Expensive running shoes are not better than more affordable trainers according to runrepeat.com.

Based on 134,867 reviews of 391 running shoes from 24 brands, independent review aggrigator RunRepeat found that cheaper alternatives were more favorably rated than more expensive brands.

RunRepeat’s conclusions:

  1. The higher the list price, the lower ratings the running shoes get.
  2. The 10 most expensive running shoes (avg. list price: $181) are rated 8.1% worse than the 10 cheapest running shoes (avg. list price: $61).
  3. Running specialist brands are rated 2.8% higher than running shoes from broad sports brands.
  4. The top three best rated brands are: #1 Skechers, #2 Saucony and #3 VibramFiveFingers, while the three worst rated are #22 New Balance, #23 Adidas and #24 Reebok. Adidas Group owns both Reebok and Adidas.
  5. The three most affordable brands are #1 Skechers, #2 Vivobarefoot and #3 Puma, while the three most expensive brands are #22 On, #23 Newton and #24 Hoka One One.

“We did this study to spread the word that ‘the higher the list price the more value’ does not apply to running shoes’” says Jens Jakob Andersen the founder of RunRepeat.com.

“Brands have strong incentives to promote high end running shoes, but our study very clearly outlines that runners buying more expensive running shoes are less satisfied than runners buying mid-range or cheap running shoes.”

Expensive running shoes are not better 1

Expensive running shoes are not better 2

Expensive running shoes are not better 3

The report can be seen in full here

Jens Jakob Andersen is the lead researcher behind the study. He is a former competitive runner and teacher in statistics at Copenhagen Business School under Center Chief of the Department of Finance Dorte Kronborg. Today he is the founder and CEO of RunRepeat.com.

Find out about the latest gear in TriRadar’s Gear Section