Brooks Catamount 4 Review: The Taming of the Wildcat?

Introduction to the Brooks Catamount 4

TAYLOR: Claps, snaps, dabs, high-pitched screams. However you give public credit these days, I think the Brooks Catamount series deserves its laurels. It’s steadily increased performance over the last few years with a somewhat unique formulation compared to the masses. I mean, the original version was the first trail shoe that I can remember that had a nitrogen-infused midsole and came in white! Bold moves.

Versatility is one of its hallmarks. That’s why it ended the year with several of BITR’s Best in Gear awards. This was precisely the focus of this year’s update as well. We spoke to the Brooks squad at the Running Event, and the conversation had me rescuing my jaw from the table. I was giddy with excitement for each improvement because it was the exact area I wished I had more of in previous versions.

Those areas are a new foam underfoot, a slightly higher stacker (2 mm), and an adjusted SkyVault v2 Trail Plate. When all is said and done, the Brooks Catamount 4 should be a more comfortable, faster, and efficient trail shoe that’s oriented toward race day but set for any adventure.

REESE: When the Catamount first debuted in 2020, I was pretty excited. It was a no-nonsense lightweight shoe and I believed it would be the first of a long line of amazing training but also race-ready trail shoes. It wasn’t perfect, but with the Catamount 2 and 3, Brooks made some serious corrections, and they were generally heading in the right direction. When I heard the Catamount 4 was going to be peppier to take some inspo from their carbon plate road shoes, I was beyond excited — especially when they mentioned at The Running Event that it was super similar to the Hyperion, the only road shoe I’ve ever owned.

In fact, I bought that shoe as a backup shoe for Javalina, and I felt like the Hyperion Max 2 would be an okay nontechnical trail shoe. With the release of the Catamount 4, I felt I was promised more propulsion. I was expecting more propulsion. More za-za-zoom. It’s exactly what the Catamount lineup was lacking. However, I’m not sure I agree, believe, or feel that the shoe lived up to my expectations. Or, as my dad said when I told him I was majoring in Equine Science at college, “I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed.” Me too, Dad. Me too.

ALLISON: Catamount, Cascadia, Caldera… Catamount, Cascadia, Caldera… Say that three times fast! I think Brooks just wants to confuse me or wants this review and my Caldera review to be sponsored by the letter C (hey, if Elmo can get the spotlight now, so should Cookie Monster)! Anyway, after hearing all of the rave reviews (see above) about the Catamount, as always, I was all about trying it out.

MICHAEL: The Brooks Cascadia 3 was, simply put, my most loved shoe of last year. I ran (and raced) in it nearly every chance I got after the review period, oftentimes reaching for it over North Face’s Summit Vectiv Pro 2, which was actually my pick for the shoe of the year last year.

In my opinion, last year’s version had it all, especially when it came to bridging the gap between a pared-down race-oriented super shoe and an everyday trainer. It was lightweight, had a great fit, responsive midsole, and subtle rock plate — basically, everything you could want for fast running in the Southeast. There was just one issue: version 3 was claimed to be capable of 100k races, which our team found to just not be the case.

However, for version four, Brooks has added some comfort to the upper, tweaked the plate, and added some additional midsole foam underfoot, all to better support that previously audacious claim while keeping overall weight down. All the signs of improvement are on paper, so let’s see how she runs, shall we?

What we like about the Brooks Catamount 4

TAYLOR: Over the past two iterations of this shoe, its fit was a real selling point. It set the tone for being such a versatile trail shoe because the Brooks team has mastered making trail-ready uppers. This engineered mesh is lighter, breathable, and uber-comfortable. It felt appropriately fitted in the heel and forefoot while the midfoot hugged the foot closely. This version also beefed up the heel construction, but in a good way. I found that it had slightly more structure and more padding to create a comfortable cradle for the long haul.

Overall, the Brooks Catamount 4’s trusted fit and slight adjustments provided security and comfort, just like they almost always have. I felt similar confidence in shoes like the Nnormal Kjerag, Merrell MTL Long Sky 2 Matryx, and La Sportiva Prodigio — all more technically oriented shoes. Not only is this a shoe that can access anything from smooth to quite technical terrain, but it now sets itself up for going the distance.

Underfoot, I noticed the added stack also improved the shoe’s protection. To me, this is a noticeably firmer ride than previous iterations. The predecessors had a moderate amount of protection, but it wasn’t really notable. The latest version filters out a lot of the rocks, roots, etc. Don’t worry; it’s not so much that I lost my trail sense.

Having a stout outsole helps in the protection department too. The nearly full rubber coverage from the TrailTack Green outsole performed extremely well. We have now come to expect that this rubber will boast grade-A durability and tackiness, and it certainly did. Even though the 3.5 mm lugs are some of the shortest in the industry, I found them to be adequate on anything I put them through, except for the obvious situations like a couple of inches of mud or slush. I appreciated the outsole’s versatility and dependability.

Back to the midsole concoction. Brook’s upped the ante and took a calculated gamble by swapping out both the SkyVault v1 plate and DNA Flash v1 for the second versions of both. As I mentioned, this ride is firmer (we’ll get to more on that soon), but the added stack did allow Brooks to be a little more strategic with geometry here. The Catamount 4 offered quicker turnover than previous versions, and the toe-off was a little snappier, especially on uphill segments when I could get the foam to flex that plate. I’m not going to lie; I wanted a whole lot more of this, but I did get a taste of what Brooks was trying to do here.

The adjustments to the underfoot recipe also made for a noticeably more stable ride. The firmer foam played a role in this, and the heel wedge construction also seemed to take a page from Brooks’ chunkier trail companion, the Caldera 8. It gave a more governed sensation as the terrain increased in difficulty or turned downhill. Some will like this aspect, some will not—it’s as simple as that.

REESE: Sigh. I’m going to try to remain positive and not let my disappointment cloud my review. There are good things about this shoe. The outsole is pretty terrific. I took the Catamount 4 to Moab, where the trails are basically an obstacle course of slick rock, sneaky sand-covered slabs, and the kind of wet rock that usually sends you skating into next week. And guess what? It held on like it had something to prove (Did they prove it, though? More on that later).

The 3.5 mm lugs are small but mighty, digging in just enough without making you feel like you’re wearing soccer cleats. The TrailTack Green rubber outsole, made with recycled materials (yay, planet), somehow manages to be sticky AF on both wet and dry surfaces. Seriously, I was waiting for that one sketchy moment where I’d slide, and it just never came.

I don’t know why it seems like I have an axe to grind about shoelaces, maybe because it’s a small detail that brands tend to overlook, but I do like the laces on the Catamount 4 since they’re pretty similar to the last iteration. But if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it (or definitely don’t make it worse).

I generally like the shoe’s look, and I don’t hate the hi-viz-like colorway. Even if you don’t feel fast, you’ll look fast.

ALLISON: I won’t go into too much depth about what I like about the shoe, or at least try not to overlap with what Reese and Taylor said, as I agree on the traction of the shoe and lightweight feel that isn’t common in most trail shoes. I definitely could reach speeds in the Catamount that I couldn’t in the Cascadia or Caldera, and I felt comfortable doing so. I’d say that’s a win-win when racing. What the Caldera lacked in lacing, the Catamount more than made up for. I don’t get why Brooks isn’t consistent across the board when it comes to laces, but I guess you could say that for most shoe companies.

MICHAEL: Whoa, are we in a cave? Cause I’m hearing some echo in here. That is, of course, the echoing of my fellow reviewer’s thoughts. First off, I have to give some love to the fit. While this is an all-new upper, the overall tooling and structuring of the upper is still on point here, in my opinion. The structured toe bumper is still a welcome feature, as well as the lacing chain and upper mesh material.

While we’ll get to the midsole and plate and everything later on, it’s worth mentioning that the overall soul of this shoe is still preserved from version 3. While the ride has some noticeable changes that, in my opinion, leave this shoe worse off, this is still a lightweight, versatile shoe, just like last year’s Catamount. It’s got great styling, a nice layer of responsive foam, and a nylon plate that gives the shoe structure and protection without sacrificing stability.

As everyone else said, the TrailTack Green outsole is still a winner, and the slightly more pronounced and aggressive updated lug configuration shines as a noticeable improvement over the tamer, knobby outsole of version three. Unfortunately, we’re afraid this may have been the only noticeable improvement.

What we don’t like about the Brooks Catamount 4

TAYLOR: When “protective” is the only real notable quality to a racer, something went awry. The Brooks Catamount 4 midsole is firm, as noted by all of us. I’d even go as far as to say that it has a sincere lack of character. Reese cued us in on the “disappointment” talk, so I’ll let us steep in the cringe for a bit.

This was a huge miss for Brooks. Modern foams can be both protective and, well, whatever the heck you want! This recipe simply needed to be a little softer to leverage the overall stack for both a more comfortable ride for the long haul and a more dynamic one for picking up the pace. I hoped that warm weather and miles would soften this one up and expose its true character. Nuh-uh. I’m left with my last-ditch effort of pulling out the meat tenderizer.

I remarked that the firmer heel wedge did add some stability in the previous section, which can be a positive for some. For me, this particular package and what Brooks describes it as feels contradictory to the end goal. Sure, it adds some control, but maybe even too much.

A little bit of heel lift was the least of my worries here, but it was noticeable and a little difficult to solve. I felt this most on uphill segments. Again, I really believe that a slightly more flexible package would only help this case.

REESE: Oh, Brooks, Brooks, Brooks. Perhaps it’s me who got my expectations too high. Maybe it’s not your fault. But, also, it kind of is. I’m going to be brutally honest. This is the only shoe I’ve reviewed in the last few years where my feet were sore within two miles of starting my run. The Catamount 2 nearly broke my feet, but it took 20 miles to get to that point. The newest edition really expedited things.

On all my runs, I developed a deep, deep ache on the outside of my foot that slowly crept in, and eventually, my entire midfoot was in pretty bad shape. I will note that I do wear very thin inserts (from Spenco) but this issue doesn’t happen in my other shoes, so I don’t believe it’s a volume issue. The midsole, despite a 2 mm increase, is capital S, Stiff. There’s no give — it’s a brick hitting the trail, and the vibration reverberates straight back into the foot. Ouch. Not great. The promised land of propulsion just wasn’t there for me. More of a mirage.

The upper is a bit of a puzzle to me as well. While the laces are fine and do their job (ie, stay tied), I couldn’t snug down my foot. I had to pull the laces so tight that a wrinkle formed just above the toe box to get the shoe snug. Additionally, the heel in this shoe somehow got worse. The previous model actually had a very slim, not highly padded, heel cup. It feels like Brooks is moving away from the race vibe of this shoe by making the heel… roomier? I’m not sure what the thinking is there, but my heel never snugged down, even if I used the furthest back lace hole.

ALLISON: While I was super excited to try the Catamount (as described above), I was left somewhat disappointed in a few of its key features. First of all, just like the Caldera, who came up with the color choices? I know Reese didn’t mind the bright colorway, but for me, it doesn’t really belong on the trails unless I’m at a rave. Also, I felt like the toe box was so constrictive, especially as I went on my run. I couldn’t imagine having thicker socks with this shoe as it would turn into blister city! I also agree with what Taylor and Reese said above regarding the firmness of the shoe, which, for those who read my reviews know, I like some cushion in my shoes (though, to be fair, I don’t know if this shoe was made for me given it is mostly for shorter, vert-ier runs).

MICHAEL: As we venture deeper down Catamount cave, I’m starting to get even more echo… is that Reese I hear? Because I too, agree the heel got roomier on version four. With the added padding, I had a much harder time locking my heel down. Fortunately, I was able to get everything sorted out with the lacing system. Some may love this change, but I mostly found it slightly decreased the overall quality of the fit and made the overall length run a bit snug. Historically, I’ve always gone a half-size down in Brooks, but I maybe could have used a half-size up this time around.

Ultimately, the Catamount 4 has fallen prey to the belief that trail shoes with a stiff, biomechanically efficient plate can transfer most, if not all, of their benefits from their road cousins to the undulating, technical paths they trod. Typically, we see plated shoes sacrifice stability over technical terrain. Thankfully, this is not the case with the Catamount, thanks to its relatively low stack height, but the overall stiffness of the plate, combined with the comparably firm and unresponsive DNA Flash v2 midsole foam, results in an experience that is noticeably duller than the “tuned” feeling I experienced in version three.

That shoe felt fast and flexible yet remained efficient, while version four feels slightly stiffer, clunky, and unwieldy underfoot. That being said, I did find that the updated foam began loosening up over my longer-than-usual test period (and, admittedly, a slight change in the weather), and I was beginning to be encouraged by the progressively softer experience I was having on my runs. Unfortunately, this foam is still a different formula, and ultimately never could quite emulate that “tuned” feeling of version 3. The difference between the two is small, but not at all negligible.

Admittedly, a shoe with a stiff plate sandwiched between some sweet midsole foam that’s meant to make you more biomechanically efficient sounds way cooler (and more marketable) than a thin, flexible, bottom-loaded rock plate, so it’s easy to see why Brooks may have wanted to take the design of the Catamount in the direction of the ever-elusive super shoe for the trails. In my opinion, however, the Catamount line has only further proven that nine times out of ten, I prefer a thin, lightweight rock plate underfoot when considering the type of terrain I’m running and racing day in and day out. Simply put, if the same plate that was in version three was retained for version four, I would have much less to talk about in this section.

It’s also worth noting that last year, I mentioned that the only thing that the Catamount 3 lacked for 100 km racing was a few more millimeters of stack height. Brooks actually made that change this time, but due to the change in foam, it’s largely unnoticeable. This shoe is still going to be better suited for distances 50k and below.

Final thoughts on the Brooks Catamount 4

TAYLOR: Theories need to be tested. On paper, the Brooks Catamount 4 had a lot going for it. On the trail, it didn’t live up to its hype. It’s hard for me to write that sentence. I find myself disappointed, actually. The only real negative about this shoe is that the firmness of the midsole restricted the best tech. The updated underfoot build left a lot to be desired… It’s a coulda, woulda, shoulda scenario.

At the end of the day, though, the Brooks Catamount 4 is still a decent trail shoe. It has a firmer ride that can roll at a quick pace when needed and go long when called upon. It has a fit that allows the shoe to be quite versatile, too. Protection and stability are better than they were in previous versions. If that’s what you’re looking for out of this package, then good on ya!

I wasn’t. I love the Catamount series enough to keep going ahead with it, though. I have a feeling I’ll try to bring this one to 100 miles and see if it brings out anything different. In an ideal world, just throwing this out there, everything about the Catamount 4 could stay the same but get a more supple, responsive midsole. Can anyone say Catamount 4 PB?

REESE: I’m just going to come right out and say it. Brooks, take the Hyperion Max 2, slap the outsole of the Catamount 4 on it, give it a little more of a robust upper, and throw in a rock plate if you can. I know you can make great shoes, I just think you got a little confused on this iteration. As it stands, for me and my 37-year-old feet, the Catamount 4 will sit in my closet and be about as useful as my Equine Science degree. Which is to say, I am not using it at all. On the plus side, at least the Catamount 4’s price tag isn’t on par with an out-of-state tuition. You win some, you lose most.

ALLISON: After testing the shoe, I can see why its predecessors received such praise. However, if we fix a few things, like the color and cushion, I think we’ll have a real winner.

MICHAEL: Is it safe to say that plates have jumped the shark when it comes to trail running shoes? Not necessarily. Rock plates still rule, as was evidenced in last year’s Catamount, and we’re still seeing interesting improvements in the propulsive, efficiency-boosting plates from The North Face and Hoka, among other brands. As technology advances, it’s only natural that we have some misses along the way, and I think the Brooks Catamount line just took a very slight step backward. To be fair, it’s tricky to follow up a Best in Gear award winner, especially when you’re trying to take the shoe in a different direction.

So, even if I won’t be running quite as many miles in this year’s Catamount as I did last year, I’m still looking forward to version five as eagerly as ever. We know the Catamount line has a winning formula for Brooks, and it’s just a few minor tweaks away from being a perennial Best in Gear contender.

You can pick up the Brooks Catamount 4 for $170 from Brooks by using the buttons below.