HOKA Mach X 2 Review
By Andrea Myers and Matt Klein
Hoka Mach X 2Price: $189.95 at Running Warehouse
Weight: 8.9 oz, 252 g (men's size 9), 7.7 oz, 218 g (women's size 8)
Stack Height: 46 mm / 41 mm
Drop: 5mm
Shoe Purpose: Pebax Plated Super Trainer
Pros: Toe box roomier than regular Mach with slightly lower volume fit than Cielo X1, great heel bevel, versatile across a wide pace range
Cons: Rearfoot design results in heel rubbing for some, feels bottom-heavy, poor outsole durability
RUNNING SHOE SUMMARY
The Hoka Mach X 2 is a super/performance trainer for those who want a rockered, snappy, super stack ride for easy to workout paces. A woven engineered mesh provides a lower volume, slightly wider fit with
a secure midfoot but a loose heel that may be abrasive to some people. The shoe features some PEBA in the midsole that is wrapped by an EVA frame. The sole is also elevated to a whopping 46mm in the heel and 41mm in the forefoot for a super trainer-level of cushion. A rockered and bouncy ride underfoot with a pebax plate provides a stiffer forefoot transition. This makes for a shoe that can handle easy paces well but can transition quickly into faster paces, making it both a great do-it-all shoe as well as a potential distance racer. Although some outsole durability issues and lateral bias make it better for certain people, the Mach X 2 becomes a true super trainer with this edition.
SIMILAR SHOES: ASICS Superblast 2, Mizuno Wave Neo Vista
PAST MODEL: Hoka Mach X
FIT
(To learn how a shoe should fit, check out our full podcast on fit by Matt Klein.)
Matt: The Hoka Mach X 2 fits me true to size in my normal Men's size 10. Initially, it felt slightly long but the upper volume is low enough that it feels true to size. The upper is an engineered woven mesh upper that is thin but provides a decent amount of structure. Although the toe box is slightly tapered, the slightly long fit offsets this. The forefoot is slightly wider, although feels secure thanks to the lower volume. This moves into a normal width but low-riding midfoot. The instep is slightly lower but adjusting the upper has not caused me any issues. The tongue is extremely thin but is well-gusseted. This holds the foot down well, but I did have to tighten down the laces a little to adjust for the slightly wider heel. The heel is thin with no padding and only a tiny flexible counter. Those with heel sensitivities should do well in this shoe but the security is not great. I have had some abrasion on my skin from the heel tap due to the slightly sharp nature from the lack of padding. Having tall socks fixed this I have not had any major issues.
Outside of the slight chafing, my only issue with the heel is the absolute lack of structure and padding. I tend to light less structure to reduce pressure on my heel bone (calcaneus). Additionally, The midfoot security did accommodate this for me. However, if heel fit and comfort is really important to you, this shoe will not work. Additionally, the upper is really scratchy, so sockless running will not work. In fact, I do not suggest anything but at least crew socks to make up for the possible heel chafing.
Typical Size: Men's US Size 10
Shoes that have fit Matt well: Saucony Guide 17, ASICS Kayano 30, Hoka Gaviota 5, Saucony Endorphin Elite, Nike Ultrafly
Shoes that have fit snug: Hoka Arahi 7, Saucony Kinvara 14
Shoes that have fit large: Salomon S/Lab Phantasm 2, Altra Timp 5
Andrea: The HOKA Mach X 2 fits true to size in my usual women's 9.5. Similar to the Cielo X1, there are no noticeable sidewalls in the forefoot, but the overall toe box volume is lower than Cielo X1. I tend to have issues with forefoot sidewalls in HOKA models like the Mach and Rincon, but the Mach X 2 felt fine in this regard. The shoe is somewhat hard to get on due to the felt-like upper material in the heel collar, which feels like it grabs my sock when donning the shoe.
The midfoot and rearfoot are normal width and it was easy to achieve secure lockdown in the shoe. The rearfoot is quite flexible, with only a small central piece to provide structure. I experienced heel irritation for the first mile of my first run and then the sensation went away and has not come back over many test runs. There are small pads on the medial and lateral aspect of the heel, but no padding centrally. The gusseted tongue is additionally secured by a lace loop, and I experienced no irritation relating to tongue movement or the laces. The laces are thicker and seem pretty basic for a $190 shoe, but they stay tied and do their job well, so no complaints here. Overall security is good, but based on other reviews I think this shoe has a high potential to cause heel blisters, so this will be an important shoe to try on before buying.
Andrea's Typical Size: Women's US Size 9.5
Shoes that have fit Andrea well: New Balance Beacon v3, Brooks Hyperion Max, Topo Cyclone 2, Nike Vaporfly 3, Altra Via Olympus 2
Shoes that have fit snug: Saucony Kinvara 14 (length and toe box width), Altra FWD Experience (length and width), Hoka Cielo Road (toe box width), Saucony Endorphin Speed and Pro 1-3 (length)
Shoes that have fit large: Adidas Boston 12 (length), Adidas Adios 8 (length)
Doctors of Running Checklist
Is This a Good Shoe for Walking: No
Is This a Good Shoe for Standing: No
Is the Forefoot Flexible: No
How Flexible is the Shoe: Not Flexible
Is This a Good Heel Bevel: Yes
Recommended for Haglunds: Maybe
Recommended for Sockless: No
Durability Expectation: Average / Below Average (Outsole)
PERFORMANCE
Matt: The Hoka Mach X 2 is a super trainer featuring a super maximal stack height, a PEBA midsole with an EVA frame and a Pebax plate. I have taken this shoe through a tempo run, a track workout, a long run and many easy runs. The midsole feels much softer in version 2, with a decent amount of bounce consistent with the large amount of PEBA foam underfoot. While the underfoot feel is soft, the transition off the forefoot is a little stiff at first and evolves into being snappy. There is a large heel bevel that transitions smoothly with the softer midsole. This moves into a slightly stiff midfoot and a stiffer forefoot. Fortunately, there is a large, early forefoot rocker that moves you forward. I initially felt some calf strain during early miles as the shoe broke in and the stiffness and large heel bevel do make this shoe feel lower than the listed 5 mm drop. This breaks into after 10-15 miles but maintains enough to still have the versaility into faster paces. While I have used this shoe most for easy and long runs, it has done great during workouts. The tempo intervals I did (3 x 5 min with 1 min jog recovery) felt awesome despite me being quite sick. The 400m track repeats felt good, although the larger size and weight of the shoe made it feel less able to handle really fast speed workouts. During long runs, the Mach X 2 cruises so well and felt comfortable no matter how long I went (12 miles of hills pushing a stroller >1500 ft). This really is a super trainer that can do easy runs, workouts and for many recreational runners or those sensitive to super racers, a great marathon racing alternative. It has plenty of responsiveness for faster longer efforts but isn't so aggressive it can't handle easier efforts.
These efforts should be kept to the road as the outsole is not durable. I have 64 miles on my pair and tore through the posterior lateral heel outsole and lateral midfoot outsole before 50 miles. I have begun chewing into the midsole and while I will do my best to shoe goo this shoe so I can get it to 100 miles for an extended mileage shoe, I don't know if that will be possible. This shoe will be best for those light on their feet or saved for workouts/races for those like myself. This is quite disappointing given the higher price and how much I like this shoe. The traction is also only good for road as things easily get stuck in the outsole holes that showcase the plate. So if you are light on your feet and want a great super trainer, the Mach X 2 may be an option.
Andrea: The HOKA Mach X 2 is a Pebax plated performance trainer that features a PEBA midsole surrounded by an EVA frame. I tested the shoe across a variety of runs, including a few easy runs, a fartlek workout, and strides. To my surprise, the shoe feels best for me at easier paces and actually reminded me a lot of the rolling ride I loved in the New Balance SC Trainer v1. At faster paces, the shoe felt bottom heavy and the foam felt somewhat unstable, like I had to work harder to control the shoe as compared to shoes with firmer midsoles. Some of my runs were on cobblestone streets while on vacation, and I mildly rolled my ankle while running slowly uphill in the shoe. I am surprised at how unstable the shoe feels to me in a medial-lateral direction, which I did not experience in the Cielo X1, even with that shoe's lateral midsole cutout. I attribute this to the softer underfoot feel of the Mach X 2 as compared to the Cielo X1.
I enjoyed the shoe best while doing an easy run with my family at almost 3 minutes per mile slower than marathon pace. At this slower pace, the aggressive rocker profile felt like it did the work for me and the midsole did not feel as unstable, likely because I wasn't loading the foam as much as I would at faster paces. During the fartlek workout, the thing I noticed the most was the bottom heavy feel of the shoe. It definitely felt heavier than any other non-carbon plated performance trainer I've tested, despite it not being that much heavier than the Saucony Endorphin Speed 4 or Mizuno Wave Rebellion Flash 2. The shoe feels like its stated 5mm drop and midfoot landings felt natural, without the rearfoot getting in the way.
I have 30 miles on my pair and there is almost no visible wear on the outsole rubber or areas of exposed midsole, so I would expect higher than average durability from the outsole. I did not get to test the shoe on wet roads at all, but traction was fine on sand covered pavement near the beach and in grass.
Find the X 2 compared with the X 1 in our video here.
STABILITY
(Learn more about stability in our full guide)
Matt: The Mach X 2 is a neutral shoe with guidance elements that are partially offset by the softer sole. There is a good amount of lateral bias in this shoe, so those with mild medial stability needs will do well. There are mild sidewalls in the heel that provide a tiny bit of centeredness at the heel. The heel bevel is also large and slightly posterior lateral, which combined with the soft sold causes some mild lateral motion if you land on the lateral side. The sole is wide,r particularly in the midfoot. Like the Ceilo X1, there a lateral cut out in the midfoot. This provides more lateral bias that feels great for someone like myself who needs some medial stability but may feel a little unstable for those with lateral stability needs. This transitions into a fairly centered forefoot, where the prominently stiff plate, early rocker and medial/lateral sole flare provide a more stable front. Overall, the Mach X 2 has mild lateral bias at the heel, mild to moderate lateral bias at the midfoot and a more stable forefoot. This will work for those with mild medial guidance/stability needs at the heel/midfoot but will not work for those with lateral guidance/stability needs in those areas.
Andrea: The Mach X 2 is a neutral shoe that feels a bit unstable to me due to the compliance of the midsole and the geometry of the shoe. While the base is on the wider side, there is not a huge amount of sole flare on either side in the midfoot or forefoot, which, if present, would provide some medial-lateral stability to the high midsole stack. The early forefoot rocker promotes a quick transition from mid stance to push off, but the lack of medial-lateral guidance may be a problem for some. The Mach X 2 is definitely a shoe that will demand a higher level of strength and control from runners, and may cause issues for those with lateral ankle stability like myself.
 |
| Mach X 2 vs. Mach |
Thoughts as a DPT: Mach X 2 vs Cielo X 1 Stability
By Andrea Myers
The biggest hurdle for me in enjoying the Mach X 2 has been the shoe's unstable ride. I have sprained both ankles many times over the years, both in basketball and trail running, and I remain sensitive to shoes that allow too much lateral motion. I was a little surprised to experience stability issues in the Mach X 2 after greatly enjoying the Cielo X 1, which has a lateral midfoot cutout that has never caused me problems, but has been an issue for others. Upon further assessment of the differences between the two shoes, I think the main reason I have had issues in the Mach X 2 and not the Cielo X 1 is that the Mach X 2 has significantly less forefoot sole flaring and a narrower forefoot base. While the Cielo X 1 has a lateral midfoot cutout, the large lateral forefoot sole flaring in the shoe acts as a stop against excessive lateral motion. The wide forefoot base is widest just posterior to my 5th MTP, which corresponds to where I make initial contact.
In comparison, the Mach X 2 has much less forefoot sole flaring and it is relatively balanced medially and laterally. The forefoot base is also not as wide as the Cielo X 1, which further contributes to the feeling of lateral instability in the shoe. The Mach X 2 has a lateral midfoot cutout, but is positioned a little further back on the shoe as compared to the Cielo X 1. It is possible that I am more affected by the cutout of the Mach X 2 because of the narrower base and lack of lateral forefoot sole flaring. The Mach X 2 has a significantly taller stack height as compared to Cielo X 1: 46mm/41mm for the Mach X 2 vs 39mm/32mm (men) and 37mm/30mm (women) for the Cielo X 1. The higher the stack height, the more a shoe needs guidance features to prevent medial/lateral instability, and I think the Mach X 2 has missed the mark here. Runners who have a history of repeated ankle sprains or lateral ankle weakness should proceed with caution when trying the Mach X 2 due to its lateral bias.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Matt: I have really enjoyed the miles I have gotten out of the Mach X 2 and am disappointed in the early outsole wear. I think this is a mostly well-designed shoe that needs some minor updates to really be great. The first is obviously the heel aspect of the upper. While I have not had major issues, enough people have that some heel padding is necessary. The other major problem I have is the durability. The lateral bias of the midsole works well for me but doesn't feel overly correcting (it certainly does for those like Andrea who are sensitive to this and will not work). The durability really limits my use of this shoe and I am disappointed it didn't even last 50 miles before this happened. For that reason, I would suggest toughening up the outsole pieces that are present and extended the outsole coverage the length of the shoe. I would get ride of the slight gap at the lateral midfoot and just widen the midfoot a bit more instead. I would then have the outsole pieces run the whole length of the shoe to both prevent them from getting pulled off (like I did) and to balance out the ride. There is great potential here and it appears most of these issues have been fixed in version 3 (seen online from TRE) but in the meantime, we will have to wait.
Andrea: I think the Mach X 2 is a good start, but there are a few things that would make this a better shoe. First of all, the heel collar needs to be redesigned so it does not cause blisters. I am glad that I only experienced it on my first run, but it is clear that many runners are having this issue. When Running Warehouse puts a note in a shoe listing that the heel fit may cause blisters, you know you have a problem. My second recommendation is to increase the medial and lateral sole flare in the midfoot and forefoot to increase medial-lateral stability. While I like the ride of the shoe, I doubt I am going to do much more running in it because it feels so unstable for me. Third, this shoe is pretty heavy for a performance trainer and feels significantly heavier than its stated weight when running faster. Perhaps that means shaving a few millimeters of stack height from the midsole or refining the upper to lose half an ounce. This shoe could be a real competitor to the Endorphin Speed, but needs some improvements first.
WHO IS THIS SHOE FOR?
Matt: The Hoka Mach X 2 is a super trainer for those who want a tall stack height, lightweight, PEBA midsole with a EVA carrier, a stiff pebax plate and a thin upper with good midfoot security. The upper fits lower volume with an upper that can be locked down as long as you are not sensitive to a loose heel or chafing (wear tall socks). The ride is softer and bouncy, with a snappy transition in the forefoot. However, the heel rubbing and poor outsole durability make this better for those with tough skin and who are light on their feet. Regardless, if this matches your mechanics, it may make an excellent versatile shoe that can handle workouts to longer races and may be an excellent race day shoe for the recreational runner who finds super racing shoes too aggressive. It does great on long runs, has a wonderful transition and has the versatility to handle easy to a variety of faster efforts, although biased toward longer uptempo rather than sprint work. While I understand the $10 increase, unfortunately, the $190 price tag is not justified because of the poor durability (unless you are light on your feet). I understand Hoka had to completely redo this shoe and fixes are coming in version 3. As long as they learn their lesson on heel design and stop using small outsole patches at the posterior lateral heel, it will be fine.
Andrea: The HOKA Mach X 2 is a Pebax plated performance trainer that has a soft and propulsive ride. For me, the only thing that is better about the Mach X 2 over the Mach 6 is the lack of sidewalls in the forefoot. Besides that, I would choose the Mach 6 over the Mach X 2 for speedwork any day due to the higher weight and medial-lateral instability of the Mach X 2. Interestingly, for me, the shoe felt best at easy recovery paces and reminded me of a lighter version of the New Balance SC Trainer v1, so those who are looking for a replacement for that shoe may enjoy the Mach X 2. I think the biggest hurdle for runners interested in the Mach X 2 will be the heel fit, as the potential is high for heel blisters. I would also not recommend the Mach X 2 for anyone with lateral ankle instability, as I rolled my ankle quite easily in the shoe and had a general sense of medial-lateral instability on all of my runs.
GRADES
Matt
Fit: B+/A- (Slightly long fit offset by lower volume. Good midfoot security that offsets slightly loose heel. Watch out for heel blisters)
Performance: B+/A- (Great versatility in a well rockered, snappy, bouncy ride that handles easy miles to tempo/faster efforts well. Great racing option for recreational runners but poor durability limits the shoe's life)
Stability: B+ [Mild Lateral Bias] (Lateral bias at heel/midfoot. Great for those with mild medial stability needs but not for those with lateral stability needs)
Value: C (Outsole only lasted 50 miles before I started to tear into it.)
Personal: A- (I really like this shoe. It would be a top contender for this year if not for the outsole durability. I'd even say it is a Superblast 2 competitor)
Overall Design: B/B+
Andrea
Fit: A- (I enjoyed the lack of sidewalls and higher width/volume toe box, but it should be noted that others have commented about the potential for heel blisters. I did not experience any issues there myself though)
Performance: B- (A performance trainer that feels too heavy for faster running and feels unstable at almost every pace.)
Stability: C [neutral] (High lateral instability due to lack of sidewalls, compliant foam, and high stack height.)
Value: B- (More expensive than Endorphin Speed 4 or Wave Rebellion Flash 2, both of which are lighter, more stable, and perform better at a variety of paces.)
Personal: C+ (While I am glad I did not experience any heel blisters, the shoe is too unstable for me and feels too heavy to be used for intervals. I did like the fit of the toe box, which is usually my main issue with HOKA shoes.)
Overall Design: B-
SHOP | SUPPORT DORHoka Mach X 2Price: $189.95 at Running Warehouse
Shop Men | Shop Women
*Using the link to purchase helps support Doctors of Running. Thanks so much!
Check out Gear We Love
Naked Belt The best way to carry your phone and goods on the run. No bounce and various sizes for waist.
Saysky Running Gear: We were really taken aback by this Scandinavian company's ultra-thin, durable performance clothing
Skratch Recovery, Coffee Flavor: Mental and physical boost post run. Coffee flavor is excellent and goes great straight into a fresh brewed cup
goodr Sunglases: Run in style with goodr's super fun sunglasses.
Feetures Socks: Massively grippy socks that will make you feel more one with the shoe
Amphipod Hydraform Handheld Water Bottle: Perfect for long runs when you need hydration in the summer
Trigger Point Foam Roller: Help get those knots out post-run and feel better for tomorrow
Ciele Hat: Our team's favorite running hat of choice!
Fractel Hats: Our team's wider fitting running hat of choice!
FURTHER READING
A team favorite for daily training.
A surprisingly light but cushioned trainer.
Find all Shoe Reviews at Doctors of Running here.
Thanks for reading!
FOLLOW DOCTORS OF RUNNING ON SOCIAL MEDIA
Facebook: Doctors of Running
Youtube Channel: Doctors of Running
Instagram: @doctorsofrunning
LinkedIn: Doctors of Running
Strava: Doctors of Running
Podcast: Virtual Roundtable
Pinterest: Doctors of Running
PODCAST
Check out the Doctors of Running Podcast to find more reviews, interviews, and running features from the team.
Visit our Podcast Page
Find us on Apple
Find us on Spotify
Contact us at doctorsofrunning@gmail.com
NEXT: Karhu Ikoni 3.0
