Article by Reed Breuer, Renee Krusemark, Mike Postaski and Sam Winebaum
Salomon Aero Glide 3 GRVL ($160)
Introduction
Sam: These days gravel or “GRVL” is all the rage in cycling and now running. Not smooth pavement and not really trail. “gravel” can be thought of as those roads and trails that are smooth but with some gravel and bumps along the way requiring a bit more traction than a road shoe. By and large gravel oriented shoes have additional traction and a somewhat more supportive upper than their road counterparts.
This is exactly what Salomon has done with the Aero Glide 3 GRVL. They take their new high stack, very light, supercritical TPU foam Aero Glide 3 road shoe (RTR Review) and added more substantial traction (for sure needed even on road compared to the Aero Glide road’s shaky wet traction) and a somewhat more substantial upper (again even with its road focus the Aero Glide 3 could use more support). Read our review to find out how it turned out as we ran “gravel” and more in California, Utah, Idaho, Nebraska and New Hampshire.
Pros:
Strong stack/weight ratio: Renee/Reed/Sam/Mike P
Comfortable upper and midsole: Renee/Reed/Sam/Mike P
Comfortable lockdown and lacing: Reed
No speed-laces!: Reed
Bouncy & fun midsole! Mike P
Cons:
Too soft for uneven terrain: Renee/Reed/Sam/Mike P
Lugs not pronounced enough for almost any mud: Reed/Renee
Upper foothold/security is not there given stack height and softness of midsole, could use more midfoot support for trail: Sam/Mike P
Deep central carveout helps reduce weight & increases softness/bounce but hinders trail stability: Sam
Not usable in moderate+ trails (without extreme caution): Mike P
Most comparable shoes
Aero Glide 3
Scarpa Golden Gate ATR 2
Pegasus Trail 5
Saucony Ride TR
Hoka Challenger ATR 7
On Cloudsurfer Trail
Hoka Mafate X
Asics Novablast TR
Please find the testers full run bios at the end of the article after Comparisons.
Stats
Approx. Weight: men's 9.45 oz / 268g
Sample Weights:
men’s 9.2 oz / 261g US8.5, 10.5 oz / 297g US M11, 9.7 oz / 276g US 9.5
women’s 8.92 oz / 253g (right) 8.59 oz / 243g (left) US8
Stack Height: men’s 40mm heel / 32mm forefoot (mm drop spec)
Platform Width: 90mm heel / 75mm midfoot / 110mm forefoot US8.5
First Impressions, Fit and Upper
Reed: Having not worn a Salomon road shoe for several years, and having only worn a couple of their trail shoes of the last couple years, the Aero Glide 3 GRVL really stands out right away. It’s thick, it’s soft, it’s light, it’s American for sure. Immediately upon lacing up the shoe you get the impression that comfort was the priority. The fully gusseted neoprene-ish upper settles nicely over my foot and the laces secure easily.
Looking at the upper you’d think it leaned more trail/hybrid but it feels like a typical max cushion road trainer upper. The toe bumper is not overly tough although I question why it’s necessary at all. The forefoot is adequately roomy although not wide - my low-volume foot has plenty of room but also feels secure in the shoe without needing to fuss with the lacing too much. The heel counter is highly cushioned and very comfortable. It’s not stiff but has enough structure to secure the heel in place atop the high stack of soft foam.
Renee: Reed has a good description of the upper. The security is more road focused than trail, and that’s the shoe’s intended terrain. For gravel running, think more of smooth bike paths than hilly, rough roads. The upper is comfortable but it doesn’t have the overlays or security for anything uneven. For sizing, I suggest looking at the EU size instead of US sizing. My women’s size 8 runs long and it’s an EU 40, which is a larger size than most US to EU sizes. If between half sizes, definitely go with the shorter size.
Mike P: Coming of the somewhat disappointing testing of the S/LAB Ultra Glide (possibly due to over-hype), the initial step in feel of the Aero Glide GRVL was a pure revelation! I knew right away that the new Energy Foam EVO is clearly something special. We saw this type of beaded TPU setup across Salomon’s model line at TRE (Aero Blaze, Pulsar Trail) - but seeing it, and feeling it in hand, does not do justice to the step in feel!
So soft, so much bounce, very light weight! I probably should be talking about this down in the midsole section, but this was really my honest FIRST impression of the shoe. The thing that popped into my mind was that if the Relieve Spheres of the S/LAB Ultra Glide were a bit of a miss, this new Salomon midsole will be a HIT!
Reed and Renee have covered the details of the upper, so I’ll just reiterate that it does seem more road or “gravel” focused in terms of foothold and stability. With comfort all around, it’s pretty apparent that it’s not really designed for technical trails, or even moderate trails for that matter.. More on that in the Ride section later on.
As far as sizing, I’m ok with a US 9.5, as I was in the Ultra Glide - the uppers are somewhat similar in that there’s a plushness to them on the inside, especially the neoprene tongue setup.
I think that design works here for a “gravel”-oriented shoe, but I think it’s too insecure for the more trail-focused Ultra Glide. I detect a touch of pinky side pressure as I get with some Salomon toeboxes, but it didn’t turn out to be a bother on any of my test runs, just noticeable.
The foot does sink in a bit to the soft eTPU, so that likely saves it from being an issue. I would recommend sticking with true to size in these, as sizing up would likely make the shoe feel even less secure than it already is.
Sam: The others have said it well. The GRVL is for sure more road (smooth dirt and pavement) focused than trail focused. The deep 40/32 stack height, soft bouncy foam, deep central carveout and comfortable, soft and lightly supportive upper all point to the roads more than the trails.
Yes, the upper with its additional overlays and more foot holding tongue is more supportive than the road Aero Glide 3 (RTR Review) but Salomon might have chosen a less pliable, more debris type mesh here to improve trail foothold performance.
While the ankle collars look substantial they are soft and quite pliable (and for sure super comfortable) with the heel counter semi rigid, and even with the rising midsole Active Chassis side walls, I wish for more rear structure for trail uses.
The toe bumper while substantial looking and extensive is quite soft and pliable
The fit is true to size for me, very soft on the foot and comfortable with no issues for road gravel uses and is somewhat more supportive than the Aero Glide 3’s but more road than any kind of more technical trails focused. I would not size up here even with a wider higher volume foot and there is plenty of give to the upper.
Midsole & Platform
Reed: I tested these shoes without knowing any details about the new Energy Foam EVO it feels like this is just a higher cushion trainer using a bouncy but not responsive foam such as expanded TPU. And that is what the midsole is an expanded beads supercritical eTPU foam. It reminds me of the Saucony Triumph or Craft Pro Endur (now called Endurance 2.0). Specs say the midsole is Salomon’s Energy Foam and I’m not sure if they produce it in varying densities or with different foaming mechanisms (this looks like a beaded foam which differs from other Salomon Energy Foam formulations I’ve seen). In any case, the Energy Foam used here feels bouncy and energetic. In road shoe terms, the broad but not overly wide platform has enough inherent stability to satisfy most people regardless of gait. Trail stability is another topic for later!
Renee: I agree with Reed about the midsole feeling bouncy not responsive. Actually, “overly soft” works as a better descriptor than bouncy. I can see how the shoe would be a great option for easy runs or long runs when comfort and softness is needed underfoot. Between the stack and softness, it’s not a shoe I can wear to pick up the pace. Those qualities also make the shoe uncomfortable on uneven surfaces, which I discuss more in the ride section. It’s not all bad news: if you need comfort underfoot on smooth, buff surfaces, the Glide GRVL is a great choice.
Mike P: As I talked about earlier - the midsole is where the magic happens here - A quite thick slab of Energy Foam EVO - 40/32mm, yet incredibly flexible throughout. No interference from carrier foams or any type of plate. Even the outsole the way it is set up - flexes so much as to not interfere with the bounciness of the eTPU foam.
I find this shoe, and specifically the feel of the midsole extremely pleasing to run on - in the right context of course. I pushed them a little bit in some rockier and certainly uneven terrain during my last test run (Check it out @HumbleRunning!), and was keenly aware of their limitations. The midsole just wants to bounce in any direction, and combined with the more comfort-oriented upper, it really is best suited to flatter or at least level trails.
The incredible aspect of this midsole is how Salomon was able to keep the weight so low (9.7 oz is very good for 40/32mm underfoot) while maintaining that TPU bounce, and at the same time not feeling like it’s bottoming out.
Sam: Salomon’s new eTPU Energy Foam EVO for sure makes the GRVL a light shoe for its big 40/32 stack height. Soft and very energetic, it feels like other TPU foams (such as Saucony PWRRUN+) in its bouncy return that also seems to "escape" the sides of the midsole somewhat, so it is not particularly “taut” or stable in feel.
The light weight of the shoe at 9.2 oz / 261g US8.5 for so much stack height is for sure felt on the run. It is fun to run on smooth surfaces for sure if even they’re not particularly stable.
The feeling of energetic softness is accentuated by the deep central carveout underfoot. I think, while fine on road, filling this area in or making the foam slightly firmer/ denser would improve trail performance.
The rear rising “Active Chassis” foam sidewalls do help stabilize initial heel landings somewhat but I would not call the GRVL a stability/support focused platform, and even on road, where most dedicated trail shoes are stable.
Outsole
Reed: I’m sure Salomon faced internal debate over the outsole for this model. They settled on what appear to be 2mm chevron lugs all around the outer rim of the shoe with some small hexagonal dots forming a waffle pattern under the forefoot.
There’s probably no winning anyway because everybody is going to interpret what a “gravel shoe” should be based on their own environment. In the cycling industry where “gravel” was popularized as a category, the bikes really aren’t meant for actual loose gravel because no tire pattern can grip a loose surface of small rocks.
Gravel bikes are road bikes with modified tires and geometry that mostly function as road bikes that have the capability to tackle rougher roads and occasionally a trail that you wouldn’t dare to take your road bike on. I think the Aero Glide 3 GRVL actually suits that category very accurately, which means it doesn’t quite fit the mold of typical “hybrid” trail/road running shoes.
Like gravel bikes, the Aero Glide 3 GRVL is a road shoe with good marketing. It has no more “trail” features than many road daily trainers across the industry, but I’d argue it’s an incredible all-road daily trainer. I haven’t tested the non-gravel Aero Glide 3 but I would guess that I could use the GRVL version for anything the road version would do, and more.
Renee: Reed has a good discussion about the semantics of a gravel shoe, and why not have that discussion in the outsole section! In the case of the Aero Glide 3 GRVL it’s not the same as most hybrid or road-to-trail shoes (see the comparison list). This is a road shoe with slightly larger lugs than the road version. The shoe won’t be capable of terrain that the road-specific version can’t also handle. That’s not the outsole’s fault, it’s a combination of the outsole, soft midsole, stack, and upper. In terms of traction, there might be some but I couldn’t notice given the midsole’s softness. Not the best for mud, to state the obvious. Gravel won’t get trapped in between the lugs because they are so small, so there’s an asset there. Mud will trap in the cutout area however.
Sam: The outsole with its bars provides decent traction for its intended gravel uses while not getting in the way or being overly present on pavement. The coverage is around the perimeter with the big central cutout exposed. While this approach softens the ride and gives the GRVL good flexibility in combination with the soft foam it impactsm rougher trail stability and utility.
Mike P: I think “gravel” trail running is “a thing” in the sense that - trail running shoes do have lugs for a reason. I find that on the sandy and dirt trails that I often run on, even a small amount of lug depth underfoot is preferable to a flat road outsole. You get that here at 2.5mm - it’s not at all designed for technical or even moderate trails - so take that into consideration.
I like the design of what I’d call “bike tire rails” along the edges of the shoe. With the midsole being so flexy, I find that those rails - especially on the lateral side on my foot landing - contour well over the ground and give a smooth landing. Of course this is not a great feature for a lot of rougher trails, but again, context (GRVL).
Ride, Conclusions and Recommendations
Ride (50%): Fit (30%): Value (15%): Style (5%):
New Smiles Fun Score! Out of 5 This score is about how pleasing/fun the experience is on the run, or in the case of race type shoes how effective it is to race.
😊😊😊😊😊(copy paste as many smiles as you need)
Renee: The Glide GRVL will work best for very smooth or buffed gravel or dirt. The midsole is soft, so I did not find the ride comfortable on rough or uneven gravel or service roads. Same with muddy or soft surfaces: the midsole is too soft to maintain a solid landing on anything remotely uneven. The Glide GRVL is best only for very well maintained roads or gravel (see photo below).
I would not recommend the GRVL for single track trail. The shoe can handle some rough landings, as in thick service road rock or snow, but running several miles of that type of surface is not comfortable. My longest run with the shoe was only 14 miles for that reason. The midsole stack is comfortable enough for long distances, but only on smooth terrain.
I see a value in gravel specific shoes because I live on gravel roads and hardly ever run pavement. When the roads are maintained, I use a road shoe. When they are rough, I use a trail shoe. Gravel shoes might occupy a small middle ground of being useful in summer months.
I recommend the GRVL for those who are looking for a soft midsole, easy day shoe on smooth terrain. For scoring I’m factoring in criteria that I would expect from a shoe meant for more than paved roads.
Renee’s Score: 8.6/10
Ride 8, Fit 9, Traction 8.5, Value 8.5, Style 9
Sam : The GRVL is clearly a “road” shoe, with improved traction. Light, fun and energetic on very smooth trails and roads it struggles off the beaten path. And that is OK as Salomon has plenty of other trail focused shoes and in the category of road and trail versatility the excellent S/Lab Ultra Glide and Glide Max. Its ride can be said to join others in the “fun” road shoe category (light and energetic) such as ASICS Novablast or Mizuno Neo Zen but here with additional traction.
Salomon’s very light. soft and bouncy eTPU Energy Foam EVO sure gets bigger firm surfaces smiles from me than their older Energy Foam (EVA/OBC) blend but as implemented here (deep central carveout and peripheral outsole) it keeps the GRVL off all but smooth trails for me. The comfort focus is accentuated by the soft and quite unstructured upper. A less stretchy and pliable upper mesh, slightly denser foam and/or changes to the underfoot geometry I think could go a long way towards mitigating the underfoot softness and relative instability, thus increasing the shoe’s versatility.
Compared to the road focused Aero Glide I see the GRVL as improved in foot hold and somewhat in stability given its outsole and of the two I prefer the GRVL even on road and even if it weighs somewhat more.
If you are looking for a super comfortable bouncy light ride for mellow terrain, city park runs, rail trails and speed walking it is a fine choice.
Sam’s Score: 9.1 / 10
Scoring as a “mostly” road (be it pavement or smooth dirt) shoe. Deductions for underfoot softness/ Instability and upper hold for off road uneven terrain uses which limits its versatility
Reed: I agree with Renee’s assessment that the GRVL does not handle uneven footing well. If your local trails have very few rocks and no steep grades, this shoe will fare fine in dry conditions (as would most road trainers). I’m sure I will wear these in the summer here in Auburn, CA with our famously non-technical trails with little issue. The last couple summers I wore road shoes frequently on our trails for both easy runs and workout days, and the GRVL will be another easy choice to grab for any of my regular routes.
Road Score: 9.13 /10
Ride 9.0, Fit 9.5, Value 9.0, Style 8.5 (Reed)
Trail Score: 8.53 /10
Ride 9.0, Fit 9.5, Value 9.0, Style 8.5, Traction 5.0, Rock Protection 9.0,
Mike P: I’m on board the GRVL train - at least the way that Salomon has formulated it here with this Aero Glide 3 variety. Take a really fun road shoe, slab some light lugs on it for easy-ish trails, don’t overdo the upper, and keep the weight down. If those are the aspects you would want in a “gravel” shoe for trail running - I think Salomon nails it here.
Yes, there are a few aspects of the shoe that could be improved. I think they could do a touch more for stability without gaining weight. Maybe some overlays or something different around the midfoot to at least feel a bit better security there. Perhaps it’s just too difficult given the soft/bouncy nature of the midsole underneath. They could also round out the toebox a bit - I can see some feeling that Salomon pinky-side pinch with these.
But all-in-all, this is one of the most fun shoes you can run in - the feel underfoot is just that good. Light trails, rail trails, door-to-trail, gravel, whatever you want to call it - this is an excellent and for me, top pick for that type of running. If you want to veer off and have some range into legit trails, you’ll need something else, and there are many options out there. But Salomon nails this one, and I can’t wait to see how they incorporate this foam into other models.
Mike P’s Score: 9.28 / 10
Ride: 10 - Love that eTPU bounce!
Fit: 8 - Definitely leans comfort over security
Value: 10 - Very fun shoe at a decent price point
Style: 10 - Looks cool, can’t wait to see other colors!
Traction: 9.5 - Good for gravel and light trails, contours well
Rock Protection: 9.5 - Deep midsole soaks up gravel, steer clear of real rocks
Smiles 😊😊😊😊😊
10 Comparisons
Aero Glide 3 (RTR Review)
Sam: The road Glide 3 shares the same midsole foam. stack height and platform with, general outsole layout and upper fit. A lighter shoe, It differs in having a less supportive and yet more comfortable upper especially a midfoot and a less aggressive outsole which I found had not that great forefoot grip on wet surfaces. It is clearly pure road whereas the GRVL can venture a bit further off the pavement. Prefer the GRVL in this match up.
S/Lab Ultra Glide (RTR Review)
Sam: For me both play in the same more mellow trails to roads with some gravel thrown in although Salomon positions the Ultra Glide as their more mellow paces ultra shoe. No contest for me here, Ultra Glide and this despite its $90 higher price tag. While a combination of Salomon’s older Energy Foam as the outer carrier with a core of Energy Foam +, a different I believe PEBA foam instead of the EVO supercritical TPU making up the whole midsole of the GRVL.
The ride is more stable on a 1mm higher stack height and same 6mm drop and I found more consistent as the foams stay better in control than the GRVL with the Relieve Spheres underfoot conforming better to terrain and pavement for a smoother ride while the full rubber coverage without deep cutout is more stable.. Its upper does the job on trails just fine if not quite very technical trails ideal due to the high platform. While the GRVL is more bouncy and “exciting” it is less practical and versatile. Bottom line for me the S/Lab is superior on both trail and road like surfaces although its high pricing is hard to swallow and I have concerns about its front outsole durability.
VJ Flow (RTR Review)
Sam: The VJ Flow is lower stack (35/30) and closer to 1 oz lighter, is more flexible and more agile and has superior traction.
Also with a supercritical foam midsole and I found a somewhat springier rather than bouncier one than the GRVL, it is less cushioned due to its lower stack height and more extensive outsole which is “felt” on hard surfaces. Its upper is considerably more secure than the more mellow GRVL’s. The VJ is a better “trail” shoe, particularly if traction is important (snow, mud) than the Salomon snf for speedy shorter runs while the GRVL is a better road and mellow gravel trails and roads shoe.
Renee: I agree with Sam. The VJ Flow has better ground feel because of the stack and firmer midsole, plus the bigger lugs are suitable for actual trail. It’s not nearly as comfortable underfoot though. I’d suggest the GRVL for easy or long runs on smooth terrain and Flow for light hiking. The GRVL ran a half size longer for me.
Scarpa Golden Gate ATR 2 (RTR Review)
Renee: The GG is advertised as a hybrid shoe, but it’s great for trail thanks to the ground feel and nimble ride. The shoe doesn’t offer much protection. If needing stack height, the GRVL is the better choice but at the cost of being uncomfortable on anything but smooth roads. The GRVL runs almost a half size longer. Of note, I enjoyed the GG for gravel running much more.
Sam: Agree with Renee. The Golden Gate for sure leans more trail due to its more secure upper and firmer (but not too firm) ride. It is a better choice if your “door to trail” runs involve more real and more technical trails than the more road and longer distances and smooth terrain oriented GRVL.
Nike Pegasus Trail 5 (RTR Review)
Reed: The Peg Trail is a firmer and more versatile option with less cushion and a traditional ride. The AG3 GRVL is a worse trail shoe but better road shoe.
Renee: The Peg Trail 5 is more versatile for trail use as it is closer to the ground and has a firmer midsole. I found the previous Peg Trail 4 to be good for single track too, although v5 less so because it lost some stability. As Reed wrote, the GRVL is a better choice for smooth roads. Sizing is similar with the GRVL being slighter longer.
Saucony Ride TR (RTR Review)
Renee: Probably the closest comparison. The Ride 15 TR is basically a road shoe with some small lugs, and so is the GRVL. The midsole of the RIde 15 TR is firmer than the GRVL so I found it more useful and more stable on uneven terrain. Neither shoe is great for single track trails. Sizing is similar, with the GRVL running a bit longer.
Hoka Challenger 7 (RTR Review)
Reed: The Challenger has been my go-to choice for easy trails the last two years. The AG3 GRVL is roomier all-around with more of a road focused upper. The GRVL is softer but both feel very smooth and efficient. If you really need the hybrid road-to-trail shoe go with the Challenger but if you really just need a road trainer for a mix of dirt and paved roads, go for the Salomon.
Renee: The Challenger has enough stack and protection for an ultra and with the firm midsole, it’s much better for trail than the GRVL. I don’t find the Challenger useful for moderate or smooth terrain so the GRVL has a slight advantage for that terrain. Sizing is probably similar. I have a 7.5 in the Challenger and my size 8 GRVL felt too long.
On Cloudsurfer Trail (RTR Review)
Reed: These two options share almost the same functionality but you get more bounce and cushion with the GRVL. The upper and lockdown is noticeably better with the GRVL. For those who fear the higher stack, the Cloudsurfer Trail can handle the same conditions at the same price.
Renee: I agree with Reed. The Surfer Trail has a soft midsole but not as soft as the GRVL. Stability is better in the Surfer Trail but neither are great for actual trail or uneven surfaces. For softness and stack on road, the GRVL has an edge. For everything else, including casual and walking use, the Surfer. Sizing is comparable with the GRVL running a bit longer.
Hoka Mafate X (RTR Initial Video Review)
Reed: TBD if this is truly meant for gravel. With the extra $65 you’re getting a more aggressive outsole, a carbon plate, and a combo of EVA with a PEBA core. The GRVL is more pleasant and easy-going and I reckon it’ll be more comfortable over the long haul on a gravel or dirt road. No plate needed.
Asics Novablast TR
Reed: Another very similar choice and arguably in the same category. No major differences in fit or function here but you’d get slightly better traction, security, and durability in the Salomon.
Tester Profiles
Reed Breuer, 32 years old from Auburn, CA. Reed began running at age 18 and did the classic track/cross country route through college. After college he ran a couple road marathons and started racing on trails in 2017. He moved from Sacramento to Auburn in 2023 to live closer to the historic Western States 100 course and he primarily trains and races on trails from 50k to 100mi. He has run a 15:28 5k and 2:28 marathon and is locally competitive in races of any surface or distance. He manages a local running shoe store and is starting a coaching business on the side (capital-endurance.com). He is a closeted heel-striker and over-pronator with a very low-volume foot.
Renee is a former U.S. Marine journalist, which is when her enjoyment of running and writing started. She isn’t that awesome of a runner, but she tries really hard. Most of her weekly 50-60 miles take place on rural country roads in Nebraska, meaning mud, gravel, dirt, hills, and the occasional field. She has PR’s of 1:30:59 for the half marathon and 3:26:45 for the marathon.
Mike Postaski currently focuses on long mountainous ultras - anywhere from 50K up to his favorite - 100M. 5'10", 138 lbs, midfoot/forefoot striker - he typically averages 70 mpw (mostly on trails), ramping up to 100+ mpw during race buildups. A recent 2:39 road marathoner, his easy running pace ranges from 7:30 - 9:00/mi. From 2022-23 Mike has won the Standhope 100M, IMTUF 100M, and Scout Mountain 100M trail ultras, winning the Scout 50M in 2024. He also set a CR of 123.74M at the Pulse Endurance Runs 24H and completed the Boise Trails Challenge on foot in 3 days 13 hours, besting the previous record by 7 hours. Mike's shoe preferences lean towards firmer, dense cushioning, and shoes with narrower profiles. He prefers extra forefoot space, especially for long ultras, and he strongly dislikes pointy toe boxes.
Sam is the Editor and Founder of Road Trail Run. He is in his 60’s with 2025 Sam’s 53th year of running roads and trails. He has a decades old 2:28 marathon PR. These days he runs halves in the just sub 1:40 range if he gets very, very lucky. Sam trains 30-40 miles per week mostly at moderate paces on the roads and trails of New Hampshire and Utah be it on the run, hiking or on nordic skis. He is 5’9” tall and weighs about 160 lbs, if he is not enjoying too many fine New England IPA’s.
