On Cloudmonster 3 Hyper vs HOKA Skyward X 2

Both are unapologetically large shoes, but they get there differently. The On Cloudmonster 3 Hyper measured 43.4 mm at the heel and 34.2 mm at the forefoot in independent lab testing, against brand figures of 37 mm and 31 mm — a substantial discrepancy, and one that puts real distance between the shoe and the regular Cloudmonster 3. The HOKA Skyward X 2 goes higher again at 45.8 mm measured in the heel, against a stated 44 mm. On's shoe keeps a visible CloudTec profile but drops the three-layer arrangement used on the standard Cloudmonster 3 in favour of more foam. HOKA's has a deeply sculpted, scooped midsole with a carbon plate running through it, which is the single biggest structural difference between the two.

Lab-measured figures, brand claims in brackets where they differ:

• Weight: On Cloudmonster 3 Hyper roughly 264 g (263 g stated); HOKA Skyward X 2 roughly 286 g (281 g stated)
• Heel stack: 43.4 mm (37 mm stated) versus 45.8 mm (44 mm stated)
• Forefoot stack: 34.2 mm (31 mm stated) on the On
• Drop: 9.2 mm measured on the On against 6 mm stated; 7.6 mm measured on the HOKA against 5 mm stated
• Plate: none in the Cloudmonster 3 Hyper; carbon plate in the Skyward X 2
• Midsole: PEBA-based Helion HF over a second foam layer, versus HOKA's dual-density plated setup
• Fit: On runs true to size; the HOKA runs slightly small. Both are medium width, normal only
• Intended use: everyday super trainer versus slow long runs and recovery

This is the headline. On's training shoes have historically measured poorly on energy return for the money — the standard Cloudmonster 3 and the earlier Cloudmonster Hyper both disappointed in lab testing. The On Cloudmonster 3 Hyper fixed it. Energy return came back at 66.1 per cent in the heel and 69.4 per cent in the forefoot, well clear of the roughly 58.8 per cent category average, thanks to a PEBA-based Helion HF top layer that also measured softer than On's standard Helion. The HOKA Skyward X 2 also rates highly on energy return, but it gets there through geometry and a carbon plate rather than through a springier compound, which is why it feels propulsive in a straight line and sluggish when you change pace.

Both shoes are unusually stable for their height, and neither uses obvious guidance hardware to do it. The On Cloudmonster 3 Hyper relies on a wide platform and a dramatic rear geometry — an extended heel flare reaching close to three centimetres behind the heel bone, with a pronounced bevel — so it rolls you forward aggressively from the moment you land. Reviewers who dislike rockered shoes tend to dislike this one. The HOKA Skyward X 2 is rated even higher for stability, with a scooped sidewall design that cradles the foot, and it is described as exceptional for a shoe this tall. The trade-off is versatility: the HOKA is stiff and single-purpose, scoring strongly for daily running and poorly for tempo work, while the On handles a genuinely wide range of paces.

The On Cloudmonster 3 Hyper fits true to size in a medium width with a medium toebox, and lab testing rated both upper and outsole durability strongly — a real point in its favour at this price. The catch is breathability: it runs warm, which is a virtue from November to March in northern Europe and a genuine problem in August. The HOKA Skyward X 2 runs slightly small, so order accordingly, and it has a plush upper that nonetheless breathes reasonably. Its outsole was redesigned for this generation and holds up well. One caveat specific to the HOKA: its midsole stiffens noticeably in the cold, which matters more for European winter running than it does in a lab. Neither shoe offers a wide fitting.

Pick the On Cloudmonster 3 Hyper if you want one expensive shoe to do most of your week. It is lighter, it has genuinely bouncy PEBA-based foam, it tolerates a range of paces, and it is the better value of the two despite a high price. Pick the HOKA Skyward X 2 if your problem is specifically slow, long, leg-destroying mileage — it is the more cushioned, more stable, more protective shoe, and the carbon plate keeps a tall, soft platform from feeling vague. Heel strikers will get on with both. Runners who hate rockers should try the On in person first, because its rear geometry is the most aggressive part of the design.

Two things deserve flagging. First, published stack and drop figures from both brands diverge meaningfully from independent measurement, and in both cases the real drop is higher than stated — roughly nine millimetres on the On rather than six, and closer to eight on the HOKA rather than five. If you are sensitive to drop, buy on the measured numbers, not the box. Second, neither of these is a beginner's shoe. Both sit at the very top of the training-shoe market, both are heavy by modern standards, and a runner covering forty kilometres a week is better served by a conventional daily trainer plus a separate long-run shoe than by either of these doing everything.