Article by Sam Winebaum, Mike Postaski, Dom Layfield, and Jeff Valliere
Nike Terra Kiger 10 ($160)
Introduction
Sam: “Nike Trail Racing” The Kiger 10 announces its intentions boldly on the midsole sidewalls and tongue .
Comparatively low slung at 29mm heel / 24 mm forefoot, for the first time a Kiger gets Vibram, and no ordinary Vibram, as it is shod in state of the art MegaGrip with Traction Lug.. About time!
Further speeding things up it drops 2mm in stack height and about 1 ounce in weight.
The midsole is now Cushlon 3, to our knowledge not a supercritical foam. It is Nike's current top non ZoomX foam and replaces the React foam of the Kiger 9, a shoe we unfortunately did not review.. Cushlon 3 was included as the bottom stabilizing layer in the Vomero 18 road trainer.
A stable consistent midsole on trail, and especially for the speed and shorter distance focus of the new Kiger, is vital. I see this foam as a good but not ideal choice given the proliferation of lighter more reactive supercritical foams now dominating its class and trail shoes in general and given the $160 price point.
A new “leno weave” upper initially gave pause as it does not look or feel like the usual higher performance trail shoe upper with its more casual vibe and very soft feel. Not to worry, this seemingly unstructured and “casual” upper is not only very comfortable and breathable but has superb hold due to its leno construction of vertical fibers interlocking with the thicker horizontal ones and overall construction.
Pros:
State of the art Vibram Megagrip Traction Lug for the first time: Sam, Mike P, Dom, Jeff
Built for speed on more technical terrain at non ultra distances, refreshing in an ultra focused trail shoe world: Sam, Dom,, Jeff
Built for speed at non ultra distances, refreshing in an ultra focused trail shoe world: Mike P
Very secure and comfortable upper combining great hold with a surprisingly broad toe box: Sam, Jeff
Nimble and smooth: lowish stack height and rock plate providing a stable, flexible and moderately propulsive ride Sam, Mike P, Dom, Jeff
Versatile: also fine comfortable casual shoe or light and fast hiker: Sam, Mike P, Dom, Jeff
Cons:
Cushlon 3.0 foam while stable and protective is somewhat dated and dull in feel Sam, Mike P., Dom
Supercritical more lively, lighter foam in order for what is a $160 shoe and could increase range and versatility Sam, Mike P
Lateral foothold not as locked down Mike P
Thin lug edges could possible wear down easier? Mike P
At just over 9 oz / 255g US9 heavier than its direct competitors
Stats
Approx. Weight: men's 9.05 oz / 256g US9
Sample Weight:
men’s 8.8 oz /250 g US8.5, 9.5 oz /270 g US9.5, 9.8 oz/278 g US 10
Stack Height: men’s 29mm heel /24mm forefoot (moving down from 31/28)
Platform Width: 80mm heel / 70mm midfoot / 105mm forefoot US8.5
Most comparable shoes
Merrrell MTL LongSky 2 Matryx (RTR Review)
NNormal Kjerag (RTR Review)
Brooks Catamount Agil (RTR Review)
Adidas Speed Ultra (2021)
Hoka Torrent
First Impressions, Fit and Upper
Sam: No doubt about it the Kiger has beautiful visual design. The side view conveys speed and motion with its low slung platform while the leno weave upper with its combination of thicker horizontal fibers and thinner vertical white ones adds texture and a sense of durability. Leno weaves are used for fabrics requiring durability (even potato bags) as they combine those horizontal yellow fibers with what are interlocking vertical fibers to maintain the shape of the upper.
Back to the visuals. The mesh is quite thick and very pliable and soft yet seen from the inside it is actually very open and I expect breathable. The overall hold of the upper is superb even if it is so soft and unstructured from lace up forward with only a thin lateral overlay which extends forward in one piece to also create a very pliable toe bumper which is more protective of the upper mesh than the toes.
The secret to hold here, in addition to the properties of the leno weave is at the rear of the shoe. We have extensive collar padding which is quite firm.
The ankle padding extends further down than normal helping create a comfortable and very supportive rear of the shoe but not a totally rigid one as while the lower part of the heel counter is rigid its upper portions all the way to the lace up are semi rigid. The result is a superb rear lock down and stability but with just enough give to not over lockdown and immobilize on changing terrain.
The tongue is unpadded and made of the same leno weave in a bit thinner form as the rest of the upper. We have a very extended stretch gusset which essentially extends the entire lace up area. Even with no overlays to speak of the mid foot hold is superb as a result of the combination on the leno weave, flat tongue, gusset and lacing with an all of a piece very smooth fit.
Continuing the midfoot themes the toe box mesh is very pliable and essentially unstructured but again that leno weave magic is present with a very secure soft feelling fit.
The toe box is broad and low. I sometimes have issues with low toe boxes over the toes if the mesh is stiff and the bumper rigid but not so at all here. As with the rest of the shoe upper there is something special about the mesh here with its soft and easy on the foot yet has solid support.
I am true to size without question here for my narrow to medium volume feet. I think moderately broad feet will also do just fine here.
Mike P: First impression absolutely has to be regarding the weight and overall style of the shoe here - the Terra Kiger is returning to its “roots” - low slung, closer to the ground, more ground feel, back to being more of a “speed shoe”. Yes this statement is made in bold lettering with “Nike Trail Racing” printed on the side.. But we’ll get to that later.
Speaking of style, as usual, and as Sam points out - Nike does know how to make a good looking shoe. My yellow colorway just looks stunning, all the elements blend together in an understated / futuristic looking way. Yes, that’s the description I’m going with. I always love a light colored upper, and this one is dynamite!
Sam covers the details, and I generally agree, but I didn’t find the toebox to be that low in height or volume. The mesh material is in fact quite pliable, so even if it is on the lower side for some, it doesn’t really press down on the top of the toes in any obtrusive way.
A couple of other elements to point out - I’m generally not a big fan of the lacing bar setup (non-eyelets). I always find it difficult to get good tension with that setup. But in this case those knit “bars” do seem to have a bit of “grab” to them, and with the kind of thick knit laces, I think it works just fine.
The tongue is on the thinner side, and wraps pretty far down over the sides of the foot though. I find this is not an issue once laced up though, and there’s enough padding where I got no lace bite at all. Height is also good - plenty of space above the knot.
I love the rear/heel of this shoe as well. Nike goes “no fuss” here - just a regular ring of soft bolstering around the interior. It wraps completely around and above my ankle bone, and given the general flexibility of the shoe, heel hold is excellent with zero slippage. The upper edge has no hard or rigid areas - excellent setup here.
Dom: The disappointing reality of the shoe business is that customers typically select shoes based on their appearance. And Nike understands the business of selling shoes – in prodigious numbers. So it should not be surprising that the Terra Kiger 10 is a spiffy looking beast. From the strange triangular flag sticking out the back of the heel, to the silver dot on the side of the heel, to the holographic print on the tongue, there are many elements of flair that appear to be purely cosmetic.
But it’s hard to fault Nike for this, as they will be selling far more pairs of this shoe to non-runners or for casual use than for actual trail runners, let alone those who plan to race in them.
Dom: Nevertheless, the folks at Nike know a thing or two about running shoes, and even when they are phoning it in, they do a solid job. The TK10 is a very competent shoe, and everything comes together nicely.
With many brands, I find myself disappointed by conspicuously weak elements of a shoe that should have been identified and fixed in testing before the shoe was released.
Not so here. This shoe is highly capable, with no obvious flaws. The heel hold is great. The midfoot grip is great. The forefoot is excellent (although not as anatomically-shaped as I would like to see in a perfect world.)
The laces grip well, slide smoothly, and have the right amount of stretch. In terms of conspicuous innovation, the coarse mesh upper is new – to me at least – and feels both very stout and highly breathable.
Another interesting feature is that the tongue bootie, that normally just connects the tongue to the sole on either side of the midfoot, is here extended all the way through the front of the shoe, forming a complete slipper-like enclosure. Presumably the reason for this is to limit dust intrusion into the shoe through the open gaps in the mesh.
Dom: On my first run, I was mostly struck by how similar the shoe felt to older versions of the Kiger, particularly TK5/6. Despite many changes to the sole structure Nike have somehow maintained continuity here. As Sam remarks above, the toebox is fairly shallow, tapering down to the front more than most shoes. But as with older Kigers, I had no issues with this: in fact, I think the extra friction helps with forefoot hold.
Jeff V: I have run in the Kiger 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 and I have liked them all, but found that traction was less than ideal for true mountain running and perhaps overall protection. I was quite impressed however upon first inspection by the looks and feel of the Kiger 10 and while they are definitely reminiscent of their predecessors, particularly some of the older models, they are also quite different, most notably the Vibram Megagrip outsole with traction lugs and the very unique upper materials. The look is super sleek, as Nike definitely ranks near or at the top in the looks department and even my VERY discerning high school daughters like the look of them, bordering on “fly” or “fire” as the kids like to say nowadays 😀.
Sam dives into the mechanics of the upper in great detail, so I will just provide my thoughts on fit and performance. Fit is true to size in my usual size 10, with a very secure and just right padded heel, secure lacing and ample room in the forefoot for splay and comfort. The ceiling height is a bit low, but not at all in an annoying or bothersome way, but instead, in a more wrapped and comforting way. The upper has a very unique feel and texture to it, somewhat thick, durable and moderately protective, yet very flexible and breathable.
Foothold is very good, perhaps not all mountain high speed race fit, but given the overall comfort and space in the forefoot, it strikes an honorable balance between comfort and performance. I have run some steep, technical descents at high speed and never felt shaky or tentative.
Midsole & Platform
Sam: At 29mm heel /24mm forefoot we have for these days a relatively low 2025 shoe stack height shoe and is 2mm lower and 1 ounce lighter than its predecessor.
The midsole is Cushlon 3.0. Nike does not disclose the makeup of its midsole foams but Cushlon 3 is likely a compression molded EVA. It is similar in feel to Hoka’s CMEVA midsole foams with a touch more bounce, so maybe more rubber in the mix.
To the best of our knowledge it is not a supercritical foam as its most direct competitors such as the Catamount Agil, Kjerag, and Merrell Long Sky have. While I wished for a lighter more reactive super critical foam the midsole foam here does its job well in terms of having adequate cushion, densely protective and being stable on the trails.
That said, if there is one weak point in an otherwise superb shoe (upper, geometry and midsole) it is the foam here. It just feels a bit dated and dull in reactivity and especially on firm hard surfaces.
On forest paths, softer surfaces and I would expect on snow it is just right. If all out short distance fast trail running on more technical trails is your intent for the shoe it is just fine but I wish for a bit more reactive “fun” feel vs the responsive one here to extend the shoe’s range in distances and surfaces.
Mike P: The Cushlon 3.0 (which I’ve never heard of before despite apparently 2 previous versions), does have a kind of nondescript feel to it. It feels neither thin, nor firm, and also lacks any feeling of energy or “excitement”. For a shoe that has “RACING” printed boldly on the side, I would have expected more of a dynamic midsole feel.
It does have somewhat of a dense feel to it, without feeling overly heavy, and one pro is that I never get the sense that I’m bottoming out, despite the generally lower stack height. Perhaps long term durability will be a big feature of this midsole - after close to 40 test miles so far, it does feel exactly the same and gives a very consistent feel underfoot. A shoe that immediately came to mind for me is the Merrell Long Sky 2 - which I’ll discuss in the comps below.
There is a forefoot rock plate in the mix here, but don’t expect miracles here when stepping on anything sharp. It must be quite flexible as I hardly notice the feel of the plate on the run, and it seems to deflect and contour around rock impacts rather than being a full shield. You will feel stuff underfoot, but I’d say you feel the contours more rather than the sharp points.
Dom: To my mind, there’s plenty of protection and cushion in the heel of the shoe (29 mm stack, according to Nike stats). I would even say that the back end of the shoe is hard to fault. In the forefoot, however, I wanted just a little more cushion. The amount of protection is about what you would expect from the nominal 24 mm stack, which is to say, enough for daily runs on smoother trails.
Ground feel is excellent, but landing on sharp rocks is mildly uncomfortable. Nike say that there is a ‘forefoot rock shield’, but its effect is subtle at best. I assume that they are referring to the yellow exposed midsole material visible through the forefoot outsole: this feels more like a denser foam than a traditional rockplate. Personally, if I was to use the Kiger 10 as a race shoe, I think I wouldn’t go much further than a trail marathon or 50k in them.
Dom: As Mike notes above, there’s a pleasing density to the underfoot feel that, combined with the overall shape of the shoe, makes the overall experience strikingly reminiscent of older Kiger versions, particularly TK5 and TK6. This shoe feels focused and serious, more than bouncy and fun. It’s also worth noting that the TK10 is flat underfoot, and not significantly rockered: consequently you get excellent stability but have to work a little more when cruising on smooth ground.
Jeff V: As noted above, the midsole is not the most energetic, responsive or springy when compared to newer, more modern foams, but the shoe is no slouch either. I find them to be well cushioned, stable, predictable and reasonably quick.
On my first run, I was feeling quite good and they easily rose to the occasion and then some, to where I set a PR on a technical 5 mile/2,500 vert Green Mountain loop and never really thought of them on my feet (one of the best compliments to a shoe I feel, when I don’t even really think of them).
Cushioning feels ample for the stack, not overly firm or harsh, nor soft and spongy, in my opinion, just right for most runs no matter the speed or terrain.
Ground feel is good and I find the level of cushion, combined with the plate to be very good for most terrain and even moderate amounts of rocky technical terrain. While I can somewhat feel the rocks underfoot, I have not yet gotten any zingers, no discomfort or tired metatarsals like I might in some more flexible and less protective shoes.
Outsole
Sam: Along with the upper the outsole is the star of the show. For the first time the Kiger gets a Vibram MegaGrip outsole with Traction Lug mini side elements. The lug depth is 3.5mm which is pretty much the standard for a speed focused shoe.
The grip on gravel, forest paths and dirt is outstanding and also is not over present or overly slappy on hard surfaces and even pavement. The long somewhat thin in width front lugs grip also provide an additional platform for smooth toe off and propulsion. The outsole design combines with the rock plate just below the outsole upfront which appears to be a hardened foam.
The rock plate (yellow shown above) gives the Kiger a moderately stiff long flex upfront with more flexibility just behind where the rock plate ends. Protection is solid for the relatively low stack height from the combination of midsole, rock plate and outsole, understanding this is a shoe where agility and trail feel are a priority over ultra depth protection.
Mike P: More Vibram Megagrip for Nike Trail - nothing to complain about here! Check out my Zegama 2 Wet Test. I put a lot of miles into the previous Terra Kiger 6 - which I believe was the last “speed”-type Terra Kiger version. I really liked that shoe, but the outsole was definitely one of the low spots. Definitely scary on anything wet. Vibram Megagrip takes that issue out of the equation here.
The outsole setup here is highly segmented - you can see the complete split in the rear of the shoe and also across from the front to the back. This is another hint that this is a clearly a speed oriented shoe, and also a shoe not designed for full protection underfoot.
Grip and wet traction has been excellent in varied conditions for me - as expected from Vibram Megagrip. 3.5mm lugs are not super deep and I do have a little bit of concern about the shape of the lugs. In some looser sand/dirt I did get a bit of slippage, so don’t expect too much from these just because they’re Megagrip.
3.5mm is still more in the “runnable” range, and the lugs themselves are quite narrow at the edges. I have some concerns about durability given how narrow they are, especially those lugs under the forefoot. I could see them getting potentially scraped or sliced by sharp rocks. But after 40 test miles, I don’t detect any noticeable wear.
Dom: The partial outsole coverage of the TK10 is something of a head-scratcher. I’ve always liked shoes with a split heel, as this partially decouples one side from the other, making a shoe more stable when heel striking on rubble and very uneven terrain. The TK10 is excellent in this regard, although the gap between the two sides is larger than it needs to be.
But I think Nike made a mistake in extending this fissure through to the forefoot. Having a split here doesn’t accomplish anything obvious (except cosmetically), and means that the shoe has less grip and is more conformable under the ball of the foot.
The latter might be desirable if the TK10 were a stiff shoe that needed softening/more flexibitiy, but I think the opposite is the case: a little more forefoot protection would be nice, and full side-to-side outsole coverage in the front would improve the shoe.
Jeff V: The outsole was really the big story for me given my preferred terrain which is almost exclusively steep, technical mountain trails and off trail.
The Vibram Megagrip traction lugs are slim and only 3.5mm in depth, but have an effective and aggressive shape to them that provide surprisingly good traction on any trail I have run on, do pretty well on steep, loose off trail and even grab pretty well in the snow. Wet traction is good, as is traction on rocks, slab and light scrambling.
My only concern is durability over the long haul given the thin design of the lugs, but time will tell.
Ride, Conclusions and Recommendations
Sam: Nike clearly upped their trail performance game with the latest Kiger with a shoe clearly targeted at shorter distance racing and is not shy about branding the shoe sidewalls and tongue with “Nike Trail Racing”.
To date I have mostly run them on a combination of moderately technical trails, gravel, grass and pavement. I particularly noted their very smooth flow and mildly propulsive and well protected forefoot. They are agile, quick to react to terrain changes and have great grip. Their stack height and weight a few years ago would have been the norm but now a days one could almost say they are more “minimal”. They very much remind me of shoes from pre the industry ultra focus and for my trail runs that are mostly an hour with varied terrain they are fun and fast.It is a very agile and nimble riding shoe with adequate front rock protection and some propulsion off the front.
The highlights are superb leno weave upper which has a rare combination of outstanding soft on the foot comfort and hold and the Vibram MegaGrip outsole.
The Cushlon 3 midsole is dense and protective but not particularly exciting or reactive when the terrain turns firm.
At $160, Nike might have considered a supercritical foam and likely not Zoom X PEBA which without a sidewall coating (adding weight and stiffness such as in the Ultrafly can be prone to abrasion. Zoom X is the OG of superfoams but it might be time to move on, and especially in trail, to a lighter and more reactive supercritical EVA or TPU as most brands have now done in 2025 for their performance trail shoes.
Some caveats for the midsole aside, the latest Kiger is comfortable, quick and fun to run. It is a great choice for shorter distance trail racing on any terrain and daily training runs. Due to its superb upper comfort and outsole it can also cross over to everyday use, travel and light hiking.
Sam’s Score: 9.2 /10
Ride (30%): 8.9 score affected by foam and weight for a shoe in its class
Fit (30%): 9.4 outstanding comfort, solid hold if on the more relaxed rather than full on race side
Value (10%): 8.9 At $160 Nike might have stretched to a supercritical foam for weight & reactivity
Style (5%): 9.3 sleek and fast looks
Traction (15%): 9.5 all terrains solid, never in the way on firm
Rock Protection 9.3 (10%): decent given plate and dense foam but affected by relatively low stack height
😊😊😊1/2
Mike P: What a fun ride from Nike here - bringing the Terra Kiger back to its roots! At 9.5 oz in my US 9.5 (true-to-size), it’s not extremely light, but it does have that lightweight and nimble feel on the run. Many “ultra”-stacked shoes are also in the range of 9.5 oz so it’s likely the Cushlon 3.0 foam here than keeps it from being even lighter.
On the positive side, the midsole does have a denser, relatively absorptive feel that works very well as a daily training shoe. Despite the bold “Nike Trail Racing” lettering on the midsole, I see this shoe as a really excellent everyday training shoe. For racing, I would definitely want to have a more energetic feeling foam (especially in today’s market) and also better foothold and security.
In twisty and uneven terrain, especially at faster paces, I don’t quite get a confident feeling of security from the upper. I’d say it leans more towards comfort than a secure and locked down feel. It does wrap the foot well, but when applying lateral pressure, the foot does seem to move, not slide, but at least it seems to shift into the sides of the upper. Other low stack shoes discussed in the comps below do give a more secure and confident feel, especially in more technical terrain.
Overall this is a hugely positive update from Nike here. It definitely brings the Terra Kiger back into the mix as a usable trail shoe, and I expect to see a lot more Nikes on the trails going forward. (I honestly don’t see much Nike at all, which is startling considering how big of a brand they are). Going forward (assuming they keep the weight as-is, or even lower), I would love to see an improved foam and more secure upper in future versions.
Mike P’s Score: 8.95 / 10
Ride: 9.5 - Lightweight, versatile, a fun, agile ride for not-too-rugged terrain
Fit: 9 - Very comfortable, but I would want more secure lateral foot hold
Value: 9 - Kind of standard price these days, includes Vibram MG, but no superfoam
Style: 10 - My yellow colorway looks great, expect many great color options to come
Traction: 8 - Good up to moderate terrain, but don’t expect SG-level traction
Rock Protection: 8 - Sharps are blunted, but expect to feel what’s underfoot
Smiles 😊😊😊😊😊
Dom: The TK10 is a welcome return to form for Nike Trail: its character is very similar to older versions of the Kiger, particularly TK5/6. While I found the TK10 to be a really solid shoe, with no clear weaknesses, the tricky part is answering “who is this for?”. Despite being emblazoned with “Nike Trail Racing”, it doesn’t feel like a race shoe. It has excellent stability, grip and foot hold, and could be used for shorter (50k and less) trail races, but weight is a factor here: at 278 g / 9.8 oz in US M10, the TK10 is light but not cutting-edge race light; the midsole is firm and predictable, rather than soft and bouncy; finally, the sole profile is a more traditional flat shape and less rockered than many newer shoes. So I would describe the TK10 as an excellent all-rounder, a versatile training shoe that can be a one-shoe quiver, but not really a strong contender for a race shoe at either short or long distances.
Dom's Score: 8.38 /10
Ride: 8 - firm, predictable, stable, but not bouncy or plush. Feels somewhat old-school.
Fit: 9 - should suit a wide range of runners, but I like a bit more room for toes to spread out
Value: 8 - at $160 MSRP, pricing is pretty typical for a shoe without exotic elements
Style: 10 - looks very sharp
Traction: 8.5 - not optimal for challenging conditions like mud/snow, but great in dry
Rock Protection: 7 - I wanted a bit more under the forefoot
Smiles: 😊😊😊😊
Jeff V: Echoing the sentiments of my colleagues, I find the Kiger 10 to be a reasonably quick, fun and enjoyable shoe to run in. I don’t think I would race in them given there are lighter, more performance oriented shoes on the market with supercritical foam, but, the Kiger is a very solid all around shoe, best suited for daily training on a wide variety of terrain over a range of paces, from hiking to fast, up tempo runs and up to middle distance (perhaps up to 50k).
While there is no one feature or aspect about the Kiger that truly stands out, the sum of its parts combine to make a real winner. There are certain shoes that I find to be perfect to leave in the trunk of my car, a shoe that if I didn’t carefully pick ahead of time, or forgot “just the right shoe”, the Kiger 10 would have me covered for just about any run.
For the next iteration, it would be nice to see a more race ready midsole and perhaps a drop in weight, especially if they are going to call out it as a race shoe. Perhaps beefing up the lugs would be nice, at least for longevity, but as they are now, they perform really quite well.
Overall, I find the Kiger to be one of the best all around, versatile daily trainers on the market. Oh, and their looks and style are fire!
Jeff V’s Score: 9.4 / 10
Ride: 9.5 - a great all around, solid, comfortable, predictable ride
Fit: 9.5 - Comfortable with excellent foothold
Value: 9 - Perhaps not the most performative midsole at the price, but is still a great shoe and performs well
Style: 10 - Nike nails the looks
11 Comparisons
Merrrell MTL LongSky 2 Matryx (RTR Review)
Mike P (US 9.5): This was the first comp that came to mind when running in the TK10. The LS2 is similarly lower stack, flexible, and really feels great as an everyday shoe if you like that style. The Merrell excels in foothold - with a more secure fit and better lateral foothold, while the Nike’s upper is more relaxed and comfortable. Both fit true-to-size but the Merrell’s Matryx is a bit snugger. I don’t like the Merrell’s heel cup though - the Nike’s is much more comfortable, and just as secure. Merrell get’s the outsole edge with more coverage, and deeper lugs, and it’s also a lighter shoe. Both shoes look great too!
Sam: For me too the closest comparison. I agree on the LongSky’s superior Matryx hold but for most uses I prefer the Nike’s more plush and slightly more relaxed fit. At about the same stack height the LongSky is 0.5 oz lighter and would be lighter yet if it had lower than its I think more softer ground focused 5mm lug outsole. It’s midsole feels similar to the Nike’s. For overall day in day out versatility in a shoe of its class I prefer the Nike in this match up. For racing the Merrell.
NNormal Kjerag (RTR Review)
Mike P (US 9.5): The Kjerag has a SC EVA, which does feel more energetic, but it’s just so thin. Really a minimal feel with the NNormal, and you and your feet have to be prepared for that. It’s too thin for ultra racing for me, but that’s subjective. It’s really nice and light as an everyday shoe, especially if you want to train up your feet a bit. Definitely a more secure foothold with the Kjerag too - I have way more confidence in technical terrain with those. Overall the NNormal is more of a niche shoe, while the Nike is going to be across the board more versatile for the majority of runners sticking to less technical terrain.
Sam: The Kjerag is almost 1.5 oz / 42g lighter but sits on a lower 23.5 /17.5 platform. That said, its supercritical EVA foam midsole almost “evens” things out in terms of cushioning feel with additional reactivity for the shorter and faster runs both are intended for for most of us, except Kilian who runs won UTMB in his. Both have 3.5 lug MegaGrip outsoles with the Kjerag lugs broader and less angular which improves firm ground feel but lags the Nike on slipperier terrain The very light Matryx upper of the Kjerag is thin and pliable in contrast to the Nike thick and soft upper. I found a similar midfoot to rear hold.The NNormal has a similarly broad toe box and fits large. I could have sized down half a size from my “normal” in the Kjerag. Priced $35 more, the Kilian shoe is a faster lighter option and one I even used easily for 3 days of trekking with a pack on smooth terrain.
Brooks Catamount Agil (RTR Review)
Mike P (US 9.5): The Agil is noticeably lighter and also closer to the ground with a lesser stack. Way more ground feel in that shoe, perhaps too much for most runners. It also has a relatively stiff SpeedVault plate which gives a bit of propulsion. Its Nitro EVA midsole feels energetic, but like the Kjerag, it’s so thin. Also similar to the Kjerag and also the Long Sky 2, a much more secure fit leading to more confidence in technical terrain. The Agil is again a bit of a niche shoe, the TK10 much more versatile for most.
TNF Vectiv Sky 2 (RTR Review)
Mike P (US 10.0): Despite similar stack specs, the Sky 2 rides and feels closer to the ground. I do go up ½ size typically in North Face, but the fit is so good in this one that despite the extra toebox space, I have a much more secure fit than the TK10. The Sky 2 feels really locked in around the midfoot area. The Sky 2 also has a much more dynamic ride with its Nitro TPU midsole and full length forked carbon plate. The Sky 2 is perhaps my favorite lowish stack speedster/racer at the moment, while the TK10 gives more fun training shoe vibes.
Sam: The NorthFace’s shorter race competitor is considerably lighter at 8.3 oz / 235g US9 with a slightly lower 28mm heel / 22mm stack height. A considerably more sophisticated shoe than the Nike, it includes a supercritical foam midsole and flexible carbon plate. On top of that, its lugs are 5mm vs 3.5 of the Nike. Priced at $200 it is for sure a super race shoe for shorter distances on any terrain, Its upper is not as “plush” or as comfortable as the Nike's. It all adds up to a springier and racier shoe, and for me, certainly a faster shoe.
VJ MAXx 2 (RTR Review)
Mike P (US 9.0): The MAXx2 is almost a full ounce lighter at roughly the same stack height. The VJ has weird sizing - I’m down a half size from my normal at a US 9.0 in the MAXx2. The VJ upper is less refined, thicker and definitely less breathable than the Nike. It’s also a bit more rigid around the ankle collar, although itl hasn’t caused me any problems. The VJ upper is still more secure than the Nike though, but the platform is narrower so it can be unstable at times in its own way. The VJ midsole foam durability is a question mark though - mine as well as the midsole of the Lightspeed model have pancaked down quite a bit under the balls of the feet. The foam seems lighter with more air injected within, and seems to break down more easily. I’ve never considered the MAXx2 for racing, hence, I’d recommend the TK10 for more general training purposes.
Jeff V: The MAXx 2 is an all time favorite for me, as it is lighter, has one of the all around grippiest outsoles and the midsole to me feels more reactive (although some of this could come from the overall lighter weight of the shoe). The Kiger for me, while reasonably performant, is more of a day to day training shoe on moderately technical terrain, whereas the MAXx 2 has been one of my top picks for a mountainous technical PR shoe.
Nike Wildhorse (RTR Review)
Mike P (US 9.5): Haven’t tried the Wildhorse in a long time although new contributor has tested and reviewed at the link above.
Nike Zegama 2 (RTR Review)
Mike P (US 9.5): The Zegama 2 is utterly different from the Kiger 10.
Zegama 2 has way softer ZoomX midsole foam, a massive slab in fact - it’s a good setup if you’re looking for major cushion above all else. That shoe doesn’t agree with me so much due to the fact that it feels overly heel-oriented, and it feels so high and unstable.
Dom: Zegama is altogether a much bigger shoe, designed to satisfy either ultra-distance runners or just people who like maximal foam. I found it too much shoe for my taste, and particularly thought the heel was uncomfortably and unnecessarily gigantic.
Nike Ultrafly (RTR Review)
Mike P (US 9.5):The Ultrafly was also sort of a dud for me - heavy for a supershoe, and extremely stiff, with an oddly wide toebox. Although designed for a completely different purpose, I think the TK10 is the best Nike trail shoe on the market right now.
The Ultrafly was also sort of a dud for me - heavy for a supershoe, and extremely stiff, with an oddly wide toebox. Although designed for a completely different purpose, I think the TK10 is the best Nike trail shoe on the market right now.
Jeff V: Agreed with Mike, the Ultrafly never landed for me. If not so stiff, it would make a great day to day shoe since it is very comfortable, but I found it to be heavy, sluggish and inefficient despite being coined as a trail supershoe.
Nike Terra Kiger (previous versions)
Mike P (US 9.5): I last ran in V7, which was an incredibly unwieldy 10.8 oz with poor foothold and a similarly poor outsole. I wrote off the TK model until now - since it’s back to being a lightweight model last seen in V6. V6 was great, the toe toebox was a bit shallow, and of course the outsole was not that good.
V10 is generally a better shoe, but more comfort oriented. V6 did have a more secure fit (at the expense of toebox height), and in the right terrain where I didn’t have to worry about grip - I really liked that shoe. If the next TK could somehow replicate the foothold of V6 without cramping the fit, that might move it into real racing territory.
Dom: I ran extensively in early Terra Kiger versions, from the original to TK7, and saw the shoe evolve and get steadily bigger and stiffer. The TK10 fixes the two biggest weaknesses of recent Kigers, shaving off a healthy amount of weight, and switching in an outsole rubber that actually grips in the wet. The TK10 is now an excellent all-rounder, just not quite as raceable as one might hope.
Jeff V: Agreed with Mike and Dom, the 10 is for sure my favorite Kiger yet, with moderate cushioning, decent protection, reasonable ground feel, lighter weight, comfortable yet secure upper and very good traction.
Adidas Speed Ultra- 2021 version (RTR Review)
Mike P (US 9.5): Very similar vibes between these two shoes.. The “old” Speed Ultra was one of my favorite trail shoes - I loved the secure fit, flexibility, and moderate amount of cushion. Yes, it has been surpassed now by more modern shoes, but the new TK reminds me of that shoe, aside from the secure fit. As with the comps against other shoes, I still find that the TK leans more towards comfort. The TK is more flexible around the midfoot in comparison to the old Speed Ultra - that one had some type of torsion element which was a bit stiffer under the arch.
Brooks Catamount 3 (RTR Review)
Mike P (US 10.0): Lots of deals going around for the Cat 3 - I would recommend picking up a pair if you can still find them. It’s a great training shoe - very flexible underfoot, firm-ish ride and stack - it feels quicker than the TK10, and it also has SkyVault plate which gives it a bit of extra propulsion which the TK lacks. The Brooks fit works great for me in this model - very snug midfoot with wide forefoot base - there’s more room in the toebox in the Brooks if you size up, and it still retains a highly secure fit. I think the Cat 3 is a better shoe, but the TK10 may get the edge if you perhaps want a bit of a softer feel and aren’t concerned so much about more rugged trails.
Hoka Torrent 3 (RTR review) and Torrent 4 (RTR Review)
Dom: I didn’t test the Torrent 4, but found the Torrent 3 a capable all-rounder. Torrent 4 added a little stack height and a more rockered profile. Stack height and weight of Torrent 4 are almost identical to TK10. Both are capable, versatile all-rounders. Which suits you better is probably a matter of taste: TK10 is flatter and firmer underfoot, Torrent with a little more roll and bounce. Torrent 4 is less expensive at $130 vs $160 for TK10.
Index to all RTR reviews: HERE
Tester Profiles
Sam is the Editor and Founder of Road Trail Run. He is in his 60’s with 2025 Sam’s 53th 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.
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 51, trains and competes mainly on trails in Southern California. In 2017 he was 14th at Western States 100 and in 2018 finished 50th at UTMB and 32nd at the 2018 Los Angeles marathon in a time of 2:46. In 2019, his only notable finish was at the multi-day Dragon’s Back race in the UK. In 2022 Dom finished 4th in the Angeles Crest 100 and was 10th in his age group at UTMB. In 2025 Dom won the Ray Miller 50 Mile in California.
Jeff Valliere loves to run and explore the mountains of Colorado, the steeper and more technical the better. He has summited all of the 14ers in the state, many 13ers and other peaks in Colorado and beyond, plus, he has summited his local Green Mountain over 2,100 times in the past 20 years. He can be found on mountain trails daily, no matter the weather, season, conditions or whether there is daylight or not. On the side he loves to ski (all forms) bike and hike, often with his family, as he introduces his twin daughters to the outdoors. Jeff was born and raised in New Hampshire, but has called Colorado home for over 25 years. He is 5’9” and 145 lbs.
Europe only: use RTR code RTR5ALL for 5% off all products, even sale products
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for reading Road Trail Run! We also welcome comments in French. See our page with links to all shoe and gear reviews HERE. You can also follow RoadTrailRun on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram where we publish interesting run related content more frequently as well as links to our latest reviews. Shopping through links on articles help support RoadTrail Run and is much appreciated