7 Best Low Top Sneakers in 2024

Among all the low-top sneakers that we wear-tested, the Adidas Ozweego reigned supreme because it never skimped on support. In addition to that, we never had problems with stability even if the midsoles were soft enough for us to think that there were pillows underfoot.

Many question the amount of support that low-top sneakers could give, but we think this Adidas sneaker should be spared from such suspicions. The upper materials, the laces, and the rigid sidewalls all worked together to keep the foot in place even during aggressive movements. 

The Ozweego literally left no space for any form of instability because of its uber wide platform. Our caliper measured it to be 121.0 mm wide at the forefoot and 98.9 mm wide at the heel. The averages were only 108.9 mm and 83.4 mm, respectively.

Though it was not the softest, the midsole still delivered a lot of comfort. We really could not complain. Our HA durometer pegged its softness at 26.8 when the average was only 30.9. 

While the upper materials worked as they should, it still did not erase the fact that they didn’t look premium at all. Those who like fancy stuff should look somewhere else.

Among low-top sneakers we tested on the streets and in the lab, New Balance 990 v6 stood out as the most premium shoe. It has a light yet robust construction that’s infused with modern cushioning for enhanced comfort. Defying the usual misconception that low-top sneakers lack support, 990 v6 delivers remarkable stability in our strolls.

Its light nature isn’t obvious visually, yet our scales confirm a mere 12.9 oz (366g) and our feet experienced free-flowing ventilation. The upper has real suede layers, as our torch test proves, but its mesh panels allow for maximum breathability (5/5), as our smoke test confirms.

Moving to the midsole, the cushion feels soft and springy to the touch. Our dissected shoe reveals a familiar face often found in New Balance running shoes: the FuelCell foam. Each stride feels strongly supported by the soft and stacked cushion. Our durometer reveals it’s truly a plush 28.3 HA.

Despite being a low-top, 990 v6 offers reinforcing guidance through its firm ENCAP rim around the heel and its vast landing base to secure our balance. Our caliper reveals very generous forefoot and heel measurements of 113.8/88.0 mm vs. the 108.9/83.4 mm average, leaving no room for instability.

However, we found 990 v6 a little stiffer than the average sneaker, by 18.1% to be specific. Those inclined towards greater flexibility may find alternatives more suitable.

Our intensive lab and personal wear tests in various settings solidified the Sambas’ reputation as the finest classic low-top sneaker. Its clean and minimalist aesthetic remains suitable at any time of the day, month, year, and even decade! It’s part of the Adidas Originals that goes way back from the ‘50s, with features extending beyond looks. 

The light, low-cut, and fluid design of the Samba allows it to be a versatile everyday kick. Our scales reveal its 12.1 oz (342g) weight is impressively 14.1% lighter than average. Adding to its natural feel is the adaptive midsole that flows with our feet, emerging 40.9% more flexible than the average sneaker.

One main reason why Samba managed to maintain a minimalist figure is the absence of a foam midsole. This gives us a better sense of the ground for quicker adaptation to unpredictable surfaces and promotes stable strides. Further ensuring our surefootedness is the grippy gum rubber outsole with two-directional lugs, inspired by its original purpose as a football shoe.

However, we caution buyers that the lack of cushioning may feel uncomfortable when standing and walking for long hours. Those who prefer a plush and cushioned ride can explore other sneakers.

Even if the 9060 from New Balance stacked up on its midsole, it was never at the detriment of stability. Surprisingly, this shoe was among the most stable low-top sneakers that we’ve ever had the pleasure of wear-testing. Its tasteful chunkiness and superb stability made it the best chunky low-top in our inventory. It was a bonus that this sneaker was also made of genuine suede. 

The average midsole was 31.3 mm thick at the heel and 20.0 mm thick at the forefoot. The New Balance 9060’s numbers went as high as 37.3 mm and 26.0 mm, respectively, making it among the chunkiest low-top on record.

Despite its chunkiness, this sneaker never felt unstable because its platform was amazingly wide. Using our caliper in the lab, we learned that it was 121.0 mm wide at the forefoot and 103.1 mm wide at the heel. These numbers are mind-blowingly higher than the averages which were 108.9 mm and 83.4 mm, respectively.

What made this New Balance low-top sneaker even more endearing for us was the fact that it was made of real suede. We became sure of this because of the fire test that we performed on the upper.

It was just a bit disappointing that this shoe was not the most breathable. We could only give it a so-so score of 3 out of 5 for breathability after our smoke and light test in the lab.

The first thing that we worried about when we saw this shoe’s low collar was: Would the Reebok Club C 85 Vintage be supportive and stable enough? Thankfully, it really was! We could even say that containment was among its strengths, making it the best vintage low-top in our list. Of course, there were other aspects that we appreciated. The most notable ones were its flexibility and durability.

This shoe was pretty low to the ground. Our caliper measured the midsole to be only 23.2 mm thick at the heel and 14.7 mm thick at the forefoot. The average numbers for these points were 31.3 mm and 20.0 mm, respectively. This configuration allowed us to feel more in control. The low profile also helped a lot in ensuring stability and groundedness.

Needing only 17.3N of force to be bent at a 90-degree angle, the Club C 85 Vintage from Reebok was a lot more flexible than the average sneaker. The latter would require 23.2N. Because of its flexibility, it was easy to do certain movements, such as tiptoeing and sudden direction changes, while wearing this Reebok sneaker.

As for its durability, we were kind of expecting it because it’s made of real leather. True enough, the upper convincingly passed our durability tests in the lab.

We just wished the toebox had more space for our forefoot. The big toe area was only 69.8 mm wide when the average was as high as 75.2 mm.

The ASICS Gel 1130, which retained its unmistakable look, used to be a stability running shoe. Hence, it was able to deliver a lot of stability even as a low-top. Even if its midsole was only of average thickness, it was still able to deliver a lot of softness. Its stability, plushness, and undoubtedly nostalgic look made this shoe the best retro low-top in our book.

The ASICS Gel 1130 came out of the brand’s vaults largely unaltered. Save for a few technological tweaks, it still retained the look that made it such a sought after piece in the past.

The shoe also retained a lot of its stability features. Aside from having rigid sidewalls and a moderately stiff heel counter (scoring 3 out of 5 for stiffness), the ASICS Gel 1130 had an insanely wide platform. Our caliper measured it to be 111.8 mm wide (ave 108.9 mm) at the forefoot and 90.1 mm wide (ave 83.4 mm) at the heel. There was no way our feet would still fall off the footbed with that much space.

Comfort was ensured by the amazingly plush midsole. Our HA durometer gave it a softness rating of 19.0, which is way lower (therefore way softer) than the 30.9 average. Even if we were walking for a long time while wearing this shoe, we were never in pain because we were aptly protected from impact.

Our experience of comfort would have been more complete had the shoe been more breathable than it was. We subjected the ASICS Gel 1130 to our breathability tests, and it got a disappointing score of only 2 out of 5.