The Runometry Index: how we score a running shoe out of 100

The Runometry Index scores every shoe out of 100. Not with an opinion, nor with an in-house test: with the figures the brands publish (weight, stack heights, midsole material, lug depth on the trails), compared with those of the shoes you would really hesitate between.

First: what do you want to do?

Comparing a carbon-plated racer with an easy-run trainer makes no sense: they are not made for the same job. So the index starts with the question a runner asks, then puts each model in a profile, with its real rivals:

• Train: versatile, max cushioning (the most comfort and cushioning, for long runs and recovery) or stability (support);
• Go fast in training: without a plate, or plated (the "super trainers");
• Race on the road: with a carbon plate, or without one;
• Run off road: road and paths, short and technical trail, versatile trail, long trail and ultra, and plated off-road shoes.

The plate earns no points: it decides who you are compared with. A plated shoe is never scored against a shoe without a plate.

The profile comes from what the brand says about its shoe, on its own page: its category, its terrain, its trail focus, its plate. When the brand does not say, the shoe waits: better no index than a guessed one.

The criteria

Three criteria everywhere, a fourth on the trails, each scored from 0 to 100:

• Lightness: the published weight. Fewer grams to lift at every stride means less energy spent: about 1 % per 100 g according to lab studies.
• Cushioning: the midsole's mean stack, (heel + forefoot) ÷ 2. More foam underfoot means more protection and cushioning.
• Foam: the midsole material the brand states (PEBA, TPU, EVA…), on our foam scale, below.
• Lugs: on trail shoes, the lug depth the brand states. It joins a profile once enough brands publish it; until then it waits, and the table above says so.

Each profile weighs these criteria its own way, with fixed shares: lightness counts most for technical trail and racing, cushioning for max cushioning and ultras. The table above gives each criterion's share, profile by profile.

World Athletics' 40 mm limit is not a criterion: a road racer's page shows a badge, within the limit or over it, and that is all.

The scale: against your peers

Each criterion is scored on its profile's scale. For lightness, the heaviest shoe of the profile scores 0 and the lightest scores 100 (leaving out the most extreme 5 % on each side), and everything in between is proportional. The same goes for stack and for lug depth. So 250 g is light for a max-cushion shoe and heavy for a racer.

For road racers, stack only counts up to 40 mm: beyond that, a shoe is no longer allowed in a race.

Every point explained

The index is the sum of each criterion's points: its share of the index times its score. On every shoe page, the index card shows what was read (the weight, the stack, the foam), a bar for the score and the points it brings. The points add up to the index.

What we do not know never flatters

• Without a published weight or stack heights, there is no index: the shoe page says what is missing.
• A criterion the profile counts but the brand does not publish (the foam material, the lug depth) counts as the median of the profile's models that state it, neither more nor less: the index is provisional, and the card says what it counted and what the shoe could still gain. Its share never moves to the other criteria, so a missing figure never makes a shoe look better, and never sinks a brand that keeps its materials quiet.
• A figure we read but could not confirm (an ambiguous page, two values) is marked "to be verified" and never counted.
• A weight measured in a women's size is not compared with the others, most of them measured in a men's size.

The foam scale

Only one measurement compares one shoe on the market with another: the vertical energy return of the midsole, published in 2018 by Hoogkamer and colleagues. It puts PEBA ahead of TPU, and TPU ahead of EVA. Materials nobody measured that way sit between their neighbours, never above what was measured. All the details are in our guide to running shoe foams.

Price, on its own

Price never enters the index: a shoe is not better because it costs less. It has its own reading, value for money: the index a shoe gives for its catalogue price, against the typical shoe of its profile (median index and price), in one currency, never converted. "+28 %" means 28 % more index for the money. Only shoes whose index reaches the profile's median are ranked: a cheap shoe with a weak index is never the best value. Every ranking has its best-value list.

What the index does not tell you

The index measures neither comfort, nor durability, nor grip, nor support, nor how a shoe fits your foot. It does not replace trying a shoe on: it helps you decide which ones to try. And it takes no review into account, neither ours nor any other site's.

One season, one method

The index is computed once a season, and after every big catalogue update, with scales frozen for the whole season: scores stay comparable, and a shoe does not change score because another one arrived overnight. The method has a version too, shown on every card: 2.1 since 22 October 2026 (fixed shares, a missing foam or lug depth counted at the profile's median, the lug depth for the trails). Any change of rule, weight or scale gets a new one. The date of the last calculation is shown at the top of this page and on every ranking.

Want to see the result? All the rankings by profile.