The North Face Ultra 112 WP Review
The North Face Ultra 112 WP ($160) is heavier and bulkier than most, but in return is a shoe that can handle a wide range of terrain, both on and off trail. With solid traction and a sturdy exterior—complete with a reinforced toe cap and thick leather overlays—it does a great job protecting against rocks, roots, and other trail debris. It’s a great option if the polarizing fit, with a wide heel and narrow toe box, works for you.
Comfort
Support and Stability
Traction
Durability
Foot Protection
Sustainability
Weight
1 lb. 15.7 oz.
Waterproof
Yes
Upper
Leather/synthetic
Outsole
Surface CTRL rubber
Pros
Cons
The North Face Ultra 112 WP
For this season's top models, see our guide to the Best Hiking Shoes.
The North Face Ultra 112 WP struck me as reasonably comfortable out of the box, though not without some drawbacks. Its EVA foam midsole provides some cushioning and plenty of isolation from the trail, but the rubber outsole with a built-in shank makes the shoe noticeably stiff. Compared to my Hoka Anacapa 2s, it’s quite a bit firmer underfoot. That added rigidity lends a more stable, supportive feel, though it comes at the expense of outright softness and cushioning.
On my first hike—a 7-mile outing in Griffith Park to the Hollywood Sign with about 1,200 feet of elevation gain—I wore them without my usual Superfeet insoles and quickly noticed some discomfort, particularly in my arches. After switching the inserts, things improved significantly, so if you typically rely on added support, you’ll most likely want to do the same here. That said, the break-in period is fairly minimal, especially compared to traditional hiking boots, and after just a few hikes, the shoes felt well broken in.
Most notably, I had some comfort issues related to the fit. Heel slip was the biggest problem for me, and it persisted even after about 100 miles of use. I often developed hot spots and blisters on the backs of my heels, especially during steep ascents, like a 1,750-foot climb over 2.5 miles in the Santa Monica Mountains. The toe box also runs slightly narrow for my foot, leading to occasional rubbing along the sides of my toes (more on this in “Fit & Sizing” below). Overall, while the The North Face Ultra 112 WP is serviceable for comfort, I found lighter, more cushioned options to be more comfortable on long, all-day treks.
While I’ve traditionally gravitated toward more flexible, lightweight hiking shoes, the underfoot support and stability the Ultra 112 WP provides were a welcome surprise. The outsole is fairly stiff, thanks in part to a built-in shank, which adds a lot of stability on rocky, uneven, or rutted trails. At the same time, the upper is more forgiving, which helps maintain mobility.
Out on the trail, I noticed fewer wobbles than usual on uneven terrain, thanks in part to its reinforced heel counter. In one instance, on a rutted, overgrown trail in the Simi Hills, I misstepped a few times in low light, and the shoe kept me from fully rolling my ankle. In a softer shoe like the Anacapa 2, I’m sure that would have been more serious.
Still, you’re not completely protected from missteps. As a low-cut shoe, the collar sits just below the ankle, and combined with the heel slippage I experienced, it doesn’t feel as locked in as I’d like. On most day hikes and lighter-load outings, that’s not a major issue. But on more technical terrain or with a heavier pack—like a backpacking trip I did in Bears Ears National Monument, where I was carrying roughly 35 pounds on a rocky trail and ended up rolling my ankle—I find it harder to fully trust the shoe to keep me stable. While it offers solid underfoot support and good trail stability, I have less confidence when it comes to ankle support.
The North Face Ultra 112 WP delivers solid traction across a wide range of terrain. It uses The North Face’s Surface Ctrl rubber outsole with 5 mm lugs: the perimeter lugs are L-shaped, while the center lugs are shaped more like guitar picks. They feel firm underfoot and aren’t overly aggressive or tightly packed.
On trail, that translates to dependable grip in most conditions. On well-groomed paths, traction is a non-issue, but I was more impressed by how they handled more variable terrain. While there was still some mild slip on loose dirt, they held well on dry rock and uneven surfaces, including light scrambling in places like Joshua Tree and the San Gabriel Mountains. Even on muddy and wet trails, the grip remained consistent. Over time, I’ve noticed a slight drop-off in bite as the lugs have worn down, but they still perform reliably in most conditions.
The North Face Ultra 112 WP is a burly, well-built shoe on the outside, though I had some long-term durability issues with the interior lining. The upper uses a mix of ripstop fabric and space mesh, with both synthetic and real leather overlays adding structure throughout. Combined with the thick rubber toe cap and firm rubber outsole, everything feels tough and ready for rough use.
Over approximately 100 miles of hiking across a wide range of terrain—muddy trails, rocky sections, sand, and stream crossings—the exterior has held up well. I also used them during a stint of trail maintenance, where fencing wires snagged on the shoes a few times without causing any tears or damage. The outsole shows some wear but still has plenty of life left, while the upper and laces show only minor signs of use. Overall, the outer construction feels more durable than most hiking shoes I’ve used.
Where things fall short is on the interior. I tend to wear through heel linings on most shoes, and around the 50-mile mark, I started to notice significant wear in the heel liner and padding just below the collar, eventually leading to small craters on both sides. While the waterproof liner itself hasn’t failed, the breakdown of the lining and foam has created an uneven surface, leading to hot spots and blisters. Without that issue, the durability would feel like a strong value for the $160 price. As it stands, the exterior is built to last, but the interior wear knocks it down for me—especially if you’re prone to similar heel breakdown.
The Ultra 112 WP feels mostly built like a tank, with a clear emphasis on durability and protection. The rubber toe cap is thick and extends across the entire front of the shoe, offering more coverage than many lighter hiking options I’ve used. It’s not just for show either—while doing some trail maintenance, I had fencing materials poke into the toe area a few times, and I didn’t feel a thing. Out on trail, especially in rocky terrain like Joshua Tree’s Wonderland of Rocks, that added protection did a great job preventing toe stubs.
The upper features wraparound leather overlays above the midsole, along with an additional heel cradle, which helps shield against side and back impacts. Underfoot, you still get some ground feel, but it’s more isolating than lighter shoes like the Anacapa 2 or my old Brooks Cascadias. At the same time, it’s not as stiff or disconnected as something like the Salomon X Ultra 360. I liked that middle ground: enough protection to avoid discomfort, while still staying aware of the terrain beneath me.
Ankle protection is more of a mixed bag. It’s better than most low-cut hiking shoes I’ve used, but it’s still not a substitute for a mid or boot. I’m prone to ankle rolls, and while this shoe helped a bit, I still rolled my ankle once and had a few close calls. The Ultra 112 WP does a great job protecting your feet from trail hazards, but it can’t fully make up for the limitations of a low-cut hiking shoe.
Select icon to view details:
Longevity
Choosing durable outdoor gear and keeping it in use for longer is one of the best ways to reduce environmental impact. Our proprietary longevity rating assesses factors like overall build quality, materials, fabric denier, component durability, and real-world performance. A green check indicates that we expect the product to be long-lasting relative to its peers, a yellow check mark indicates average longevity, and a red X indicates a product that may have a limited lifespan.
Recycled Materials
Recycled materials are prevalent in outdoor gear, with nylon, polyester, wool, and down among the most common, but the composition varies widely. A green check mark indicates the product is made with a substantial amount of recycled materials (100% recycled or the core fabric that makes up most of the product is recycled), a yellow check means it contains a moderate to small amount of recycled materials, while a red X means there are no recycled materials in the product.
PFAS-Free DWR
Durable water-repellent (DWR) finishes can contain PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). These highly persistent “forever chemicals” are used in outdoor gear for their strong resistance to water, oil, and heat, but are linked to environmental contamination and a range of health concerns. A green check mark indicates the product uses a PFAS-free DWR, while a red X means the DWR contains PFAS.
PFAS-Free Waterproof Membrane
The membranes used in waterproof products such as rain jackets, ski jackets, and shoes can contain PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). These highly persistent “forever chemicals” are valued for their resistance to water, oil, and heat, but are linked to environmental contamination and a range of health concerns. A green check mark indicates the product’s waterproof membrane is PFAS-free, while a red X means it contains PFAS.
Responsible Leather
Responsible leather is typically sourced from suppliers certified by the Leather Working Group (LWG), a third-party nonprofit that evaluates tanneries on factors such as water and energy use, chemical and waste management, emissions, traceability, and worker safety, and assigns ratings ranging from Bronze to Gold. A green check mark indicates a product uses responsibly sourced leather, a yellow check mark indicates the brand sources responsible leather for the majority of its products but does not specify it at the product level, and a red X indicates the product does not use responsibly sourced leather.
Bluesign Approved
Bluesign Technologies, based in Switzerland, operates a third-party textile management system that ensures materials are manufactured to strict environmental, chemical, and worker safety standards. A green check mark indicates a product is either a Bluesign Product (contains at least 90% Bluesign-approved fabrics and 20-30% Bluesign-approved accessories) or features a significant amount of Bluesign-approved materials. A yellow check mark means it uses some Bluesign-approved materials but less than the aforementioned category, and a red X means there are no Bluesign-approved materials in the product.
Responsible Manufacturing
This criterion evaluates a brand’s commitment to fair wages, safe working conditions, and reducing environmental impact through certifications and programs like Fair Trade Certified, Fair Wear Foundation, Worldwide Responsible Accredited Production (WRAP), and the Fair Labor Association, while also recognizing brands that manufacture primarily in the U.S. or Europe under strict labor and environmental regulations. A green check mark indicates a brand meets our responsible manufacturing criteria, while a red X means it does not.
Recycled and/or Reduced Packaging
Packaging can add significant waste to outdoor gear purchases, so many brands work to reduce its impact by using recycled materials, incorporating Forest Stewardship Council-certified paper products, and minimizing plastic and paper use. A green check mark indicates a brand uses recycled or reduced materials across all of its packaging, a yellow check indicates moderate or limited use of recycled or reduced packaging, and a red X indicates the brand does not make either of these efforts.
Resale and/or Recycling Services
Resale and recycling programs help keep outdoor gear in circulation longer and out of landfills, ranging from trade-in resale platforms that offer store credit to take-back initiatives that recycle products at the end of their usable life. A green check mark indicates a brand offers both resale and recycling programs, a yellow check mark indicates it offers one or the two, and a red X indicates it offers neither.
Carbon Footprint Tracking
This criterion evaluates whether a brand measures, reports, and works to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions using established frameworks such as the Higg Index, Greenhouse Gas Protocol, or The Change Climate Project. A green check mark indicates a brand publicly reports greenhouse gas emissions data, sets clearly defined reduction targets, and uses established tracking frameworks such as Higg or The Change Climate Project. A yellow check mark indicates the brand tracks emissions and outlines reduction goals but provides limited data, lacks science-based verification, or does not clearly report progress. A red X indicates the brand does not appear to track greenhouse gas emissions or provides so little information that its efforts cannot be verified.
Annual Impact Report
Annual impact reports provide transparency and accountability by outlining a brand’s sustainability efforts across areas such as material sourcing, greenhouse gas emissions, waste, water use, supply chains, and packaging. A green check mark indicates a brand publishes a detailed, brand-specific impact report that closely aligns with our sustainability criteria and leaves little room for ambiguity. A yellow check indicates a brand provides some relevant sustainability reporting but lacks detail in key areas or is covered only briefly within a parent company report. A red X indicates a brand does not regularly publish an impact report.
At 1 pound, 15.7 ounces, the Ultra 112 WP lands on the heavy end of modern hiking shoes. If you’re trying to move fast and light, the extra weight is noticeable, especially over longer days. That said, I didn’t find the weight to be a major drawback in practice. I’ve worn these on 10+ mile hikes with over 3,000 feet of elevation gain in the San Gabriel Mountains, and they never felt like a burden. In return, you get a more supportive, planted feel underfoot, which I appreciated on rocky or uneven terrain. It can feel like overkill on well-groomed trails, but off-trail or on rougher routes, that added structure is a plus.
It’s also worth keeping things in perspective—there are heavier options out there, like the Merrell Moab 3 Waterproof (2 lb. 2 oz.), not to mention full-on hiking boots. So while the Ultra 112 WP isn’t the best choice for ounce-counters—that’d go to options like the 1-pound-4.8-ounce La Sportiva Prodigio Max—the added structure and support help justify the extra weight.
The Ultra 112 WP uses The North Face’s DryVent waterproof membrane, and in my testing, it performed reliably in wet conditions. Hiking in both Southern California and Southern Utah, I was able to submerge the shoes in about 3 to 4 inches of water while crossing streams and puddles without getting my feet wet.
Breathability is decent for a waterproof shoe, though, unsurprisingly, not exceptional. In warmer conditions—like hiking in the Mojave Desert in temperatures in the 80s—my feet did heat up, but they never felt overly swampy or clammy. Overall, the Ultra 112 WP strikes a nice balance between keeping water out and letting heat escape.
My feet are roughly an average width—shoes like the Brooks Cascadia and Hoka Anacapa fit me well. I went with my usual men’s size 10, and overall, the The North Face Ultra 112 WP fits true to size. The length was fine and the midfoot felt secure right away, but the fit starts to break down a bit at either end. The toe box runs slightly narrow for my preferences, and I did occasionally get some rubbing and blisters on the outside of my pinky toes. The bigger issue for me was at the heel. It never quite locked in the way I wanted, which led to consistent heel slippage—especially on uphill climbs—and, at times, blisters.
It’s also worth noting that the stock insoles didn’t offer much arch support for me, and I quickly swapped them out for my usual Superfeet inserts, which made a noticeable difference in comfort. To be fair, that’s something I do with most of my shoes, but if you have flatter feet or prefer added support, you’ll likely want to do the same here. Overall, while the sizing felt accurate, it lacks the precision and heel security I look for in a hiking shoe.
Hoka Anacapa 2 Low GTX ($180): Comfort Over Stability
Unlike the Ultra 112 WP’s firm feel, the Hoka Anacapa 2 Low GTX offers a highly cushioned design with a thick foam midsole that prioritizes comfort. It also delivers a more responsive ride, letting you move quickly on well-established routes. However, its exterior doesn’t match the Ultra 112 WP’s durability, and its outsole, featuring a good amount of exposed foam, is more prone to breaking down over time. The Ultra 112 WP’s stiffer structure also provides better stability on variable or uneven terrain. If you’re drawn to off-trail travel, it’s the better (and less expensive) choice. For more, read our review of the Anacapa 2 Low GTX.
Adidas Terrex Free Hiker 2.0 Low GTX ($180): A Better Fit
The Adidas Terrex Free Hiker 2.0 is another tank-like shoe that can power through all kinds of terrain. However, unlike the fit issues we experienced with the Ultra 112 WP, it offers a more dialed-in feel with a notably more secure heel. The Free Hiker 2.0 forgoes a rigid shank but delivers a more cushioned ride that may better suit those prone to sore feet, along with a rockered design that promotes a more propulsive stride. While both shoes can handle just about anything underfoot, we give the edge to the Free Hiker 2.0. To learn more, check out our Terrex Free Hiker 2.0 Low GTX review.
The Ultra 112 WP’s rigid structure lets you tackle all kinds of routes—trail or not—and its burly exterior should hold up for hundreds of miles. Still, its hefty feel will be a turnoff for some, and we experienced several fit and durability issues with the heel.
Comfort
Support and Stability
Traction
Durability
Foot Protection
Sustainability
The Anacapa offers the plush cushion of a running shoe, alongside the stability, protection, and durability of a hiking shoe. It's a great option for hikers who regularly experience foot fatigue or log high-mileage days. However, the wide platform lacks precision on technical terrain and the large sections of exposed foam can break down over time.
Comfort
Support and Stability
Traction
Durability
Foot Protection
Sustainability
Don’t be fooled by the modern aesthetic: The Free Hiker 2.0 is a highly supportive, grippy hiking shoe that can deftly tackle technical, off-camber terrain. But you don’t get extra padding or cushion, and the heavy, stiff build won’t appeal to everyone.
Comfort
Support and Stability
Traction
Durability
Foot Protection
Sustainability
Is the Ultra 112 WP for You?
The North Face Ultra 112 WP is a great option if you’re looking for an all-terrain hiking shoe that can handle a wide range of trails and conditions. It’s going to feel too stiff and heavy if you prefer something more responsive for moving quickly on well-established trails. There are also some fit-related issues that keep it from reaching top-tier comfort and stability. That said, if the fit works well for your foot, it should hold up for a variety of terrain over the long haul.
it's trail o'clock
Hiking Gear Guides
Gear Guide
Best Hiking Boots of 2026
Gear Guide
Best Hiking Pants of 2026
Gear Guide
Best Hiking Daypacks of 2026
Gear Guide
Best Trekking Poles of 2026
Gear Guide
Best Synthetic Insulated Jackets of 2026
Gear Guide
Best Rain Jackets of 2026
Gear Guide
Best Fleece Jackets of 2026
Gear Guide
Best Down Jackets of 2026
curated for you