Hoka Mach X 2: análisis y review

After testing the Hoka Mach X 2, we believe it’s an excellent choice for:

• Runners with low-volume feet who enjoy a snug-and-secure upper combined with responsive cushioning.
• Hoka fans seeking a premium supertrainer for versatile runs—from tempo sessions to long-distance efforts.
• Anyone desiring an impact-absorbing shoe that works at both slow and fast paces.
• Those looking for a single, highly-versatile shoe to handle everything from easy jogs to occasional races.

The Mach X 2 comes with a significant design flaw—its heel collar can dig into the Achilles tendon, creating discomfort and even potential bleeding. In our view, this issue makes it unsuitable for runners prone to Achilles irritation. For a better heel collar design, we recommend the Nike Zoom Fly 6, which offers a similar foam configuration, better comfort, and a lower price point.

We also think the Mach X 2’s low-volume toebox poses challenges for runners with bigger feet. From our perspective, shoes like the Mizuno Neo Vista or the On Cloudmonster Hyper provide better room and comfort in the forefoot area. 

Additionally, this Hoka isn’t ideal for those prioritizing stability—its towering stack height and streamlined design compromises steadiness, and we suggest the ASICS Superblast 2 as a more reliable alternative for a supportive yet cushioned ride.

After ASICS sparked the trend with the first-gen Superblast in 2022, every brand now wants its share of the supertrainer market. And Hoka aims for the crown with a towering 44.6 mm heel stack—an impressive measurement.

The Mach X 2 stands out as one of the tallest shoes we’ve ever cut in half. In our view, it’s an excellent choice for heel strikers who rely on ultra-protective foam to absorb impact, such as older runners seeking maximum shock reduction.

The forefoot returned highly-cushioned yet much shorter than expected at 33.7 mm, compared to Hoka’s stated 41 mm. However, we found that it still comfortably clears the 30-mm threshold—the usual benchmark for forefoot strikers in a supertrainer.

Due to the significant discrepancy in the forefoot measurement, the drop was also heavily impacted—shifting from Hoka’s stated 5 mm to our measured 10.9 mm.

Why such a large difference? From our side, we take multiple measurements at the World Athletics-designated points on every shoe to maintain ultra-consistent accuracy. However, Hoka appears to measure further back, closer to the midfoot, leading to this variance.

The Hoka Mach X 2 features the classic supertrainer setup with a top layer of ultra-responsive PEBA foam and a bottom layer of durable EVA foam for added stability and longevity.

This PEBA foam is simply outstanding, and through our evaluation, we found it to be softer than the average at 14.1 HA. It offers a plush-yet-energized feel without being overly mushy, delivering impressive energy return. 

It's also worth mentioning that forefoot strikers benefit the most, as this shoe includes a generous amount of PEBA foam in the front compared to the rear.

The foam in the lower part of the midsole is a durable EVA designed to absorb most of the impact from ground contact while stabilizing the ride—a necessity given the shoe's towering stack height.

Using our durometer, we measured this foam at 21.5 HA. This firmer material slightly reduces responsiveness, particularly for heel strikers, but it still provides a decent rebound, ensuring a balanced and steady ride.

If you examine the picture above, that doesn’t reflect how the foams are distributed underfoot. The yellow EVA foam extending up the heel serves as sidewalls to stabilize that area, and we’ll reveal the true midsole design in the "Plate" section.

With PEBA as the main foam, we anticipated exceptional results in our 20-minute freezer test. True to expectations, the PEBA foam in the Mach X 2 performed impressively, hardening by just 13%!

The insole is similar to those found in Hoka’s daily trainers, with a thickness of 4.7 mm.

The Mach X 2, like many supertrainers, incorporates a Pebax plate to enhance stability and deliver a slight boost of propulsion, all while avoiding the overly-stiff and rigid sensation commonly associated with carbon plates. In our opinion, this is the right choice for this shoe.

This image below, apart from the plate, reveals the true foam distribution within the midsole as promised before. The heel contains a minimal amount of PEBA foam, while the forefoot is generously packed with it, leading us to believe rearfoot strikers may not fully benefit from this shoe's potential.

While this shoe lacks the extreme curvature of the exhilarating Hoka Cielo X1, it still features a pronounced curve in both the heel and forefoot—designed to encourage an efficient gait and manage the massive midsole thickness.

Hoka labels this design as Early Stage Meta-Rocker, which refers to a rocker that starts early and rises gradually. In our opinion, this configuration is ideal for a tempo running shoe like the Mach X 2, offering versatility for slow paces while remaining dynamic enough for faster efforts.

The Mach X 2 delivers—like almost every Hoka model—a slightly snug fit. To analyze the toebox design thoroughly, we created a custom gel mold to ensure precise measurements for a complete understanding of its fit.

Our initial measurement at the widest point of the toebox came in at 95.3 mm, which is just about average. This result wasn’t surprising, as the shoe feels comfortable across the ball of both feet. But let’s examine the next two measurements to get the full picture.

In the big toe area, we measured 71.7 mm, revealing a noticeable taper—though not the most restrictive we’ve encountered here in the lab. However, it’s enough to cause discomfort for runners with larger feet, especially during long runs.

Another significant contributor to the snug fit we experienced with the Mach X 2 was the low toebox height. At just 24.3 mm, there’s limited space for upward movement, creating a compact feel in the forefoot.

That said, snug doesn’t necessarily mean worse—just as narrow isn’t inherently negative. It comes down to preferences. If you enjoy low-sitting uppers or have low-volume feet, then trust us, the Mach X 2 feels fantastic.

Hoka has put effort into making the Mach X 2 reasonably stable for its size, but we wouldn’t recommend it to runners with even minor stability issues. In our view, it’s a neutral shoe with specific design elements for support.

The shoe features oversized midsole sidewalls, a winged plate in the forefoot, and a broad heel base for added balance in this area. However, with nearly 50 mm of stack height and a cloud-like top layer of foam, we can’t expect a miracle.

One of the adjustments that enhance stability—common in most supertrainers—is maximizing torsional rigidity. In our manual testing, the Mach X 2 scored a 5/5, a result typically seen in carbon-plated shoes. The skyscraper-like stack height really contributed to this high result.

On the other hand, the heel counter resembles that of a competition shoe—highly pliable and with almost no padding. And here lies one of the major issues with this shoe: the heel rubs against the Achilles tendon.

Taping and thick socks can help reduce or mitigate the issue, but we believe it’s unacceptable in a premium-priced shoe. Many runners, including us, have experienced this problem. It’s so common that, at The Running Event in 2024, Hoka previewed the next Mach X with a redesigned heel counter as a key feature. When a brand openly addresses a flaw, it says a lot.

One of the biggest surprises we discovered with the Mach X 2 was the forefoot width.

We expected a broader sole but measured just 113.3 mm. On one hand, it reduces stability, but on the other, it creates a highly-agile and fun ride that stands out from most supertrainers!

The heel is relatively broad at 94.3 mm and, combined with the raised midsole sidewalls, provides a reasonably stable platform for runners who frequently land on this part of the shoe.

Featuring a Pebax (plastic) plate instead of carbon fiber, it’s no surprise the Mach X 2 scores below supershoes in our stiffness test. That’s a good thing—otherwise, it would feel excessively rigid. We measured a satisfactory 35.5N.  

For context, the Hoka Rocket X 2—with its carbon plate—registered an ultra-stiff 80.7N in the same test, more than double the Mach X 2.

When we first unboxed the shoe and saw the towering stack height, we thought the official weight number was too good to be true. However, at just 8.7 oz or 247g, Hoka delivered a shoe that balances lightweight construction with maximum cushioning better than most on the market.

The upper is nothing like the bizarre corduroy-like material from the Cielo X1, and we’re glad Hoka took a different route. Instead, it features a woven mesh that feels ultra-light and breathable, though it sacrifices some support to prioritize weight reduction.

In terms of ventilation, the Mach X 2 excels. We gave it a 4/5 on our scale, noting that it performs well in hot conditions, especially when paired with thin, moisture-wicking socks. The airflow also ensures your feet stay cool during demanding runs.

When we moved the upper over our light, we found no major issues with ventilation. The thin mesh extends across the midfoot, ensuring consistent breathability throughout the shoe, even during high-mileage efforts.

Using our microscope, we uncovered the secret behind the excellent ventilation.

Despite the absence of visible holes in the toebox, microscopic openings spaced every few millimeters allow heat and moisture to escape effectively—a complete contrast to the upper of the Adidas Adizero Adios Pro 4.

The upper is as minimal as it gets, focusing on weight savings. However, this simplicity comes at a cost—don’t expect luxurious comfort. For runners who prefer a more comfortable upper in a max-stack shoe, the Skyward X might be a better alternative.

When it came to durability, ultra-thin uppers usually struggle, but the rugged mesh used by Hoka delivered impressive results, earning an outstanding 5/5 in our initial Dremel test.

The strong performance continues with the heel padding scoring a 4/5, though we have mixed feelings. While durability is clearly excellent, the heel rubbing against the Achilles tendon is a clear design flaw that needs addressing in version 3.

Moving to the outsole, we found that Hoka focused heavily on reinforcing the most wear-prone areas while prioritizing weight reduction. The design reflects a deliberate effort to balance protection and maintain a lightweight build.

Unsurprisingly, the rubber used here is average in terms of hardness at 76.6 HC, as Hoka needed to combine decent traction with durability, given the minimal rubber coverage in contact with the ground. In our experience, traction is adequate but far from market-leading, which makes sense.

Fortunately, the rubber held up well in our Dremel test, proving it can deliver at least an average lifespan—even for runners who typically wear out shoes quickly—unless your high-wear area lacks rubber coverage in the Mach X 2, of course.

In terms of outsole thickness, we were surprised to measure 2.6 mm. Considering the shoe’s low weight and towering stack height, we actually expected it to be even thinner!

The Hoka Mach X 2 stays below the €220 line, where many supertrainers sit, but it’s €20 more than its predecessor. Is it worth it? Likely yes, given the features and improvements. However, if Hoka continues raising prices with every update, they’ll surpass the €220 mark in no time.

As an alternative, if you’re okay with less stack height and no PEBA foam, the Mach 6 offers a similarly dynamic and fun ride at a much more affordable price.

One drawback we noticed is the lack of reflective elements on the Mach X 2. For a premium-priced running shoe, it would have been a valuable addition to enhance visibility during low-light runs.

We already lowered expectations for comfort, and here’s another key reason: the tongue is only 1.2 mm thick, offering virtually no protection against lace bite.

In other words—tie your laces carefully, especially on long runs. Speaking of the laces, kudos to Hoka for using textured laces that truly enhance lockdown. Take note, Adidas!

The tongue is secured to the sides of the shoe with two perforated, elastic bands that do their job exceptionally well. In our experience, this setup was crucial to support the ultra-thin tongue Hoka designed, and we can confirm it stays perfectly in place.

The small pull tab on the heel looks sleek and serves its purpose, but we can’t ignore how such a fantastic shoe is ruined for many runners due to Achilles rubbing—it seriously digs in!

The insole isn’t glued down, but we don’t recommend removing it, as its flared design adds both comfort and stability to the heel.