The evo SL is the way no matter what occasion. These shoes are the best running shoes so far. Not too expensive and comfortable to go the distance. Really excited to see where Adidas goes with this model of shoe.
Yes it can. I did 22k in them on Sunday, of which 16k trail and 6k tarmac. I felt that was probably 2-3k too much tarmac, especially the final uninterrupted 2.5k on tarmac. That’s when I really felt the rigidity of outsole and lugs.
I had to go a half size up in Evo SL, which I believe others find true to size. I ordered both my Evo SL size and a half size down based on reviews. I feel they are close to Evo SL lengthwise and may end up keeping both or returning the half size down.
Might just be that it's more stable than the EVO SL. And not that it's a stable shoe in general.
If you are looking for a similar shoe that flies strangely under every radar I recommend having a look at the Puma Voyage Nitro 4. Similar stack height, Puma Grip and an outstanding A-TPU midsole (Conversational Pace confirmed it with Puma). I'll never understand why there's almost no marketing for this thing. It's amazing and as stable as a trail shoe with this much stack height can be.
When I hear technical I would use neither the Puma Voyage Nitro 4 nor the Terrex Agravic SL. Too high stacked, in case of the Terrex also too rockered. I personally use for technical terrain (I live near the Alps) La Sportiva Prodigio Pro or Dynafit Ultra 100 v3.
Might just be that it's more stable than the EVO SL. And not that it's a stable shoe in general.
If you are looking for a similar shoe that flies strangely under every radar I recommend having a look at the Puma Voyage Nitro 4. Similar stack height, Puma Grip and an outstanding A-TPU midsole (Conversational Pace confirmed it with Puma). I'll never understand why there's almost no marketing for this thing. It's amazing and as stable as a trail shoe with this much stack height can be.
When I hear technical I would use neither the Puma Voyage Nitro 4 nor the Terrex Agravic SL. Too high stacked, in case of the Terrex also too rockered. I personally use for technical terrain (I live near the Alps) La Sportiva Prodigio Pro or Dynafit Ultra 100 v3.
Edit: Thanks to u/nausarus who apparently listened better than I did at the demo and picked up that they're apparently actually called the Agravic SL. I also found an [active listing on Backcountry ](https://www.backcountry.com/adidas-terrex-terrex-agravic-sl-trail-running-shoe-mens)with that name with specs. You can apparently even buy them right now? Pricing is $159 in case it disappears.
I got a chance to demo the new EVO SL Trail this morning and I thought I'd give some initial impressions since I imagine some folks are curious about fit, feel, etc. in advance of the launch (The rep quoted June 1st). I only ended up running about three miles in these, which normally wouldn't consider enough to make a post on, but I felt like I had enough varied enough trail conditions to render some judgement.
**Fit**
My impression was that these run a bit large. I normally wear M11.5 in almost everything including the original Adidas Terrex Agravic Speed (not Ultra). I started out with an M11.5, but I felt like they were too big and went down to an M11 and those felt perfect. For what it's worth, I own a pair of Boston 12's in M11.5 and they're too long as well, so maybe these fit closer to those. I unfortunately have only briefly tried on the original Evo SL's so I cannot compare fit to those. Width seemed fine and much better than the M11 Speed Ultra 2's I tried on right after. (FWIW, I don't think I have wide feet since I fit in M11.5 Puma shoes without width issues, but the Ultra 2's gave me width and stability issues).
**Upper**
I have a real dislike for Adidas's minimal uppers on my Agravic Speed's and Boston 12's. Both feel too hard to get on and then too tough to get lockdown on once you actually do get them on. I'm happy to report that the EVO SL Trail upper is *way* better. It feels like a normal trainer upper in all the best ways. Given my limited time in the shoe I can't promise there aren't issues that might arise after longer runs or how durability might fare, but my initial impressions were very good. Even pushing the downhills the shoe stayed put and that's with minimal time spent dialing in the lace tightness. Laces were the lightweight, but not troublesome at all. Much better than the Boston 12 laces which I hated and replaced and arguably better than my Agravic Speed 1's.
**Midsole**
I will be the first to admit I was beyond skeptical when the EVO SL Trail leaked late in 2025. I honestly spent a few minutes trying to debunk the video as a hoax since it seemed weird that only one random Instagram account had video of a shoe that was apparently in a booth at TRE. It's no secret that the EVO SL was a huge success and Adidas seemed like they were willing to release every possible variant they could to exploit that. Since everyone who ran in the SLs complained about their stability and existing Terrex shoes like the Agravic Speed Ultra also had stability issues, I was very concerned about how the SL Trail would be.
Thankfully it appears Adidas actually did a full redesign of the shape of the mid-sole and from what I could tell there were no stability issues. My route took me over chunky gravel, up a steep technical climb, down a slightly technical (rooty, muddy) descent and on short portions of flat dirt and pavement. The midsole handled everything really well. The bounce definitely made the descent more challenging then most of the trail shoes I have, but I never felt out of control. Hiking up a steep climb also felt completely fine. Absolutely no issues with stability.
The bounce of the mid-sole was fantastic on the runable sections of trail. I've never run in a trail shoe that felt like this. My closest comparison is probably the Nike Zegama 2 (which I just did 24mi in a on Sunday), but even that's way more subdued. The rocker is also really evident here. I did a long stride on flat, compact dirt near the end of my run and was able to get below 5:00/mi pace which is similar to what I'd get on roads in decent trainers with similar effort.
**Outsole**
The outsole is a full-coverage Continental outsole similar to many other Terrex shoes. In my experience this is roughly as good as Vibram and I'd have no issues taking it on all but the most technical of trails (where the mid-sole would probably be more of a disqualifier). Lug depth appeared to be 3-4mm, but I don't see official specs yet.
**Conclusion**
As mentioned already, I took these on a 3mi loop with a group. For those local to Seattle, the loop left from High Point Trailhead, ascended the powerline road (chunky gravel), climbed Cable Line for about 350ft, and then descended the TMT trail to West Tiger trail before returning to the lot. This is a really perfect loop for shoe testing as you get a bit of everything the PNW has to offer other than maybe the loose rocks of something like the West Tiger Trail. The shoe handled it all really well. I was especially impressed at how in control I felt descending the narrow, rooty, switchback-filled trail.
Although I think it can obviously handle reasonably technical trails, I think this shoe will really shine on trails that are extremely runnable, but need a little more grip and stability than a road shoe could offer. One nice thing about the big chunk of bouncy foam is that it made the lugs almost imperceptible on pavement. I usually find trail shoes uncomfortable on pavement, but didn't see an issue in my short stints on pavement. I wouldn't call these a true road-to-trail shoe because of the larger lugs, but I think they could work well in that context.
All in all, I loved these shoes. After three miles I would've been willing to trade any trail shoe in my collection for them (and probably any road shoe). I went for a short run in the Agravic Speed Ultra 2's right afterward and liked the EVO SL trail much, much better (I probably needed a M11.5 in the Ultra 2's though). I'll be curious to hear thoughts from people once they start getting miles on them, but if I didn't already have so many trail shoes and wasn't such a stickler for waiting for sale prices I'd probably pick up a pair on release day.
I don't think I've seen pricing, but I'm assuming it will be sub-$200 and likely more like $170.
Yes, this competes with their Terrex line-up and based on my limited experience as the owner of Agravic Speed and trying on the Ultra 1 and Ultra 2 it bests them. That said, Adidas seems smart enough to not worry too much about competing with themselves. The Evo SL at $150 is better than many of their more expensive road shoes and yet they're still making a ton of money with them. Other than the Agravic Speed Ultra's (and arguably only the first version), Adidas has really struggled to make much of an impact in the trail space IMO. I have two pairs of the original Agravic Speed's, but only because I got both for less than $50. I suspect these will fare better (as much as I'd love to buy them for $90 in 6mos) and maybe even bring in some buyers who wouldn't generally be as comfortable with trail shoes but are familiar with the EVO SL line.
No, but most of the recent ones worth noting have been in the Agravic line. It does look like it says Agravic on the inside of the heel in one of my photos so maybe these are in the Agravic line. I cannot find any official information on what the actual official naming is.
No idea. I just found a listing on [Backcountry.com](http://Backcountry.com) for them (see link added to OP), but it doesn't include that colorway. I'd be shocked if they did a specific colorway just for demos, but you never know.
I'm US M11.5 in both the Xodus Ultra 1 and Triumph 20 (That flair is so old and yet somehow still have pairs of both those in active rotation). I also have pairs of the Xodus Ultra 1's in M11 that fit me, but I don't love them for longer runs and need to be careful about sock thickness.
Other trail shoes I run in where I feel the M11.5 is comparable to the Agravic SL in M11 would be Zegama 2 and Agility Peak 5.
I didn't try on the TT this morning, but my understanding is that it's less bouncy than the Speed Ultra or the Speed so the mid-sole would be significantly less bouncy than the SL and also less stack (but I don't have specs for the SL).
Several shoe companies did shoe demos for the anniversary celebration for the local trail running group (about 200 people attended). I knew Adidas would be there, but didn't know they'd have this model.
They did not have the Speed 2 present for demo and I haven't seen them in person so I can't completely say. That said, I own two pairs of the Speed 1, and demo's the Speed Ultra 2's (which have a similar upper, I think)? From what I can see, the SL has a much more plush upper. The upper of the Speed and Speed Ultras has been an issue for me as the trade comfort for weight. The SL has a much more traditional upper which I like a lot more. The foam of the Speed 1's and Speed Ultra 2's is *much* firmer than the SL foam which feels softer and bouncier. Like night and day different.
Tough to say based on my brief wear. I would say it depends a little bit on the terrain you're hiking in. I did do a section of more technical hiking during the demo and the shoe was fine, but I still don't think it'd be my preferred option. I think the benefits of the shoe don't lend themselves to hiking and the durability is still a question mark.
Spoiler: For €160, this might be everything I’ll ever need in the trail-running space.
I’m genuinely excited about this shoe.
These are my first impressions after an 8 km (5-mile) run that included roughly 4 km of tarmac, two strides at 2:30 min/km (4-minute mile pace), a 36-second 200 m on the track, and the rest on mountain bike trails and gravel paths at an easy pace.
For context, the shoes currently in my road-to-trail, gravel, and trail rotation are the H1, Aero Glide 3, Prodigio Pro, Agravic Speed Ultra (ASU), Kiprun Summit Race, and Cascadia Elite. Honestly, I can already see myself reaching for the Agravic SL over all of them, with the exception of the Cascadia Elite.
**Ride and Performance**
First and foremost, this is a real trail shoe. It has much more in common with the Agravic Speed Ultra than the EVO SL. That said, it runs surprisingly well on the road thanks to nearly 40 mm of Lightstrike Pro foam in the heel. You do notice the sticky Continental rubber and the 3.5–4 mm lugs a little on pavement, but never to a distracting degree.
The shoe feels excellent whether you’re standing, walking, running easy, or picking up the pace. It even handled my brief track excursion without any issues.
The rocker reminds me of the Speed Ultra, although it is less aggressive. In my opinion, that’s a good thing. It feels more natural while still delivering a very quick transition. The lateral sole flare helps roll you onto your big toe and creates a fast, efficient toe-off.
What really stands out is the stability. The heel is wider and more planted than the Speed Ultra, allowing you to comfortably heel strike on steep descents and still enjoy a smooth and quick transition. Alternatively, you can take advantage of the wide, stable forefoot and thick slab of Lightstrike Pro to bounce your way downhill.
**Upper and Fit**
It is slightly large in true to size and weighs 308 grams in a US11. For daily to medium long runs I would go half a size down (US Size Chart), it feels more nimble and performance fitting but I plan on using it on longruns and Ultras and like a bit more room all around so I stuck to TTS.
The upper is excellent—comfortable, secure, and unlikely to retain much water. The only area that may hold some moisture is the padding around the heel. The half-gusseted tongue works very well and contributes to the overall comfort.
Fit-wise, I’d describe it as:
Roomy forefoot
Medium-width midfoot
Medium overall volume
This is probably the best Adidas upper I’ve used in a long time.
**Durability**
Continental rubber has a well-earned reputation for durability and Lightstrike Pro tends to hold up exceptionally well over time.
With my typical use case—where roughly one-third to one-half of my mileage is on tarmac or hard-packed gravel—I expect the lugs (3.5-4 mm) to be significantly worn down after 500–800 km. At that point, traction for more technical trail running may be reduced, but I suspect the shoe will effectively become a more stable EVO SL and remain perfectly usable for another 500 km or so.
I also don’t see the upper failing anytime soon.
**Who Might Not Love It?**
I’m a relatively strong and heavy runner, so the weight doesn’t bother me at all, and the Lightstrike Pro felt good from the first run but usually needs 30-50 miles to get a bit softer.
Lighter runners may need this break-in time before the foam really comes alive, and they may also wish the shoe were a bit lighter overall.
A potential drawback for runners who need substantial medial support is the shoe’s quick, medially biased heel-to-toe transition. The rocker and lateral forefoot sole flare work together to guide you toward your big toe at toe-off, which may feel a little too directive for some runners.
Other than that, I’m struggling to find any faults and can not wait to get more miles in.
I hike in mine because I bought them for running and didn’t want to buy a dedicated hiking shoe. If I wanted a shoe for hiking only I wouldn’t choose it. As I said depending on where you hike I really like approach shoes or „less fun“ trail running shoes. Great running foams need more work from stabilizing muscles, hips and so when you have long ground contact times like in hiking because they are softer and more springy.
Standing the medial support is relatively similar. The Prodigio Pro is lower to the ground and has a better fit (still the best fit in any shoe for me) therefore I would say it is definitely more stable. Most importantly the midsole geometry doesn’t control your stride that much. The rocker and and lateral forefoot flare is no joke in the SL but really fun!
Spoiler: For €160, this might be everything I’ll ever need in the trail-running space.
I’m genuinely excited about this shoe.
These are my first impressions after an 8 km (5-mile) run that included roughly 4 km of tarmac, two strides at 2:30 min/km (4-minute mile pace), a 36-second 200 m on the track, and the rest on mountain bike trails and gravel paths at an easy pace.
For context, the shoes currently in my road-to-trail, gravel, and trail rotation are the H1, Aero Glide 3, Prodigio Pro, Agravic Speed Ultra (ASU), Kiprun Summit Race, and Cascadia Elite. Honestly, I can already see myself reaching for the Agravic SL over all of them, with the exception of the Cascadia Elite.
**Ride and Performance**
First and foremost, this is a real trail shoe. It has much more in common with the Agravic Speed Ultra than the EVO SL. That said, it runs surprisingly well on the road thanks to nearly 40 mm of Lightstrike Pro foam in the heel. You do notice the sticky Continental rubber and the 3.5–4 mm lugs a little on pavement, but never to a distracting degree.
The shoe feels excellent whether you’re standing, walking, running easy, or picking up the pace. It even handled my brief track excursion without any issues.
The rocker reminds me of the Speed Ultra, although it is less aggressive. In my opinion, that’s a good thing. It feels more natural while still delivering a very quick transition. The lateral sole flare helps roll you onto your big toe and creates a fast, efficient toe-off.
What really stands out is the stability. The heel is wider and more planted than the Speed Ultra, allowing you to comfortably heel strike on steep descents and still enjoy a smooth and quick transition. Alternatively, you can take advantage of the wide, stable forefoot and thick slab of Lightstrike Pro to bounce your way downhill.
**Upper and Fit**
It is slightly large in true to size and weighs 308 grams in a US11. For daily to medium long runs I would go half a size down (US Size Chart), it feels more nimble and performance fitting but I plan on using it on longruns and Ultras and like a bit more room all around so I stuck to TTS.
The upper is excellent—comfortable, secure, and unlikely to retain much water. The only area that may hold some moisture is the padding around the heel. The half-gusseted tongue works very well and contributes to the overall comfort.
Fit-wise, I’d describe it as:
Roomy forefoot
Medium-width midfoot
Medium overall volume
This is probably the best Adidas upper I’ve used in a long time.
**Durability**
Continental rubber has a well-earned reputation for durability and Lightstrike Pro tends to hold up exceptionally well over time.
With my typical use case—where roughly one-third to one-half of my mileage is on tarmac or hard-packed gravel—I expect the lugs (3.5-4 mm) to be significantly worn down after 500–800 km. At that point, traction for more technical trail running may be reduced, but I suspect the shoe will effectively become a more stable EVO SL and remain perfectly usable for another 500 km or so.
I also don’t see the upper failing anytime soon.
**Who Might Not Love It?**
I’m a relatively strong and heavy runner, so the weight doesn’t bother me at all, and the Lightstrike Pro felt good from the first run but usually needs 30-50 miles to get a bit softer.
Lighter runners may need this break-in time before the foam really comes alive, and they may also wish the shoe were a bit lighter overall.
A potential drawback for runners who need substantial medial support is the shoe’s quick, medially biased heel-to-toe transition. The rocker and lateral forefoot sole flare work together to guide you toward your big toe at toe-off, which may feel a little too directive for some runners.
Other than that, I’m struggling to find any faults and can not wait to get more miles in.
90sWaterRooster
