Article by Ryan Eiler and Sam Winebaum
Mizuno Neo Vista 2 ($200)
Introduction
Ryan: The Mizuno Neo Vista carved out a fairly unique space for itself with its initial version. This wasn't a complete shock, given Mizuno's recent penchant for exploring original and sometimes unconventional designs. I’d describe version one as an ultra-cushioned, super soft, maximally stacked trainer, primarily built for devouring high mileage and pampering your legs on recovery runs. What truly set it apart was its distinctive use of an entirely knit upper, foregoing a traditional tongue. While these characteristics meant the shoe didn't boast a ton of versatility, I did appreciate its specific use case and gave Mizuno kudos for adding such a unique tool to its lineup.
Version two, the Neo Vista 2, continues this lineage, aiming to deliver on the same overall characteristics but with some minor tweaks to the upper and midsole. Let's see how these refinements play out.
Pros:
One of the most fun to run shoes: bouncy soft yet propulsive and “stable enough”: Sam/ Ryan
Upper is now worthy of the “wild” ride Significantly improved hold: non stretch knit, stabilizing panels: Sam
Commendably light at 9.5 oz / 269g S9 for the 45/37 stack height: Sam
Handles casual, high mileage runs comfortably; max impact protection: Ryan
- Midsole dynamics are a nice blend of bounce & damping: Ryan
- Sustainability: 70% by weight recycled materials.
Cons:
A bit too soft? Wish for a bit more and quicker response and less soft bounce: Sam
Lack of versatility due to low responsiveness: Ryan
Runs larger than v1, making upper feel too baggy: Ryan
Upper can scrunch along bridge due to tongue-less design: Ryan
Most comparable shoes (with your name next to each)
Hoka Skyward X (RTR Review)
ASICS Magic Speed 4 (RTR Review)
Brooks Hyperion Max 3 (RTR Video Review)
Hoka Mach X 2 (RTR Review)
Stats
Approx. Weight: men's 9.5 oz / 269g US9
Sample Weights:
men’s 9.24 oz / 262g US 8.5 (v1 8.96 oz / 255g US 8.5)
Stack Height: 45 mm heel / 37 mm forefoot
Platform Width:
V2: 90mm heel / 85mm midfoot / 115mm forefoot US8.5
V1: 90mm heel / 85mm midfoot / 115mm forefoot US8.5
First Impressions, Fit and Upper
Sam: The Neo Vista 1 was a super fun surprise from traditionally “conservative” Mizuno joining the yet wilder Wave Rebellion Pro and more recently Neo Zen . All are strong statements that Mizuno, while continuing their popular stalwarts such as the Wave Rider, is boldly challenging with radical and fun to run trainers and racers.
The Neo Vista 1 (RTR Review) was one of RTR favorite fast trainers of 2024. Most of us felt the stretch knit upper didn’t quite keep up with the soft and highly energetic platform.
Problem mostly solved for v2 as Mizuno while continuing with a knit upper of almost identical design makes the knit very close to non stretch, and as far as I can tell identical to the Neo Zen’s upper (RTR Review), all of a piece not particularly soft and sock like as the original Vista's wasl but now more supportive front to back if not as foot conforming in fit.
Additionally, while the rear of the Neo Vista 1 was essentially sock-like with only a hint of a heel counter, we now have triangular rubbery panels (blue above) on both sides of the ankle which provide more structure and support.
It’s still a more sock-like rear of the upper but overall we have more support there than before.
The fit is true to size for my medium to narrow feet but I wish for a bit more compression or foot wrapping fit to the quite stiff knit .
Ryan: Out of the box, the Neo Vista 2 maintains the plush and inviting feel of its predecessor. However, a few changes to the upper are immediately noticeable. The upper material itself has clearly gotten thicker this time around. As Sam mentions, the stretch factor of V1 is largely gone.
Interestingly, the structural front overlays have been moved from the lateral side in version one to the medial side of the shoe in this iteration. I’m not entirely sure of the reasoning behind this shift, as I feel that they are far more useful laterally.
I agree with Sam that the externals overlays on either side of the heel add a welcome amount of structure that wasn’t available on V1. While there are some more prominent perforations for ventilation on the lateral side of the shoe, which is a very welcome addition, breathability still isn’t as great as you get from a typical mesh-type upper.
My biggest hurdle with this version two, and this is a significant one, relates to fit – specifically, it feels to me like version two fits noticeably larger than the original. I had some problems with too much volume in the front portion of the shoe, which I didn’t experience in V1. Even though this is a shoe meant to be run at casual speeds, it still felt like it lacked some lockdown and consequently fit too loosely for my liking. If you feel the need to cinch down the laces in an attempt to achieve a higher degree of lockdown, the portion of the material over the arch, where a traditional tongue would usually be, starts to bunch up. Although this isn’t a catastrophic issue, as the material is soft and the bunching isn’t aggressively noticeable, it’s still a suboptimal experience.
That significant fit issue aside, the knit upper is still extremely comfortable. If you can get the sizing right, it’s strong enough to hold the foot in place for its intended purpose. The shoe slides on just like a slipper and feels completely seamless for as long as your legs will hold.
Breathability, as you might expect from a thicker knit, does suffer a bit, but again, this isn’t a shoe designed for high-output, sweaty efforts, so it’s likely a non-issue for most. I have heard rumors that the production pairs will be more true to size than the testing pairs that were sent out, but I can’t definitively confirm this.
While the shoe definitely isn’t light, I was still impressed that it comes in <10 oz, given the massive loaf of foam on foot. Sizing runs about ½ size large, and is on the high-volume side of things.
Midsole & Platform
Sam: The midsole is all about “energy” and a fun ride and its main foam components, 2 types of Enerzy Foam are for sure aptly named as is the “Speed Smooth Assist” geometry.
The fiberglass nylon snappy yet flexible enough Mizuno Wave plate sandwiches the 2 types of foam providing both propulsion and some stability to the soft platform but in no way is the Neo Vista a stability or support type shoe.
The 3 layer construction (soft supercritical foam underfoot which is deeper at the forefoot, plate, firmer stabilizing foam at the road thicker at the heel) with a plate between is similar to what we see in many 2025 super trainers comparable to the super max stack height of 45 mm heel / 37 mm forefoot here.
Underfoot we now have a very soft and reactively bouncy Enerzy NXT nitrogen supercritical TPU blend which for v2 is thicker in the stack than v1's very soft EVA blend foam This may be the softest and bounciest such foam of any 2025 shoe, except Saucony’s Incrediun. It is softer and more reactive to pressing, and on the run than v1’s top layer. This top layer is comparatively deeper at the heel than many for example the Hoka Mach X 2 and the ASICS Magic Speed 4 where deeper lower layers of stabilizing EVA are found.
The lower EVA blend Enerzy Foam is now 5mm thinner at the forefoot. In combination with the now thicker and softer top foam, the forefoot is more cushioned in feel than before.
I think the platform requires well aligned form and a more forward strike pattern. That said the “Speed Smootjh Assist” geometry does not preclude slower paces as it initiates a nice transition off the heel at any pace with no big bottoming out sensation despite the rear softness.
The fiberglass nylon Mizuno Wave plate is very well integrated. Some earlier Mizuno plates, such as the onein the Wave Rebellion, were very springy and prescriptive pretty much precluding any pace other than fast even if less rigid than most carbon plates. Here we have a nice long and more mellow springy flex with the flex pattern a little easier, longer and less stiff than v1's.
Ryan: As in version one, the Mizuno Wave plate, constructed from nylon/fiberglass, is tasked with stabilizing this massive stack of soft foam, which is unchanged in height from V1. Don’t come here expecting the explosive punch of something like Nike’s ZoomX. I don’t think that was the design goal here, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
The Neo Vista 2 still provides boatloads of enjoyable bounce, but it does so in a slightly more muted and controlled fashion. This midsole, more than any other I’ve run in recently, feels like you can efficiently knock down super high mileage on asphalt all day long without being worn out by a hyperactive personality or, conversely, an overly dull and unresponsive ride.
The shoe's medial geometry tends to be fairly rockered, which promotes the use of a midfoot type of strike; however, the midsole feels soft and deep enough that I think almost any type of footstrike will be handled well by this one.
Compression is extremely smooth, soft, and deep. The transition from landing to toe-off is entirely seamless, and the toe-off itself is similarly mellow and casual. The internal plate, as I see it, serves to stabilize the considerable amount of soft foam more than it does to provide the kind of explosive energy return a carbon plate would aim for in a racing shoe.
And while the Neo Vista certainly isn’t in the ‘stability’ category, it was surprisingly stable given the geometry. The midsole retains the massive channel running from heel to toe, exposing the plate, which undoubtedly contributes to the shoe's overall softness and sense of perimeter stability.
It will come as no surprise that responsiveness is on the lower end of the spectrum here, given the inherent softness of the midsole foam and the sheer depth of cushion. You really can’t rush the transition on this one; attempting to do so makes things start to feel pretty sloppy and uncontrolled underfoot.
Lastly, Mizuno also deserves a bit of praise for its continued commitment to sustainability, with the Neo Vista 2 being made from 70% by weight recycled materials.
Outsole
Ryan: There aren’t any drastic changes to the outsole of the Neo Vista 2, and it works in a very similar fashion to its predecessor. The minor differences I observed include slightly thicker and more textured rubber, and perhaps a touch more surface area. Given these minimal changes, I would expect wear to be about the same as version one.
Throughout my testing, I didn’t have any issues with grip, nor did I experience any grinding or premature wear, despite the shoe's huge stack height. The perimeter of rubber underfoot isn’t too thick or overbearing enough to affect the ride in any way, especially because of how the midsole dominates the ride.
I feel like this outsole is entirely appropriate for the shoe's intentions of providing a super high mileage, comfortable trainer.
Sam: As Ryan has described, the outsole follows the same general full perimeter coverage with a big central cavity as v1. I do note two changes as shown below.
Instead of longitudinal grooves the outsole now has a lugged profile which should improve grip on wet surfaces.
We now also have a “bar of foam connecting the two sides at midfoot which appears to help with stability by keeping the sides from splaying out as much at midfoot.
Ride, Conclusions and Recommendations
Ryan: The ride of the Mizuno Neo Vista 2 remains true to its core identity: a supremely cushioned and comfortable experience designed for eating up miles. The tweaks to the upper, particularly its increased thickness and the shift in overlay placement, are noticeable. The sizing of my test pair was the most significant factor, leading to a looser fit than ideal and some bunching when trying to achieve better lockdown. If the production sizing is indeed more true-to-form, this would alleviate my main concern.
The midsole continues to be the star, offering a soft, deep, and protective ride that’s well-stabilized by the Wave plate and the wide, centrally-channeled geometry. It’s not a shoe for fast days or workouts where quick turnover and responsiveness are key; instead, it excels at recovery paces and long, slower efforts where comfort and impact absorption are paramount. The rockered profile and seamless transition make for an easy-going experience, mile after mile.
If you were a fan of the original Neo Vista and appreciated its unique, ultra-cushioned approach for high mileage and recovery, version two offers more of the same with subtle refinements.
However, potential buyers should be mindful of the sizing, and perhaps try them on if possible,.
For those seeking a plush, protective, and distinctively different high-mileage trainer, the Neo Vista 2 is certainly worth considering, provided the fit works for you. It remains a specialized tool, but one that does its job of providing a soft and forgiving platform very well.
Ryan’s Score: 8.8/10 (Deductions for baggy fit, limited versatility from soft, massive stack)
Smiles Score: 😊😊😊😊 1/2
‘
Sam: I agree with Ryan that the Neo Vista 2 is supremely cushioned and comfortable. It is super fun to run and yet more fun than v1 as the new top layer of supercritical foam is softer and more energetic than the prior “special” EVA, which was pretty darn good.
I noticed more forefoot cushion feel in an A/B test with the 2 versions, one of each foot ,and a bit more rebound off the heel as well. The fiberglass/nylon plate plays extremely well with the 2 foams. It provides some propulsion and stabilizing what is a very soft top layer of foam with the lower firmer yet still on the soft side EVA not overwhelming the goodness above as it does for example in the Endorphin Trainer and Hoka Mach X 2 for me with their thicker firmer lower layers.
The new upper is more secure with the heel area better stabilized by the more substantial (and not particularly breathable) non-stretch knit. But, given it is non stretch, and as Ryan says abov,e the fit may depend on the volume of your foot. This upper will favor higher volume feet over lower volume ones particularly if you intend to “speed” in them. At my more pedestrian paces than Ryan, I had no issues with my medium to lower volume feet with a more secure fit than v1 if not as quite a comfortable one.
Ryan talks about high mileage and recovery runs as the sweet spot for him. For me the ideal uses are different with the sweet spot mid distance (5-7 miles) and mid pace ( 8:50- 9:25 min mile) daily miles. For slower pace recovery runs, I found them a bit too soft at the heel and for longer runs they do not have quite enough stability and upper support for me. It is not a super trainer I would recommend for those who need more than a small amount of pronation control. The upcoming Hyperion Max 3 or Skyward X are better choices for those needs.
Mizuno’s super trainer is a well polished and distinctive option in this growing category. It is fast, fun and playful. Its weight is competitive at about 9.5 oz / 269 g US 9 for its giant 45/37 stack height. Even at a stack height where competitors get ponderous and stiff with exaggerated rockers, it is both somewhat flexible and springy to go with all its fun bounce. At $200 it is big smiles but a so so value as its softness and fun bounce limits its versatility somewhat for me.
Sam’s Score: 9.0 /10
Deductions for overly soft and bouncy midsole that somewhat limits its response speed, stability and thus versatility, and for wishing it had a non knit somewhat more foot conforming and less dense upper.
😊😊😊😊1/26 Comparisons
Mizuno Neo Vista 1 (RTR Review)
Ryan: The biggest change as compared to version 1 is the thicker, less stretchy knit and the overall burlier design of the upper. This material is more capable of foot containment than that of its predecessor, however the sizing/volume seems to have increased, resulting in some fit-related concerns.
The character of the midsole is just as deep and rocker-like as V1, and it retains its ability to provide endless miles of highly protective comfort. The midsole maintains its deep, lengthwise channel, enhancing stability around the shoe’s perimeter by directing forces outward.
The outsole of V2 is largely unchanged, with the perimeter of rubber performing well without impeding the ride.
If you were a fan of V1, this is more of the same casual, delightful bounce and protection. Just make sure you get the sizing right, as the behavior of the upper has been altered by the thicker material, and V2 seems to run long.
Mizuno Neo Zen (RTR Review)
Sam: Same energetic Enerzy Nxt supercritical TP foam as the Vista on a lower 39.5 mm heel / 33.5 mm forefoot stack height, with no plate and no deep cavity. More than 1 oz lighter at 8.1 oz / 230g US 8.5 and $50 less expensive, the Zen is equally as bouncy and fun in a more practical package. They have similar non stretch knit uppers with the Zen’s somewhat more ventilated and lower volume. For me both are “fun” shoes for moderate mileage and middle of the range paces with the Neo Zen a clear pick for me for its weight and value.
Hoka Skyward X (RTR Review)
Ryan: The Mizuno is definitely the more comfortable, casual of these two, although they both seem to aim at the same goal — of providing maximum impact protection for very high mileage, without much regard for weight. The Skyward X is a much more robust, serious trainer than the Mizuno. It isn’t as soft and playful, its plate is more rigid, its upper provides stronger lockdown, and its ride is more responsive. Because of the more casual build of the Mizuno, especially its upper, it feels lighter and more pleasant on foot.
Choose the Mizuno if you want the most casual, comfortable, bouncy experience possible on your recovery runs. Choose the Hoka for more stability, and a more propulsive, serious feel. Neither of these shoes excel at turnover as they are on the heavy end of the spectrum, but they both deliver tons of impact protection and durability.
The Mizuno runs about ½ size longer.
Sam: Agreeing 100% with Ryan that the Hoka is more serious, more stable, more practical (any pace from recovery to long faster tempos) and almost as much fun with its weight of about1.2 oz more and felt in comparing the two and a negative.
Hyperion Max 3 (RTR Video Review)
Sam: Brooks upcoming Max 3 is 0.7 oz heavier and sits on a yet higher 46/40 stack height. If the Skyward X is more serious than the Mizuno, the Max 3 is real serious. Its dual supercritical foams midsole with plastic plate is firmer and more responsive with less bounce but deeply cushioned and yet more so than the Vista, it has a rigid rocker profile and a very secure true to size upper with a very solid heel counter (unlike the Vista) likely contributing to its higher weight.
Not really a fun and bouncy super trainer as the Vista is, the Max is super stable, very protectively cushioned and a better choice for long hard tempos.
ASICS Magic Speed 4 (RTR Review)
Sam: My 2024 shoe of the year, the Magic is almost 2 oz lighter is my US8.5 at 8.1 oz /230g on any only slightly lower 45/37 stack height. It has a carbon (vs plastic) plate and a similar combination of upper supercritical FF Turbo foam and lower EVA blend with both foams firmer, more responsive and less bouncy fun than the Vista’s set up. It shares a central cavity with the Vista. Sitting on a narrower platform allows the weight reduction with its firmer foam more stable and its upper more secure and smoother fitting and truer to size for my narrow to medium foot.
As with several in the comparisons, it is for sure not as much fun as the Vista but is a more versatile shoe with a wider range of paces, including racing, possible. At $170 it is a better value as an all around super trainer than the Vista or any other here.
Hoka Mach X 2 (RTR Review)
Sam: Sitting at about the same heel but with a lower 5mm drop to the Mizuno’s 8mm, the Mach is considerably lighter at 8.24 oz / 234g. It has a rigid plastic plate and a similar dual foam midsole (PEBA top layer, EVA below. It has a higher proportion of firm EVA and overall is stiffer, firmer and more responsive. Not that much “fun” compared to the Mizuno but reliable and priced similarly at $190.
Comes down to what you are looking for with in the “serious” super trainer category. I prefer the Skyward X, Hyperion Max 3 and especially Magic Speed 4 before the Mach X.
for reading!
Shopping at our partners below for the Neo Vista 2 is much appreciated and helps support RoadTrailRun
Tester Profiles
Sam is the Editor and Founder of Road Trail Run. He is in his 60’s with 2025 Sam’s 54th 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.
Europe only: use RTR code RTR5ALL for 5% off all products, even sale products
1 comment:
I had to go down 0.5 size in the new shoe compared to the original, down to a 10.5 which is smaller than I am in any other running shoe. Size 11 fit perfect in the original Vista but was too baggy in V2.
Post a Comment