Nike Zoom Fly 5 vs Puma Deviate Nitro 2: Two Plated Daily Trainers With Very Different Execution

Introduction

Some running shoe comparisons are more interesting than they look. The Nike Zoom Fly 5 and the Puma Deviate Nitro 2 appear, at first glance, to be near-equals: both are plated training shoes built around each brand’s flagship midsole foam. You would expect them to do a similar job. In practice, the execution is very different, and that difference shapes everything about how each shoe runs.

Two Similar Shoes on Paper

The pricing is close. In the UK the Puma Deviate Nitro 2 costs 140 pounds and the Nike Zoom Fly 5 costs 145 pounds; both sit at 160 dollars in the US. Both have an 8 millimeter drop. The similarities largely end there.

The Puma is the lighter shoe at 276 grams (9.7 ounces) in a UK size 9, with a 36.5 millimeter heel stack. The Zoom Fly 5 weighs around 315 grams (11 ounces) in a UK size 8.5, with a heel stack that looks to be at or slightly above 40 millimeters. So the Nike is heavier and taller, while the Puma is a touch leaner.

Design and Construction

The Puma Deviate Nitro 2 uses a mesh upper with modest heel padding and Puma’s power tape for structure and support. The midsole layers two foams: Puma’s Nitro Elite foam on top, their top-tier PEVA-based foam used in the Deviate Nitro Elite and Fast-R racing shoes, with standard nitrogen-infused Nitro foam underneath at the heel and wrapping around the forefoot. A power plate, a carbon composite blend of 70 percent carbon and 30 percent TPU, runs the length of the shoe. The outsole combines Puma Grip ATR at the heel, an all-terrain compound for light trails, with standard Puma Grip at the front, a reliably grippy material on road.

The Zoom Fly 5 takes a simpler route. It has a standard mesh upper with a separate tongue, plushly padded around the tongue and collar, a clear sign it is built as a trainer rather than a speed shoe. The midsole pairs a recycled ZoomX foam core, visible through a window in the outsole, with Nike’s SR-02 EVA carrier foam. There is a full-length plate and an outsole with good forefoot and heel coverage.

Fit and Sizing

Both shoes run true to size. The Deviate Nitro 2 fit well in a normal size with no concerns, and the Zoom Fly 5 also works well true to size, even though the tested pair was half a size down and still fit acceptably.

On the Run: Puma Deviate Nitro 2

Here is the interesting part: the Deviate Nitro 2 is a grower. Out of the box it feels a bit dull and lifeless, not the fun, bouncy ride you might expect from flagship foam and a plate. But once you accept it as a versatile, practical daily trainer, it quickly earns its place.

It turned out to be quicker than expected. It handled track reps, canal towpath intervals, and a steady 10-miler mostly on light trails. The excellent outsole means you can do fast sessions wherever you like, even on paths that are a bit muddy or slick, while the road ride still delivers a genuinely quick feel.

The ride is traditional rather than exciting. There is not a huge amount of bounce and the rocker is not especially smooth, but the shoe simply kept working in workouts, normal runs, and even slow easy runs. The main caveat: it may not be comfortable enough for extended long runs at slow paces, where a more cushioned shoe or a plateless option like the Velocity Nitro makes more sense.

On the Run: Nike Zoom Fly 5

The Zoom Fly 5 moves even further away from the speed shoe idea. It is heavy and somewhat clunky, feels big on the foot, and does not offer a natural ride when you try to push the pace. The rocker never quite flows.

The recycled ZoomX core is less bouncy than fresh ZoomX, and there does not seem to be much of it. You do not really feel the plate when moving quickly, so there is no energetic, propulsive ride, just protection and support. The outsole is good, allowing the occasional stray onto larger trails, though it is not as capable as the Puma’s.

The one area where it genuinely works is long, slow, relaxed runs, where the big stack of foam feels comfortable and protective. But even there, plenty of shoes do the job better, and if that run goes multi-terrain, the Puma still wins. The odd part is that this year’s big design upgrade seemingly made the shoe slower and less lively than before, and it is hard to see what it is really for.

The Verdict

This one is close to a no-brainer. The Deviate Nitro 2 is the clear winner and a much more capable shoe all round. It is practical, it handles a wide range of daily training including speedier sessions, and its reliable grip adds versatility on wet pavement and light trails alike. It rewards patience: the more you run in it, the more you warm to it.

The Zoom Fly 5 has less to offer. Its best case is the long slow relaxed run, where the tall foam stack provides comfort and protection, but the foam gives little energy back and better options exist for that role. Within Nike’s own range, the Pegasus is better, cheaper, and more versatile, the Pegasus Turbo Next Nature is faster, and cushioned options like the Invincible and Invincible 3 cover the easy-run role. It is hard to find the Zoom Fly 5’s place.

Where Each Shoe Fits in a Rotation

The Deviate Nitro 2 slots naturally into a rotation. It sits alongside Puma’s lighter, more propulsive carbon shoes like the Deviate Nitro Elite and the Fast-R, and pairs well with a more cushioned shoe such as the Magnify Nitro for when you want extra comfort on longer runs. It handles a good range of paces and terrain and is a very good daily trainer on its own terms.

Note that plated shoes like these are moving toward the daily trainer category. Something like the Saucony Endorphin Speed 3 is arguably a better all-rounder for many runners, but it is lighter, has less grip, and is more speed focused. These two are built to handle the rigors of daily training, and only one of them does it well.

Conclusion

If you are choosing between the two, the Puma Deviate Nitro 2 is the easy pick: a versatile plated daily trainer with an outstanding outsole that covers workouts, easy miles, and light trails. The Nike Zoom Fly 5, despite its impressive name-brand foam and plate, feels heavy and unfocused, and there are better options for every job it tries to do.