Running shoe technology is outpacing how quickly people can decide what running shoes to wear. For newer runners especially, this can make selecting the right shoe a bit overwhelming. But two brands stand out among a sea of colors and foam cushioning: Brooks and Hoka. As two of the most popular shoe brands right now, both are staples in the running industry, and each one offers something different.
Considering this, let's examine the major differences between Hokas and Brooks and outline their respective advantages. Our bodies vary in many ways, including foot arch, knee alignment, leg length and body mass, which impacts our running style. Fortunately, there are shoes designed to provide comfort and support tailored to our unique needs. Below, a comprehensive Hoka vs. Brooks comparison to gain insight into how these brands differ, and decide which one is right for you.
MORE FROMFORBES VETTED
Hoka Vs. Brooks: A Brief Overview
Brooks has offered reliable, durable running shoes since 1972, when the world watched American runner Frank Shorter take home the gold medal in the marathon at the 1972 Olympic Games, according to the brand’s history. Brooks shoes are known for their support and the ability to hold up over the literal long run.
Brooks is considered a good shoe for newer runners who are trying to get their foot in the door of the sport. Although there are a range of options to choose from (we’ll get to those soon), the company takes pride in its supportive, stability-focused shoes that don’t overly cushion the foot.
Hoka, meanwhile, is a much newer brand that launched in 2009 when two Salomon employees broke away to start a shoe company. It quickly turned heads with its overly cushioned shoes (like the Bondi) that looked nothing like any running shoe the world had seen before. Born on the trails, it immediately became a top pick for ultramarathoners covering long distances. Over the past 15 years, Hoka has kept its highly cushioned trademark shoe but offers a variety of options that are more streamlined, including carbon-plated racing shoes.
Hoka Vs. Brooks: Stability
For those with overpronation concerns, finding stability in your running shoes is crucial. Fortunately, both Hoka and Brooks offer stability options, though they distinguish their shoes in different ways. Brooks, for its part, uses GuideRail technology that features two firm pieces of foam inside the shoe to reduce inward roll.
Hoka, meanwhile, has fewer stability-oriented offerings, but models like the Arahi 7 employ J-Frame technology to enhance medial support and combat overpronation. For stability seekers, consider exploring the Brooks Glycerin GTS 21, our favorite stability shoe for long runs.
Hoka Vs. Brooks: Cushioning
There’s no question that if you’re a runner who loves a highly cushioned shoe, you should check out Hoka. The brand builds itself on maximal cushioning, and while some experts believe excessive cushioning makes it hard to feel the ground, others say cushioned shoes can help prevent or minimize injury.
Hoka uses three proprietary technologies in all of its shoes, but to improve support and reduce impact, the Cushioned Midsole serves as a lightweight shock absorber. While the amount of cushion varies from shoe to shoe, models like the Bondi 8, Kawana 2 and all-new Skyward X supply lots of cushioning.
Brooks, meanwhile, offers more traditional shoes with minimal to moderate cushioning. Its BioMoGo DNA cushioning, derived from EVA foam (the most common foam found in modern running shoes), delivers a bouncier ride, and its DNA Loft technology offers plush support, which you’ll find in the Brooks Glycerin 21. But Brooks recently launched its maximal cushioned shoe, the Brooks Ghost Max, which is reminiscent of a highly cushioned Hoka shoe if you’re looking for a style that pairs cushioning with stability.
Hoka Vs. Brooks: Durability
There’s a general consensus that you should ditch your running shoes once they’ve hit 300 to 500 miles. But that guidance is changing as shoes become more lightweight, which breaks down the foam more quickly. If you’re feeling aches and pains, it could be that you’re in need of a fresh pair.
When it comes to running shoe durability, Heeluxe, a third-party company that works with brands to perfect their running shoes, measures four areas for durability: the outsole, heel cushion, ball cushion and fit. Heeluxe notes that most consumers only look at the breakdown of the outsole (the tread), which can last about 760 miles. But the cushioning might only last about 400 miles in the thinner part of the shoe, like the balls of the feet.
Brooks shoes have proven themselves to be incredibly durable over time. The Brooks Ghost 16, for example, is a solid, hearty training shoe, which is great for newer runners. It’s on the heavier side at 8.5 ounces per shoe, but that’s because there’s a firmness in the shoe—the midsole and foam—to give it life over the long haul.
Hoka shoes will keep you moving on those super long (ultra-length) runs, but because of their lighter cushion, they may break down more quickly. When talking to a Heeluxe expert while evaluating the best women’s running shoes, I learned that the foam breaks down more quickly than other parts of the shoe, including carbon-plated super shoes. That said, if runners are taking their Hokas on softer trails, they might be able to extend that longevity.
Hoka Vs. Brooks: Price
The price range for both Hoka and Brooks varies depending on the model you opt for, though you’ll often pay anywhere from $80 to $250. For example, Hoka's most popular road shoe, the Clifton 9, typically costs around $150, while Brooks' beloved Glycerin 21 retails for approximately $160. In terms of trail-specific shoes, the Hoka Speedgoat 5 costs $155, while the Brooks Cascadia 17 goes for $140.
If the price of the latest and greatest shoe seems out of reach, consider exploring older models—they’re often priced a bit lower and don’t differ all that much from the newest version on the market. Also, websites such as Zappos, REI and even Amazon offer their own discounts, and some provide financing options if paying upfront poses a challenge.
Final Thoughts On Which Is Better: Hoka Or Brooks?
The perfect running shoe is different for every runner. At the end of the day, you want a running shoe that feels good. Both brands have comparable prices, so what makes one better than the other depends on your individual needs and preferences. Hoka is known for its highly cushioned shoes and a favorite for trail runners, while Brooks is a more traditional shoe that’s been around for more than 50 years. Bottom line: If you like a stacked heel with a lot of cushioning, Hoka is a good starting point. If you like a leaner running shoe that offers stability, check out Brooks.
Why Trust Forbes Vetted
The author, Heather Mayer Irvine, is a former senior editor at Runner’s World, and has been running for more than two decades. She has been covering fitness and running gear 10 years. Mayer Irvine also worked at a running shoe store in New York City, where she learned the ins and out of running shoes. For this article, the Forbes Vetted team used its personal experience with these brands, previous conversations with running shoe experts, and related research to dive into the differences between Hoka and Brooks.
More Running Stories To Shop
- Best Running Watches
- Best Running Strollers
- Best Running Shoes For Men
- Best Stability Running Shoes
- Best Walking Shoes For Women
