Products
Tested using Methodology v0.14
Updated Aug 27, 2026 02:50 PM
SEARCH
Decathlon
Tested using Methodology v0.14
Updated Aug 27, 2026 02:56 PM
SEE PRICE
Decathlon
Heel Stack Height
38.8 mm
Weight
199.5 g (7.04 oz)
Heel-To-Toe Drop
8.7 mm
Plate
Carbon Fiber
Heel Stack Height
43.6 mm
Weight
227.0 g (8.01 oz)
Heel-To-Toe Drop
13.6 mm
Plate
None
Our Verdict
Kiprun Kipstorm Challenger
Kiprun Kipstorm Tempo
The Kiprun Kipstorm Challenger is a better shoe than the Kiprun Kipstorm Tempo for racing or harder speed sessions. It's much lighter and returns more energy, while the Kipstorm Tempo provides considerably more cushioning for daily training or long runs. Get the Challenger if speed takes priority; get the Tempo if you want one shoe to handle more of your weekly running.
Variants
- Kipstorm Challenger (Snow White/Smoked Black - (Men - US 9))
- Kipstorm Challenger (Snow White/Smoked Black - (Women - US 7))
- Kipstorm Tempo (Foggy Blue/Fluo Neon Pink - (Men - US 9))
- Kipstorm Tempo (Foggy Blue/Fluo Neon Pink - (Women - US 7))
Check Price
Main Differences for
Half/Full Marathon Racing
Half/Full Marathon Racing
Threshold
Half/Full Marathon Racing
8.2
7.8
Weight
8.2
7.3
Forefoot Bending Energy Return
8.7
7.5
Full Comparison
Design
Weight
8.2
7.3
Right Shoe Weight Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Left Shoe Weight Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Weight
199.5 g (7.04 oz)
227.0 g (8.01 oz)
Stack Heights
Stack Height Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Heel Stack Height
38.8 mm
43.6 mm
Forefoot Stack Height
30.1 mm
30.0 mm
Heel-To-Toe Drop
8.7 mm
13.6 mm
Advertised Heel-To-Toe Drop
8.0 mm
8.0 mm
External Shape
3D Model Full Shoe
Preview 3D
Preview 3D
Outsole Heel Width
87 mm (3.4")
85 mm (3.3")
Outsole Arch Width
65 mm (2.6")
77 mm (3.0")
Outsole Forefoot Width
110 mm (4.3")
120 mm (4.7")
Heel Width-To-Stack Ratio
2.24
1.95
Forefoot Width-To-Stack Ratio
3.65
4.00
Internal Shape
3D Model Internal
Preview 3D
Preview 3D
Internal Length
275 mm (10.8")
277 mm (10.9")
Internal Heel Width
60 mm (2.4")
59 mm (2.3")
Internal Forefoot Width
89 mm (3.5")
90 mm (3.5")
Wide Sizing Available
No
No
Forefoot Fit: Width
9.1
9.7
Forefoot Width Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Ball-Of-Foot TTS Deviation
1.8 mm (0.072")
1.4 mm (0.056")
Toe TTS Deviation
-3.0 mm (-0.119")
-0.7 mm (-0.028")
Forefoot Fit: Height
8.0
5.7
Forefoot Height Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Toe TTS Deviation
-2.5 mm (-0.098")
-5.1 mm (-0.200")
Arch Fit: Width
7.8
8.5
Arch Fit Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Arch Width TTS Deviation
-3.6 mm (-0.142")
-2.7 mm (-0.105")
Length Fit
10
7.0
Toe Clearance Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Heel Rocker Geometry
8.1
7.8
Heel Rocker Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Heel Spring
29 mm (1.1")
27 mm (1.1")
Heel Apex Position
16.6%
16.0%
Heel Rocker Angle
31.1°
26.8°
Forefoot Rocker Geometry
7.8
7.7
Forefoot Rocker Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Toe Spring
55 mm (2.2")
53 mm (2.1")
Toe Apex Position
62.1%
63.4%
Forefoot Rocker Angle
26.6°
26.8°
Foam
Primary Foam Picture
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Secondary Foam Picture
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Primary Foam Name
FASTECH +
FASTECH +
Primary Foam Type
A-TPU
A-TPU
Secondary Foam Name
N/A
N/A
Secondary Foam Type
N/A
EVA
Laces
Laces Picture
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Lace Type
Flat
Flat
Width
5.0 mm (0.2")
5.0 mm (0.2")
Thickness
1.4 mm (0.1")
1.4 mm (0.1")
Stretch
4.0%
4.0%
Other Features
Other Features Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Tongue Gusset Type
Non-gusseted
Fully-gusseted
Plate
Carbon Fiber
None
Performance
Heel Compression Energy Return
8.6
7.2
Heel Compression Video
Heel Energy Return
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Heel Energy Return
84.3%
77.1%
Forefoot Compression Energy Return
8.7
7.8
Forefoot Compression Video
Forefoot Energy Return
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Forefoot Energy Return
85.3%
79.9%
Heel Cushioning
8.6
9.1
Heel Cushioning Picture
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Heel Cushioning
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Energy Absorbed At 550N
4.20 J
3.84 J
Energy Absorbed At 1100N
10.42 J
11.92 J
Energy Absorbed At 1900N
17.03 J
20.56 J
Forefoot Cushioning
8.4
8.9
Forefoot Cushioning Picture
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Forefoot Cushioning
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Energy Absorbed At 800N
5.30 J
5.48 J
Energy Absorbed At 1300N
9.22 J
9.91 J
Energy Absorbed At 2050N
13.48 J
15.08 J
Heel Firmness
6.2
6.0
Heel Firmness Graph
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Firmness At 550N
36.0 N/mm
40.3 N/mm
Firmness At 1100N
47.4 N/mm
46.0 N/mm
Firmness At 1900N
68.4 N/mm
63.6 N/mm
Forefoot Firmness
6.4
5.8
Forefoot Firmness Graph
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Firmness At 800N
50.6 N/mm
49.7 N/mm
Firmness At 1300N
66.2 N/mm
63.7 N/mm
Firmness At 2050N
92 N/mm
87 N/mm
Forefoot Long Run Cushioning
7.9
8.1
Forefoot Long Run Cushioning
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Energy Absorbed At 10km
8.63 J
9.01 J
Energy Absorbed At 20km
8.49 J
8.80 J
Energy Absorbed At 30km
8.40 J
8.67 J
Energy Absorbed At 40km
8.33 J
8.57 J
Rocker Stiffness
6.8
7.0
Forefoot Rocker Stiffness Video
Forefoot Rocker Stiffness Graph
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Force To Flatten The Rocker
80 N
84 N
Forefoot Bending Energy Return
8.7
7.5
Forefoot Bending Video
Forefoot Bending Energy Return
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Forefoot Bending Energy Return
77.7%
67.8%
Forefoot Bending Stiffness
7.6
7.8
Forefoot Bending Resistance Picture
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Forefoot Bending Resistance
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Forefoot Bending Stiffness
16.3 N/mm
14.5 N/mm
Forefoot Bending Force
283 N
348 N
Check Price
To access
Become a member
unlimited full product reviews,
product prices, and
other exclusive site features
Kiprun Kipstorm Challenger
Kiprun Kipstorm Tempo
Comments
Kiprun Kipstorm Challenger vs Kiprun Kipstorm Tempo: 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.