Products
Tested using Methodology v0.13
Updated Jul 14, 2026 04:10 PM
SEE PRICE
DicksSportingGoods.com
Tested using Methodology v0.12
Updated Jul 29, 2026 04:47 PM
SEE PRICE
Amazon
Heel Stack Height
41.6 mm
Weight
273.3 g (9.64 oz)
Heel-To-Toe Drop
9.9 mm
Plate
None
Heel Stack Height
42.3 mm
Weight
240.9 g (8.50 oz)
Heel-To-Toe Drop
9.7 mm
Plate
None
Our Verdict
HOKA Clifton 10
Saucony Triumph 24
The Saucony Triumph 24 and HOKA Clifton 10 are both daily trainers, but they deliver very different rides. The Saucony is the softer, bouncier, and much more energetic shoe, providing better cushioning while remaining surprisingly lighter than the HOKA. The HOKA has a more traditional feel, with a firmer, more stable platform that suits runners looking for a calmer, more predictable ride. Runners who want maximum comfort without sacrificing fun should go for the Saucony, while the HOKA is the better choice if stability is your priority.
Variants
- Clifton 10 (Black/Black - (Men - US 9))
- Clifton 10 (Black/Black - (Women - US 7))
- Triumph 24 (Black/Black/Black - (Men - US 9))
- Triumph 24 (Black/Black/Black - (Women - US 7))
Main Differences for
Half/Full Marathon Racing
Half/Full Marathon Racing
Threshold
Half/Full Marathon Racing
6.6
7.8
Forefoot Compression Energy Return
4.4
8.6
Weight
5.5
6.8
Forefoot Bending Energy Return
5.1
8.4
Forefoot Long Run Cushioning
5.9
7.7
Full Comparison
Design
Weight
5.5
6.8
Right Shoe Weight Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Left Shoe Weight Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Weight
273.3 g (9.64 oz)
240.9 g (8.50 oz)
Stack Heights
Stack Height Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Heel Stack Height
41.6 mm
42.3 mm
Forefoot Stack Height
31.7 mm
32.5 mm
Heel-To-Toe Drop
9.9 mm
9.7 mm
Advertised Heel-To-Toe Drop
8.0 mm
10.0 mm
External Shape
3D Model Full Shoe
Preview 3D
Preview 3D
Outsole Heel Width
94 mm (3.7")
99 mm (3.9")
Outsole Arch Width
85 mm (3.3")
78 mm (3.1")
Outsole Forefoot Width
113 mm (4.4")
121 mm (4.8")
Heel Width-To-Stack Ratio
2.26
2.34
Forefoot Width-To-Stack Ratio
3.56
3.73
Internal Shape
3D Model Internal
Preview 3D
Preview 3D
Internal Length
280 mm (11.0")
281 mm (11.1")
Internal Heel Width
62 mm (2.4")
67 mm (2.6")
Internal Forefoot Width
98 mm (3.9")
94 mm (3.7")
Wide Sizing Available
Yes
Yes
Forefoot Fit: Width
9.4
10
Forefoot Width Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Ball-Of-Foot TTS Deviation
2.8 mm (0.108")
-0.2 mm (-0.006")
Toe TTS Deviation
-1.2 mm (-0.048")
-0.1 mm (-0.006")
Forefoot Fit: Height
7.0
5.5
Forefoot Height Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Toe TTS Deviation
-3.6 mm (-0.143")
-5.3 mm (-0.210")
Arch Fit: Width
10
9.0
Arch Fit Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Arch Width TTS Deviation
0.5 mm (0.020")
-1.8 mm (-0.072")
Length Fit
10
10
Toe Clearance Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Heel Rocker Geometry
8.4
8.2
Heel Rocker Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Heel Spring
30 mm (1.2")
28 mm (1.1")
Heel Apex Position
19.9%
19.5%
Heel Rocker Angle
27.3°
25.8°
Forefoot Rocker Geometry
7.3
7.0
Forefoot Rocker Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Toe Spring
50 mm (2.0")
49 mm (1.9")
Toe Apex Position
65.8%
69.7%
Forefoot Rocker Angle
26.6°
28.6°
Foam
Primary Foam Picture
Secondary Foam Picture
Primary Foam Name
N/A
Primary Foam Type
EVA
Secondary Foam Name
N/A
Secondary Foam Type
N/A
Other Features
Other Features Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Tongue Gusset Type
Semi-gusseted
Fully-gusseted
Plate
None
None
Performance
Heel Compression Energy Return
4.4
8.0
Heel Compression Video
Heel Energy Return
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Heel Energy Return
71.1%
81.0%
Forefoot Compression Energy Return
4.4
8.6
Forefoot Compression Video
Forefoot Energy Return
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Forefoot Energy Return
71.1%
84.7%
Heel Cushioning
8.4
9.0
Heel Cushioning Picture
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Heel Cushioning
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Energy Absorbed At 550N
3.84 J
4.35 J
Energy Absorbed At 1100N
10.26 J
11.15 J
Energy Absorbed At 1900N
17.10 J
18.43 J
Forefoot Cushioning
7.8
8.4
Forefoot Cushioning Picture
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Forefoot Cushioning
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Energy Absorbed At 800N
4.82 J
5.60 J
Energy Absorbed At 1300N
8.42 J
9.15 J
Energy Absorbed At 2050N
12.38 J
12.88 J
Heel Firmness
7.1
5.4
Heel Firmness Graph
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Firmness At 550N
39.9 N/mm
33.7 N/mm
Firmness At 1100N
50.1 N/mm
44.1 N/mm
Firmness At 1900N
71.1 N/mm
63.3 N/mm
Forefoot Firmness
8.1
5.3
Forefoot Firmness Graph
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Firmness At 800N
57.3 N/mm
45.3 N/mm
Firmness At 1300N
74.4 N/mm
61.4 N/mm
Firmness At 2050N
103 N/mm
87 N/mm
Forefoot Long Run Cushioning
5.9
7.7
Forefoot Long Run Cushioning
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Energy Absorbed At 10km
6.70 J
8.57 J
Energy Absorbed At 20km
6.41 J
8.32 J
Energy Absorbed At 30km
6.20 J
8.15 J
Energy Absorbed At 40km
6.04 J
8.01 J
Rocker Stiffness
5.9
7.5
Forefoot Rocker Stiffness Video
Forefoot Rocker Stiffness Graph
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Force To Flatten The Rocker
60 N
100 N
Forefoot Bending Energy Return
5.1
8.4
Forefoot Bending Video
Forefoot Bending Energy Return
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Forefoot Bending Energy Return
57.3%
75.3%
Forefoot Bending Stiffness
6.9
6.2
Forefoot Bending Resistance Picture
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Forefoot Bending Resistance
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Forefoot Bending Stiffness
11.5 N/mm
12.6 N/mm
Forefoot Bending Force
268 N
209 N
To access
Become a member
unlimited full product reviews,
product prices, and
other exclusive site features
HOKA Clifton 10
Saucony Triumph 24
Comments
HOKA Clifton 10 vs Saucony Triumph 24: 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.