Vans UltraRange 2.0 vs UltraRange EXO (OG Model)

Better for Cross-Training: UltraRange 2.0

The 2.0’s wider fit and structure make it a more stable and secure performer in dynamic settings. Where the EXO’s limitations in lateral stability come into play, the 2.0 has added more structure without sacrificing flexibility.

Better for Short Runs: Tie

The 2.0 is slightly heavier, and the improvements to the rubber outsole add to its durability. The durability improvements don’t quite give the 2.0 a clear edge when it comes to runs. With the same UltraCush foam midsole, the two are evenly matched for runs.

Better for Casual Wear: UltraRange 2.0

The wider forefoot and upgraded materials make it a more comfortable, durable option for daily use.

Sizing & Fit Suggestions and Differences

These shoes fit drastically differently, and depending on the variation that you go with, this will influence sizing even more. What I mean by that is each shoe’s upper will vary regarding weight and structure, so fit can vary a little bit. When in doubt, drop a comment below for advice or reach out.

EXO Specs:

• Heel-to-Toe Drop: 7mm
• Weight: 10.08 oz (size 10)
• Upper: Mesh with TPU overlays (EXO, specifically)
• Insole: Non-removable

2.0 Specs:

• Heel-to-Toe Drop: 7mm
• Weight: 11.85 oz
• Upper: Suede overlays over mesh with a light TPU layer in-between in some areas
• Insole: Non-removable

Sizing and Fit Recommendations:

• Narrow (<D) Width Feet: True to size
• Medium (D) Width Feet: True to size
• E/EE Width Feet: True to size on the 2.0, width on the EXO may be snug
• 3E+ Width Feet: Size up a half size in 2.0, for EXO…don’t even bother

The UltraRange EXO and 2.0 both fit relatively true to size in terms of length. 

The EXO runs narrow, particularly in the forefoot. Its low-volume upper can feel restrictive, especially for users with wider feet or higher insteps. The result is a shoe that fits fine lengthwise but can feel constricting in terms of overall foot volume.

The 2.0 addresses these issues with a roomier upper and a wider forefoot. That said, the upper volume can still feel snug initially, though the suede does break in with wear.

Performance Analysis

These shoes have been tested similarly across the board to better draw conclusions about how their outsoles grip, uppers lock down the feet, and midsoles promote stability. This gives us the best means possible to help you get into the proper shoe for your training and daily use tasks.

Lifting Showdown: Tie

Neither model is designed for heavy lifting. The UltraCush foam midsole that runs throughout, while comfortable and stable, will bottom out under heavier load. Neither shoe is going to be your go-to for heavier barbell work.

For general strength and hypertrophy work, both models perform adequately well. Where they both benefit, is the diamond rubber outsole. For machine work, lighter dumbbell and kettlebell work, the EXO and 2.0 are going to be a solid, all-around training shoe.

Cross-Training Assessment: 2.0

This is where the 2.0’s improvements truly stand out. The wider forefoot and added support on the lateral and medial sides make this shoe a bit more stable when you start moving laterally.

The denser outsole still has enough breaks in it to be flexible and pliable, and the UltraCush foam midsole gives the right amount of bounce and responsiveness to make light cross-training work feel great.

On top of this, I don’t think the 2.0 is going to break as easily as the EXO did with the forefoot TPU, either peeling off or the mesh ripping at the toe break.

Short Runs: Tie

Short runs and intervals are areas where either shoe will get the job done. The 2.0’s suede upper, wider forefoot, and added structure increase weight and reduce breathability, leveling the field. The UltraCush foam midsole is the same through both and the diamond tread pattern is consistent enough that neither shoe has an advantage.

You’re not taking either shoe for a 5K or longer, slower run. I’d cap your runs to about 2-miles in length in both of these shoes…and mind you, that’s kind of pushing it.

If you want to warm up with 400-800 meter jog on the treadmill, or cool down with a mile jog, or hit some intervals as part of a HIIT workout or circuit, either option is going to get the job done without complaining too much.

Daily Wear: 2.0

I’ll admit, I loved wearing the EXO daily. It looked good, felt good, and delivered on comfort, despite the snug forefoot.

The 2.0 takes this category for a few reasons. Through brute strength and enough complaining on the internet, we must have gotten Vans’ attention. They widened the forefoot and added a bit more upper volume. And the added structure and suede upper do not take away enough of the breathability to make daily use uncomfortable, regardless of temperature or environment. 

The decrease in breathability is a cost I’m willing to pay for the added durability and comfort. For anyone who loved the EXO for daily wear but found it a bit too snug, the 2.0 delivers a solution worth considering. It’s simply a more versatile, everyday-ready option.

Construction Details

Midsole

• Similarities:
  • Both the UltraRange EXO and the 2.0 use Vans’ proprietary UltraCush foam midsole that runs the entire length of the shoe, providing consistent cushioning with a 7mm heel-to-toe drop. Both models aim to strike a balance between lightweight comfort and a stable base, giving users a smooth transition from heel to toe.

• Differences:
  • The main difference lies in the midsole texture. The EXO’s has a more rugged, textured appearance, while the 2.0’s midsole is smoother and cleaner-looking.

Outsole

• Similarities:
  • Both shoes feature Vans’ diamond tread rubber pattern designed for multi-surface grip and offering solid traction for casual wear and light training scenarios.

• Differences:
  • The EXO’s outsole has deeper cutouts with more exposed foam in the midfoot and forefoot, allowing for marginally increased flexibility. However, this design exposes more of the foam midsole running the risk of deterioration through prolonged use or exposure to the elements.
  • The UltraRange 2.0 refines the outsole layout by reducing these cutouts, resulting in a more rigid, supportive feel. While this slightly reduces flexibility, it significantly improves long-term durability. The 2.0’s outsole is simply more robust, with a design that can withstand heavier use without quickly breaking down.

Upper

• Similarities:
  • Both models rely on a combination of lightweight mesh and structural overlays to provide a secure fit and maintain the shoe’s casual, athletic aesthetic. Both uppers are designed to balance breathability with durability and include gusseted tongues and TPU elements for midfoot lockdown.

• Differences:
  • The UltraRange EXO uses lightweight mesh with TPU overlays in the forefoot and midfoot, creating a breathable but less durable upper that’s prone to creasing and wear over time. The tongue is taller and wider with minimal padding, and the heel includes a pull tab for easier entry. The EXO’s low-volume upper is a point of frustration, often feeling too restrictive for wider or higher-instep feet.
  • The UltraRange 2.0 introduces suede overlays in the forefoot, providing added structure and reducing creasing in high-wear areas. The mesh is less prevalent, reducing breathability a bit, but it pairs with the suede and a beefier TPU overlay through the midfoot for a more secure lockdown and improved durability. The 2.0’s tongue is padded but shorter, particularly if using the top eyelet. The pull tab is gone, replaced by a more rigid heel cup that adds structure and stability.

Final Thoughts

The Vans UltraRange 2.0 isn’t a radical departure from the EXO. It’s a clear and meaningful upgrade. It takes two steps forward through improved fit, enhanced durability, and a more structured build. I’ll admit, it does take a half step back, sacrificing a bit of breathability and flexibility in the process.

For the same $100 price tag, the UltraRange 2.0 offers a more complete and satisfying experience, especially for those frustrated by the EXO’s tight fit and quicker wear. Whether you’re looking for a shoe that can handle casual wear, light training, or just want something that fits and lasts longer, the UltraRange 2.0 stands out as the better choice.

If you’re stuck between these two models, take the smart route, go with the UltraRange 2.0. It’s the upgrade you’ve been waiting for, and it delivers where the EXO fell short. The 2.0 offers a better fit, greater durability, and is simply a better all-around shoe.