Article by Jen Schmidt, John Tribbia, and Mike Postaski
Arc’Teryx Norvan LD 4 GTX ($200) & Arc’Teryx Norvan LD 4 ($170)
Introduction
Jen: The Norvan LD 4 is Arc’teryx’ long-distance trail shoe, “designed to inspire confidence for mountain training and adventures.” A moderate 29 mm full stack height, moderate-to-firm ride, and adventure-ready Vibram outsole with 4mm lugs deliver on that promise with a shoe that’s most at home on technical terrain. The Gore-Tex version I tested is fully water-resistant and ready for wet, muddy mountain trails this spring. John tested the non GTX LD4.
.
Pros:
Grippy Vibram outsole with 4 mm lugs: Jen /John / Mike P.
Durable laminated Invisible FitGore-Tex liner under non-PFAS upper keeps feet dry:
Jen /John / Mike P.
Non-GTX version’s soft suede-like upper is comfortable as a lifestyle shoe as well: Mike P
Generous lace garage is easy to use and secure: Jen / John
Reduced stack height (29/23 mm) in V4 provides a lower stable ride: Jen / John
Cons:
Ride is fairly firm - some might want more cushion for a long-distance shoe: Jen / Mike P
Low-volume feet may experience heel slippage in your regular size: Jen / Mike P
- Upper sometimes led to pressure points: Jen / Mike P
Very short laces - too short for lace locking with loose heel Mike P
Most comparable shoes (see comparisons at the end of the review)
Salomon Sense Ride 5 & GTX
Saucony Peregrine 13
Stats
Sample Weights:
women’s GTX 9.0 oz / 255 g US 8.5
men's non GTX: 9.28 oz /263g US9 (fitting the equivalentt of a US8.5)
men's GTX; men’s 9.5 oz / 270g US 9
Full Stack Height: men’s 29 mm heel / 23 mm forefoot (6 mm drop spec)
Midsole/Outsole Stack Height: 25 mm heel / 19 mm forefoot (6 mm drop spec)
Platform Width: 86 mm heel / 70 mm midfoot / 115 mm forefoot
Note Jen: I originally received the non-GTX version in a half size up from my usual 8.5, but found that true-to-size was a much better fit. (Arc’teryx recommends sizing down a half size for a “performance” fit and a full size for a “technical” fit.) I reviewed the GTX version in my usual US W8.5 with photos of both models shown.
First Impressions, Fit and Upper
The fresh white colorway of the Norvan LD 4 GTX makes a striking first impression. A bold move, perhaps, for a Gore-Tex shoe designed to brave wet and muddy conditions, but one that positions it nicely within the growing category of light-colored attractive trail/lifestyle shoes.
The Invisible Fit Gore-Tex membrane is laminated to the woven polyester upper (instead of being a traditional Gore-Tex bootie construction) and feels thin but durable, with taped laces that make it as water-resistant as advertised.
Arc’teryx notes that the woven upper is made without PFAS, a nice sustainability feature. I tested it by standing in a shallow stream as well as splashing through puddles, and as long as the water didn’t come over the ankle, my feet stayed dry. A layer of laminated TPU reinforcement extends all the way around the base of the shoe to increase protection.
The integrated lace garage is a nice touch. It is wider and deeper than Salomon lace garages, for example, with a reinforced front that keeps laces from slipping out. The looped pull tab on top of the lace garage is a nice touch too, if a little larger than it needs to be. While the gusseted tongue is light and well-padded over the arch, I found that the padding did not fully prevent pressure points under the firm lace grommets, especially on the medial side. Those pressure points led to pain on the top of my foot on longer runs in particular, which might be a problem for a shoe branded as “LD” (long distance), but others might not have the same issue.
The regular version of the Norvan LD 4 has a soft, suede-like upper that would clearly help it double well as a lifestyle shoe - I almost felt guilty taking it on muddy trails.
John: I really like the Norvan LD 4 and my first impression is positive overall. The shoe has a clean and modern aesthetic to the shoe that feels distinctly Arc'teryx. What struck me right away when I picked them up was how surprisingly light they felt, especially for a trail shoe designed for longer outings. The overall build seems very sturdy and well put together, you can tell they've paid attention to the details in the materials.
When it comes to fit, these run slightly large - I am a solid US 9.0 men’s in almost every shoe, and I had to size down to the 8.5. And that seems to be the right call for me.
The shoe features a stretchy flat-knit tongue that's intended to wrap your foot snugly for a secure midfoot feel. While it does offer that secureness, I did notice that I needed to take a moment when putting them on to make sure the tongue sat correctly and didn't bunch up.
Looking at the upper, it's made from two different PFAS-free woven materials, which appear to be strategically placed. Some areas look like they'll offer more flex and breathability, while others seem more focused on resisting wear and tear.
I appreciate the inclusion of flexible laminated TPU reinforcement zones around key spots like the toes and sides; that extra layer of protection feels like it will be really useful when tackling more technical trails with rocks.
One feature I particularly love is the integrated lace garage on the tongue.
It's a simple but effective way to tuck the laces away so you don't have to worry about them coming untied or snagging on anything during your run. So far, the upper seems well-designed to offer a good mix of comfort, protection, and durability for various trail conditions.
Mike P: I’ve got the GTX version - it’s visually distinguishable by having the hidden lace eyelets along the inside - the same as Jen’s bright white version. I received all-black, which look very sleek and definitely could double as a casual shoe, especially in winter or cold conditions (if not for the snug fit).
Like John, I was initially struck by how light the shoe felt in hand - in my case for the Gore-Tex version. GTX shoes are typically heavier due to the added GTX materials, but this one feels super light, and with the overall streamlined nature, it just feels different from other GTX shoes.
Arc’teryx does run large, no doubt. I got to try on some samples (don’t remember which model) at TRE, and made a note that I needed to size down to a US 9.0. The LD 4 GTX sample in 9.0 feels right length-wise, but on the run I noticed some tightness around the toebox - especially around the pinky side.
This leads me to wonder if it’s the Gore-Tex materials giving a bit of a tighter squeeze or if I should be going true-to-size anyway. It’s curious because the marketing materials make note of a spacious and comfortable toebox, and I just don’t find that’s the case here. Given that this is the first Arc’teryx shoe that I’ve ever run in, I can’t definitively give a recommendation on sizing.
Midsole & Platform
Jen: The Norvan LD 4 has a lower profile than the previous version, with the full stack height listed at 29mm / 23mm for 6 mm drop. This stack height is a bit lower than the Salomon Sense Ride 5 (31 mm / 23 mm) and the Saucony Peregrine 14 (28mm / 24mm), two otherwise similar trail shoes. This moderate stack height is especially well-suited to more technical trails where higher-stack shoes sacrifice some stability.
The dual-density compression EVA midsole is primarily 45C foam with a higher-density 55C foam in the medial heel area. The LHR (lightweight, high resiliency) 55C zone is intended to assist with heel-to-toe transition.
Underfoot, the combination of compression EVA plus low-to-moderate stack height provides a relatively firm ride and some ground feel without feeling every rock. This combination makes for a solid daily trainer or long run shoe for runners or hikers who don’t mind the firmness underfoot, but those who prefer a little more cushion might reach for other options for long runs or ultras.
John: The midsole and platform are well designed for responsiveness and stability across varied terrain. The firmer midsole offered a noticeable connection to the ground, which I appreciated on smoother surfaces like crushed gravel and hard-packed dirt, providing an efficient and energetic feel especially on the uphills.
When the trails turned technical, the moderate stack height proved beneficial, giving me better stability and reducing the feeling of being too high off the ground, which gave me better confidence while navigating challenging sections. While the firmness of the ride provided ample support and stability for my shorter and mid-distance runs, I think runners tackling ultra-long distances might want more underfoot cushioning.
The dual-density compression EVA midsole seemed to strike a balance, offering sufficient shock absorption for typical trail runs while maintaining a level of responsiveness and trail feel.
The slightly denser feel in the heel due to firmer foam there seems to improve stability and facilitate an efficient heel-to-toe transition. From my take, the midsole and platform of the Norvan LD 4 felt well-tuned for mixed terrain, providing a reliable combination of protection, ground feel, and stability that make them a capable choice.
Mike P: I agree with the previous takes, and it’s no surprise given the stack height, foam details, and stated intention of the shoe. It’s a firm ride. Specs say 25/19 for the midsole stack , with my measurements showing 29mm at the heel, so that would be 29/23 - not super thin, but given that it’s all EVA foam here (dual density), there’s no feeling of cush underfoot.
Speaking of which, there is an Ortholite insole in my GTX version, which I guess is used to add a touch or feeling of softness to the firm ride. I think that’s a good pick given the GTX nature of the shoe and the fact that water shouldn’t be getting in.
Even given the higher weight relative to the non-GTX version, the shoe still feels very light on foot and also very agile. In terms of the midsole stack, I’d say it’s a full-feeling 6mm. I definitely detect the heel being higher.
Outsole
Jen: The Vibram Megagrip outsole with 4mm lugs is clearly made to grip any trail you could throw at it. I tested it mostly on muddy singletrack and had zero issues with traction.
Arc’teryx describes the custom lug pattern as “mud-releasing”, and I didn’t have any issues with the outsole trapping mud or debris. The Megagrip toe cap extends at least halfway up the toe box for added protection and durability as well as a bit of extra grip.
John: The LD4 outsole provides impressive traction across a variety of surfaces. The Vibram Megagrip outsole with LITEBASE technology offered confidence as I transitioned from dirt singletrack to more technical trails.
On dry, rocky terrain, the grip was exceptional, allowing me to push off effectively during climbs and maintain control on descents. Even on sections with loose gravel, the strategically placed lugs seemed to dig in well, providing a surefooted feel. While I didn't encounter significant mud during my runs, the mud-releasing custom 4mm lug pattern suggests that the outsole is designed to prevent excessive build-up, which would be a valuable feature in wetter conditions. The outsole felt both durable and reliable, standing up well to the demands of varied trail conditions. Overall, the outsole of the Norvan LD 4 instilled a sense of security and control, making it a standout feature for navigating mixed terrain.
Mike P: Vibram Megagrip with Litebase - it’s a pretty solid and versatile setup here with 4mm lugs and full coverage rubber, no exposed midsole underfoot. Impressive to have such a stout slab of outsole and keep the weight low. In mixed, dry, sandy, and dirt conditions, grip and traction was no issue at all. I’ve had them in mostly dry conditions so far but I would expect good performance in wet terrain given the Vibram Megagrip track record.
Ride, Conclusions and Recommendations
Jen: Billed as a long-distance shoe, the LD 4 is clearly part of a mountain brand’s trail shoe lineup, and it shines more on rocky vert than smooth singletrack. There is however some rigidity to the platform that can occasionally feel unstable in technical sections. The LD 4 GTX is well worth a look for mountain runners and hikers looking for a waterproof adventure shoe.
Overall: 8.75/10, 😊😊😊😊
Ride (30%): 8.5/10 (personally, I’d prefer a touch more flex in the platform and just a bit more cushion for long days on trail)
Fit (30%): 8/10 (-2 for pressure points and heel slip)
Traction (15%): 10/10
Rock protection (10%): 10/10
Value (10%): 8/10 ($200 is steep, but mountain runners who need a waterproof shoe might find it worth the cost)
Style (5%): 10/10 on the colored version or if you like white shoes!
John: The first thing that struck me was the firm feel underfoot. This isn’t a plush, highly cushioned shoe; instead, it offers a more direct and responsive ride, allowing me to really feel the contours of the trail. I felt a good sense of stability, which was particularly noticeable when navigating uneven terrain and rocky sections.
The Vibram Megagrip outsole with its strategically placed lugs provided excellent traction across a variety of surfaces, from loose gravel to more packed dirt. I felt confident in my footing, even when the trails got a bit unpredictable. While the firmness and moderate stack height offered good protection from sharp rocks, those used to more cushioned rides might not love this shoe.
For me, a standout aspect of this shoe is its durability and the quality of materials. Right from the start, it felt like a shoe built to last, capable of handling rough terrain without showing immediate wear and tear. The attention to detail in the design, like the lace garage and the thoughtful placement of TPU reinforcements, really impressed me. While the aesthetics are pleasing, the functionality truly shines on the trails.
I would recommend the Norvan LD 4 primarily to runners who like a strong connection to the ground and appreciate stability with a hint of agility. If you frequently find yourself on technical trails with rocks and uneven surfaces, the level of control and the reliable grip provided by the Vibram Megagrip outsole is perfect for you. However, if you are someone who likes a highly cushioned and plush ride for very long distances, especially on less technical terrain, you might find the firmer midsole and moderate stack height less forgiving for extended efforts.
John’s Score: 9/10 😊😊😊😊
Ride: 9, Fit: 9, Value: 9, Style: 9, Traction: 9, Rock Protection: 9
Mike P: As my first experience in an Arc’teryx shoe, I wish I would have been able to test a non-GTX version. There are certain aspects about the shoe, fit, and ride that leave me wondering if there would be differences or improvements with the non-GTX version.
For starters, the fit. It’s definitely snug up front for me. I really like the dialed in fit around the midfoot and even up front, but midway through runs I would start feeling pinky side rubbing. I wonder if the lace rail setup of the GTX version is perhaps causing too much squeezing, or if the GTX material itself inside the shoe is taking up additional volume inside?
Moving to the rear, the heel hold for me leaves something to be desired. The heel cup feels rather square-ish on the inside and I struggle to keep the heel seated without using a lace lock, which I rarely need to use. This is again curious since their spec materials specifically mention a secure heel fit. With the lace locking - I am able to get a secure heel hold.
On the run, the heel was another area that stood out to me as having a bit of a blocky feel. While the shoe overall felt quite agile due to its narrow platform, low weight, and streamlined feel, the heel at times felt like it wanted to throw my foot when I landed on the wrong spot, especially during steeper descents.
The firmness is a given, and has been mentioned by our other testers. I agree - this is not a shoe for those looking for a soft, cushy feel underfoot. Arc’teryx has made it a point that they are going after the “hybrid” trail/mountain athlete across their model lineup - and this style and ride fits the bill. This Gore-Tex version does hit a light weight and agile sweet spot that perhaps other heavier, and bulkier GTX shoes miss.
Mike P’s Score: 8.15 / 10
Ride: 8 - Firm, agile, but with a bit of a rigid rear
Fit: 7 - Sizing not in line with other brands, snug toebox, loose heel
Value: 8.5 - High, but this is perhaps a unique type of GTX trail shoe
Style: 9.5 - Love the all black
Traction: 9.5 - No issues so far
Rock Protection: 9.5 - Leaning towards agility around rocks rather than plowing through them
Smiles 😊😊😊
5 Comparisons
Salomon Sense Ride 5 and GTX (RTR Review)
Jen: The Sense Ride 5 is similarly firm underfoot despite a higher stack (31mm vs. 29mm in the LD 4), and sports a much narrower fit, especially in the toe box. Thanks to the Vibram outsole and 4mm (vs. 3.5mm) lugs, the Norvan LD 4 is superior when it comes to traction. The lace garage is much larger and easier to use on the LD 4 as well. At 8 mm drop vs 6 mm, the Sense Ride 5 has a little bit more of a rockered feel.
Mike P (9.5): Agree with Jen’s main point - SR5 felt firmer, and I’d also add flatter underfoot. Both are narrow shoes, but the SR5’s toebox tapers sharply and is even tighter than the LD 4 GTX I have. The non-GTX SR5 even weights a full ounce more than my GTX LD 4. These shoes are very similar, and I prefer the agile ride of the LD4. Even though the toebox is too tight for my taste, it’s still much better than the Salomon's.
Saucony Peregrine 13 and GTX (RTR Review)
Jen: The Peregrine 14’s updates take it farther away from the LD 4, but the 13 is similar in weight and stack height (28 mm/24 mm for 4 mm offset). The Peregrine may be a little softer underfoot with its PWRRUN midsole, but the LD4 is grippier and better-suited to technical terrain. If the Peregrine had a more mountain-ready outsole and slightly higher-volume fit, though, it would be fairly similar.
John: The Peregrine 13 is a versatile all-rounder known for its aggressive grip and has an even more grounded feel compared to the Norvan LD 4. Its PWRTRAC outsole provides better, more tenacious traction on soft, loose, or muddy terrain. The Norvan LD 4 generally offers a better, smoother, and slightly more cushioned ride specifically tuned for mid-distance comfort, along with Vibram Megagrip excelling particularly on rock and varied surfaces.
Mike P (9.5): I’ve passed along my Peregrine 13’s long ago, so perhaps my memory is fuzzy, but I thought the 13 became a bit too soft, and lost some stability - at least in comparison to V12. I think V12 is more comparable to the LD 4, although V12 does have a rockplate, somewhat stiffer ride, and wider platform. V12 had a great secure fit and toebox, but from V13 on, and even in other Saucony models, they seemed to add some taper which didn’t agree with me, similar to how the LD 4 GTX is.
Norda 005 (RTR Review)
John: Both are premium trail shoes featuring Vibram Litebase Megagrip outsoles, but the Norda 005 emphasizes a bit more versatility and a slightly different ride feel as it is far lighter (and more expensive). The Norda 005's Dyneema upper offers better, unparalleled abrasion resistance and strength, making it exceptionally durable. The Norvan LD 4 feels a little mre cushioned and is better with impact absorption compared to the more direct feel of the Norda 005.
Mike P (10.0): I have to strongly disagree with John on this one - the 005 is way more cushioned, light years in fact, than the firm LD 4. Does my GTX version have a different midsole?? Ok.. My LD 4 (GTX) rides way firmer, and for me is suitable for more technical and agile running, and due to the tight fit, for shorter outings. The 005 is way more versatile and definitely more suitable for longer ultra-type outings. The midsole foam is way more dynamic and responsive than the Arc’teryx.
Hoka Zinal 1 (RTR Review)
John: The LD 4 is a versatile trail running shoe that balances cushioning and responsiveness, making it suitable for various distances and trail conditions. It is an excellent option for runners who value comfort and stability without compromising speed. In contrast, the Zinal is designed for fast-paced, lightweight trail running. With minimal cushioning and a more aggressive rocker, it delivers a responsive and efficient ride, making it perfect for runners who prioritize speed and agility on technical trails.
Salomon S/Lab Pulsar 3 (RTR Review)
John: The LD 4 and the Salomon S/Lab Pulsar 3 represent two distinct approaches to trail running footwear. The LD 4 offers a more balanced approach, combining some cushioning and responsiveness to appeal to a wider range of runners. Its thicker midsole provides ample protection for mid to longer runs and varied terrain. In contrast, the S/Lab Pulsar 3 is designed for lightweight, aggressive trail running. It has more minimal cushioning and an aggressive rocker that promotes a faster, more efficient stride, making it ideal for technical trails and competitive races.
Index to all RTR reviews: HERE
Tester Profiles
Jennifer Schmidt found trail running in her mid-20's and began dabbling on the roads a few years later. Trail 50k's are nearest and dearest to her heart, and she recently took the win at the 2025 Way Too Cool 50k and placed sixth at the 2025 Black Canyon Ultras 50k. These days, you can find her primarily on the sweet California singletrack around Auburn, chasing competitive and personal goals over a variety of surfaces and distances. Depending on the season, she also competes in the USATF road and XC circuits for Sacramento Running Association's racing team, with a marathon PR of 2:41.
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.
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.
Europe only: use RTR code RTR5ALL for 5% off all products, even sale products
Pleased to read that arcteryx lowered the stack height. We used/tried previous versions of the Norvan LD for mountain running and generally enjoyed them but more frequently reached for lower-stack lower-drop alternatives. We’ll give this updated version another try.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the review. Appreciate that the tester used and reviewed these for their intended purpose in more technical or alpine-style terrain (have read other reviews that clearly didn’t understand the design purpose).