ANTA C202 7 vs XTEP 360X 2.0: Which Running Shoe Is Better?

Tested using Methodology v0.12

Updated Jun 29, 2026 02:03 PM

Weight 212.9 g (7.51 oz)

Heel-To-Toe Drop 7.5 mm

Plate Carbon Fiber

Weight 246.0 g (8.68 oz)

Heel-To-Toe Drop 10.0 mm

Plate Carbon Fiber

Our Verdict

ANTA C202 7

XTEP 360X 2.0

The XTEP 360X 2.0 and ANTA C202 7 are both carbon-plated trainers but with very different ranges. The ANTA is lighter and better cushioned, and could easily double as both a training and racing shoe for distances up to at least the half-marathon. The XTEP shoe is heavier and firmer, delivering a snappy, energetic rebound. It could give the ANTA a run for its money in the 5k or 10k, but it lacks the cushioning for longer distances. One caveat is that the sizing of the ANTA runs short and the arch is very narrow, so the XTEP is easier to order in your normal size.

Variants

C202 7 (Black/Silver - (Men - US 9))
C202 7 (Black/Silver - (Women - US 7))

360X 2.0 (Speed Blue - (Men - US 9))
360X 2.0 (Speed Blue - (Women - US 7))

Review

See ANTA C202 7 Review

See XTEP 360X 2.0 Review

Check Price

ANTA

Walmart.com

Main Differences for

Half/Full Marathon Racing

Threshold

0.10

Half/Full Marathon Racing

7.9

6.9

Forefoot Stack Height

30.3 mm

27.1 mm

Weight

7.7

6.6

Forefoot Long Run Cushioning

7.4

6.0

Heel Stack Height

37.8 mm

37.1 mm

Full Comparison

Half/Full Marathon Racing

7.9

6.9

5K/10K Racing

7.8

Long Run

7.5

6.9

Daily Training

6.3

6.2

Energy Return

7.5

7.7

Responsiveness

7.9

Stability

6.3

7.0

Cushioning

8.1

6.9

True To Size

7.2

9.3

Design

Weight

7.7

6.6

Right Shoe Weight Photo

Compare High-Res

Left Shoe Weight Photo

Compare High-Res

Weight

212.9 g (7.51 oz)

246.0 g (8.68 oz)

Stack Heights

Stack Height Photo

Compare High-Res

Heel Stack Height

37.8 mm

37.1 mm

Forefoot Stack Height

30.3 mm

27.1 mm

Heel-To-Toe Drop

7.5 mm

10.0 mm

Advertised Heel-To-Toe Drop

8.0 mm

9.0 mm

External Shape

3D Model Full Shoe

Preview 3D

Outsole Heel Width

84 mm (3.3")

81 mm (3.2")

Outsole Arch Width

64 mm (2.5")

54 mm (2.1")

Outsole Forefoot Width

108 mm (4.3")

110 mm (4.3")

Heel Width-To-Stack Ratio

2.22

2.18

Forefoot Width-To-Stack Ratio

3.56

4.05

Internal Shape

3D Model Internal

Preview 3D

Internal Length

272 mm (10.7")

278 mm (10.9")

Internal Heel Width

64 mm (2.5")

62 mm (2.4")

Internal Forefoot Width

91 mm (3.6")

94 mm (3.7")

Wide Sizing Available

Forefoot Fit: Width

9.1

9.4

Forefoot Width Photo

Compare High-Res

Ball-Of-Foot TTS Deviation

4.1 mm (0.163")

2.6 mm (0.102")

Toe TTS Deviation

1.3 mm (0.049")

3.4 mm (0.133")

Forefoot Fit: Height

7.9

3.8

Forefoot Height Photo

Compare High-Res

Toe TTS Deviation

-2.6 mm (-0.100")

-7.2 mm (-0.283")

Arch Fit: Width

4.7

8.9

Arch Fit Photo

Compare High-Res

Arch Width TTS Deviation

-7.3 mm (-0.285")

-2.0 mm (-0.079")

Length Fit

7.0

Toe Clearance Photo

Compare High-Res

Heel Rocker Geometry

8.1

8.3

Heel Rocker Photo

Compare High-Res

Heel Spring

27 mm (1.1")

32 mm (1.3")

Heel Apex Position

17.4%

16.6%

Heel Rocker Angle

28.4°

33.7°

Forefoot Rocker Geometry

7.9

6.7

Forefoot Rocker Photo

Compare High-Res

Toe Spring

56 mm (2.2")

46 mm (1.8")

Toe Apex Position

63.4%

62.1%

Forefoot Rocker Angle

28.1°

22.7°

Other Features

Other Features Photo

Compare High-Res

Tongue Gusset Type

Non-gusseted

Plate

Carbon Fiber

Performance

Heel Compression Energy Return

7.2

7.8

Heel Compression Video

Heel Energy Return

Preview Graph

Heel Energy Return

76.7%

79.6%

Forefoot Compression Energy Return

7.6

7.7

Forefoot Compression Video

Forefoot Energy Return

Preview Graph

Forefoot Energy Return

78.6%

79.4%

Heel Cushioning

8.2

7.2

Heel Cushioning Picture

Compare High-Res

Heel Cushioning

Preview Graph

Energy Absorbed At 550N

4.21 J

3.15 J

Energy Absorbed At 1100N

9.90 J

9.10 J

Energy Absorbed At 1900N

15.90 J

15.02 J

Forefoot Cushioning

7.9

6.5

Forefoot Cushioning Picture

Compare High-Res

Forefoot Cushioning

Preview Graph

Energy Absorbed At 800N

4.94 J

3.89 J

Energy Absorbed At 1300N

8.46 J

7.02 J

Energy Absorbed At 2050N

12.50 J

10.60 J

Heel Firmness

6.7

9.7

Heel Firmness Graph

Preview Graph

Firmness At 550N

36.3 N/mm

55.8 N/mm

Firmness At 1100N

49.0 N/mm

117.0 N/mm

Firmness At 1900N

71.4 N/mm

279.3 N/mm

Forefoot Firmness

7.6

Forefoot Firmness Graph

Preview Graph

Firmness At 800N

54.0 N/mm

118.5 N/mm

Firmness At 1300N

71.2 N/mm

229.3 N/mm

Firmness At 2050N

99 N/mm

462 N/mm

Forefoot Long Run Cushioning

7.4

6.0

Forefoot Long Run Cushioning

Preview Graph

XTEP 360X 2.0 Forefoot Long Run Cushioning

Energy Absorbed At 10km

8.03 J

6.59 J

Energy Absorbed At 20km

7.89 J

6.44 J

Energy Absorbed At 30km

7.79 J

6.33 J

Energy Absorbed At 40km

7.71 J

6.24 J

Rocker Stiffness

8.7

7.7

Forefoot Rocker Stiffness Video

Forefoot Rocker Stiffness Graph

Preview Graph

XTEP 360X 2.0 Forefoot Rocker Stiffness Graph

Force To Flatten The Rocker

151 N

109 N

Forefoot Bending Energy Return

7.3

8.2

Forefoot Bending Video

Forefoot Bending Energy Return

Preview Graph

Forefoot Bending Energy Return

66.6%

73.5%

Forefoot Bending Stiffness

8.8

8.7

Forefoot Bending Resistance Picture

Compare High-Res

Forefoot Bending Resistance

Preview Graph

XTEP 360X 2.0 Forefoot Bending Resistance

Forefoot Bending Stiffness

29.3 N/mm

24.3 N/mm

Forefoot Bending Force

392 N

401 N

Check Price

ANTA