HOKA Clifton 10 vs adidas Adizero Adios Pro 4: Which Running Shoe Is Better?

FEEDBACK

Products

Tested using Methodology v1.0

Updated Oct 23, 2026 03:22 PM

SEE PRICE

Adidas.com

Tested using Methodology v0.15

Updated Oct 07, 2026 02:40 PM

SEE PRICE

Amazon

Heel Stack Height 39.5 mm

Weight 197.5 g (6.97 oz)

Heel-To-Toe Drop 7.0 mm

Plate Carbon Fiber Rods

Heel Stack Height 41.6 mm

Weight 273.3 g (9.64 oz)

Heel-To-Toe Drop 9.9 mm

Plate None

Our Verdict

adidas Adizero Adios Pro 4

HOKA Clifton 10

The adidas Adizero Adios Pro 4 is far better than the HOKA Clifton 10 for racing and fast running. It's lighter and more energetic, and its carbon rods help you hold faster paces with less effort. The HOKA is a stable, comfortable daily trainer, making it the better pick for easy miles and recovery runs.

Variants

Adizero Adios Pro 4 (Cloud White/Core Black/Silver Mettalic - (Women - US 7))
Adizero Adios Pro 4 (Grey Two/Lucid Red/Grey - (Women - US 7))

Clifton 10 (Black/Black - (Men - US 9))
Clifton 10 (Black/Black - (Women - US 7))

Review

See adidas Adizero Adios Pro 4 Review

See HOKA Clifton 10 Review

Check Price

DicksSportingGoods.com

DicksSportingGoods.com

Notice: Two or more of the products being compared have been tested with different test methodologies. Some of the results aren't directly comparable. Learn how our test benches and scoring system work, and read more about the latest changes to our running shoes test methodology.

Threshold

0.10

Half/Full Marathon Racing

8.1

6.6

Weight

8.2

5.5

Forefoot Compression Energy Return

8.9

4.4

Forefoot Bending Energy Return

8.8

5.1

Outsole Arch Width

54 mm (2.1")

85 mm (3.3")

Forefoot Long Run Cushioning

7.0

5.9

Full Comparison

Half/Full Marathon Racing

8.1

6.6

5K/10K Racing

7.9

6.3

Long Run

7.2

Daily Training

6.0

7.9

Design

Energy Return

8.8

4.4

Stability

5.5

8.0

Cushioning

7.9

8.1

Traction

6.0

Outsole Durability

7.3

Wet & Warm Weather

8.2

Bounciness

7.7

5.5

Snappiness

7.8

6.5

Roll

8.0

6.8

True To Size

8.8

9.7

Design

Weight

8.2

5.5

Right Shoe Weight Photo

Compare High-Res

Left Shoe Weight Photo

Compare High-Res

Weight

197.5 g (6.97 oz)

273.3 g (9.64 oz)

Stack Heights

Stack Height Photo

Compare High-Res

Heel Stack Height

39.5 mm

41.6 mm

Forefoot Stack Height

32.5 mm

31.7 mm

Heel-To-Toe Drop

7.0 mm

9.9 mm

Advertised Heel-To-Toe Drop

6.0 mm

8.0 mm

External Shape

3D Model Full Shoe

Preview 3D

Outsole Heel Width

82 mm (3.2")

94 mm (3.7")

Outsole Arch Width

54 mm (2.1")

85 mm (3.3")

Outsole Forefoot Width

118 mm (4.7")

113 mm (4.4")

Heel Width-To-Stack Ratio

2.08

2.26

Forefoot Width-To-Stack Ratio

3.63

3.56

Internal Shape

3D Model Internal

Preview 3D

Internal Length

275 mm (10.8")

280 mm (11.0")

Internal Heel Width

60 mm (2.4")

62 mm (2.4")

Internal Forefoot Width

93 mm (3.7")

98 mm (3.9")

Wide Sizing Available

Yes

Forefoot Fit: Width

9.0

9.4

Forefoot Width Photo

Compare High-Res

Ball-Of-Foot TTS Deviation

0.6 mm (0.023")

2.8 mm (0.108")

Toe TTS Deviation

-3.9 mm (-0.152")

-1.2 mm (-0.048")

Forefoot Fit: Height

8.6

7.0

Forefoot Height Photo

Compare High-Res

Toe TTS Deviation

-2.0 mm (-0.077")

-3.6 mm (-0.143")

Arch Fit: Width

5.8

Arch Fit Photo

Compare High-Res

Arch Width TTS Deviation

-6.1 mm (-0.239")

0.5 mm (0.020")

Length Fit

Toe Clearance Photo

Compare High-Res

Heel Rocker Geometry

7.5

8.4

Heel Rocker Photo

Compare High-Res

Heel Spring

21 mm (0.8")

30 mm (1.2")

Heel Apex Position

17.1%

19.9%

Heel Rocker Angle

22.8°

27.3°

Forefoot Rocker Geometry

8.2

7.3

Forefoot Rocker Photo

Compare High-Res

Toe Spring

61 mm (2.4")

50 mm (2.0")

Toe Apex Position

64.2%

65.8%

Forefoot Rocker Angle

30.2°

26.6°

Foam

Primary Foam Picture

Compare High-Res

Secondary Foam Picture

Compare High-Res

Primary Foam Name

LIGHTSTRIKE PRO

Not Advertised

Primary Foam Type

TPEE

EVA

Secondary Foam Name

No Secondary Foam

Secondary Foam Type

No Secondary Foam

Laces

Laces Picture

Compare High-Res

Lace Type

Flat

Width

4.0 mm (0.2")

5.0 mm (0.2")

Thickness

1.2 mm (0.0")

1.7 mm (0.1")

Stretch

7.5%

11.0%

Breathability

6.0

Breathability Video

Upper Breathability

Upper Microscope Photo

Time-To-Dry

9.5

Time-To-Dry Timelapse

Time-To-Dry Graph

Preview Graph

Time To 30% Dry

3.3 hrs

Time To 70% Dry

8.5 hrs

Time To Dry

13.0 hrs

Water Absorption

9.7

Dry Weight Photo

Wet Weight Photo

Water Absorbed

20.5%

Other Features

Other Features Photo

Compare High-Res

Tongue Gusset Type

Semi-gusseted

Plate

Carbon Fiber Rods

None

Performance

Heel Compression Energy Return

8.7

4.4

Heel Compression Video

Heel Energy Return

Preview Graph

Heel Energy Return

85.6%

71.1%

Forefoot Compression Energy Return

8.9

4.4

Forefoot Compression Video

Forefoot Energy Return

Preview Graph

Forefoot Energy Return

87.0%

71.1%

Heel Cushioning

8.1

8.4

Heel Cushioning Picture

Compare High-Res

Heel Cushioning

Preview Graph

Energy Absorbed At 550N

4.43 J

3.84 J

Energy Absorbed At 1100N

9.88 J

10.26 J

Energy Absorbed At 1900N

14.98 J

17.10 J

Forefoot Cushioning

7.8

Forefoot Cushioning Picture

Compare High-Res

Forefoot Cushioning

Preview Graph

Energy Absorbed At 800N

5.22 J

4.82 J

Energy Absorbed At 1300N

8.47 J

8.42 J

Energy Absorbed At 2050N

11.63 J

12.38 J

Heel Firmness

5.8

7.1

Heel Firmness Graph

Preview Graph

Firmness At 550N

32.0 N/mm

39.9 N/mm

Firmness At 1100N

45.4 N/mm

50.1 N/mm

Firmness At 1900N

68.4 N/mm

71.1 N/mm

Forefoot Firmness

6.6

8.1

Forefoot Firmness Graph

Preview Graph

Firmness At 800N

49.4 N/mm

57.3 N/mm

Firmness At 1300N

67.0 N/mm

74.4 N/mm

Firmness At 2050N

96 N/mm

103 N/mm

Forefoot Long Run Cushioning

7.0

5.9

Forefoot Long Run Cushioning

Preview Graph

HOKA Clifton 10 Forefoot Long Run Cushioning

Energy Absorbed At 10km

7.59 J

6.70 J

Energy Absorbed At 20km

7.44 J

6.41 J

Energy Absorbed At 30km

7.34 J

6.20 J

Energy Absorbed At 40km

7.28 J

6.04 J

Rocker Stiffness

7.8

5.9

Forefoot Rocker Stiffness Video

Forefoot Rocker Stiffness Graph

Preview Graph

HOKA Clifton 10 Forefoot Rocker Stiffness Graph

Force To Flatten The Rocker

111 N

60 N

Forefoot Bending Energy Return

8.8

5.1

Forefoot Bending Video

Forefoot Bending Energy Return

Preview Graph

Forefoot Bending Energy Return

79.5%

57.3%

Forefoot Bending Stiffness

7.8

6.9

Forefoot Bending Resistance Picture

Compare High-Res

Forefoot Bending Resistance

Preview Graph

HOKA Clifton 10 Forefoot Bending Resistance

Forefoot Bending Stiffness

20.5 N/mm

11.5 N/mm

Forefoot Bending Force

269 N

268 N

Forefoot Compression Depth

6.6

6.0

Forefoot Compression Graph

Preview Graph

HOKA Clifton 10 Forefoot Compression Graph

Forefoot Compression At 800N

16.2 mm

13.9 mm

Forefoot Compression At 1300N

19.4 mm

17.5 mm

Forefoot Compression At 2050N

21.3 mm

19.9 mm

Heel Compression Depth

7.3

6.5

Heel Compression Graph

Preview Graph

Heel Compression At 550N

17.2 mm

13.8 mm

Heel Compression At 1100N

24.2 mm

22.0 mm

Heel Compression At 1900N

Coefficient Of Friction

0.35

Exposed Foam

8.5

Outsole Photo

Heel Exposed Foam

8.0

Forefoot Exposed Foam

9.0

Outsole Abrasion Wear

7.0

Outsole Durability Video

Outsole Durability Photo

Heel Abrasion Wear

6.0

Forefoot Abrasion Wear

8.0

Check Price

DicksSportingGoods.com

DicksSportingGoods.com

adidas Adizero Adios Pro 4

HOKA Clifton 10

Comments

Comparison

• Posted 8 months ago

adidas Adizero Adios Pro 4 vs HOKA Clifton 10: 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.

PreviewBack to editorFormat guide

No comments yet, refresh to see new ones

To access

Become a member

adidas Adizero Adios Pro 4 vs HOKA Clifton 10

Which Running Shoe Is Better?

Products

Our Verdict

Variants

Review

Check Price

Main Differences for Half/Full Marathon Racing

Threshold

Half/Full Marathon Racing

Weight See Details

Forefoot Compression Energy Return See Details

Forefoot Bending Energy Return See Details

Outsole Arch Width See Details

Forefoot Long Run Cushioning See Details

Full Comparison

Half/Full Marathon Racing

5K/10K Racing

Long Run

Daily Training

Design

Design

Energy Return

Stability

Cushioning

Traction

Outsole Durability

Wet & Warm Weather

Bounciness

Snappiness

Roll

True To Size

Weight

Right Shoe Weight Photo

Left Shoe Weight Photo

Weight

Stack Heights

Stack Height Photo

Heel Stack Height

Forefoot Stack Height

Heel-To-Toe Drop

Advertised Heel-To-Toe Drop

External Shape

3D Model Full Shoe

Outsole Heel Width

Outsole Arch Width

Outsole Forefoot Width

Heel Width-To-Stack Ratio

Forefoot Width-To-Stack Ratio

Internal Shape

3D Model Internal

Internal Length

Internal Heel Width

Internal Forefoot Width

Wide Sizing Available

Forefoot Fit: Width

Forefoot Width Photo

Ball-Of-Foot TTS Deviation

Toe TTS Deviation

Forefoot Fit: Height

Forefoot Height Photo

Toe TTS Deviation

Arch Fit: Width

Arch Fit Photo

Arch Width TTS Deviation

Length Fit

Toe Clearance Photo

Heel Rocker Geometry

Heel Rocker Photo

Heel Spring

Heel Apex Position

Heel Rocker Angle

Forefoot Rocker Geometry

Forefoot Rocker Photo

Toe Spring

Toe Apex Position

Forefoot Rocker Angle

Foam

Primary Foam Picture

Secondary Foam Picture

Main Differences for

Half/Full Marathon Racing

Weight

Forefoot Compression Energy Return

Forefoot Bending Energy Return

Outsole Arch Width

Forefoot Long Run Cushioning