Adidas Runfalcon 3 review

In our opinion, the Adidas Runfalcon 3 shines as a stellar pick for:

• Heel strikers seeking a budget-friendly shoe that does well on easy and moderate runs.
• Those needing a value-oriented, versatile shoe suitable for walking, running, and even casual wear.
• Fans of earlier Adidas Runfalcon models looking for an enhanced yet familiar experience.

This running shoe presents an exceptional value for its price, yet it won't suit everyone. In our tests, we found its midsole might not deliver enough cushioning or stack height for those who strike with their forefoot or midfoot.

Moreover, we think the midsole could benefit from a touch more bounce, but this is a common trait in any budget-friendly shoe. These particular aspects may discourage long-distance runners and those seeking a shoe for fast pacing from selecting this model.

We've noted the increase in the weight of the Runfalcon 3 compared to its predecessors. 

The heel of the Runfalcon has been steadily growing. It started from 26.5 mm (v1), moved up to 28.7 mm (v2), and now, it has crossed the 30 mm mark to rest at 31.6 mm in the version 3.

The forefoot has also seen growth, but to a much lesser extent. Standing at 18.0 mm, it's only 0.4 mm higher than the first version and 0.2 mm taller than the second. It's clear that the shoe's cushioning is still lacking, and it's not designed with forefoot or midfoot strikers in mind.

For those in search of a budget-friendly shoe that offers more cushioning in the forefoot, we suggest considering the Saucony Axon 2.

Surely, a hefty heel-cushion and the shortage in the forefoot leads to a steeeep heel-to-toe drop.

In our measurements, it stands at a staggering 13.6 mm, which significantly differs Adidas's official claim of 9 mm.

Adidas incorporates a foam known as Cloudfoam in their shoes. This EVA-based midsole, originally used in insoles for comfort by the German brand, now features in some of their running shoes too.

We recorded its softness at 24.3 HA. This figure corresponds to a balanced feel when you're running, which is pretty standard for entry-level running shoes like these. Not soft at all, yet not firm like a brick.

When exposed to cold temperatures, the foam hardens to 30.1 HA, shifting from moderately firm to outright firm.

Although this change is less than ideal, it's entirely typical for an EVA-based compound, as we've outlined in our advanced guide about temperatures and midsoles.

Experiencing a 24.2% difference when shifting from room temperature to the freezer, the shoe outperforms not only the average running shoe but also most EVA foams!

While it may not be the absolute best result across the board, it's definitely a standout performance for this kind of midsole.

Measured at 269.2 mm in our lab, the RF3 aligns impressively with Adidas' size charts. We can confidently affirm that it's a true-to-size shoe.

The Runfalcon's third edition continues to be a superb choice for us runners with wider feet, as we measured the widest part of the upper at 100.4 mm.

Those with narrower feet might consider a more fitting budget shoe, such as the ASICS Gel Excite 9.

While breathability offers a run-of-the-mill performance, here's where the shoe really falls short.

While we fully understand that cost-effective shoes can't boast the latest foam technologies or 3D-printed components, there's no justification for Adidas to produce a daily trainer with such poor durability.

The outcome of our Dremel test, in which we exert the same 3.2N of force on every shoe, is genuinely disappointing. The mesh Adidas chose to use didn't stand a chance against the Dremel—it gave way almost instantaneously, and we had no choice but to gave the Runfalcon 3 a 1/5.

Stability is a sure thing with the Runfalcon 3. As we've mentioned earlier, this shoe is tailor-made for heel strikers. So it's crucial to have a secure landing zone in the heel, and the Runfalcon 3 doesn't disappoint.

And a helpful feature here is the piece of TPU plastic that surrounds the heel, significantly enhancing the shoe's stability.

Typically, the torsional rigidity test yields scores of 1 or 2 for daily trainers. However, this time, we gave the shoe a 3 out of 5.

We consider it to have moderate flexibility, although not quite as much as the average daily trainer.

Adidas has opted for a safe approach with the heel counter, which we assigned a stiffness rating of 2 out of 5, slightly below the average.

It's comfortably soft and generously padded, providing ample support for the Achilles tendon.

We found the forefoot to be 114.0 mm wide with our calliper, providing ample space for secure landings.

However, once again, it's the heel where Adidas really shines with this shoe.

With an impressive width of 94.8 mm, it stands out as significantly wider than the average running shoe, as well as both preceding versions of the Runfalcon.

We found that we only needed a mere 17.7N of force to bend the Runfalcon 3 to 90 degrees.

This categorises it as one of the most flexible shoes we've ever put to the test, shedding light on why it's so comfortable for walking or hitting the gym.

Following a 20-minute freeze session, the shoe disappointingly stiffened up.

The necessary force to bend it to the same degree jumped up to 26.8N, a noticeable increase that we can't overlook.

This represents a 51.8% increase, which falls short when compared to the average.

Weight isn't a top priority for brands when it comes to budget-friendly running shoes. This is evident in Adidas' approach with the Runfalcon 3.

Weighing in at 10.0 oz or 283g, it's heavier than both its predecessors—the original Runfalcon and the Runfalcon 2.0—and it even surpasses the weight of an average running shoe.

At first glance, we initially felt that this shoe wouldn't boast out-of-this-world breathability, though it seemed a slight improvement over its predecessors. 

Following our smoke test in the lab, we assigned it a 3 out of 5 rating. And we noticed that a funny pattern emerged: the original Runfalcon scored a 1/5, the Runfalcon 2.0 scored a 2/5, and now the Runfalcon 3 a... 3/5! We eagerly urge Adidas to aim for a 4 with the next version.

On closer inspection, the engineered mesh Adidas employed here felt dense. But when we shined a light on the shoe—an incredibly simple but telling test—numerous ventilation holes became visible. This is how Adidas managed to improve breathability from the two previous models.

Nevertheless, these aren't your typical full perforations often found in today's running shoes, leading to somewhat limited breathability.

And our revealing microscope test disappointingly confirmed why this shoe doesn't offer the breathability we had hoped for. This is a thick-and-dense mesh!

For example, if we contrast this picture with the incredibly breathable mesh from the Adidas Boston 11, we clearly see an astounding difference. Now it's really easy to understand why this shoe is not very breathable.

While breathability offers a run-of-the-mill performance, here's where the shoe really falls short.

While we fully understand that cost-effective shoes can't boast the latest foam technologies or 3D-printed components, there's no justification for Adidas to produce a daily trainer with such poor durability.

The outcome of our Dremel test, in which we exert the same 3.2N of force on every shoe, is genuinely disappointing. The mesh Adidas chose to use didn't stand a chance against the Dremel—it gave way almost instantaneously, and we had no choice but to gave the Runfalcon 3 a 1/5.

We were already expecting the heel to perform poorly since the material is largely the same. Nevertheless, we still had to conduct our Dremel test, holding on to a shred of optimism.

Regrettably, the outcome is once again a disheartening 1/5. The result, when compared with the ASICS Metaspeed Sky+, is evident.

With a hardness of 81.9 HC, Adidas didn't take any risks with the outsole.

This number obtained with our durometer tests suggest this will give us a solid balance of durability and grip.

Initially, we feared about running the Dremel on this shoe again. It seemed like we had been easily damaging it all over.

Yet, in a surprising twist, the situation completely flipped in terms of durability. Adidas, known for crafting arguably some of the finest outsoles in the running business, once again confirmed its reputation, although there's no Continental in here.

The Dremel could only create a minor 0.64-mm indentation in the rubber, which is an impressive feat given the rubber's not overly high hardness.

The outsole also features several cutouts. These serve to reduce weight and increase flexibility. With a solid layer of rubber around these cutouts, we believe there should be no issues—even on gravel or easy trails.

The outsole's thickness is below average—at 3 mm—but it's not an issue considering the remarkable durability we've observed just earlier.

Once again, Adidas disappoints us with a shoe lacking in reflective elements, which is certainly a letdown.

It's rare to find £70 shoes boasting an 8-mm thick tongue. This feature ensures superior comfort over the instep, eliminating any possibility of lace bite.

Budget-friendly running shoes often come with non-gusseted tongues, and that's the case here. On fast runs, a bit of tongue movement is a possibility. However, for easy-to-moderate runs, this shouldn't be an issue.

Thanks to its generous width and the absence of a glued insole, the Runfalcon 3 welcomes the exchange of almost any insole. Orthotics fit in perfectly.