Will next year's version of your favorite running shoe be as good?
Brands revise their shoes every year or two. We examine whether shoes maintain their quality.
Each product line's top-rated shoe for sale, from the lines we hold five or more shoes of.
Shoe brands constantly revise their shoes, including even those with a die-hard following. Sometimes, runners are rewarded, other times they get burned. Three examples show why. First, consider the Nike Vaporfly, which debuted with the Vaporfly 4%, and every version since, from the Next% on, has rated at the top of our scale.
Every Vaporfly has exceptional ratings
Nike Vaporfly ratings by version, oldest first.
Compare this to the Nike Pegasus product line, which has continually frustrated runners with its inconsistency. For example, the Pegasus 36 was a top-rated shoe, with a score of 88. The next year, they released the Pegasus 37, which rated a dismal 64. The next four versions rated between 70 and 74, and the early reviews of the Pegasus 42 put it at 84.
Pegasus ratings swing up and down with new versions
Nike Pegasus ratings by version, oldest first.
Lastly, consider the HOKA Clifton series. The original version was widely popular and well-reviewed, scoring a 96. Scores lagged a little, but the Clifton 4 proved to be a disaster compared to its reputation, scoring only a 65. The Clifton 5 through 7 recovered to between 79 and 81, and the Clifton 8 onward have rated 90 or higher, with the Clifton 9 being one of the most popular and highly rated shoes in our entire database.
The Clifton 4 was a poorly rated shoe in an otherwise excellent product line
HOKA Clifton ratings by version, oldest first.
These three case studies demonstrate what most runners have learned through experience: quality varies within a shoe's product line.
In this article, we test that intuition against the data. We hope to help shoppers have a better understanding of how much quality persists through most shoes' product lines so they can use this knowledge, alongside our ratings database, to improve their shoe-buying decisions. The product line, we will show, is the best quality indicator available for a new shoe whose quality is not yet known.
Consecutive versions of shoes rate alike
Across 80 pairs of consecutive versions where both versions carry at least 25 reviews, the correlation between one version's average rating and the next is 0.53. A version that rates in the top half of the catalog is followed by another top-half version 68% of the time, where chance alone would rate in the top half only half the time.
Successive shoes in a product line are most similar to their immediate predecessors
Star ratings of versions one, two, and three generations apart, as raw review averages.
Figure 4 also demonstrates what happens as versions drift apart. The correlation falls to 0.31 two generations apart and 0.19 three apart. A runner who liked the previous version has better evidence about the next revision than those generations apart.
Runners who rebought within a product line preferred the new version
Our cleanest evidence comes from 815 reviews where the previous shoe was an earlier version of the same product line and the runner rated which one was better. 54% of reviewers rated the new version better, while 34% rated the old one better, a net of +20 points in the new revision's favor.
Buying a shoe within the same product line leaves runners as or more satisfied than the prior version 66% of the time.
Newer versions of shoes are usually rated higher
Verdicts from runners whose previous shoe was an earlier version of the same product line.
Next year's version usually rates higher
Across those same 80 pairs, the new version rates higher than the one it replaced 55% of the time, and falls more than ten points from its previous score only 14% of the time. The usual outcome for a new shoe is a modest improvement in rating, and a real step down in measured quality is uncommon.
Last year's version is also a sound buy
Runners switching shoes report liking the new one most of the time, whatever it is, so raw switching numbers overstate how often a change succeeds. Figure 6 shows head-to-head verdicts grouped by how many years apart the two shoes were released.
Runners who sought out older versions of shoes also liked them more than their previous shoe
Head-to-head verdicts from runners who ran in both shoes, grouped by the release-year gap between them.
This suggests that buying last year's version at a discount is often a sound move, and our best deals pages rank shoes on sale by their rating and current price together.
Conclusion
Our data show that shoes within a product line typically rate similarly and in fact improve more often than not. Moreover, our data also show that buyers who shop within a product line are overwhelmingly satisfied with their new shoes. For this reason, we are comfortable recommending to runners that if the previous version worked and the new version rates well, buying it again is often a good decision. If possible, the best move is not to be an early adopter of a shoe; wait and see how the reviews look. If they're positive in comparison, this provides even more basis to shop within the product line. Lastly, if the previous version worked and the new version rates poorly, a discounted purchase of the old revision makes a lot of sense.
Data are accurate as of October 13, 2026. Numbers may differ slightly as new reviews come in. We periodically update these articles to stay in sync.