We began our testing process by finding the right testers – California rock climbers who split their time between the granite of the Pacific Northwest, Yosemite Valley, and Bishop, California with annual trips to Patagonia tossed in for good measure. Our team estimates that they spend at least 300 days per year in approach shoes. Each tester goes through a few pairs every year, thanks to the constant stream of alpine climbing, big walls, and days out at the crag.
For this review, our team of experts carefully selected models for side-by-side testing. They wore them up and down trails, on big-wall climbs in and around Yosemite Valley, on backcountry missions into the High Sierra, around the crags of Bishop, and into the high alpine of Patagonia. To score each shoe across the same rubric, we identified five core metrics to guide our assessments.
Climbing Ability
The big thing that sets approach shoes apart from hiking shoes is their sticky rubber and technical climbing abilities. While not as precise as rock climbing shoes, they are meant to carry you over talus slopes and boulder fields, while also providing confidence when moving through third- and fourth-class terrain. A good pair of approach shoes can even handle fifth-class rock, saving our toes from the all-day pain of tight-fitting rock climbing shoes. To evaluate each shoe's ability to navigate technical terrain, we tested their mettle for edging, smearing, and crack climbing.
A shoe's ability to edge means that the front toe is stiff and precise enough to support us on small features. For this, we climbed easy scrambles in the High Sierra, went bouldering in the Tablelands of Bishop, and tested our limits sport climbing in the Owens River Gorge, where small edges prevail.
We also wanted to know how well each shoe could smear. On low-angle slabs and in talus, we use the whole bottom of our foot to stay connected. Luckily, the Sierra is full of granite slabs. We walked off the top of El Cap, hiked up slabs in Tuolumne, and careened down descent gullies in the mountains.
Finally, cracks. While you may be less likely to find real crack climbing on your approach or descent, we all know a route that requires a tricky move here and there. Also, we really like to rock climb in our approach shoes if the terrain is comfortable for us. For this, we romped around classic climbs in Yosemite Valley and Tuolumne Meadows, where cracks prevail.
Hiking Comfort
In order to really test hiking comfort, there's only one thing to do: hike (a lot). Our team spends over half the year hiking and climbing in the mountains and knows how important comfort is to the morale of a trip.
In order to test a variety of terrain, we took each shoe out on everything from long, flat trails to steep and technical ones. The steep trails helped show us which shoes were too stiff, and the flat ones showed us how far we could really go before our feet started to fatigue. We also identified a few key features and paid close attention to these as we walked. Tongue padding, heel padding, and breathability were among the things we took particular notes on. The shoes that provided to most hiking comfort without detracting too much from overall climbing ability received the highest scores.
Weight and Packability
Most of our shoes tend to stay on our feet throughout the day, so it's hard to tell the difference a few ounces make. However, this is not the case with approach shoes. When we go climbing at our favorite crag, we tend to only utilize our approach shoes for hiking to and from the base of the climb, put our climbing shoes on to climb, and leave our approach shoes at the base.
On multi-pitch missions, though, we often bring our approach shoes up the route with us so that we can descend a different way. For this, we need a lightweight product that can easily be clipped to our harness or stowed away in our packs. For this metric, we weighed each shoe on a scale to get an objective reading, and then we evaluated their clip loops and ability to pack down small. Finally, we gave recommendations for which approach shoes made sense to attach to our harness or stow in our backpacks.
Support
While we were out on huge backcountry missions, overnight rescues, and multi-day big walls, we started to see how much our shoes could really support us. This category mostly reviews the pros and cons of different levels of stiffness and lateral support.
For big walls, we want the stiffest, most supportive shoe there is. Standing in aid ladders takes a huge toll on our feet, so we looked for shoes that had reinforced sides and really stiff midsoles. For long approaches, we wanted a supportive shoe that maintained just enough flexibility to easily navigate uneven terrain. And for long rescues, we wanted the same: a shoe with tons of reinforcement all around.
Construction Quality
With many companies pushing the boundaries of product development by using new materials or trying to make gear lighter, construction quality can sometimes be compromised. We have noticed some of our shoes wearing out or delaminating more quickly than others. Shoes do eventually wear out over time, but it is important to note any premature issues with sole delamination or holes that develop in the upper. It is typical for lightweight shoes to wear out more quickly than heavy-duty ones, so construction quality focuses more on product malfunction rather than normal wear and tear.
During the testing process, we look for any holes that begin to develop in the uppers, sole delamination, blown-out laces, and any wear in the midsole. We use each shoe for the same amount of time and on the same types of climbs in order to determine if one shoe is wearing out more quickly than the other.
