Article by Reed Breuer and Mike Postaski
Hoka Mafate X ($225)
Introduction
PEBA foam layer. supercritical EVA outer carrier foam, forked carbon-fibre plate. Vibram MegaGrip, giant 49mm heel / 41mm forefoot stack height and broad platform, and Mafate lineage. These are all ingredients with great promise, but did Hoka get the recipe right?
Pros:
Protective. secure fit/lockdown. Reed / Mike P
Absolutely bombproof protection underfoot Mike P
Good traction, plenty for gravel and beyond Mike P
Surprisingly stable for such a huge stack Mike P
Surprisingly energetic (to a point) for such a high weight Mike P
Runs lighter than any 12.4 oz shoe I’ve ever tried Mike P
Cons:
Cumbersome. unclear purpose. Limited utility Reed
Heavy (duh). especially going up hill Mike P
Very stiff underfoot, zero flexibility, completely rocker reliant Mike P
Please find the testers full run bios at the end of the article after Comparisons.
Stats
Spec Weight: men's 12.1 oz / 344g US10
Sample Weight: men’s 13.2oz / 375g US11, 12.4 oz / 352g US10
Stack Height: men’s 49mm heel / 41mm forefoot (8 mm drop) US M10
Platform Width: 108mm heel / 90mm midfoot / 128mm forefoot US M11
Most comparable shoes
Salomon Aero Glide 3 GRVL
Hoka Stinson
Hoka Bondi X/Skyward X
Nike Zegama 2
Reed: Some things are clear from the get-go - the sizing in my US11 is spot on. I’d characterize this as a lower volume fit as I didn’t have to go out of my way to get a secure fit on my very slim foot, and I have very little excess material in the midfoot or forefoot. I wouldn’t call the toebox wide but it isn’t overly tapered.
All in all I’d say it lines up with most Hoka models while leaning a little narrower in the midfoot. I had no issues securing the heel with standard lacing, which is a good sign for such a stiff shoe.
The upper, a woven textile, is not soft to the touch but isn’t too scratchy. It feels closer to the Speedgoat 6 upper fabric compared to the Challenger ATR 7 or Mafate Speed 4. It features a lightly reinforced toe bumper that extends to nearly the middle of the shoe.
There’s a very stiff exterior plastic heel counter that I’m sure Hoka felt was necessary for a shoe with 49/41mm stack in a M10. The lacing eyelets have standard reinforcement with additional structure from a lightning bolt shaped plastic addition around two of the central eyelets. On foot you can feel the support from the upper, but it begs the question - is that necessary for a gravel shoe? What is a gravel shoe anyway?!
Mike P: Hoka made a big splash at the the 2024 The Running Event Welcome Party - massive visual displays featuring the Mafate X were a huge feature of the event. I’m not sure if details had been previously released, but it was the first time I had seen the shoe and it was definitely a shocker - both visually and upon closeup inspection of the shoe!
The clear first impression is the sheer size and stack of the shoe - “behemoth” I think is the proper word for it. 49/41mm stack, which is unheard of, at least in any trail shoe I’ve run in. The Asics Metafuji trail was pretty high, but that’s a completely different animal.
Getting down to the fit and upper - I went with my typical half size up in Hoka. I find Hoka can feel a little bit cramped at true to size for me. Especially for trail, US 10.0 is a safe bet for me. The upper itself looks to be a single layer mesh, with various vented sections throughout. No issues with breathability here.
The tongue is somewhat standard from Hoka - borderline short, but just peeking out enough where I have no issues with it. Space in the toebox is adequate, but neither narrow nor spacious (keep in mind I’m a half size up from my normal). I’d normally want a bit more wiggle room, but being this high off the ground, maybe it’s better off not being so wide.
Heel hold is going to be the tricky bit here with the giant stack including a carbon plate, which makes the shoe very stiff. Little to no flex, so the heel will want to pull out - if you walk around with the laces loosened, they flop around like flip-flops. So they add a huge thick ring of padding all around/inside the collar, and hope for the best. It works decently - I feel my heel wanting to come up, but it does say in there. Probably the best they could do.
Midsole & Platform
Reed: With a PEBA core and a supercritical EVA carrier, you’d expect a responsive and lightweight midsole. We may have that, although the stack height, lugs and carbon plate definitely dull any excitement from the midsole.
Judging from the weight of the shoe, there’s got to be a lot more EVA than PEBA here. You could also argue there’s just a lot of both.
I was pretty tired (and early in my taper for Gorge Waterfalls 100k) when I did my first couple runs in the Mafate X - I thought that would be a proper test for a shoe potentially meant for super long distances. I was a bit disappointed to not feel a very compliant and friendly ride. I definitely wasn’t feeling the ground - I’ll grant that!
After having the opportunity to do a couple runs on actual gravel with closer to 50 miles in the shoes now, they do feel more compliant and less stiff on paved or very smooth terrain. I’m still not feeling any spring or propulsion, although they do seem to be most comfortable when locked into a smooth, easy gait.
Transitioning to singletrack, you definitely start to feel the bulk underfoot (weight and that giant 108mm heel / 90mm midfoot / 128mm forefoot platform width) in a way I just haven’t gotten used to yet. It took me a while to get used to running trails in the first Nike Zegama and I ended up loving that shoe despite its hefty stats.
Mike P: Massive stack here, PEBA close to the foot, EVA carrier with a carbon fiber plate - forked up front. See the schematic below.
You can see that the softer PEBA is more oriented under the forefoot - which works well for me. It narrows towards the rear, likely to have the EVA take on the role of “carrying” the softer PEBA and giving some more stability. You might expect with this massive stack for the shoe to be pillowy soft and cushioned, but that’s just not the case here.
I wouldn’t go so far as calling it firm, but it’s definitely firmer than expected just looking at that huge slab of foam. The carbon plate makes it very stiff - it’s very difficult to flex the shoe in hand. I think the PEBA foam gives just barely enough softness to keep it from actually feeling “firm”.
Also of note - the insole is TPEE, not the standard paper thin insoles Hoka typically uses. This is an underrated but pretty big improvement in my book. For most of my previous 100 milers in the Tecton X, I’ve swapped out those flimsy insoles for something more substantial. I hope to see this insole in their other models going forward.
Outsole
Reed: If this shoe is Hoka’s entry into the performance gravel shoe market, they’ve chosen to lean towards a little more outsole than their competition.
The segmented Vibram Megagrip outsole has performed fairly well for me this spring when I’ve ventured into slightly muddy trails. I wonder a bit why Hoka wouldn’t mimic the outsole of their tried and true road-to-trail offering, the Challenger ATR, which seems like it would be less expensive and lighter while performing just as well for the intended use. The Vibram rubber is definitely functional but I just wonder if it needlessly drives the price up.
After ~50miles of mostly hilly road runs with some gravel and singletrack, the taco and pizza lugs show some signs of wear but nothing concerning.
The edges of each lug are no longer crisp, and I have sheared a couple central heel lugs which is typical for me and doesn’t impact performance. Funny note - the smiley faces are happy under the forefoot and frowny under the heel. Maybe they know the beating they’re going to take.
Mike P: Megagrip Pizza and Tacos - what’s not to like?
Seriously, Vibram Megagrip here will do the job on gravel, dirt, and most dry terrain. I actually think the shape of the tacos along the exterior works well, and the pizzas too are a good shape for the middle of the forefoot. Who knew?
Vibram MegaGrip is known to have good wet traction, but I wouldn’t expect to push them too far in that regard. The utter lack of flexibility of the shoe itself will hinder the shoe from contouring over rocks and boulders or whatever’s wet underfoot.
3.5mm lugs are not the deepest, but again, I think the shoe as a whole is oriented towards cruising, gravel, dry terrain, that sort of thing. They will do the job and be durable in those conditions.
Ride, Conclusions and Recommendations
Reed: I thought a lot about the intention of this shoe on my first few runs. It’s too heavy to be a racing shoe for most people, but maybe it would be a protective but efficient option for 100+ mile races or events over 24hrs? I don’t know if anybody is designing a shoe for the 200 miler market yet, but I’m not sold that such a shoe would need a plate. I just don’t think you’d want a shoe this stiff - I found it a bit cumbersome to run in while tired and it doesn’t fit as roomy as your typical long-haul trucker. I could imagine grabbing this shoe for a flatter 3+ hour long trail run in a situation you might almost want to grab a road shoe for, but maybe conditions warrant some extra traction.
Reed’s Score: 8.4 / 10
Ride: 7.7 - Not as smooth and efficient as I expected
Fit: 9.0 - I would love to have this fit for a daily trainer for racing trail shoe, but it is maybe too snug for super long ultras.
Value: 6.5 - It has the price and ingredients of a supershoe but not the experience.
Style: 10 - I quite like the bright yellow with orange.
Traction: 9 - More than enough traction for intended purpose
Rock Protection: 9 - not a shoe I’d be wearing in rocky trails but you won’t feel small rocks poke through for sure.
Mike P: The Mafate X offers up quite a package - it has all the elements of other Hoka trail shoes, just more, much MORE. Those elements include a wide platform on top of solid Vibram Megagrip traction, big stack, Metarocker geometry, carbon fiber plates, and a solid well-held upper.
The striking differences here are the huge stack, and the carbon fiber plate which is quite stiff. These elements are somewhat present in the Tecton X 3, but not at this level - both stack-wise and stiffness wise. I do wonder why they used a single forked plate here as opposed to the Tecton X 3’s parallel plates. Perhaps they want to create some model separation (Tecton.. Tectonic plates.. Multiple plates) ?
I was actually quite surprised that the ride does feel somewhat energetic - due to the PEBA insert and the carbon fiber plate - but the weight really drags it down at times. This is especially felt any time you’re going uphill. Mid-12 oz in my size is pretty extreme, and it does feel like a lot to pull uphill.
The stiffness can also make the shoe feel clunky at times, and I would not recommend it as a hiking shoe due to that fact. If you can manage to get them rolling and up to speed, they do feel ok, and I’m often surprised at how fast I’m going - the plate and the PEBA does give some efficiency, but with that weight, they just don’t feel fast or quick.
I could see this shoe working well for bigger runners, where the absolute weight of the shoe is less of an issue. If you’re a heavier runner, and find that even “high” stack midsoles can still bottom out for you - this would definitely be a shoe to look into.
Aside from that, even the “gravel” positioning I think is a bit of a stretch. Typically I see those styles of shoes as having more of a road-shoe type weight, on top of a gravel (but less so rock) absorbing midsole and more moderate outsole. It’s ultimately tough to position this shoe. It’s definitely an attention grabber, but not a needle-mover for me.
Mike P’s Score: 8.55 / 10
Ride: 8 - Surprising energy given the weight, but, the weight..
Fit: 9 - Mostly good, heel hold is a challenge, but it works with big padding ring
Value: 7 - Kind of a super shoe price, but for what purpose?
Style: 8 - just ok
Traction: 9 - Vibram Megagrip is good, but the stiffness will hurt traction
Rock Protection: 10 - Nothing getting through these
Smiles 😊😊😊😊
6 Comparisons
Salomon Aero Glide 3 GRVL (RTR Review)
Reed: The fit of the Salomon is more relaxed and less secure. The Salomon has more wobble due to the softer platform. I’d choose the Salomon nearly every time for gravel and light trails or for light hiking.
Mike P (9.5): Check my detailed comparison review HERE. Totally different approaches here for “gravel” shoes. Salomon goes far lighter, with a barely held upper and just some upgraded traction over their road model.
Hoka goes HUGE, and even throws in a carbon plate. I do think the Hoka feels more stable which is shocking given the huge stack - but a secure upper and good foothold goes a long way. The Salomon upper feels very sketchy on anything uneven, and one really need to be careful with that soft of a midsole. Even with those somewhat negative factors for the Salomon, I’d still pick that one since at least it’s closer to a reasonable and familiar shoe size and weight. Way less expensive too.
Hoka Stinson 7 (RTR Review)
Reed: Same weight! The Mafate X feels snappier for sure but for all-day easy miles I’d take the Stinson with i’s roomier fit. In any race under 200 mi I’d take the Mafate X.
Hoka Bondi X (RTR Review)
Reed: I felt obligated to mention Bondi X because I felt similarly about these. Both felt a bit clunky and I would have preferred to see each with more flexibility or a softer ride.
Hoka Skyward X (RTR Review)
Reed: Unofficially the Bondi X 2, this is much improved and a similar recipe to the Mafate X. I hope the MX2 gets the same improvement in ride and weight!
Nike Zegama 2 (RTR Review)
Reed: The Zegama can handle more terrain and feels easier to run in for me. Similar combo of EVA and PEBA in each but the plate makes the ride feel much different in the MX2.
Mike P (9.5): Looking at the stack of the Mafate X, you’d expect it to feel soft like the Zegama 2, but it’s way firmer and rides totally differently. The Nike is way softer, perhaps the softest highest trail foam you can find.
The Mafate X is much stiffer - relying on the rocker and carbon plate, plus a touch of PEBA energy. I’m not a big Zegama fan - that shoe feels heavy and also back weighted which is not a good combo for me. The Mafate X is heavier, but the foothold is much better and it feels way more stable. The Nike upper is pretty generic and Hoka definitely put more thought into the design of the Mafate X upper. I’ll take the weight penalty and cruise in the Mafate X.
Brooks Caldera 8 (RTR Review)
Mike P (9.5): The Brooks has a similarly overly wide platform - they’re actually very similar. It has a high stack (although still 10mm less than the Mafate X!), and somewhat high weight (although still 0.8 oz lighter than the Hoka). The ride feels flatter too - it has a bit of rocker up front, but less so than the Mafate X, and lacks some energy given it has no plate and its midsole doesn’t feel bouncy at all. Perhaps the Caldera may feel quicker going uphill, but we may be splitting hairs at this high weight. I prefer the touch of bounce and ride of the Hoka here.
Tester Profiles
Reed Breuer, 32 years old from Auburn, CA. Reed began running at age 18 and did the classic track/cross country route through college. After college he ran a couple road marathons and started racing on trails in 2017. He moved from Sacramento to Auburn in 2023 to live closer to the historic Western States 100 course and he primarily trains and races on trails from 50k to 100mi. He has run a 15:28 5k and 2:28 marathon and is locally competitive in races of any surface or distance. He manages a local running shoe store and is starting a coaching business on the side (capital-endurance.com). He is a closeted heel-striker and over-pronator with a very low-volume foot.
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.
The Mafate X releases May 2025
Europe only: use RTR code RTR5ALL for 5% off all products, even sale products
No comments:
Post a Comment