Products
Tested using Methodology v0.11
Updated May 12, 2026 02:27 PM
SEE PRICE
Amazon
Tested using Methodology v0.11
Updated May 12, 2026 01:32 PM
SEE PRICE
Amazon
Weight
240.6 g (8.49 oz)
Heel-To-Toe Drop
6.4 mm
Plate
Plastic
Weight
265.3 g (9.36 oz)
Heel-To-Toe Drop
7.7 mm
Plate
Fiberglass Rods
Our Verdict
Saucony Endorphin Speed 4
adidas Adizero Boston 12
The Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 and the adidas Adizero Boston 12 are both versatile, stable daily trainers, but differ notably in feel and cushioning. The Saucony provides more cushioning, a softer midsole, and better responsiveness, making it smoother for faster workouts or races. It's also lighter than the adidas, making it a more versatile partner for daily runs.
Variants
- Endorphin Speed 4 (Black - (Men - US 9))
- Endorphin Speed 4 (Black - (Women - US 7))
- Adizero Boston 12 (Black/White/Carbon - (Men - US 9))
- Adizero Boston 12 (Black/Zero Metallic/Spark - (Men - US 9))
Main Differences for
Marathon Racing
Marathon Racing
Threshold
Marathon Racing
7.8
6.8
Heel Compression Energy Return
8.2
4.2
Weight
6.8
5.8
Forefoot Compression Energy Return
8.4
7.2
Forefoot Stack Height
30.8 mm
28.9 mm
Heel Stack Height
37.2 mm
36.6 mm
Plate
Plastic
Fiberglass Rods
Full Comparison
Design
Weight
6.8
5.8
Right Shoe Weight Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Left Shoe Weight Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Weight
240.6 g (8.49 oz)
265.3 g (9.36 oz)
Stack Heights
Stack Height Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Heel Stack Height
37.2 mm
36.6 mm
Forefoot Stack Height
30.8 mm
28.9 mm
Heel-To-Toe Drop
6.4 mm
7.7 mm
Advertised Heel-To-Toe Drop
8.0 mm
7.0 mm
External Shape
3D Model Full Shoe
Preview 3D
Preview 3D
Outsole Heel Width
92 mm (3.6")
83 mm (3.2")
Outsole Arch Width
67 mm (2.6")
68 mm (2.7")
Outsole Forefoot Width
113 mm (4.5")
114 mm (4.5")
Heel Width-To-Stack Ratio
2.47
2.26
Forefoot Width-To-Stack Ratio
3.67
3.94
Internal Shape
3D Model Internal
Preview 3D
Preview 3D
Internal Length
275 mm (10.8")
272 mm (10.7")
Internal Heel Width
59 mm (2.3")
61 mm (2.4")
Internal Forefoot Width
91 mm (3.6")
93 mm (3.7")
Wide Sizing Available
No
Yes
Forefoot Fit: Width
8.9
7.1
Forefoot Width Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Ball-Of-Foot TTS Deviation
2.1 mm (0.084")
9.3 mm (0.365")
Toe TTS Deviation
-3.2 mm (-0.126")
-0.4 mm (-0.015")
Forefoot Fit: Height
7.8
7.2
Forefoot Height Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Toe TTS Deviation
-2.7 mm (-0.105")
-3.3 mm (-0.131")
Arch Fit: Width
9.2
7.6
Arch Fit Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Arch Width TTS Deviation
-1.6 mm (-0.064")
-3.9 mm (-0.152")
Length Fit
10
10
Toe Clearance Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Heel Rocker Geometry
8.6
7.2
Heel Rocker Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Heel Spring
22 mm (0.9")
22 mm (0.9")
Heel Apex Position
64.2%
23.3%
Heel Rocker Angle
24.1°
17.4°
Forefoot Rocker Geometry
6.8
6.8
Forefoot Rocker Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Toe Spring
47 mm (1.9")
47 mm (1.9")
Toe Apex Position
64.2%
65.0%
Forefoot Rocker Angle
24.1°
24.1°
Other Features
Other Features Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Tongue Gusset Type
Fully-gusseted
Semi-gusseted
Plate
Plastic
Fiberglass Rods
Performance
Heel Compression Energy Return
8.2
4.2
Heel Compression Video
Heel Energy Return
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Heel Energy Return
82.1%
70.8%
Forefoot Compression Energy Return
8.4
7.2
Forefoot Compression Video
Forefoot Energy Return
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Forefoot Energy Return
83.1%
76.8%
Heel Cushioning
7.0
6.1
Heel Cushioning Picture
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Heel Cushioning
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Energy Absorbed At 550N
2.85 J
2.70 J
Energy Absorbed At 1100N
8.84 J
7.81 J
Energy Absorbed At 1900N
15.67 J
13.87 J
Forefoot Cushioning
6.7
6.7
Forefoot Cushioning Picture
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Forefoot Cushioning
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Energy Absorbed At 800N
4.00 J
3.95 J
Energy Absorbed At 1300N
7.23 J
7.26 J
Energy Absorbed At 2050N
10.91 J
11.02 J
Heel Firmness
5.8
6.4
Heel Firmness
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Firmness At 550N
55.8 N/mm
64.5 N/mm
Firmness At 1100N
106.9 N/mm
123.6 N/mm
Firmness At 1900N
251.9 N/mm
257.1 N/mm
Forefoot Firmness
8.3
8.2
Forefoot Firmness
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Firmness At 800N
116.9 N/mm
113.4 N/mm
Firmness At 1300N
223.9 N/mm
217.7 N/mm
Firmness At 2050N
448.2 N/mm
427.8 N/mm
Forefoot Long Run Cushioning
6.4
6.3
Forefoot Long Run Cushioning
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Energy Absorbed At 10km
6.96 J
6.88 J
Energy Absorbed At 20km
6.86 J
6.71 J
Energy Absorbed At 30km
6.79 J
6.61 J
Energy Absorbed At 40km
6.74 J
6.52 J
Rocker Stiffness
7.4
7.5
Forefoot Rocker Stiffness Video
Forefoot Rocker Stiffness Graph
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Force To Flatten The Rocker
97 N
101 N
Forefoot Bending Energy Return
7.7
7.2
Forefoot Bending Video
Forefoot Bending Energy Return
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Forefoot Bending Energy Return
69.7%
66.3%
Forefoot Bending Stiffness
7.9
8.2
Forefoot Bending Resistance Picture
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Forefoot Bending Resistance
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Forefoot Bending Stiffness
16.9 N/mm
16.9 N/mm
Forefoot Bending Force
332 N
405 N
To access
Become a member
unlimited full product reviews,
product prices, and
other exclusive site features
Saucony Endorphin Speed 4
adidas Adizero Boston 12
Comments
Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 vs adidas Adizero Boston 12: Main Discussion
What do you think of these products? Let us know below.
Looking for a personalized buying advice from the RTINGS.com experts? Members have direct access to buying advice on our member forum.