Adidas Runfalcon 5: análisis y review

After testing the Adidas Runfalcon 5 in our lab, we’re convinced it’s a solid choice for:

• Heel strikers searching for a budget-friendly trainer with moderate stack height and a straightforward, no-frills design.
• Beginners on a budget needing a versatile shoe that transitions effortlessly from walking to running.
• Weekend warriors in colder climates wanting a cost-effective option that handles everyday wear and casual jogs.

We determined that the Runfalcon 5 struggles significantly with durability—the toebox, heel, and outsole all exhibited excessive wear. For runners concerned about this, we recommend considering the Brooks Revel 7—a similarly priced option with far superior longevity.

In our view, the Runfalcon 5 also falls short for those seeking a plush, cushioned ride. Its firm underfoot feel is unlikely to satisfy runners who prefer softer foams. Instead, we suggest exploring alternatives like the Nike Winflo 11 or Nike Interact Run, both of which provide a more cushioned experience with thicker, more forgiving midsoles.

The heel stack exceeds the 30-mm threshold, which we consider the minimum for a well-cushioned shoe. Our calipers stopped at 31.2 mm—a balanced and reasonable height that works well for heel strikers.

One of the main issues with previous generations, like the Adidas Runfalcon 3, was the forefoot stack being smaller than expected.

Adidas addressed this problem by increasing the stack height, now measuring 21.8 mm—just shy of the stated 23 mm. In our experience, it’s a better fit even for runners who prefer a grounded feel where the connection to the road remains constant.

We measured the drop—the height difference between the heel and forefoot—at 9.4 mm, which is very close to the stated 10 mm. This measurement aligns well with expectations for a budget-friendly running shoe designed for versatile use.  

In our experience, the combination of stack height and drop subtly favors heel strikers, providing a smoother and more controlled transition from heel to toe.

One of the defining features of the Runfalcon has always been its firm foam, which may not appeal to those seeking a plush ride. However, it's worth noting that with such a thin forefoot, we think a super-soft material simply wouldn’t work.

From our 26.1-HA reading, we can confidently say the Cloudfoam EVA—poor naming decision, Adidas—midsole in the Runfalcon 5 is best suited for runners who prefer a firm feel underfoot. For everyone else, it’s likely to feel uncomfortable. And naturally, don’t expect remarkable energy return—this is a budget-friendly option and the foam is typically the most expensive component of any running shoe.

After placing the Runfalcon 5 in the freezer for 20 minutes, we found its softness decreased by only 16.9%—an impressive result for an EVA foam. That's quite a surprise!

The insole is fairly standard, with a thickness of 4.0 mm.

We discovered that the forefoot maintains a flat profile, making it one of the least rockered shoes we’ve tested recently in the lab. Nonetheless, its traditional design pairs well with the shoe’s high flexibility and modest stack height.

Starting with the upper, we found that vertical room is somewhat limited—a feature common in Adidas daily trainers. While it’s not a major issue and offers enough space for most, runners who often feel toe pressure might find this model a bit snug in this regard.  

In terms of width, the Runfalcon 5 continues the trend of previous versions with a broader fit. Based on our measurements, the widest part of the upper came in at a roomy 100.3 mm.

We found a slight change in the toebox from its predecessors, as now features a more tapered design. In our testing, we measured 77.0 mm in this area, making it less accommodating for runners with wider toes. However, for most others, this slightly-pointy shape should still provide adequate comfort.

The Adidas Runfalcon 5 is a neutral running shoe that incorporates some stability-focused elements. Most notably, it features an Ultraboost-inspired heel counter with dual plastic pieces cradling the heel to keep it securely centered.

We found the Runfalcon 5 to be highly flexible, making it a great choice for jogging. While this compromises some stability, we believe this trade-off works well for a shoe often used for walking.

The Ultraboost-inspired heel counter is notably rigid, but its support is limited to the sides of the heel. In contrast, we found some flexibility at the top, leading us to assign a 3/5 score.

Another key reason this shoe is best suited for neutral runners lies in its midsole dimensions. Our calipers measured 109.8 mm, revealing a streamlined silhouette that doesn’t accommodate those with pronation or supination issues.

The heel is wider, measuring 91.7 mm, to better accommodate heel strikers. In our view, this design makes sense for a beginner-friendly, budget-conscious running shoe like the Runfalcon 5, as its primary users are likely those who land on their heels.

In our testing, we found the Runfalcon 5 to be remarkably flexible—not just torsionally but also longitudinally. During our signature 90-degree bend test, we exerted only 18.4N! This exceptional flexibility makes the Runfalcon 5 a fantastic choice for everyday wear and extended walks.

Adidas continues to refine the weight of the Runfalcon, successfully keeping it under the 10 oz mark. Here in the lab, the Runfalcon 5 weighed in at 9.7 oz or 275g. Pretty good!

While the Runfalcon 5 offers some ventilation, we found it to be noticeably limited compared to most road running shoes. This led us to award it a 3/5 for breathability—a result that makes it better suited for cooler climates than hot summer runs.

In our experience, this was a bit disappointing, as we had hoped for improvements in ventilation compared to previous models. Earlier versions, like the Runfalcon 3, faced similar challenges, and we think this remains less than ideal for those tackling high temperatures.

Curious about the cause of restricted airflow, we examined the upper under a microscope.

We discovered that while the engineered mesh includes some gaps, the dual-layered design traps most of the air, reducing breathability. However, there are no big ventilation holes at all.

That said, we need to put this into context. This is a budget-friendly shoe, and for the price, the upper delivers adequate comfort and decent ventilation.

Still, we believe it could benefit from improved airflow for added usability in warmer conditions.

We anticipated a strong result in this test, as shoes with intermediate ventilation often prove tougher against our Dremel. However, we found the opposite—an underwhelming 1/5 score that leaves no room for doubt.

The upper features generous padding in the heel, enhancing comfort—a detail we appreciated. However, in our testing, we found that this padding became a problem when paired with a weak lining that struggled to resist damage.

After testing, we discovered that the Runfalcon 5 performed poorly, earning a disappointing 1/5. In our view, this result is particularly concerning for those putting on and removing the shoe multiple times a day.

The outsole provides full-length coverage, a welcome feature for those who often experience uneven wear in unexpected areas or spots where midsoles are typically left exposed. In our experience, that’s not an issue with the Runfalcon 5.

We measured the Adiwear rubber hardness at 81.9 HC—a fairly average value. However, we found the material to be a budget-friendly option, which affects grip, particularly in wet conditions.

While less-than-stellar grip is something we expect from a budget-friendly running shoe, durability is an entirely different matter—it's reasonable to have higher expectations in this area.

After testing with our Dremel, as we do for every shoe, we measured a disappointing 1.5 mm of damage—significantly more than the average. In our view, this result raises real concerns for long-term wear.

At 2.7 mm, the outsole thickness is about what we expected, though a bit more might have helped, especially given the poor durability we observed in our Dremel test.

For those that expect a long-lasting outsole, the Runfalcon 5 may fall a bit short.

The Runfalcon 5 retains the same price as previous versions, keeping it among the most budget-friendly options on the market—nearly unbeatable in value. And hey, seeing this steady pricing amid industry-wide increases was a nice surprise.

Priced aggressively, we didn’t expect any premium features—though they’re always a welcome addition. That's why, in our view, the absence of reflective elements on the Runfalcon 5 is understandable.

The tongue boasts an impressive three layers of foam, resulting in a hefty 9.7 mm of padding that feels almost excessive. Honestly, we would have preferred less cushioning here and more in the shoe's forefoot!

The tongue isn’t attached to the sides, though we didn’t expect it to be for its low price. However, it features a tongue loop that helps slightly in keeping it centered during runs.

In fact, given the generous padding we found before, we think tightening the laces firmly is a smart way to prevent some lateral movement of the tongue.

Even adding a heel tab increases production costs, which explains why Adidas might skip it in a budget-friendly running shoe like this one!

The insole included with the Runfalcon 5 is made by Ortholite, a pleasant surprise for a cost-effective running shoe. And it’s removable, allowing you to easily swap it out if needed.