On the road going uphill, I could clearly feel a springy sensation, plenty of flex and a surprising (for its relatively low stack) very effective vibration attenuation.  And of course, this super light weight foam helps keep the shoe ultralight. 

The midsole was superb on the road making the 005 a very good choice for runners who want to race in a plateless quite broad fitting mini super shoe adding to versatility of what is for sure a pricey shoe.

Sharing the same general geometry with other Norda with a somewhat squared off flat on the ground design, the energy of the midsole and lighter weight had me easier rolling off the heels than usual for a Norda while, understanding road only so far for me, they were stable as Norda tend to be. 

The 005 sits on a relatively broad  85mm heel / 72mm midfoot / 115mm forefoot platform with the broad forefoot notable in providing a wide surface for toe off going uphill and on the flats really activating the foam with a snappy front flex point.

 

Speaking of ultralight, the production version 005 I tested comes with 2 insoles: a more molded one and a 4g lighter and flatter 11g Race Day flat insole which brings in the US9 below 8 oz . Noting the full Vibram outsole, below 8 oz is very light for a trail shoe and even a road speed trainer..

John: The midsole of the Norda 005 is truly the star of the show. Like Mike and Sam, I'm impressed by the 100% Arnitel TPEE foam. It has a unique feel – it's both soft and responsive, as Mike described. When I pressed on it, I could feel the give, but also the quick rebound. Sam's description of it being soft but not out of control with a lot of rebound sensation really resonates with my experience. I also agree with Norda's decision not to go for a max stack. The balance they've struck with the lightweight design and the responsive foam is excellent.

Sam's observation about the midsole's performance on roads is in line with my experience. I found it surprisingly effective at attenuating vibration, and there was a noticeable springy sensation, especially uphill. The shoe's versatility is a major plus. I've used it on road, gravel trails, and technical trails, and it has performed admirably on all of them.

What sets my experience apart is that I also used the Norda 005 for a snow ascent of Bear Peak with winter traction. Even in those challenging conditions, the midsole maintained its responsiveness and provided adequate cushioning. The platform's broad base, which Sam highlighted, contributed to stability on uneven terrain, including in the snow.

The combination of the midsole and the relatively broad platform (85mm heel / 72mm midfoot / 115mm forefoot) creates a stable and efficient ride. I agree with Sam that the broad forefoot aids in toe-off. The shoe's overall lightweight feel, which Sam mentioned is below 8 oz with the race day insole, is also a significant advantage.

Dom:  Wow.  Count me in with the other testers who were dazzled by the Arnitel midsole foam.  This is some magical stuff!  Not only is it super light and delightfully bouncy, but it also provides a really nice progressive compression, with ‘just right’ cushiness underfoot – not too squishy, not too firm.  

The midsole-outsole sandwich also is nicely tuned to provide excellent rock protection, spreading impact pressure across a wide area.  (In fact, I initially assumed there was an underfoot plate to disperse the pressure concentration.)  Similarly, torsional and bending stiffness of the shoe feels right on the money for a long-distance racer.  At the same time, there’s enough flexibility for decent ground feel.

Jeff V:  I do not have much to add here beyond what everyone has already said above, but will just echo how absolutely impressive the 100% Arnitel TPEE foam is!  Wow!  It is so incredibly lightweight, soft but not mushy, supportive, airy, light and bouncy, but not overly so.  

The midsole combined with the overall lightweight of the shoe really makes them among the fastest and liveliest on the uphills of any shoe, while the cushy foam really helps when ripping long downhills.  

I have not noticed any break down or compression of the foam and predict that they will last for many many miles, but time of course will tell. 

Outsole

Mike P: The 005 uses a special new flavor of Vibram Megagrip - “Megagrip Elite”.  I believe this essentially has all the grip and traction properties of regular Megagrip, but with a lighter, thinner base rubber bonded to the shoe. Honestly I can’t tell you the difference between this and the Litebase variety of Megagrip - but this version does fully cover the bottom of the shoe, whereas with Litebase you typically see separate segments of outsole rubber. 

Lug depth is 3.5mm all around, with lugs setup in a Tetris-style “T” shape, similar to the 001 and 002 models.  The 005 does not include those round rubber nubs which are found in the other models.  

Side note- we learned that those “nubs” are not actually meant to be functional, they are just leftovers from the molding process as the same mold is used to mold Spike versions with the spikes inserted into holes prior to molding which in non Spike versions become nubs..

I’m not 100% sold on this outsole setup.  Yes, it looks nice and stylish, but there’s physically less rubber on the ground.  You can see how few lugs there actually are, and they are quite spread out across the base of the shoe.  During this section (albeit very steep off-trail) of my 20M race, traction gave way and my foot slipped out several times from under me.  I had to really focus on putting pressure through the shoe in order to find traction and get myself out of that gully. 

I would bet that a more “traditional” design of chevron shaped lugs, perhaps more tightly spaced would be more performant.  Perhaps they chose this sparser design with the knowledge that they were sacrificing some traction in order to save even more weight?  

The case above is certainly more of an edge case, and the outsole does perform well in most conditions. Remember, you have an extremely flexy midsole (with no plate) and also a thinner outsole base, allowing the shoe to contour a lot more than most shoes over underfoot terrain. You can’t have everything, especially at 8.5 oz / 241g !

[No issues with outsole durability so far for me. This pic is at 60 miles, including mostly dry dirt/sand, including a rugged/fast 20M race]

Sam:  As I wait for trail conditions to improve and trails to reopen, as previously said, I tested 005 on hard granite dust and pavement. The outsole, while noticed and a bit noisy, but way less noisy than say a Vaporfly and its plate close to the ground or most trail shoes, played extremely well due to its thinner lower plate and broad contact lugs. By that I mean it was not an over firm presence disconnected from the midsole, while at the same time due to its coverage, it provides  stability along with the broad platform to the soft foam as well as response.  

The overall geometry and outsole provide some nice upfront climbing flex, much appreciated on my long uphill road run test.

John: While the outsole's design is sleek, Mike raised a point about its traction, noting that the sparser lug pattern might sacrifice some grip to save weight. I agree that the design prioritizes flexibility and ground feel, which is beneficial on mixed terrain. Like Sam, I found the outsole to perform well on a variety of surfaces. While I haven't experienced the same extreme slip Mike did, the outsole's performance is generally good across different conditions.

Dom: As Mike mentions above, the Norda 005 has a new flavor (new to me, at least) of Vibram outsole rubber called ‘Megagrip Elite’.  The widely-used, regular Vibram Megagrip has proven so consistently excellent in terms of grip and durability that I have high hopes for this new variant.  On dry ground, sand, and hard rock, the grip is great.  A well-timed rainfall in LA happened to produce some nicely muddy, slippery trails, and I had no complaints there either.

Yes the lugs on the 002 are relatively shallow, but I find that trail shoes with aggressive, toothy outsoles rarely perform well.  There’s a very slim window of conditions in which big lugs are beneficial, and a whole swath in which they just slow you down.  When it gets truly muddy underfoot, all shoes turn into giant clay boots, and the outsole tread is moot. 

If Norda are positioning the 005 as a race shoe, then they have made the right call here: in a typical trail race, the shoe will be significantly faster for 99% of the race on smoother, drier ground, and possibly slightly slower for the 1% of terrain that has just the right amount of slipperiness for an aggressive tread pattern to be useful.

Jeff V:  

I find the outsole to be adequate for more mellow to moderate trails, but they do not perform all that great when conditions get challenging, like snow, loose steep trails or steep loose off trail.  The Vibram rubber however does adhere well to rocks and slab and the minimal widely spaced lugs provide adequate grip when trail surfaces and conditions are not so demanding and given the design there is also the element of weight savings. 

In an ideal world, or a wish for a future iteration, I would love to see the 005 comes with a more effective and aggressive lug pattern for more loose, technical terrain, or just have an “SG” version of this shoe with more substantial lugs (like NNormal did in their new Kjerag Brut).

Ride, Conclusions and Recommendations

Mike P: So, the big question.. does the 005 live up to the hype???  During my testing, I actually ran an informal poll, letting followers and commenters pick my race shoe - and the 005 (as I expected) came out as the overwhelming pick.  Unfortunately after the race I had to disappoint everyone since I couldn’t share many details about how the shoe performed for me in the race - but the time is now!

The thing that stands out with the 005 is the sheer low weight.  8.5oz (240g) for my size is the lightest I can recall outside of super thin speed shoes or short distance racers.  This shoe has the goods to handle long distances, so that weight puts it in a class by itself.  Yes, you may bring up the NNormal Kjerag (comp below), but that shoe is very minimal underfoot in comparison to the 005’s TPEE softness and cushion. 

My 20 mile race test included some very steep parts - both up and down. Of course the light weight when climbing feels great, but I was pretty surprised by how protective they felt in both steep descents as well as shallower, but fast and leg pounding runnable downhills.  The TPEE seemed to soak up ground impact very well without bottoming out.  

I was expecting to have some foot soreness, as with any short-distance high effort race, but that was not the case here.  My feet felt pretty fresh afterwards, and also no irritation or hot spots to speak of.  I can clearly see myself taking them anywhere from the 50K to 50M range.  Longer than that, I think it becomes a matter of personal preference.

The shoe is very flexible underfoot, and for longer distances, you may want something more rigid underfoot both for protection and to take some stress off the foot muscles. Jason Schlarb completed Hardrock and  CCC in them, so he clearly favors the flexibility and lightweight for those longer distances.

Another issue for me would be the sizing, even in my US 10, as mentioned earlier, they still feel a bit short, and for anything long, I’d definitely want to have a 10.5 - a full size up from my true-to-size.  Something to be aware of for how you intend to use these.

Foothold is another area that may be variable for some runners.  I can feel the interior strapping along the midfoot, which seems to do a good job of securing the foot, but the upper itself does not quite wrap the foot like a glove.  There is a fair bit of volume inside, which will be great for high volume feet, but maybe not so much for narrow feet.  I fall somewhere in the middle, so it works fine for me, especially if I’m more concerned about everyday or long distance comfort.

I’d say in terms of ride, it has more of a flatter profile underfoot - reminiscent of the geometry of the 002.  There’s no big under arch contouring or rocker profile.  You might think this might make for an uninspiring ride, but the energy and response of the TPEE midsole makes up for any type of ride geometry tricks. You get light weight, flexibility, ground feel, and at the same time high reactivity.  It’s kind of an old-school ride, with new school components!

In a bit of a “refresher” run this week, it struck me that this would be an absolutely amazing daily shoe (caveat - price).  But disregarding that, it’s so smooth on the run, feeling very quick and of course light on foot in all scenarios.  I love flexibility in an everyday shoe - and this shoe does have a perfect blend of both energetic cushion and flex.  Apparently in testing, they have gotten very high mileage out of them - the TPEE should be highly durable - so perhaps daily training is not out of the question?

Lastly, the shoe just looks fantastic. You know I’m a fan of light colored uppers due to the sun exposure factor where I’m typically running.  The 005 offers the perfect canvas to paint with your trail experiences.  Seriously, why does anyone care about clean looking trail shoes??  But if you want to go the clean-cut route, it’s a highly versatile shoe, great for running, travel, casual use, semi-formal even?, etc. etc. 

The price is the price of course, but I assure you, this is not the case of an overhyped and overpriced gimmick shoe.  At least for the money you are getting pure performance, the best possible materials, the best possible craftsmanship, and likely some built in heart and soul from a company that truly cares about trail running. 

Mike P’s Score:  9.48 / 10

Ride: 10 - So LIGHT and energetic. Feathery feel when climbing

Fit: 9.5 - Check sizing, but very secure, good volume & comfortable 

Value: 9 - Top price, but top materials & likely durability

Style: 10 - Elegant, gorgeous if you like light uppers (I do!)

Traction: 8.5 - Mostly good, but could find some slippage at times

Rock Protection: 9.5 - Better than expected given stack, softness, and no plate

Smiles 😊😊😊😊😊

John: The Norda 005 delivers a truly exceptional ride. I wholeheartedly agree with Mike's assessment of its lightweight feel. At around 8.5 oz, it's remarkably light for a trail shoe capable of handling longer distances. 

The combination of this low weight and the responsive TPEE midsole makes for an incredibly energetic and efficient experience. Similarly, I was impressed by the shoe's performance on both climbs and descents. The lightweight design makes ascents feel effortless, while the TPEE foam provides excellent impact absorption on descents, protecting the legs even on steep and demanding terrain. This was particularly evident during my snow ascent of Bear Peak, where the shoe provided both responsiveness and cushioning in challenging conditions. 

The Norda 005 is a high-performance trail shoe that lives up to the hype. While the price point is certainly a consideration, the shoe's combination of cutting-edge materials, exceptional craftsmanship, and outstanding performance justifies the investment for serious trail runners.

However, the fit is where my experience diverges somewhat from Mike and Sam's. While they both found the upper to be comfortable, I encountered some challenges with heel lockdown due to the width of the shoe. I should point out that my shoe was a full size bigger than my usual US9, whereas Mike and Sam had a ½ size larger. That said, I felt like the length and overall fit was fine, but the heel collar was loose and high on my heel, causing irritation and discomfort. Based on where it sat on my heel, I don’t think a ½ size smaller would have changed the friction spot. As Mike suggested, sizing up may be necessary to accommodate foot volume and length, but this could exacerbate width issues for some.

Despite the fit challenges, the Norda 005 remains a remarkable shoe. Its lightweight design, responsive midsole, and durable construction make it a top contender for runners seeking a versatile and high-performance trail shoe. If you prioritize performance and are willing to consider sizing adjustments to achieve the right fit, the Norda 005 is an excellent choice.

John’s Score:  8.90 / 10

Ride: 9.5 - Ideal for uphill and downhill and everything in between

Fit: 8 - challenged with the right fit, especially comfortable heel lockdown

Value: 8.5 -  $300+ is a hefty price, especially when considering the fit challenges

Style: 10 - very sleek

Traction: 9 - no major issues for an amazing shoe for various terrain types

Sam: Going to agree on all points Mike lays out above. I score them slightly higher overall as I go somewhat  higher for value (9.2 /10) even at their high, high pricing due to my fantastic road running experience in them, and the fact I keep my trail running to more mellow trails where the outsole should be just fine for me (9.4/10) 

Smiling after an 8 mile 1500 foot uphill run.

The 005 is incredibly lightweight and has a superb highly energetic midsole and ride (10/10). I was just delighted at their springy climbing ability on road as well as their speed on the flats, all while remaining super leg friendly and near road super shoe light.

They are spectacular looking and have a great fitting upper which could be a touch lower volume (9.5 /10). 

One shoe to do it all for me: trail running, road running and yes I plan to race a road 10K and half in them as well all uphill Mount Washington, for trekking/hiking with light packs, as an ideal shoe for travel and especially adventure travel, and what a smashing look to wear more casually.  

Norda’s all out effort to combine the best current technologies to deliver top run performance at super light weight, along with their usual high style, delivers a clear and most versatile winner of a run shoe for just about any terrain.

Sam’s Score: 9.63 /10

😊😊😊😊😊

Jeff V:  Echoing once again what my colleagues stated above, the 005 is in a league of its own, combining such an incredible combination of lightweight, cushion, comfort, protection, speed and performance, it is almost difficult to conceptualize what a great job Norda did here until you experience the 005 for yourself.  

The 100% Arnitel TPEE foam is truly a wonder, how incredibly light, responsive and overall performative it is, while providing such great cushion and support over the long haul.  I really had no issues with the sizing or upper in any way, but it is always a good idea to try shoes on before buying to be certain, or at least ensure that whomever you bought them from has a good exchange policy.  

No doubt that $325 is a serious chunk of change to throw down for a pair of shoes, but I think you can rest assured that you are getting a shoe that puts out the very highest performance, great versatility, quality, durability and when you retire them, toss them in the wash and keep using them as a casual shoe.  

As I mentioned in the traction section, I would love to see an improved outsole for better traction in more challenging terrain, but it is a minor complaint.  

The 005 can do it all, from a short, mid or long distance speedster, uptempo trainer, racer or just banging around at any pace, they are still impressive when just hiking or day to day use.  Road performance is also impressive, so can also double well as a door to trail or even sloppy conditions road shoe.

Jeff V’s Score:  9.6 / 10

Ride: 10 - very fast, responsive and well cushioned

Fit: 9.5 

Value: 9.5 -  $325 is certainly steep and not within everyone’s budget, but if it is within your budget, you are in for quite a treat.

Style: 10 - a wolf in sheep’s clothing, looks like a casual shoe, but little do most people know….

Traction: 9 - good for intended use, but could definitely use more bite

Rock Protection: 9.5 

😊😊😊😊😊

Norda 005 rocker profile

Dom: The Norda 005 blew me away.  What a sensational shoe!  It’s amazingly light, bouncy, and feels fast.  It has plenty of protection for long efforts and will make an outstanding ultra race shoe.  When I previously tested the Norda 002, I enjoyed the refined, capable, well-rounded shoe, but felt that it lacked any tangible standout quality or character that justified the high price.  Not so here: the 005 is exceptional and memorable.

Did I mention that these shoes feel fast?  One criterion that I find useful for trail shoes is whether the shoe runs well on the road.  This is particularly true for a race shoe, since (hopefully) you’re not going to be plodding along, but will run fast as the terrain allows.  If a shoe doesn’t feel fast on a smooth flat surface, it’s not going to magically feel speedy on trail.  Happily the Norda 005 feels really nice on pavement.  

I also noticed that these shoes also make me want to run downhill at speed.  Off the top of my head, I actually can’t think of another shoe that felt so assured when bombing the descents.

I’m already planning to wear these in my next race (a 50-miler).  It’s too soon to say what sort of distance will be the upper limit for them.  I know that Jason Schlarb wore a prototype at Hardrock 2024, but that seems far – I’m guessing 100 km for me – although it may be possible to extend the range by switching in alternative footbeds, a strategy that I previously employed with Hoka Tectons.

Ride: 9.5/10 vroom! outstanding.  

Weight: 10/10 outstanding, significantly lighter than the competition.  

Fit: 9/10 I liked the wider forefoot.  Just make sure you adjust for Norda’s quirky sizing.

Rock protection: 9/10 surprisingly good for the weight, especially given absence of plate.  Traction: 9/10 no problems so far.   

Style: 9/10 I think they look really sharp; YMMV. 

Value: 7/10 hard to assess without data on durability and race performance, but despite their excellence, there’s no getting around the fact that these are expensive shoes..

Overall: 😊😊😊😊😊  Love these shoes.  They make me want to run far and fast!

10 Comparisons

norda 002 (RTR Review)

Mike P (10.0): They must have adjusted sizing a little because my 002s in US 10.0 were an extremely tight squeeze and I passed them on after testing. Width and footshape feels the same here, but there’s a touch of extra length in the 005 that makes a difference. I also feel like the 005 Dyneema upper wraps a bit better than the looser and less breathable 002 upper. I don't think the 002 had that "stirrup" either. Underfoot the 002 had less stack and the midsole foam was less dynamic, with more ground feel, almost to the point of bottoming out at times. The 005 Arnitel TPEE is a huge improvement all around - depth, cushion, protection, response, weight(!).  I can vaguely feel the similarities between these two shoes, but the 005 is a big step up.

Sam: Agree with Mike on all points. At $25 more than the 001 or $35 more than the 002 the upgrade to 005 is totally worth it.

John: The 005 outperforms the 002, despite the fit issues. However, I prefer the platform and width of the 002 for stability on varied terrain. Additionally, the 002 accommodates winter traction better.

Dom: I like the Norda 002, and had no fit issues with the shoe (in ½ size up from my regular size).  It feels refined, capable, and well-rounded.  In short, a premium daily training shoe.  The problem is that it just doesn’t stand out from the crowd.  It’s not particularly light, not particularly cushioned, not particularly anything (durable, perhaps, but that’s something that only emerges later).  So the steep price is hard to swallow.  

On the other hand, the 005 is a completely different beast.  It’s lighter and more cushioned; faster; bouncier; has more rocker; has more character and is altogether more fun and more memorable.  If you’re comparing fit, I tested the same size in both, and found the 005 a little longer and a little wider.  I’d suggest buying ¾ size up in 002 and ½ size up in 005.

Jeff V:  Echoing the above on all sentiments.  The 002 is a fine shoe, but it never really stood out in terms of performance, felt a bit thin underfoot and has a hefty price tag with little performance justification (though is a high quality shoe).  The 005 blows it away in every regard.

NNormal Kjerag (RTR Review)

Mike P (9.5): Note sizing difference here - My Kjerag is US 9.5 is actually more roomy than my 005 in US 10.0.  The Kjerag seems to have a snugger midfoot hold (just barely) but a wider and roomier toebox.  Both are accommodating though, it just feels like the norda has a more consistent fit throughout. Kjerag is even lighter (0.3 oz in my sizes), but much much more minimal underfoot. These shoes almost feel like they’re almost in different classes.  The Kjerag gives even more ground feel, but at the expense of being thin, especially under the forefoot. You need very strong feet to take them longer distances. The 005 is much more versatile for many more runners. Perhaps that’s why Kjerag V2 is upping the stack and switching to TPE foam.

Sam: Again agree with Mike. At the same US9, my Kjerag had a very voluminous forefoot and not quite the smooth fit of the 005, although its heel counter is more solid. And yes the Kjerag has more trail ground feel and agility but clearly with its lower stack and supercritical EVA midsole not the cushion or energy of the 005. Fast on road but much firmer and more punishing clearly pointing to the 005 clear longer distance cushion and energy capabilities on any surface.

Salomon S/LAB Pulsar (RTR Review)

Mike P (9.5): No wide and accommodating toe box here. The S/LAB fit is streamlined, narrow, and race-like throughout. I can actually get away with leaving the entire shoe loose except for the upper 1 or 2 lace rows.  The OG Pulsar that I have sits at an extremely low weight - 6.5 oz!  But again, it’s a completely different shoe.  It’s got some stack underfoot, but less energetic, relying more on rocker, and also extremely narrow. You need pinpoint accuracy running and racing in these. The norda is much more forgiving all around and way more versatile. The Pulsar remains a high level race shoe for very specific conditions (and narrow/low volume feet).

John: The Norda 005 and the Salomon S/LAB Pulsar, while both high-performance trail shoes, serve distinct purposes. I agree with Mike's assessment that the S/LAB Pulsar is primarily a race-day specialist, designed for speed over shorter distances. In contrast, the Norda 005 demonstrates greater versatility, making it a viable "everything shoe." 

While the Pulsar excels in fast-paced efforts on smoother trails, the 005's more robust construction, slightly higher stack, and adaptable design enable it to handle a wider range of terrain and distances. 

Moreover, I would agree that the 005 is more versatile and handles pretty much anything thrown at it, from technical trails to road sections, and even a snowy ascent, whereas the Salomon is more specialized for a narrower use case. The Norda 005's balance of responsiveness, cushioning, and durability makes it suitable for daily training, long runs, and even some faster efforts, whereas the Pulsar's stripped-down design prioritizes weight savings and agility for race day.

Dom: The (original) Pulsar is worth mentioning because of its astonishingly low weight, significantly lighter even than the remarkably light Norda 005.  But that’s about all they have in common.  The Pulsar feels stripped down to the bare minimum, and is really not suited to gnarly terrain or long distances.  The Norda is way more capable across a wide range of conditions, and can go far farther comfortably.

Mike's A/B/C Comparison: 005, Kjerag,and S/Lab Pulsar

Merrell Long Sky 2 Matryx (RTR Review)

Mike P (9.5): Just got back from a refresher run in the 005s, and the Long Sky 2 came to mind as a comparable, old school type of ride. Both shoes are unplated and very flexible - letting your feet and legs do the work.  But actually scratch that - the norda’s TPEE midsole really helps a lot with cushion, protection, and response compared to the Merrell.  The Merrell is a great all around versatile daily trainer, with range for more if you like that style. But the norda feels like it takes all of those features and brings them into the next generation. Fit-wise the Merrell is definitely narrower and feels more secure, the norda has more space so it depends on your foot and preference.

The North Face Vectiv Sky 2 (RTR Review)

Mike P (10.0): Another top pick for 2025, the Sky 2 leans more into the short-distance, perhaps vertical speed territory.  It’s thinner underfoot, with a carbon plate that gives it a bit quicker response, but less comfort underfoot. I’m not sure how far I could take these, but I’m sure the 005 would be comfortable for longer. I think the Sky 2 has a great midfoot fit with a spacious toebox - I do prefer its streamlined nature compared to the norda’s more boxy design. Another difference is the Sky 2’s 5mm lugs which will perform much better in rugged and loose terrain.

Brooks Catamount 3 / 4 (RTR Review)

Mike P (10.0): V4 has a totally different feel than the 005.  Its nitrogen-EVA midsole is highly responsive, but firmer.  It combines with a new aggressive plate to give a faster straight-ahead ride. The 005s TPEE is softer, feeling noticeably cushier, yet still dynamic, perhaps lacking the very quick impulse of the Catamount’s plate. But if you’re looking for a flexible, comfortable ride here - go with the norda.  Speaking of flex, the Catamount V3 is actually more comparable to the 005 - it’s flexier, but still with a firmer feel underfoot. Sizing-wise, the Brooks shoes fit like a true US 10.0, with extra space in front of the toes - more than the norda’s 10.0.

John: The Catamount is better suited for long, rolling trail runs because it is firmer and faster on straightaways and service roads. The 005, however, is softer and more responsive, making it a better choice for everything else, including steep technical terrain. 

La Sportiva Prodigio Pro

Mike P (10.5): I think sizing is the closest between these two brands, perhaps the La Sportiva runs even a little bit smaller.  The La Sportiva uses a 2 layer Nitrogen TPU/EVA midsole - it has a somewhat similar feel underfoot, but I’d say it’s likely a bit denser with a bit less reactivity.  The Pure TPEE of the 005 is really something special.  The Prodigio Pro uses more geometry, adding a slight rocker, and more support underfoot which gives it a very smooth ride. It’s a little heavier, although still light vs the competition. I love the Prodigio Pro upper - for me it does wrap the foot better, and still maintains a great toebox width. Of course the ankle collar/gaiter is amazing too. More standard, and better performing outsole with the La Sportiva too. If you’re not quite up for dropping $325, the Prodigio Pro is a great option if you are able to drop $195.  Both amazing 2025 trail shoes.

Adidas Terrex Agravic Speed Ultra is even more rockered than Norda 005

Adidas Terrex Agravic Speed Ultra (RTR Review)

Dom: The Agravic Speed Ultra has become, seemingly overnight, the pre-eminent ultramarathon race shoe.  (Their meteoric ascent may be in part due to David Roche using them in his breakout record-breaking wins at Leadville and Javelina.)  

The ASU reminds me of the first generation Nike Vaporfly 4% in that it feels unlike anything else: stiff and heavily rockered.  If you can deal with the sizing quirks (I suggest dropping down ½ size) and instability, it is undoubtedly a fast shoe.  Until the advent of the ASU, I’ve been unimpressed with plated trail shoes; the ASU is the first that made me change my mind and I’ve spent a lot of time wondering if the performance benefit comes from the plate, rocker, or foam or a magical, synergistic combination thereof.  

The Norda 005 makes a strong case that the plate is unnecessary.  Using only foam and shape, the 005 feels subjectively just as speedy.  What’s remarkable is that the 005 is lighter (247 g vs 265 g in US M10 equivalent - up ½ size in Norda, down ½ size in ASU) and more comfortable: whereas the ASU feels like a stripped-down pure race shoe, the Norda has a far more easy-going feel: you could just as easily wear it as a (super premium) daily trainer as on race day.  

Hoka Tecton X 3 (RTR Review)

Dom:  Absolutely brimming with innovation (PEBA midsole!! Rocker! Carbon plate! Integrated gaiter! Vibram Megagrip outsole! Matryx upper!), the Tecton X 3 feels like the culmination of Hoka’s ultra-trail tech.  And while it is undoubtedly an excellent shoe – and one, I might add, that I’ve worn and enjoyed in races – it can be viewed as overdesigned.  It stands in stark contrast to the “less is more” statement made by the Norda 005.  Norda employs just one flavor of magical foam, has no plate, and has generally simpler construction,  The Tecton wins on cushioning (with a very plush ride) and rock protection from its plate.  But the 005 is significantly lighter (247 g vs 279 g) and has a little more rocker (or at least rises earlier in the forefoot) for a smoother roll.  Price is similarly scalding for both ($325 for 005, $275 for Tecton).  For hundred milers or further, I might be tempted to opt for the extra cushy and protective Tecton X 3, but for most distances, I’d say that the Norda 005 eclipses Hoka’s star.  

Altra Mont Blanc Carbon (RTR Review)

Dom: The Mont Blanc Carbon is an excellent shoe.  I have worn them in several different hundred mile races, and have not encountered any significant weaknesses.  

Major differences between MBC and Norda 005 are as follows.  First heel-to-toe drop: MBC is zero drop, and consequently has less stack in the heel.  005 drop is nominally 7 mm, but feels less than that.  The MBC has a carbon plate, the 005 is plateless.  I am not convinced that the carbon plate in the MBC makes the shoe faster, but it does provide rock protection.  

Overall forefoot width is not much different: the MBC is on the slimmer side of most Altra shoes, and the 005 pleasantly roomy.  The MBC toe box is more asymmetric, allowing more room for your big toe to splay medially, whereas the 005 has a more traditional rounded end to the toe box.  

Outsole lugs are small to moderate in both shoes, which makes sense as both are race-oriented, and neither focused on grass/mud performance. 

oth shoes are expensive (MBC $260, and 005 $325).  005 is significantly lighter (247 g vs 273 in equivalent size), much bouncier, and rolls better.  I can confirm that MBC durability is good; the 005 (due to its use of bulletproof materials) ought to be spectacular, but outsole longevity is unproven.  Outsole wear will likely be the limiting factor for both.  

Subjectively, the 005 is more fun, more energetic, and has more character; MBC is very neutral.  If you can handle the stratospheric price of the 005, I would definitely choose this one.  

Although MBC is not much cheaper, the recently-released Altra Mont Blanc Speed ($185) looks to be almost identical but without the carbon plate:  Stay tuned for upcoming RTR review.

Saucony Sinister (RTR Review)

Sam: For laughs but not really. This superlight road racing flat with a PEBA midsole also has a full coverage light trail s=worthy outsole and while very snug at midfoot and elsewhere is a rocket on easier trails as a race shoe, in fact better for me for that use than as road race shoe where the more energetic 005 is a better choice and especially for longer distances while handling roads as well just fine.

The Norda 005 will release March 13, 2025 at Norda and select retailers including

RUNNING WAREHOUSE US

SHOP HERE

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.

Dom 53, 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. In 2025 Dom won the Ray Miller 50 Mile in California.

John Tribbia (5' 6", 130lbs) is a former sponsored mountain/trail runner who has run with La Sportiva, Brooks/Fleet Feet, Pearl Izumi, and Salomon. Even though he competes less frequently these days, you can still find John enjoying the daily grind of running on any surface, though his favorite terrain is 30-40% grade climbs. He has won races such as America's Uphill, Imogene Pass Run, and the US Skyrunner Vertical Kilometer Series; and he's held several FKTs on several iconic mountains in Boulder, Colorado and Salt Lake City, Utah. If you follow him on Strava, you'll notice he runs at varying paces between 5 minutes/mile to 12 minutes/mile before the break of dawn almost every day.

Sam is the Editor and Founder of Road Trail Run. He is in his 60’s  with 2024 Sam’s 52th year of running roads and trails. He has a decades old 2:28 marathon PR. These days he runs halves in the just sub 1:40 range if he gets very, very lucky. Sam trains 30-40 miles per week mostly at moderate paces on the roads and trails of New Hampshire and Utah be it on the run, hiking or on nordic skis. He is 5’9” tall and weighs about 160 lbs, if he is not enjoying too many fine New England IPA’s.

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'.

RoadTrailRun Official Store Custom Fractel Caps and Bucket Hats

Cap:$35                                                            Bucket:$39

Free US Economy Shipping!

Limited Release! SHOP HERE

Please Like and Follow RoadTrailRun

roadtrailrun.com  

@roadtrailrun

@roadtrailrun

Comments and Questions Welcome Below! Please let us know mileage, paces, race distances, and current preferred shoes

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 plus years