It appears to be more like a lighter version of the Cortana. I have the Cortana, and the Clifton and the Clifton is more cushioned.
FWIW, I alternate between the Clifton and Kinvara 5 now depending on a variety of things but still occasionally run in the Cortana.

---

A false humanity is used to impose its opposite, by people whose cruelty is equalled only by their arrogance

What are you running in now? I assume it is a less cushioned running shoe. If you generally like that feel I would go with the Cortana/Zealot. If you don't want to feel the surface at all and want zero flexibility in the sole then the Hoka would be more for you. Try them both out. I wanted to like the Hoka (I have a lot of friends who swear by them) but I actually hate them a lot.

I've tried the Kinvara 4 and 5 and most recently the Saucony Mirage. I'm looking for a shoe to mix in for longer runs to reduce some of the pounding since im not a small guy (6'4 195lb). I like the 4mm drop but would like a little more cushion since 100% of my runs are on either concrete or ashphalt.

Which Hoka did you try?

If that's the case, give the Clifton a try if you like the fit. They made it easier on me last year when I started adding more 25 to 30 k weekly runs.

---

A false humanity is used to impose its opposite, by people whose cruelty is equalled only by their arrogance

The Clifton and the Huaca. I don't think the model really matters, the "rocker" motion they induce and the incredibly inflexible sole are non-starters for me. The flexible sole is a biggie for me, I tried the New Balance fresh foam 980s after both the male and female winners at Kona wore them, even those were just ever slightly too stiff. I don't want the sole to fight me, my foot is going to land how it is going to land regardless of the shoe I wear, it either moves with me like a tire or it doesn't. The Saucony Kinvara, Newton Distance S III, Saucony Perregrine, and the Newton Sir Isaac are examples of shoes that give the type of compliance I am talking about. If I am using the wrong words, I apologize, I am not a shoe reviewer.

To the OP, I am about the same weight as you and I had the same idea that I needed to get a more built up shoe (hence trying the Hoka) but that endeavor was basically fruitless.

I am on my second pair of Cliftons and have put close to 100 miles on the Zealots. How they compare? Not at all. Incomparable. Where to start? First of all, don't think for one second that the Zealots are maximum cushion shoes the way the Cliftons are. The Cliftons are soft, very soft ... for the better or worse. The Zealots are firm. Compared to a Kinvara 4, they don't feel much softer. But they are more cushioned than the Kinvaras. They won't beat up your legs as much. Easy to feel the difference after a 20 mile run. The fit of the Zealots is sensational. The best fitting shoe I ever owned. It really is fun to run in them. You are in contact with the road. For me, neither the Clifton nor the Bondi fits particularly well no matter the size. They feel clunky even though the Clifton in particular feels very springy. And the Clifton has the huge problem that after about 100 miles, the shoe has plastically adapted to the shape of my foot. But not in a good way. They feel worn out and they look worn out as the outer sole is virtually gone. But the first 50 miles in them is a very sweet ride. OK ... I will stop my rambling. For me ... Zealots over Cliftons any day. But to compare them directly is a difficult thing to do.

I've been looking for a more cushioned shoe too. I've liked the Peregrine and Mirage but I'm currently in a Hurricane 15 because I'm getting back to running after a broken ankle. I wouldn't mind even more pillow.

I like the cokehead-colorway and 4mm drop of the orange Zealot, but the one I'm tempted to actually maybe buy is the Hurricane ISO because it's thicker (right?). Anyone have thoughts on that one?

Alex

Don't mistake soft for shock absorption. The way a shoe feels and the way a shoe protects you from the beating of running on roads is not the same thing. The Zealot has a much more developed cushioning system than the Clifton. I love the Clifton, but it has a specific purpose in my eyes. There is no supplemental cushioning in the Clifton. I have not run in the Zealot. I have run a lot in the new Triumph, which is basically an 8mm drop Zealot. I love the Triumph. Either Saucony should be much more durable than the Clifton.

---

Brian

I'd suggest owning both and rotating them. I still rotate my Kinvaras with my Bondi, Clifton and a few other shoes near the end of their life. Some days I like the road feel of a Kinvara, but others I want maximum cushioning. The Clifton gives light weight AND maximum cushioning. I think some days you want more shock, for that type of adaptation. It depends on what you want to get out of your runs. But too much of any 1 type of stimulus will lead to overuse injuries.

The zealot to me just looks like a slightly lighter Cortana with the "ISO" foam. The Clifton is still slightly lighter FWIM so it has a little more versatility as you can race it in for Marathon+ if you want the extra cushioning.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

It's funny how we all interpret the different shoes out that there. Cliftons have bff rem my long run and easy run shoe all winter and the first shoe I have kept over 300 miles. I can't get a good tempo run out of them, that's where the NB fresh foam zante has helped me...great shorter distance, fast shoe for tempo and int runs.

Just got a pair of Newton a has. Love/hate with Newton...love how they make me run fast set but hate how they beat up my thighs and hips. Looking forward to the Distance 4 to see how the new pop1 plus will feel.

How many miles did you put on the Clifton? Thinking about giving these a try when I swing by the shop.

700 km so far.

---

A false humanity is used to impose its opposite, by people whose cruelty is equalled only by their arrogance