Saucony Endorphin Speed 5 vs ANTA C202 7: Which Running Shoe Is Better?

FEEDBACK

Products

Tested using Methodology v0.14

Updated Aug 27, 2026 03:08 PM

SEE PRICE

Amazon

Tested using Methodology v0.13

Updated Sep 02, 2026 05:50 PM

SEE PRICE

Amazon

Heel Stack Height 36.4 mm

Weight 239.2 g (8.44 oz)

Heel-To-Toe Drop 8.4 mm

Plate Plastic

Heel Stack Height 37.8 mm

Weight 212.9 g (7.51 oz)

Heel-To-Toe Drop 7.5 mm

Plate Carbon Fiber

Our Verdict

Saucony Endorphin Speed 5

ANTA C202 7

The ANTA C202 7 and the Saucony Endorphin Speed 5 are both super trainers with a similar drop, but they emphasize different aspects of performance. The ANTA is lighter and more cushioned, giving it a slightly more protective feel underfoot for longer sessions. The Saucony leans more toward energy return and forefoot snap, with a bouncier midsole and a broader platform, making it feel more stable overall. Also, the ANTA has a tighter arch, while the Saucony offers a more accommodating midfoot, making it the better choice if you have a wider arch.

Variants

Endorphin Speed 5 (Aloe - (Women - US 7))
Endorphin Speed 5 (Black/VO2 - (Men - US 9))

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

Review

See Saucony Endorphin Speed 5 Review

See ANTA C202 7 Review

Check Price

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

7.0

7.9

Weight

6.8

7.7

Forefoot Stack Height

28.0 mm

30.3 mm

Heel Stack Height

36.4 mm

37.8 mm

Forefoot Long Run Cushioning

6.1

7.4

Rocker Stiffness

4.8

8.7

Forefoot Bending Stiffness

6.8

8.8

Full Comparison

Half/Full Marathon Racing

7.0

7.9

5K/10K Racing

7.3

7.8

Long Run

7.1

7.5

Daily Training

6.8

6.3

Energy Return

8.3

7.5

Stability

8.0

6.3

Cushioning

6.9

8.1

Responsiveness

7.3

7.9

True To Size

9.7

7.2

Design

Weight

6.8

7.7

Right Shoe Weight Photo

Compare High-Res

Left Shoe Weight Photo

Compare High-Res

Weight

239.2 g (8.44 oz)

212.9 g (7.51 oz)

Stack Heights

Stack Height Photo

Compare High-Res

Heel Stack Height

36.4 mm

37.8 mm

Forefoot Stack Height

28.0 mm

30.3 mm

Heel-To-Toe Drop

8.4 mm

7.5 mm

Advertised Heel-To-Toe Drop

8.0 mm

External Shape

3D Model Full Shoe

Preview 3D

Outsole Heel Width

93 mm (3.6")

84 mm (3.3")

Outsole Arch Width

66 mm (2.6")

64 mm (2.5")

Outsole Forefoot Width

116 mm (4.6")

108 mm (4.3")

Heel Width-To-Stack Ratio

2.55

2.22

Forefoot Width-To-Stack Ratio

4.14

3.56

Internal Shape

3D Model Internal

Preview 3D

Internal Length

275 mm (10.8")

272 mm (10.7")

Internal Heel Width

61 mm (2.4")

64 mm (2.5")

Internal Forefoot Width

94 mm (3.7")

91 mm (3.6")

Wide Sizing Available

Forefoot Fit: Width

9.1

Forefoot Width Photo

Compare High-Res

Ball-Of-Foot TTS Deviation

0.7 mm (0.029")

4.1 mm (0.163")

Toe TTS Deviation

-3.4 mm (-0.135")

1.3 mm (0.049")

Forefoot Fit: Height

7.9

Forefoot Height Photo

Compare High-Res

Toe TTS Deviation

0.3 mm (0.013")

-2.6 mm (-0.100")

Arch Fit: Width

9.8

4.7

Arch Fit Photo

Compare High-Res

Arch Width TTS Deviation

2.4 mm (0.094")

-7.3 mm (-0.285")

Length Fit

7.0

Toe Clearance Photo

Compare High-Res

Heel Rocker Geometry

8.0

8.1

Heel Rocker Photo

Compare High-Res

Heel Spring

25 mm (1.0")

27 mm (1.1")

Heel Apex Position

19.0%

17.4%

Heel Rocker Angle

24.1°

28.4°

Forefoot Rocker Geometry

7.9

Forefoot Rocker Photo

Compare High-Res

Toe Spring

56 mm (2.2")

Toe Apex Position

64.3%

63.4%

Forefoot Rocker Angle

28.1°

Foam

Primary Foam Picture

Compare High-Res

Secondary Foam Picture

Compare High-Res

Primary Foam Name

PWRRUN PB

Primary Foam Name

Not Advertised

Primary Foam Type

PEBA

Unknown

Secondary Foam Name

N/A

Secondary Foam Name

No Secondary Foam

Secondary Foam Type

N/A

No Secondary Foam

Laces

Laces Picture

Lace Type

Flat

Width

6.0 mm (0.2")

Thickness

2.0 mm (0.1")

Stretch

15.0%

Other Features

Other Features Photo

Compare High-Res

Tongue Gusset Type

Fully-gusseted

Non-gusseted

Plate

Plastic

Carbon Fiber

Performance

Heel Compression Energy Return

8.2

7.2

Heel Compression Video

Heel Energy Return

Preview Graph

Heel Energy Return

82.1%

76.7%

Forefoot Compression Energy Return

8.3

7.6

Forefoot Compression Video

Forefoot Energy Return

Preview Graph

Forefoot Energy Return

82.6%

78.6%

Heel Cushioning

7.0

8.2

Heel Cushioning Picture

Compare High-Res

Heel Cushioning

Preview Graph

Energy Absorbed At 550N

2.99 J

4.21 J

Energy Absorbed At 1100N

8.92 J

9.90 J

Energy Absorbed At 1900N

15.42 J

15.90 J

Forefoot Cushioning

6.7

7.9

Forefoot Cushioning Picture

Compare High-Res

Forefoot Cushioning

Preview Graph

Energy Absorbed At 800N

4.18 J

4.94 J

Energy Absorbed At 1300N

7.19 J

8.46 J

Energy Absorbed At 2050N

10.48 J

12.50 J

Heel Firmness

8.7

6.7

Heel Firmness Graph

Preview Graph

Firmness At 550N

50.2 N/mm

36.3 N/mm

Firmness At 1100N

59.7 N/mm

49.0 N/mm

Firmness At 1900N

82.8 N/mm

71.4 N/mm

Forefoot Firmness

8.9

7.6

Forefoot Firmness Graph

Preview Graph

Firmness At 800N

63.8 N/mm

54.0 N/mm

Firmness At 1300N

83.9 N/mm

71.2 N/mm

Firmness At 2050N

117 N/mm

99 N/mm

Forefoot Long Run Cushioning

6.1

7.4

Forefoot Long Run Cushioning

Preview Graph

ANTA C202 7 Forefoot Long Run Cushioning

Energy Absorbed At 10km

6.68 J

8.03 J

Energy Absorbed At 20km

6.55 J

7.89 J

Energy Absorbed At 30km

6.44 J

7.79 J

Energy Absorbed At 40km

6.37 J

7.71 J

Rocker Stiffness

4.8

8.7

Forefoot Rocker Stiffness Video

Forefoot Rocker Stiffness Graph

Preview Graph

ANTA C202 7 Forefoot Rocker Stiffness Graph

Force To Flatten The Rocker

40 N

151 N

Forefoot Bending Energy Return

7.7

7.3

Forefoot Bending Video

Forefoot Bending Energy Return

Preview Graph

Forefoot Bending Energy Return

69.3%

66.6%

Forefoot Bending Stiffness

6.8

8.8

Forefoot Bending Resistance Picture

Compare High-Res

Forefoot Bending Resistance

Preview Graph

Forefoot Bending Stiffness

10.9 N/mm

29.3 N/mm

Forefoot Bending Force

259 N

392 N

Check Price

DicksSportingGoods.com

Saucony Endorphin Speed 5

ANTA C202 7

Comments

Comparison

• Posted 5 months ago

Saucony Endorphin Speed 5 vs ANTA C202 7: 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

Saucony Endorphin Speed 5 vs ANTA C202 7

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 Stack Height See Details

Heel Stack Height See Details

Forefoot Long Run Cushioning See Details

Rocker Stiffness See Details

Forefoot Bending Stiffness See Details

Full Comparison

Half/Full Marathon Racing

5K/10K Racing

Long Run

Daily Training

Energy Return

Stability

Cushioning

Responsiveness

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

Primary Foam Name

Primary Foam Name

Primary Foam Type

Secondary Foam Name

Secondary Foam Name

Secondary Foam Type

Main Differences for

Half/Full Marathon Racing

Weight

Forefoot Stack Height

Heel Stack Height

Forefoot Long Run Cushioning

Rocker Stiffness

Forefoot Bending Stiffness