That’s more like it UA 

Here is a link to my Clutchfit Drive 2 Mid Review since this is basically the same shoe aside from the upper: Clutchfit Drive 2 Review

I thought the CFD 2 was a very good performer but it didn’t do anything any better than the CFD 1 and it barely had any Clutchfit material (plus it’s generic as sh*t looking)

The Low wasn’t really on my radar because I didn’t like the color blocking but then I saw how much more Clutchfit material they had versus the Mid  (that and the $25 off Visa Checkout deal on I also liked the Veteran’s Day colorway so what the hell, why not.

I saw Eastbay had the Mudiay black orange for $99 plus available coupons (so $80 )

CFD 2 Low Eastbay

Pros: Fit, traction, cushioning, containment, easily better then the Curry One Low, nice build quality, no excess glue spots (I’m looking at you Curry Two)

Cons: not as stable underfoot  at midfoot and heel vs original CFD low, still like Micro G better, Curry Two traction is better (nitpicking really)

Sizing: true to size or go up half a size for very wide footers 




One ounce heavier than last year’s. Heavier than the Curry Two by half an ounce.


Same pattern as the CFD 2 Mid = same performance as the CFD 1 Mid and low. I have had no issues with the traction but the Curry Two does have the CFD beat.


Verdict: tie


Full length Charged which is the same set up as the CFD 2 Mid which is essentially the same as the Curry Two.

 Below: Micro G vs Charged 
The insole is Ortholite not Micro G as stated on the website.  

Below: left CFD 2 right CFD 1

Below: you can see how thick Ortholite is but it compresses very easily   
I wrote in detail how Charged feels vs Micro G in my CFD 2 Mid review but in summary Charged is firmer, denser and less bouncy feeling than Micro G. I still like how Micro G feels compared to Charged but Charged is a pretty good sub. The CFD 1 plays slighter lower than the 2. 

Verdict: CFD 1 


Just like the CFD 2 and Curry 2, UA tightened up the toe box so there is a little less room up front. It’s about 1/4 size smaller so depending on your preference, you can stay true to size or go up half a size. I stayed true to size with sz 11 and the fit was fantastic. No deadspace side to side or on top. Shoe really just hugged the foot just like the original.

My biggest concern about going from a mid to a low is heel slippage. I have had several shoes that worked great as mids but sucked as lows because the heel slip was bad. Thankfully UA made the ankle collar thicker and more padded as well as making a deeper notch to secure the heel . This is one area the CFD 2 improved upon versus the original low . The original CFD low needed some break in time but these were good from the get go.


 Well done UA !

As I stated earlier the fit is excellent and conforms to the foot due to the use of Clutchfit. Two thirds of the shoe is composed of Clutchfit this time, not just two little window panes like the mids. No weird flexing at all due to the materials and the proper placement of synthetic reinforcement.

Clutchfit is different this time around versus last year’s and versus every other implementation (prodigy, lightning, highlight etc)because it is slimmer and less rubbery and the Clutchfit interlocking designs are larger.

   Hard to tell from the pic but it’s a thin mesh overlay on top of Clutchfit and just this fabric on the inside 

  Above: you can see how thin the CF (red part). There is synthetic and an extra layer of fabric  sandwiching the CF.

The shoe couldn’t be made totally like this so UA used synthetic overlays to give it strength where needed (similar to the Kobe V)


Here you can see how much smaller the interlockings are and how much thicker last year’s upper was


The changes they made allow the shoe to be a little more flexible and a little more breathable without sacrificing strength or support. Well done !

Verdict: CFD 2 thanks to extra padding in the ankle collar and no break in required

Support and Stability

Support and stability are two  of the strong points of the CFD 2 Low. A firmer cushioning set up, outrigger and heel counter all help keep the foot stable and secure. 

Like the Curry One Low, the CFD 2 feels protective and stable underfoot mostly due to the wide base and firmer cushioning. I do feel that the CFD 1 low sits slightly lower and feels less “tippy” from the midfoot and back versus the 2, but the 2 just feels more protective overall. Both shoes passed my heel test.

Verdict: CFD 2 more supportive CFD 1 more stable


Why can’t all shoe companies do this ??

I’m not sure what to call this so I’ll just say it’s a containment rand? It is at least twice as thick as any portion of synthetic on the shoe. Couple they with the synthetic overlay and my foot was kept in the  footbed on the hardest of cuts. Well done UA!

The CFD 1 also had excellent containment but used Clutchfit and a foot stay to keep my foot contained.

Verdict: tie


Under Armour did an excellent job with the CFD 2 Low. They made it more protective  and improved the heel fit right out of the box while keeping the same traction performance. I do wish they kept Micro G but full length Charged is a good alternative and is much better than the Curry One Mid and low set ups. Will this replace my CFD 1 Low ? If this shoe had Micro G or if traction outperformed the CFD 1 low then it definitely would but unfortunately it doesn’t. I do like Charged so it will definitely be in the low top rotation at 2 or 3 (CFD 1 and Kobe IV still ahead slightly).  If you missed out on the CFD 1 Low, this is a fantastic substitute and can be had for $80 in various colorways on Eastbay. 


23 Comment on “Under Armour Clutchfit Drive 2 Two Low Performance Review and Comparison

  1. Pingback: Under Armour Clutchfit Drive 2 Performance Review and Comparison |

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: