Buying guide

HOKA Arahi vs Clifton: Which One Does Your Foot Need?

HOKA sells the Arahi as its stability shoe and the Clifton as its neutral one. In the lab the new Arahi 9 twisted as easily as the Clifton 11, 11.8 against 12.1 newton-metres, on the same 96 mm base at the heel.

What HOKA says separates them

HOKA sells the Arahi as its stability shoe and the Clifton as its neutral trainer, at the same $155, the same stated 8 mm drop and the same Regular, Wide and X-Wide fittings. The difference it names is the Arahi’s Enhanced H-Frame, which it calls “a stabilizing system that combats overpronation”. The Clifton gets what HOKA calls a rearfoot-focused Active Foot Frame instead, for a moderate amount of stability in a neutral shoe. HOKA lists a stack height for the Clifton and none for the Arahi.

Sources: HOKA’s US and UK product pages, read 28 September 2026 and for our Arahi 8 vs 9 and Clifton 10 vs 11 comparisons. The Clifton 11’s 42/34 mm stack and the UK 9.5 size of its weight come from HOKA’s UK page; HOKA gives the Arahi 9’s weights without a size. Retailers list the Arahi at 39 and 31 mm of stack, a figure HOKA does not publish, and give its US release as 1 October 2026. HOKA’s pages for both shoes display the APMA Seal, but neither 2026 model was in the APMA’s own directory when we checked in September 2026; the Arahi 8 and Clifton 10 are.

What the lab measured

RunRepeat cut, weighed and measured one pair of each with the same tests. On three of its stability measures the two came out alike: the Arahi 9 needed 11.8 Nm to twist and the Clifton 11 12.1, both stand on a 96 mm base at the heel, and both heel counters scored 3 of 5. What the Arahi has and the Clifton does not is a second, much firmer layer of foam, 46.2 on the Asker C scale against 32.9 for its main midsole, moulded into HOKA’s H-Frame. The Clifton is 3.4 mm taller at the heel and absorbed more impact there; the Arahi is wider at the ball of the foot and across the forefoot base.

Source: RunRepeat lab, one pair of each, read 28 September 2026, with the same toe-box, cushioning, bending and twisting tests on both shoes; its Arahi 9 review is dated 18 September 2026. Hardness is on the Asker C scale and shock absorption in RunRepeat’s SA units; torsional rigidity for both is in newton-metres, the lab’s current test (the median of the 24 shoes we review with it is 14.5 Nm), and base width is measured across the midsole at the heel and the forefoot (medians across the 35 shoes we review: 95.8 and 117.6 mm). Medians of the lab-measured shoes we review (34 for the toe-box figures, 35 for the rest): 72.8 mm at the big toe, 95.2 mm at the widest point, 27.0 mm of toe-box height, 38.7 mm of heel stack, 8.5 mm of drop, 137 SA and 15.3 N.

What a foot and ankle surgeon takes from this

The Arahi 9 does not twist less than the Clifton. Torsional rigidity is how hard it is to wring a shoe like a towel, and it is one of the things that helps a shoe hold the middle of a flat foot steady. The Arahi 9 needed 11.8 Nm and the Clifton 11 12.1, both well under the 14.5 Nm median of the 24 shoes we review with that test; only three of them twist more easily than the Arahi, and four than the Clifton. The Arahi 8 needed 19.5, the third-highest of the 24. The two 2026 shoes also stand on the same 96 mm base at the heel, and both heel counters scored 3 of 5. The word on the box is a poor guide to this number either way: the stiffest shoe to twist in our set is a neutral one, the ASICS Gel-Nimbus 28 (20.5 Nm), and Saucony’s stability Guide 19 twists more easily than either HOKA (10.7). One pair of each is not proof that every pair is built this way; our Arahi 8 vs 9 comparison has the detail.

What the Arahi still has is the H-Frame. RunRepeat found two layers of foam in the Arahi 9: a soft main midsole at 32.9 on the Asker C scale and a much firmer layer at 46.2, moulded into an H that supports both sides of the foot. That firmer foam is the guidance a heel that tips inward feels, and RunRepeat’s testers rated the Arahi 9’s stability highly because of it; they found the Clifton 11, with its wide platform and tall sidewalls, stable too. So a mildly flat foot that rolls in, or a runner who likes a guided heel, still has a reason to pick the Arahi. A foot that needs real control, such as a painful posterior tibial tendon, a flexible flat foot that collapses or arthritis in the middle of the foot, gets little more resistance to twisting from the Arahi 9 than from the Clifton. For that foot the Arahi 8 while it lasts, the Gaviota 6 (17.7 Nm, on the widest heel base of the 35 shoes we review, 105.6 mm) or the ASICS Gel-Kayano 32 (20.2 Nm) are the stiffer choices. Our shoes for overpronation guide compares them.

The Clifton has the more cushioned heel; the Arahi the roomier forefoot. The Clifton 11 stands 3.4 mm taller at the heel, 41.4 against 38.0 mm, and absorbed about 6% more impact there, sixth of the 35 shoes we review, which suits a bruised or thinning heel pad. For plantar fasciitis the gap is smaller than it looks: both twist easily and both heel counters scored 3 of 5. Both measured more than 10 mm of drop, 11.7 and 10.3 mm against HOKA’s stated 8, so both are kind to a sore Achilles. The Arahi 9 measured 2.3 mm wider at the widest point, 97.0 against 94.7 mm, wider than all but five of the 34 shoes we review that the lab has measured there, and its toe box is 1.5 mm taller: better for a bunion, a tailor’s bunion or hammertoes. At the big toe both are narrow, about 70.5 to 71 mm against a 72.8 mm median, so a big toe that drifts wants the Wide in either. Compare both on our toe box width chart.

The smaller differences. The Arahi’s lower heel and its forefoot base, 3.5 mm wider, make it slightly the steadier of the two, though an ankle that gives way does better in a lower shoe than either. Its forefoot took about 15% more force to bend, but at 15.5 N that is only just above the median of the shoes we review, and RunRepeat found its rocker now starts a little later in the forefoot; a stiff big toe joint needs a stiffer, more rockered sole than either. The Clifton is 12 g lighter in the lab and its main foam about 5% softer. Both returned about 47% of the energy at the heel, among the lowest we have figures for, so neither will feel springy.

Which should you buy?

Orthotics and inserts

Both insoles lift out, and both measured 4.4 mm. The Arahi 9’s toe box is taller, 28.9 against 27.4 mm, and wider at the ball of the foot, which gives the front of a full-length orthotic more room; neither figure tells you how deep the heel cup sits, which is where an orthotic usually fails. A control orthotic works best in a shoe that resists twisting and has a firm heel counter, neutral or stability, and neither 2026 shoe does much of either; the Arahi 8 resists twisting far better, though its counter also scored 3 of 5. Our Orthotic Volume Rating explains how to check the fit.

Questions runners ask

Is the HOKA Arahi more stable than the Clifton?

In one way. The Arahi has HOKA’s H-Frame, a firmer layer of foam, 46.2 on the Asker C scale against 32.9 for its main midsole, moulded to support both sides of the foot, and RunRepeat’s testers rated its stability highly. On twisting, heel width and heel counter, though, the 2026 models measured alike: 11.8 and 12.1 Nm, a 96 mm heel base and 3 of 5 for both counters. The Arahi 8, at 19.5 Nm, was the stiffer shoe.

Which is better for flat feet, the Arahi or the Clifton?

For a mildly flat foot that rolls in, the Arahi, for its H-Frame and wider forefoot base. For a flat foot that collapses or a painful posterior tibial tendon, neither 2026 model resists twisting much; the Arahi 8 while it lasts, the Gaviota 6 or the ASICS Gel-Kayano 32 measured stiffer.

Which is better for plantar fasciitis, the Arahi or the Clifton?

Closer than the labels suggest. The Clifton 11 has the more cushioned heel, 3.4 mm taller with about 6% more shock absorption, which helps a sore heel pad; but both twist easily and both heel counters scored 3 of 5. If the heel pain comes with a foot that rolls in, the Arahi’s H-Frame is the better reason to choose.

Is the Arahi wider than the Clifton?

At the ball of the foot, yes: 97.0 mm against 94.7 at the widest point, and its forefoot base is 3.5 mm wider. At the big toe the two are within half a millimetre, and both are narrow there. Both come in Regular, Wide and X-Wide.

Do the Arahi and Clifton have the same drop?

HOKA lists 8 mm for both. The lab measured 10.3 mm on the Arahi 9 and 11.7 mm on the Clifton 11; RunRepeat notes that HOKA measures drop nearer the midfoot than the standard points it uses.

Should I buy the Arahi 8 or the Arahi 9?

If you need the shoe to resist twisting, the Arahi 8: it needed 19.5 Nm against the 9’s 11.8. HOKA still sold the 8 on its US site on 28 September 2026, from $120. Our Arahi 8 vs 9 comparison has the rest.

Read the full analysis

Our spec analyses of the Arahi 8, Clifton 11 and Clifton 10 carry each shoe’s figures and sources, and Arahi 8 vs 9 and Clifton 10 vs 11 cover what changed in each line. For the Arahi against HOKA’s other shoes, see Bondi vs Arahi and Gaviota vs Arahi; for heel pain across the range, HOKA shoes for plantar fasciitis.

Page type: spec comparison · No shoe purchased, provided or tested · Last verified 28 September 2026 · Tom Biernacki, DPM, FACFAS — NPI 1821330051

Sourced, not guessed

Recently reviewed

Individual shoe pages state their evidence tier, published measurements and who should skip them.

Saucony

Saucony Endorphin Speed 5

Spec Analysis

Light plated neutral trainer. Saucony publishes both stack heights and they match its 8 mm drop — not yet tested.

$175Not scoredRegular / Wide

HOKA

HOKA Mach 6

Spec Analysis

Lower, firmer neutral HOKA. HOKA publishes a 5 mm drop and neither stack height — not yet tested.

Not scored

ASICS

ASICS Novablast 5

Spec Analysis

Bouncy high-stack neutral. ASICS publishes an 8 mm drop and neither stack height — not yet tested.

Not scoredStandard / Wide / Extra Wide

All reviews

Our funding and evidence policy

We earn affiliate commissions from qualifying purchases. Our policy is to assess published evidence and fit needs rather than rank products by commission rate. Current reviews are specification analyses; see our method for their limits.

Browse the reviewsHow we assess shoes