Article by Ryan Eiler and Sam Winebaum
Speedberry Trainer ($150)
Introduction
Ryan: Old school with a modern hint of Brooklyn funkiness—that’s the Speedberry Trainer to my eye. From both an aesthetic and performance standpoint, this shoe harks back to simpler times while subtly integrating modern design elements.
What stands out most, though, is the story behind it. Speedberry is a passion-driven, entrepreneurial effort, and regardless of how the shoe performs, you have to admire the courage it takes to plunge into the wildly complex and competitive world of performance footwear. What a daunting journey it must have been to arrive here and release this into the world.
The result? A lightweight, back-to-basics trainer that keeps things simple and focused on function. There are no unnecessary frills, just a breathable upper, a thoughtfully tuned supercritical foam midsole with a midfoot carbon shank, and a distinct personality. It’s the kind of shoe that feels effortless on foot and is in many ways a refreshing alternative to the max-stack, overly engineered trend that dominates the market today.
Pros:
- Very light weight and price: 7.87 oz / 223g US8.5 $150 pricing
- About the friendliest riding carbon (albeit partial) plated trainer around, even at very easy paces: Sam
- State of the art materials including Aliphatic TPU underfoot in a more traditional stack height (37mm heel) and drop uptempo trainer: Sam
- Very midfoot stable for those who need it: midfoot plate reminds of the stability of adidas Torsion light trainers: Sam
- Copious outsole coverage: Sam
- Very breathable open upper, also a con as it could use more support:Sam
- Serrated laces a nice touch- secure lacing: Sam
Cons:
- At $150 something had to give..overly generous mid and forefoot fit for higher performance hold for narrower feet: a gusset tongue, less volume and more overlays in order - Sam/Ryan
- Plate could extend slightly further forward to deliver more propulsion - Sam/Ryan
- Lacking lockdown ability because of width - Ryan/Sam
- Flatness of underfoot geometry can contribute to an uninspired transition - Ryan/Sam
Most comparable shoes
Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 - Ryan/Sam
Nike Streakfly - Ryan/Sam
Please find the testers full run bios at the end of the article after Comparisons.
Stats
Approx. Weight: men's 8.11 oz / 230g
Sample Weight: 7.9 oz /223g US.8.5,8.11oz / 230g US9.0
Stack Height: men’s 37 mm heel / 27 mm forefoot (10 mm drop)
Platform Width: 85mm heel / 63mm midfoot / 114mm forefoot (M 9.0)
First Impressions, Fit and Upper
Ryan: Straight out of the box, the Speedberry Trainer looks and feels like a shoe made by runners, for runners. The single colorway keeps things minimal, and the mesh upper is highly breathable, almost to a fault. It’s uniform in density without much targeted reinforcement, but the strategic TPU overlays help with containment.
The heel is solidly built, doing its job without overcomplicating things. Heel slip isn’t an issue, even with a wider-than-average fit. The serrated laces remind me of what Nike has been using on the Vaporfly—effective and resistant to loosening mid-run.
Where I ran into my first snag was in the fit. I had to go a half-size down, and even then, the forefoot felt wider than I’d prefer. It’s comfortable, sure, but a little baggy in the front, reducing some of the precision in foot placement. A gusseted tongue and slightly more structure in the upper could go a long way in dialing this in and upping the shoe’s performance.
A shoe this light which winks at you to up your turnover ought to have a slightly better lockdown.
Sam: Fun! My first impression of the Speedberry Trainer. Bright white and orange the design is playful and cheery.
I concur 100% with Ryan’s take on the upper. At $150 for state of the art foam and carbon from a tiny company something had to give. That said if you have a higher volume foot than either of us have you will be quite happy with this simple highly breathable upper.
I also think the ridged laces go a long way to helping secure the shoe.
My pair was in my usual US8.5 and I could have sized down a half, maybe as I suspect the forefoot volume would still be there.
Foot hold ended up adequate but I wished for more midfoot and forefoot lockdown.
A more substantial tongue and gusset as well as a more compressive mesh would have helped.
Midsole & Platform
Ryan: The midsole projects Saucony trainer vibes, if you ask me — think a lower-stacked, bouncier version of some of their classic trainers. The Aliphatic expanded beads eTPU material brings a lively, engaging ride that feels modern without chasing max-stack trends. It keeps things close to the ground, offering a balance of cushioning and responsiveness that’s increasingly rare these days.
A small carbon-infused shank runs beneath the midfoot, stabilizing the foam while leaving the forefoot highly flexible.
It’s an interesting choice, and whether you like it will depend on preference.
If you enjoy a natural, flexible toe-off, you’ll appreciate this setup. If you want a snappier, more aggressive launch, you might feel like the shoe lacks some bite upfront. I felt that it made the shoe feel a bit unbalanced between the mid- and forefoot, but I’ve also heard some say that they appreciate the more flexible, easy toe-off, so clearly this one is only a matter of opinion!
Sam: Take state of the art Aliphatic expanded beads eTPU foam, mold it into a fairly moderate 37 mm heel / 27 mm forefoot stack height with 10mm drop, insert a midfoot stabilizing carbon shank and you a traditional style trainer with very modern pizzaz.
The foam is energetic, reminding me of Saucony’s original PWRRUN Pb but a bit softer and bouncier/ springier or even in feel to a much lighter PWRRUN +, a non supercritical TPU. There is plenty of cushion but don’t come here expecting disconnected max cushion stack heights.
The midfoot carbon shank clearly provides stability there but due to the upper volume (unless you have a high volume foot) I wouldn’t quite put it in the light stability category.
Due to carbon shank ending quite far back (compared to say adidas Torsion shanks) the Trainer flexes quite far back, between the 1st and 2nd lace holes so more where a daily trainer might than an uptempo shoe which typically flex further forward.
I am OK with this flex for general daily training but do think the tempo and race potential could be improved by moving the shank forward and forking it more prominently.
Outsole
Ryan: Speedberry keeps it simple here, using textured rubber coverage with no elaborate cutouts or segmentation. It grips well enough and contributes to the shoe’s natural, close-to-the-ground feel.
It is very flat in shape, so there isn’t much nuance or dynamic to the foot strike — again, engendering a simple, old-school experience.
The sculpted edges, cutouts, channels, and split-heel designs of most modern trainers all aim to create a dynamic underfoot experience, with some tending to prescribe a certain type of motion. This, by contrast, takes a “what you see is what you get” approach, and offers an easy to understand if slightly basic personality.
Sam: A simple sheet of rubber essentially covering the whole sole, the outsole has plenty of grip, contact, and wear surfaces. It also contributes to stabilizing the relatively soft foam above. The small front cutouts help with flexibility.
Ride, Conclusions and Recommendations
Ryan: For a debut shoe, this is seriously impressive. It delivers a lightweight, unfiltered running experience that echoes a time before every shoe had to be maximalist and overly engineered. There’s a purity to it that some runners will absolutely love.
That said, it still feels like a V1 shoe. The fit could use some refinement—specifically, dialing in the forefoot width and improving midfoot lockdown.
The partial plate concept works, but extending it slightly forward could bring better propulsion without losing the shoe’s flexible, old-school character.
If you’re looking for a trainer that feels refreshingly simple and light, this is worth a look. Just be mindful of the sizing. Speedberry’s passion is evident in every detail, and while it’s not perfect, it’s an exciting start for a new brand. I’ll be watching closely to see where they go from here.
Score: 8.1/10 (Deductions for sizing, fit in forefoot, baggy/overly-simple mesh, flattish ride)
Smiles Score: 😊😊😊
Sam: What a solid out of the gate first shoe from Speedberry! Distinctive in its more traditional geometry but using state of the art materials (eTPU instead of EVA blends and a carbon shank instead of a plastic shank. The result is a fun shoe that can handle most distances and paces without having you feel divorced from the road or constrained by a rigid plate.
Flexible and easy going when you want to, with snap when you want to step on it, I do think, agreeing with Ryan ,that the shank could be moved a bit forward for more distinct propulsion and or made longer and of plastic instead of carbon. As it is I felt distinct midsole support from its current implementation but in no way overdone support.
As discussed the upper could use some tuning with less volume and more foot conforming mesh and overlays. At my usual size, I wish, as Ryan also does, for more midfoot and forefoot lockdown but at my slower paces it was not a huge issue.
At $150, the Speedberry is a very solid value due to its modern platform tech, versatility and fun ride. It’s a great choice for runners with higher volume feet seeking a very light, well cushioned more traditional 10mm drop shoe that is plentifully but not overly cushioned or disconnected from the road. Kudos to Speedberry on this fine debut shoe!
Sam’s Score 8.9 /10
Deductions primarily for upper fit, minor deductions for plate location
😊😊😊1/2
Ride (50%): Fit (30%): Value (15%): Style (5%):
New Smiles Fun Score! Out of 5 This score is about how pleasing/fun the experience is on the run, or in the case of race type shoes how effective it is to race.
😊😊😊😊😊(copy paste as many smiles as you need)
7 Comparisons
Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 (RTR Review)
Ryan: The Speedberry Trainer in many ways reminds me of a stripped-down version of the Endorphin Speed 4 with a tamer, more traditional ride. The Speedberry feels more natural underfoot with its comparatively flexible forefoot, whereas the Speed 4 guides your stride more distinctly. Fit, sizing, lockdown, and turnover are distinctly better on the Endo Speed 4, thanks to its more refined upper and more modern geometry.
Underfoot, the Endorphin Speed 4’s PWRRUN PB midsole is softer and more cushioned, offering a smooth, energetic ride that excels at tempo efforts and longer miles.
The Speedberry’s ETPU midsole, in contrast, is firmer and lower to the ground, feeling more like a traditional trainer with a bit of extra bounce. I wouldn’t be surprised if you told me that the Speedberry’s design was inspired by a Saucony trainer such as this from the last few years — their midsole dynamics are surprisingly similar when it comes to rebound characteristics.
While both shoes have a partial-length plate, the Endorphin Speed 4’s full-length nylon plate provides a snappier, more propulsive toe-off, whereas the Speedberry Trainer’s midfoot shank is more subtle, offering stability but a much more flexible forefoot.
The uppers also diverge—the Endorphin Speed 4 has a dialed-in engineered mesh upper with a gusseted tongue and great lockdown, making it race-adjacent in feel. The Speedberry Trainer’s mesh is more open and breathable, but its wider forefoot fit can feel a bit baggy, especially for those who prefer a snug fit.
Outsole-wise, the Endorphin Speed 4 has a strategic rubber layout that enhances traction without adding much weight, while the Speedberry keeps things simpler and flatter, prioritizing ground feel over aggressive grip.
If you want a structured, plated shoe for fast efforts and longer runs, the Endorphin Speed 4 is the better choice. But if you prefer a more natural, back-to-basics ride with a touch of modern bounce, the Speedberry Trainer offers something unique.
Hoka Mach X (RTR Review)
Ryan: The Mach X is a highly cushioned, smooth-riding shoe with a Pebax-infused midsole, offering a softer, more forgiving ride than the Speedberry Trainer’s firmer, lower-to-the-ground ETPU setup. It feels like the far more substantial shoe on foot, providing what I described as more of a ”grand touring” feel. By comparison, the Speedberry feels much more nimble but doesn’t offer the same foot containment, propulsive power, or cushioning.
The Mach X’s full-length Pebax plate delivers a more noticeable propulsive effect, while the Speedberry’s partial plate keeps things stable in the midfoot but allows for a much more flexible forefoot.
The uppers are noticeably different—Hoka’s mesh in the Mach X is structured, secure, and moderately padded, creating a snug, performance fit without being overly aggressive. The Speedberry, on the other hand, keeps things ultra-breathable and minimal, but at the cost of a looser forefoot fit, especially for those with narrower feet.
Outsole-wise, the Mach X has a fairly generous layer of rubber, providing solid durability and grip. The Speedberry Trainer sticks with a simpler, more old-school application of rubber, keeping weight down but not offering quite the same level of traction or durability.
If you want a highly cushioned, plated trainer that feels smooth and slightly bouncy, the Mach X is the way to go. But if you prefer a more direct, connected ride with a bit of throwback simplicity, the Speedberry Trainer has a unique charm that stands out in today’s lineup of modern trainers.
Sam: While the Mach X has a far more secure upper I found the ride rigid, firm and not that pleasant. Easy win for the Speedberry for me even with its less than ideal upper.
Nike Streakfly (RTR Review)
Ryan: While the Streakfly is clearly a racer, whereas the Speedberry is decidedly not, I put this comparison here because of some similarities in feel between these two. Both have lively midsoles with a midfoot shank, giving them a touch of stability with a flexible forefoot. While I thought this level of flex was completely inappropriate for the Streakfly, it’s definitely more palatable in the Speedberry. While it still feels slightly underpowered at toe-off, I think a lot of folks will appreciate the visceral feel of being more in-touch with the road.
The Nike is much lighter and snappier to turn over, but lacks the stability and the more approachable nature of the Speedberry. The Nike’s outsole also feels much less robust, which is no surprise given the copious, continuous outsole rubber on the Speedberry.
Sam: Ryan calls the Streakfly a racer, and I have raced them, but I prefer to call them the lightest trainer ever as that is how I mostly used them and they have plenty of cushion stack at 32/26 but weigh.. 6 oz in a US9. The Speedberryi is clearly more shoe underfoot including outsole and is more supportive. It is a more versatile flexible trainer but there is something special about the incredibly light weight for cushion of the Nike.
ASICS Magic Speed 4 (RTR Review)
Ryan: The Magic Speed 4 and Speedberry Trainer are both lightweight, plated trainers, but they approach the task differently. The Magic Speed 4 feels like a true tempo shoe, with a firmer, more aggressive ride due to its full-length carbon-infused plate and responsive midsole. In contrast, the Speedberry Trainer takes a more balanced, versatile approach—its partial plate stabilizes the midfoot but leaves the forefoot much more flexible, making it friendlier at slower paces.
The Magic Speed 4’s engineered mesh upper is noticeably more structured and performance-focused, providing a snug, locked-in fit, whereas the Speedberry Trainer’s upper is simpler, more breathable, and wider up front. If you need secure containment, the ASICS has the edge.
Outsole-wise, the Magic Speed 4 has a segmented rubber layout that provides decent durability and traction. The Speedberry keeps things simple with a smooth rubber application, giving it a more natural ground feel but not as efficient of a ride.
If you want a dedicated speed trainer that mimics a racing shoe, the Magic Speed 4 is the better pick. But if you’re looking for a more casual, flexible, and fun ride with a touch of old-school charm, the Speedberry Trainer stands out.
Sam: My 2024 road shoe of the year the $170 ASICS is less friendly and flexible but has far more cushion stack, is not significantly heavier and has a faster ride more suitable for longer runs. It handles slower runs OK but not as well as the Speedberry. Its upper is flawless in its hold if lower volume than the Trainer’s.
Nike Vomero 18 (RTR Review)
Ryan: The Nike Vomero 18 is on the opposite end of the spectrum from the Speedberry Trainer—where the Speedberry embraces simplicity and a firmer, low-to-the-ground feel, the Vomero 18 is plush, high-stack, and ultra-cushioned. Nike’s hybrid midsole integrating ZoomX makes the Vomero significantly softer underfoot, providing long-run comfort that the Speedberry’s firmer lower stacked ETPU doesn’t offer. However, the Vomero can feel bulky, while the Speedberry stays light and agile.
Upper-wise, the Vomero 18 features a premium, well-padded mesh with a structured heel counter and gusseted tongue, offering better lockdown and plush comfort. It’s more robustly built to handle hundreds of miles. The Speedberry’s breathable, minimal mesh keeps weight down but lacks the same secure fit, especially in the forefoot.
The outsole is another area where the Vomero 18 leans toward durability, with a thick, nubbier rubber layout designed for high mileage. The Speedberry Trainer, in contrast, uses a simpler rubber design that keeps weight low and maximizes ground feel but may not last as long.
For easy days and max-cushion comfort, the Vomero 18 is the clear choice. But if you prefer a more stripped-down, lively trainer that connects you to the ground, the Speedberry Trainer has a charm the Vomero doesn’t.
New Balance Rebel v3 (RTR Review)
Ryan: Both shoes share a lightweight, stripped-down approach, but the Rebel v3 delivers a softer, bouncier ride. The Speedberry feels lower to the ground and firmer underfoot, making it a better choice for those who prefer a more traditional feel. The Rebel’s upper is stretchy and accommodating, while the Speedberry’s mesh is more breathable but lacks the same level of foot-hugging security. Outsole-wise, the Rebel’s exposed midsole in key areas leads to quicker wear, while the Speedberry’s more comprehensive rubber coverage should hold up better over time.
Mizuno Neo Vista (RTR Review)
Ryan: The Mizuno Neo Vista and Speedberry Trainer both lean toward being lightweight, energetic daily trainers, but their execution differs. The Neo Vista’s massive midsole stack and deeply channeled design make it ultra-soft and bouncy, whereas the Speedberry Trainer feels firmer, lower, and more responsive. If you like plush cushioning, the Neo Vista will feel like a pillow, while the Speedberry Trainer keeps things simple and direct.
The Neo Vista’s knit upper is flexible and sock-like, providing a unique fit that some will love but others might find a bit sloppy. The Speedberry’s upper, while also breathable, has more structure thanks to its TPU overlays and reinforced heel, but still comes up a bit short on lockdown because of its width and volume. The Speedberry still feels like the sportier ride of the two, though.
Outsole-wise, the Neo Vista uses a thick, full-length textured rubber pattern for strong traction and durability. The Speedberry keeps things smoother and more traditional, making it feel far more connected to the ground and with more responsive feedback.
If you want a fun, max-cushioned, bouncy ride, the Neo Vista is the pick. But if you prefer a lighter, firmer, and more old-school-inspired trainer, the Speedberry Trainer will suit you better.
Sam: Agree with Ryan here.
Index to all RTR reviews: HERE
The Speedberry Trainer is available now at Speedberry Run
Tester Profiles
Ryan Eller A hopeless soccer career led Ryan to take up running, and after taking a decade-long break from competing, he is back racking up mileage whenever he can. He calls the 2018 Boston Marathon the hardest race of his life, where he finished in 2:40, barely remembering his name at the finish line. Rya more recently has a PR of 2:13:36 at the 2024 NYC Marathon and ran 2:14:23 at the 2024 Boston Marathon, finishing 3d American and 15th overall.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment