Adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 2: A Deep Dive

via adidas

The Adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 2 is the newest flagship racing “super shoe” from Adidas, built to be lighter, more responsive, and higher-cushioned than its record-breaking predecessor. It packs an extra 3mm of uncompressed Lightstrike Pro Evo foam in the forefoot (raising the stack from about 33mm to 36mm) Adidas claims this yields a 10% taller forefoot and 5% greater energy return than the Evo 1 “all at the same record-breaking weight”​. At around 4.8 oz (136 g) for a men’s size 9​ the Evo 2 remains one of the lightest foamed marathon racers ever, despite its extra cushion. Its upper is minimalistic engineered mesh (very thin and breathable), and the outsole was redesigned with new rubber patches in a grid pattern for better traction on the forefoot​.

Technical Specifications

• Stack height: ~39 mm (heel) / 36 mm (forefoot) (6 mm drop)​​.

• Weight: ~4.8 oz (136 g) per shoe (men’s US 9)​.

• Foam: Uncompressed Lightstrike Pro Evo (a supercritical EVA foam, sculpted not molded, tuned for maximal rebound-to-weight​).

• Plate/Rods: Energy Rods 2.0 – full-length carbon-fiber-infused polymer rods under the forefoot (not a single solid plate). These rods are aligned with the metatarsals and the shoe’s rocker to boost propulsion​. Unlike a traditional carbon plate, they allow more flex and are claimed to improve “turnover and powerful propulsion”.

• Outsole: Thin high-traction rubber in a grid cutout pattern on the forefoot​, lighter but covering more surface.

• Upper: Featherweight engineered mesh, very light and snug, with minimal padding (Adidas warns the upper is delicate for weight savings).

 The lateral side of the silver Adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 2, highlighting its tall Lightstrike Pro Evo midsole and signature energy rods underfoot​r.

Compared to the Evo 1, the Evo 2’s sole is visibly taller in the forefoot but remains feather-light. It retains the aggressive 60% toe-rocker point of the Evo 1, aiming to “launch you into your next step”​. The extra forefoot cushion means a slightly lower 3 mm drop instead of the Evo 1’s 6 mm, as the heel stack stays near 39–40 mm while the forefoot is now ~36 mm. Notably, Adidas left the weight essentially unchanged from Evo 1 (~138 g) by removing material elsewhere, so racers get more foam without extra ounces​​.

Design and Innovations

The Evo 2’s core innovation is the upgraded Lightstrike Pro Evo foam. This uncompressed EVA is extremely low density yet very springy – Adidas says it has the “greatest rebound-to-weight ratio ever”​. The midsole is CNC-sculpted to a precise shape rather than molded, which Adidas claims improves consistency. Sandwiched within the foam are the Energy Rods 2.0: six full-length carbon-infused polymer rods (two under each metatarsal head and two central) that stiffen the forefoot. Adidas explains that these rods “mirror your metatarsals” and are tuned to the shoe’s rocker for optimal running economy​. In practice, runners report the shoe feels very stable under the forefoot, with a strong propulsive kick off the toes, similar to a plate but with a slightly softer overall flex.

The new outsole patches cover more of the forefoot than in the Evo 1. Adidas calls it a “grid-like” rubber pattern that improves traction where the foot lands​. Early impressions suggest the added rubber may offer slightly better durability than the Evo 1’s bare-foam forefoot (where many runners found traction and wear issues).

via adidas

Marketing Claims vs. Reality

Adidas makes bold claims for the Evo 2. The company’s press release highlights a 10% taller forefoot and 5% more energy return versus the Evo 1 – “all at the same weight as its predecessor”​. These figures come from Adidas’ internal lab tests of foam and shoe bounce. In context, a 5% increase in measured energy return is modest (on par with differences between some competing foams) and likely only noticeable to elites pushing 5:00–6:00 min/mile pace. adidas also emphasizes its racing pedigree: since Evo 1’s debut in late 2023, athletes wearing it won numerous majors and set several records​.

Critically, we have not yet seen independent tests of the Evo 2’s energy return or running economy. The foam is qualitatively very soft and bouncy, but Adidas’ numbers assume ideal mechanics. In the real world, factors like running form, fatigue, and shoe break-in can blunt small gains. On the plus side, the Evo 2 benefits from genuine advancements (extra foam and tuned rocker) rather than just hype: for example, the Lightstrike Pro Evo has a much lower density than the previous Lightstrike Pro, so even if it doesn’t match Nike’s ZoomX rebound, it clearly adds cushion.

One objective way to gauge “energy return” is by laboratory resilience tests or timing athletes, but such data for Evo 2 isn’t public yet. By comparison, RunRepeat’s lab tests of the Nike Alphafly 3 (2024) confirmed its superior rebound: “the ultra-responsive ZoomX foam, carbon plate, and AirPods deliver unparalleled energy return”​. The Alphafly 3 has a harder midsole durometer (18.1 HA) than most, storing and returning energy very well​. Saucony’s Endorphin Elite also scored high on energy return in testing – RunRepeat praised its PWRRUN HG foam as giving “maximum energy return with every stride”​.

In short, adidas’ claim of +5% return is plausible but not game-changing. The Evo 2’s main selling point is more cushion at the same weight, rather than a completely new foam technology. Its light weight may feel more influential than small bounce gains.

Performance and Runner Feedback

Because the Evo 2 launched just before marathon season, there are early race results but few independent reviews. According to Adidas, top runners including marathon champs have already tried it – the Boston Marathon 2025 saw two Adidas-backed athletes on the podium in Evo 2’s, for example (reportedly Alphonce Simbu of Tanzania and one other)​. Adidas’ athletes continue to praise it: women’s world record-holder Tigist Assefa said Evo 2 “offers incredible lightness while providing energy return and bounce underfoot”.

Early user impressions (from gear blogs and forums) emphasize the lightness. Believe in the Run reports the Evo 2 feels “almost impossibly light” – still about 4.8 oz – despite the extra foam​. Runners note the shoe feels very high off the ground, like “running on marshmallows” yet spry. The widened forefoot rocker makes transitions very smooth. Some users say it feels more stable than expected for such a tall shoe, thanks to the broadened Energy Rod layout.

On comfort, most describe the Evo 2 as firm but not harsh. The midsole is so low-density that landings feel soft, but the overall ride is not mushy – it has a quick snap-back. Unlike some carbon-plated racers with a springy feel, Adidas foams tend to feel a bit more “neutral” or stable. In slalom drills, the Evo 2 tracks a straight line well. The upper’s snug fit locks the foot in without pinching, though some caution that the very thin mesh should be handled carefully to avoid snagging.

However, consistently cited drawbacks include durability and price. Runners stress that the Evo series is built for one race, not for miles of training. The Lightstrike Pro foam is extremely soft and the rubber outsole is thin – the predecessor’s prototype wore out in just 10 miles for one tester​. In fact, a published review of the Evo 1 warned “the durability is terrible… worst I have ever experienced for the cost of the shoe,” with pieces of the outsole tearing away in a workout​. Although Evo 2 adds more rubber coverage, we expect similar limitations: buyers should plan to retire these after a single marathon (or roughly 50–60 mi of use at most).

Another major con is value for money. The Evo 2 retails at $500 – the same as the Evo 1​. That is far above most racing shoes (Nike Alphafly 3 is $285​, Saucony Endorphin Elite is $275, ASICS Sky+ ~$250). Adidas justifies it as an ultra-limited, top-end product, but even die-hard marathoners balk at the cost. For most serious runners, spending $500 on one pair is only worth it if it yields a big PR. The upside is prestige: the Evo line has a proven record (Tigst Assefa ran a 2:11:53 WR in Evo 1, and others have set major records​), so motivated racers may feel it gives an edge.

Because of these trade-offs, the Evo 2 is not for everyday training. Its stiff ride and delicate construction make it impractical for long-distance use or sloppy conditions. Instead, think of it as a specialized “race-day only” tool. For tempo or tuning workouts, runners would likely prefer more durable carbon racers or maximal trainers.

via adidas

Pros and Cons

Pros:

• Exceptional energy return and cushioning (Lightstrike Pro Evo foam is soft and springy).

• Extremely lightweight (≈136 g); turnover feels effortless​.

• High stack height (39/36 mm) provides smooth roll and plantar protection for long marathons.

• Proven race pedigree – worn by world record holders; engineered for peak marathon speed​.

• Tight, breathable upper keeps foot secure at high speeds.

Cons:

• Terrible durability – delicate outsole and foam will likely fail after very limited mileage​. The Evo 1 shattered its heel rubber at 10 mi​; expect Evo 2 to be similar once past the marathon.

• Very expensive ($500). Hard to justify for casual runners or frequent training.

• Not versatile – suitable mainly for elite-paced marathons (10K to marathon); too stiff and thin for slower runs or cross-training.

• Low drop (3mm) – favors mid/forefoot striking, which may feel awkward for heel-strikers or those not used to extreme drops.

• Narrow fit, thin upper – Adidas racers often run narrow; some may find it less comfortable, and the ultra-light upper can feel fragile.

Comparison with Other Elite Marathon Shoes

Adidas built the Evo 2 to compete with the top carbon-plated racing shoes. How does it stack up?

• Nike Alphafly 3 (2024) – Nike’s newest supershoe uses a full-length carbon fiber plate with dual Zoom Air pods in the forefoot and a connected ZoomX midsole​​. It weighs about 7.0 oz/198 g​ (for men’s 9), with a very high stack (40/32 mm). This is significantly heavier than the Evo 2 (~60 g more per shoe). The Alphafly 3 excels in cushioning and smooth transitions: Nike’s specs boast a “full-length carbon fiber plate” and a heel-to-toe ZoomX foam for marathon speed​. In RunRepeat lab tests, it showed massive energy return and excellent stability from its wide plate. Downsides vs. Evo 2: Alphafly 3’s heavier weight means it won’t feel as sprightly, and its higher drop (8 mm) may not suit pure forefoot runners. On the other hand, Alphafly’s outsole uses more rubber pods and thicker foam, so durability is better (RunRepeat found Alphafly wore down much less than competitors)​ . In short, Alphafly 3 is a jack-of-all-race shoes: a bit less nimble but more cushioned and (likely) more durable. Price-wise, Alphafly 3 retails around $285​, much cheaper than Evo 2.

• ASICS Metaspeed Sky+ – ASICS’ top marathon shoe is built on the FF Blast Turbo foam (a nylon-based superfoam) with a full-length carbon plate. It has about 39/34 mm stack and a 5 mm drop​ , weighing 7.2 oz (205 g)​. This makes it very similar to the Saucony Endorphin Elite in spec, but heavier than both Evo 2 and Alphafly 3. The Sky+ plate is “flatter” (lower toe spring) and designed to extend stride length rather than turnover​. In practice, runners find the Sky+ stable and supportive with a firmer, more consistent ride. Because of the firmer nylon foam, it has less “bounce” than Nike or Adidas foams. Pros relative to Evo 2: more stable feel (wider base, 5 mm drop, sturdier foam) and much lower price ($250). Cons: significantly heavier, lower stack (so less cushion), and less cutting-edge bounce. ASICS athletes (like the Japanese marathon teams) appreciate the Sky+ for longer road races due to its stability, but it’s not quite as race-hungry as the Evo 2.

• Saucony Endorphin Elite – Saucony’s all-out racer features 39.5/31.5 mm stack (8 mm drop) and a slotted carbon plate​. It weighs about 7.2 oz (204 g) for men’s 9​, similar to ASICS and Nike. Its PWRRUN HG foam is very soft and poppy, and RunRepeat found it delivered “maximum energy return” in tests​. The Elite is noted to be surprisingly stable (due to a wide forefoot) and very responsive at race pace​. Compared to the Evo 2, the Endorphin Elite has higher drop and heavier weight, so it will feel slower to accelerate but more planted. It also has a low-to-the-ground ride (the slotted plate and 8mm drop encourage a heel-toe roll) that some runners prefer over Adidas’s rockered design. On durability, the Elite’s outsole is extremely thin (1.4 mm rubber), which will not hold up to much use—similar to the Evo series in that regard. The Elite is mid-range priced ($275) and has seen success in elite circles (it’s used by runners like Rowbury and Jared Ward in international marathons). In energy return, Saucony’s foam is on par with Nike’s ZoomX in lab feel, but slightly less bouncy than Adidas’ super-low-density EVA.

Carbon Plate Design:  A key difference is the plate layout. The Alphafly 3 and ASICS Sky+ both use full-length carbon fiber plates​, giving a very rigid lever. Saucony’s plate is slotted – segments in the forefoot for flexibility​. Adidas’ approach is unique: the Energy Rods 2.0 (carbon-infused polymer) act like multiple short plates under each toe. This means the Evo 2’s sole flexes more between the rods, potentially giving a smoother flex profile for heavier forefoot pushers. However, it may feel less rigid than a continuous plate, which could slightly reduce ultimate “snap”. Each design has trade-offs: Adidas’ rods may dampen jarring collisions but sacrifice some stiffness; Nike’s full plate maximizes recoil; Saucony’s slots aim for a balance of rigidity and bend.

Athlete Endorsements & Usage

Adidas explicitly targets top marathoners. The Evo line has already been worn by many champions. For example, Tigst Assefa’s 2023 women’s world record (2:11:53 in Berlin) was set in the Evo 1​. Adidas notes that more World Marathon Majors winners wore Evo 1 in 2024 than any other shoe​. It’s likely that Adidas will continue to supply Evo 2 to its elite team (e.g. Yomif Kejelcha, Sifan Hassan).

By contrast, Nike’s Alphafly series famously carried Eliud Kipchoge to multiple sub-2:02 marathons (including the official world record). The Alphafly 3 is the latest iteration of that lineage, now out to sub-2:00 if possible. ASICS’ Metaspeed shoes have been worn by marathoners like Naomi Osaka (racer not confirmed) and various Japanese elites. Saucony’s Endorphin Elite is newer but has been used by North American elites (Jared Ward, Galen Rupp in past versions).

For everyday runners, very few will be sponsored, but team enthusiasm matters: Nike and Adidas often produce limited-edition models for their stars, which eventually filter down (e.g. to Alphafly Next% 3, or an Evo-based consumer model).

Availability and Price

The Adios Pro Evo 2 will be released April 25, 2025 in very limited quantities. Adidas is offering a lottery/pre-release sign-up for a “limited release” before a wider drop later in the year​. Its MSRP is $499.95 (approx. $500)​ – unchanged from the Evo 1’s launch price. For comparison, the Nike Alphafly 3 retails at $285​, Saucony Elite at $275, and ASICS Sky+ at $250. Given its boutique status, Adidas expects the Evo 2 to sell out instantly (as Evo 1 did) and possibly trade at a premium among collectors.

Conclusion

The Adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 2 is extremely specialized: it pushes marathon performance by maximizing energy return and minimizing weight, at the expense of cost and toughness. Its engineering (Lightstrike Pro Evo foam + energy rods) represents the bleeding edge of carbon-plated shoe design. For an elite marathoner chasing seconds, it offers a marginal advantage in bounce and cushioning – Adidas’s lab claims +5% return bear that out. Serious runners who prioritize performance will be excited by the Evo 2’s featherweight feel and proven race pedigree​.

However, high-mileage athletes must weigh the downsides: the Evo 2 is too fragile and expensive to use outside race day. Its minimal outsole and delicate upper make it poor for daily training runs; many will treat it as a single-race tool. Over the life of a marathon career, spending $500 on one pair that might only last one race is a significant investment. In trade-off terms, you get top-end speed and cushion for one big run, but sacrifice durability and versatility.

In direct comparisons, the Evo 2 is the most extreme and lightest among today’s super shoes. Nike’s Alphafly 3 and Saucony’s Elite offer more cushion and are heavier but cheaper, while ASICS’ Sky+ is stiffer and more stable. Each system has its strengths: for example, RunRepeat found the Alphafly 3 delivered “massive energy return” and smooth transitions​, and the Saucony Elite was “remarkably stable” with “exceptional energy return”​ The Evo 2 carves its own niche – if every millisecond counts and you can find a $500 sponsor, it may be the best weapon. Otherwise, its primary value is in its cutting-edge innovation, which may trickle down to more affordable race models in the future.