Running Shoe
Products
In The Lab
Forums
Newsletters
Join now
Best
Running Shoes For Men Women Nike Brooks Marathon For Beginners Long Distance ASICS New Balance Stability HOKA adidas Cheap Cushioned Heavy Runners On Most Comfortable Saucony PUMA
Tools
Compare 3D Compare Results Table Tool Review List Review Index Graph Review Pipeline Vote Custom Ratings
Popular
Li-Ning Red Hare 9 Ultra Dynafish Xiaonian ASICS MEGABLAST ASICS HYPER SPEED 6 adidas Adizero Evo SL Li-Ning Feidian 6 Elite Saucony Hurricane 26 ASICS NOVABLAST 6 ASICS SUPERBLAST 3 adidas Adizero Adios Pro 5 HOKA Bondi 9 adidas Adizero Pacer Li-Ning Red Hare 9 Pro 361 Flame 5 adidas Zenboost Saucony Endorphin Azura adidas Adizero Adios Pro 4 Nike Vomero Plus Nike Pegasus Plus 2 ASICS GT-2000 15
308 Running Shoes bought and tested
Supported by you via membership, and when you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission.
  1. Home
  2. Running Shoe
  3. Compare

Dynafish Xiaonian vs ANTA Zone 2 90

Which Running Shoe Is Better?

    Top
    Main Differences
    Design
      WeightStack HeightsExternal ShapeInternal ShapeForefoot Fit: WidthForefoot Fit: HeightArch Fit: WidthLength FitHeel Rocker GeometryForefoot Rocker GeometryFoamLacesOther Features
    Performance
      Heel Compression Energy ReturnForefoot Compression Energy ReturnHeel CushioningForefoot CushioningHeel FirmnessForefoot FirmnessForefoot Long Run CushioningRocker StiffnessForefoot Bending Energy ReturnForefoot Bending StiffnessHeel Compression DepthForefoot Compression Depth
    Comments

Products

Dynafish Xiaonian
ANTA Zone 2 90

Tested using Methodology v0.15

Updated Sep 03, 2026 03:46 PM

SEARCH
DicksSportingGoods.com

Tested using Methodology v0.15

Updated Sep 11, 2026 08:07 PM

SEE PRICE
ANTA
Dynafish Xiaonian Picture

Track

ANTA Zone 2 90 Picture

Track

Heel Stack Height
40.6 mm
Weight
192.5 g (6.79 oz)
Heel-To-Toe Drop
9.4 mm
Plate
None
Heel Stack Height
38.1 mm
Weight
202.2 g (7.13 oz)
Heel-To-Toe Drop
8.4 mm
Plate
Plastic Shank
  1. Recommended in 1 article:
  2. Long Distance

Our Verdict

Dynafish Xiaonian

ANTA Zone 2 90

The Dynafish Xiaonian is a better shoe than the ANTA Zone 2 90. It's lighter, more cushioned, and more stable, making it the more complete performance trainer. The ANTA has a bouncier ride, but its narrow midfoot and below-average stability make it harder to trust over longer distances.

GIFT THIS COMPARISON

0 

Variants

  • Xiaonian (Black - (Men - US 9))
  • Xiaonian (Burning Sun - (Women - US 7))
  • Zone 2 90 (Galsang Flower‌ - (Men - US 9))
  • Zone 2 90 (White/Red/Silver - (Women - US 7))

Review

See Dynafish Xiaonian Review
See ANTA Zone 2 90 Review
11 
2 

Check Price

SEARCH
DicksSportingGoods.com
SEE PRICE
ANTA
SEARCH
Amazon
SEARCH
DicksSportingGoods.com
SEARCH
Walmart.com
SEARCH
Amazon

Main Differences for
Half/Full Marathon Racing

Threshold 

0.10

Half/Full Marathon Racing 
 

8.4
8.0
No major differences between these running shoes for half/full marathon racing. See full list of tests below.

Full Comparison

Design

Weight  

8.4
8.1

Right Shoe Weight Photo 
 

Compare High-Res
Dynafish Xiaonian Right Shoe Weight Photo
Compare High-Res
ANTA Zone 2 90 Right Shoe Weight Photo

Left Shoe Weight Photo 
 

Compare High-Res
Dynafish Xiaonian Left Shoe Weight Photo
Compare High-Res
ANTA Zone 2 90 Left Shoe Weight Photo

Weight 
 

192.5 g (6.79 oz)
202.2 g (7.13 oz)

Stack Heights 
 

Stack Height Photo 
 

Compare High-Res
Dynafish Xiaonian Stack Height Photo
Compare High-Res
ANTA Zone 2 90 Stack Height Photo

Heel Stack Height 
 

40.6 mm
38.1 mm

Forefoot Stack Height 
 

31.2 mm
29.7 mm

Heel-To-Toe Drop 
 

9.4 mm
8.4 mm

Advertised Heel-To-Toe Drop 
 

7.0 mm
6.0 mm

External Shape 
 

3D Model Full Shoe  

Preview 3D
Dynafish Xiaonian 3D Model Full Shoe
Preview 3D
ANTA Zone 2 90 3D Model Full Shoe

Outsole Heel Width 
 

97 mm (3.8")
84 mm (3.3")

Outsole Arch Width 
 

80 mm (3.1")
66 mm (2.6")

Outsole Forefoot Width 
 

118 mm (4.7")
115 mm (4.5")

Heel Width-To-Stack Ratio 
 

2.39
2.20

Forefoot Width-To-Stack Ratio 
 

3.78
3.87

Internal Shape 
 

3D Model Internal  

Preview 3D
Dynafish Xiaonian 3D Model Internal
Preview 3D
ANTA Zone 2 90 3D Model Internal

Internal Length 
 

275 mm (10.8")
270 mm (10.6")

Internal Heel Width 
 

58 mm (2.3")
58 mm (2.3")

Internal Forefoot Width 
 

94 mm (3.7")
92 mm (3.6")

Wide Sizing Available 
 

No
No

Forefoot Fit: Width 
 

8.9
9.3

Forefoot Width Photo 
 

Compare High-Res
Dynafish Xiaonian Forefoot Width Photo
Compare High-Res
ANTA Zone 2 90 Forefoot Width Photo

Ball-Of-Foot TTS Deviation 
 

4.1 mm (0.160")
3.6 mm (0.141")

Toe TTS Deviation 
 

-1.4 mm (-0.056")
-0.2 mm (-0.009")

Forefoot Fit: Height 
 

8.2
7.2

Forefoot Height Photo 
 

Compare High-Res
Dynafish Xiaonian Forefoot Height Photo
Compare High-Res
ANTA Zone 2 90 Forefoot Height Photo

Toe TTS Deviation 
 

-2.3 mm (-0.092")
-3.4 mm (-0.132")

Arch Fit: Width 
 

9.8
5.4

Arch Fit Photo 
 

Compare High-Res
Dynafish Xiaonian Arch Fit Photo
Compare High-Res
ANTA Zone 2 90 Arch Fit Photo

Arch Width TTS Deviation 
 

-0.6 mm (-0.023")
-6.5 mm (-0.254")

Length Fit 
 

10
10

Toe Clearance Photo 
 

Compare High-Res
Dynafish Xiaonian Toe Clearance Photo
Compare High-Res
ANTA Zone 2 90 Toe Clearance Photo

Heel Rocker Geometry 
 

6.6
7.7

Heel Rocker Photo 
 

Compare High-Res
Dynafish Xiaonian Heel Rocker Photo
Compare High-Res
ANTA Zone 2 90 Heel Rocker Photo

Heel Spring 
 

21 mm (0.8")
24 mm (0.9")

Heel Apex Position 
 

29.8%
15.4%

Heel Rocker Angle 
 

13.7°
28.6°

Forefoot Rocker Geometry 
 

8.3
7.6

Forefoot Rocker Photo 
 

Compare High-Res
Dynafish Xiaonian Forefoot Rocker Photo
Compare High-Res
ANTA Zone 2 90 Forefoot Rocker Photo

Toe Spring 
 

62 mm (2.4")
52 mm (2.0")

Toe Apex Position 
 

58.5%
65.0%

Forefoot Rocker Angle 
 

27.3°
27.5°

Foam 
 

Primary Foam Picture 
 

Compare High-Res
Dynafish Xiaonian Primary Foam Picture
Compare High-Res
ANTA Zone 2 90 Primary Foam Picture

Secondary Foam Picture 
 

Compare High-Res
Dynafish Xiaonian Secondary Foam Picture
Compare High-Res
ANTA Zone 2 90 Secondary Foam Picture

Primary Foam Name 
 

N/A

Primary Foam Name 
 

Nitro 90

Primary Foam Type 
 

TPEE
PEBA

Secondary Foam Name 
 

N/A

Secondary Foam Name 
 

No Secondary Foam

Secondary Foam Type 
 

No Secondary Foam
No Secondary Foam

Laces 
 

Laces Picture 
 

Compare High-Res
Dynafish Xiaonian Laces Picture
Compare High-Res
ANTA Zone 2 90 Laces Picture

Lace Type 
 

Flat
Flat

Width 
 

4.0 mm (0.2")
5.0 mm (0.2")

Thickness 
 

1.5 mm (0.1")
1.6 mm (0.1")

Stretch 
 

12.5%
22.5%

Other Features  

Other Features Photo 
 

Compare High-Res
Dynafish Xiaonian Other Features Photo
Compare High-Res
ANTA Zone 2 90 Other Features Photo

Tongue Gusset Type 
 

Semi-gusseted
Non-gusseted

Plate 
 

None
Plastic Shank
Performance

Heel Compression Energy Return 
 

8.0
8.4

Heel Compression Video  

Heel Energy Return  

 Preview Graph
Dynafish Xiaonian Heel Energy Return
 Preview Graph
ANTA Zone 2 90 Heel Energy Return
 Compare in Graph Tool

Heel Energy Return 
 

80.8%
83.5%

Forefoot Compression Energy Return 
 

8.6
8.6

Forefoot Compression Video  

Forefoot Energy Return  

 Preview Graph
Dynafish Xiaonian Forefoot Energy Return
 Preview Graph
ANTA Zone 2 90 Forefoot Energy Return
 Compare in Graph Tool

Forefoot Energy Return 
 

84.3%
85.0%

Heel Cushioning 
 

8.8
8.8

Heel Cushioning Picture 
 

Compare High-Res
Dynafish Xiaonian Heel Cushioning Picture
Compare High-Res
ANTA Zone 2 90 Heel Cushioning Picture

Heel Cushioning  

 Preview Graph
Dynafish Xiaonian Heel Cushioning
 Preview Graph
ANTA Zone 2 90 Heel Cushioning
 Compare in Graph Tool

Energy Absorbed At 550N 
 

4.08 J
4.20 J

Energy Absorbed At 1100N 
 

11.05 J
10.83 J

Energy Absorbed At 1900N 
 

18.34 J
17.45 J

Forefoot Cushioning 
 

9.1
8.4

Forefoot Cushioning Picture 
 

Compare High-Res
Dynafish Xiaonian Forefoot Cushioning Picture
Compare High-Res
ANTA Zone 2 90 Forefoot Cushioning Picture

Forefoot Cushioning  

 Preview Graph
Dynafish Xiaonian Forefoot Cushioning
 Preview Graph
ANTA Zone 2 90 Forefoot Cushioning
 Compare in Graph Tool

Energy Absorbed At 800N 
 

5.83 J
5.38 J

Energy Absorbed At 1300N 
 

10.36 J
9.27 J

Energy Absorbed At 2050N 
 

15.20 J
13.38 J

Heel Firmness 
 

5.9
6.0

Heel Firmness Graph  

 Preview Graph
Dynafish Xiaonian Heel Firmness Graph
 Preview Graph
ANTA Zone 2 90 Heel Firmness Graph
 Compare in Graph Tool

Firmness At 550N 
 

36.7 N/mm
35.8 N/mm

Firmness At 1100N 
 

46.1 N/mm
46.2 N/mm

Firmness At 1900N 
 

65.6 N/mm
66.8 N/mm

Forefoot Firmness 
 

5.8
5.8

Forefoot Firmness Graph  

 Preview Graph
Dynafish Xiaonian Forefoot Firmness Graph
 Preview Graph
ANTA Zone 2 90 Forefoot Firmness Graph
 Compare in Graph Tool

Firmness At 800N 
 

49.6 N/mm
48.3 N/mm

Firmness At 1300N 
 

63.2 N/mm
63.8 N/mm

Firmness At 2050N 
 

87 N/mm
89 N/mm

Forefoot Long Run Cushioning 
 

8.5
8.2

Forefoot Long Run Cushioning  

 Preview Graph
Dynafish Xiaonian Forefoot Long Run Cushioning
 Preview Graph
ANTA Zone 2 90 Forefoot Long Run Cushioning
 Compare in Graph Tool

Energy Absorbed At 10km 
 

9.52 J
8.95 J

Energy Absorbed At 20km 
 

9.29 J
8.82 J

Energy Absorbed At 30km 
 

9.15 J
8.74 J

Energy Absorbed At 40km 
 

9.04 J
8.67 J

Rocker Stiffness 
 

7.5
6.3

Forefoot Rocker Stiffness Video  

Forefoot Rocker Stiffness Graph  

 Preview Graph
Dynafish Xiaonian Forefoot Rocker Stiffness Graph
 Preview Graph
ANTA Zone 2 90 Forefoot Rocker Stiffness Graph
 Compare in Graph Tool

Force To Flatten The Rocker 
 

101 N
67 N

Forefoot Bending Energy Return 
 

7.9
8.2

Forefoot Bending Video  

Forefoot Bending Energy Return  

 Preview Graph
Dynafish Xiaonian Forefoot Bending Energy Return
 Preview Graph
ANTA Zone 2 90 Forefoot Bending Energy Return
 Compare in Graph Tool

Forefoot Bending Energy Return 
 

70.5%
73.3%

Forefoot Bending Stiffness 
 

5.9
6.5

Forefoot Bending Resistance Picture 
 

Compare High-Res
Dynafish Xiaonian Forefoot Bending Resistance Picture
Compare High-Res
ANTA Zone 2 90 Forefoot Bending Resistance Picture

Forefoot Bending Resistance  

 Preview Graph
Dynafish Xiaonian Forefoot Bending Resistance
 Preview Graph
ANTA Zone 2 90 Forefoot Bending Resistance
 Compare in Graph Tool

Forefoot Bending Stiffness 
 

6.9 N/mm
9.7 N/mm

Forefoot Bending Force 
 

243 N
256 N

Heel Compression Depth 
 

7.1
7.1

Heel Compression Graph  

 Preview Graph
Dynafish Xiaonian Heel Compression Graph
 Preview Graph
ANTA Zone 2 90 Heel Compression Graph
 Compare in Graph Tool

Heel Compression At 550N 
 

15.0 mm
15.4 mm

Heel Compression At 1100N 
 

23.9 mm
23.8 mm

Heel Compression At 1900N 
 

28.9 mm
28.4 mm

Forefoot Compression Depth 
 

7.0
6.9

Forefoot Compression Graph  

 Preview Graph
Dynafish Xiaonian Forefoot Compression Graph
 Preview Graph
ANTA Zone 2 90 Forefoot Compression Graph
 Compare in Graph Tool

Forefoot Compression At 800N 
 

16.1 mm
16.6 mm

Forefoot Compression At 1300N 
 

20.6 mm
20.4 mm

Forefoot Compression At 2050N 
 

23.6 mm
22.9 mm

Check Price

SEARCH
DicksSportingGoods.com
SEE PRICE
ANTA
SEARCH
Amazon
SEARCH
DicksSportingGoods.com
SEARCH
Walmart.com
SEARCH
Amazon
Back to Top

Dynafish Xiaonian

ANTA Zone 2 90

Comments

  1. Comparison
 • Posted 3 months ago

Dynafish Xiaonian vs ANTA Zone 2 90: 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.

See All Shoe Discussions
 Share
0 
PreviewBack to editorFormat guide
No comments yet, refresh to see new ones
We make money directly from you via Membership (which gives you access to extra features), when you buy RTINGS.com Merch, and when you buy a product after clicking a link to a retailer. Learn more about how we work.
We buy our own products, just like you, mostly from the United States. When a product is discontinued or no longer popular, we sell the review units locally. See what products we currently have for sale.
© 2026 9298-5266 Quebec Inc. All Rights Reserved.