If you buy through our links, we may earn an affiliate commission. This supports our mission to get more people active and outside.Learn about Outside Online's affiliate link policy

(Photo: Courtesy)
Have you ever held onto a piece of gear, even as the seams start to burst and the fabric wears thin, just because you loved it that much? I have. The Saucony Bullet Shorts. To me, these were the holy grail of performance, the fountain of youth for long days—the perfect pair of running shorts. These shorts are a beautiful beacon of function, storage, speed, and—most importantly—non-riding-up-ness. Sadly, like all of the greats, their time was cut short; they were discontinued about a decade ago. (Although Saucony’s Fortify 6-inch Short has a few similar features.)
I won’t bore you with the full love story, but know this: I’ve worn one pair on repeat for the past 10 years, and they had everything a woman could ask for in a pair of compression shorts. And remarkably, they’ve survived all these years without getting smelly. But after many laundry cycles, they’re now literally threadbare (okay, see-through) and starting to lose their elasticity.
This came as no surprise. I’ve known for a while that it was time to move on. But if you’ve ever tried to find a good pair of running shorts—especially when your legs aren’t tiny sticks—you know it’s not easy. But now, there’s hope. I’ve been testing replacements, and there are a few worthy contenders for the absolute best pair of running shorts I’ve ever owned. These are the results for my 2025 quest to find the perfect pair of running shorts.

I used my beloved Saucony Bullet Shorts as the gold standard—these got five stars across the board. To eliminate any short-term short bias, I ran in and washed each pair of shorts at least three times before forming an opinion. In total, I tested seven pairs of running shorts for women. These four stood out and made my runner’s heart happy.
| Criteria | Specs | Star Rating |
| Material | Fabric type | Shorts with breathable and functional material earned more stars |
| Pockets | Number of pockets | How well did they hold the gear? Extra points based on how much the shorts could carry |
| Length/Style | Inseam | Overall look |
| Fit | Size range | Stars are based on how true to size the shorts are |
| Value | Price | Bang for your buck |
| Comfort | N/A | Overall, how they felt—did they stay in place or ride up? More details on this in the full description |

| Specs | Stars | |
| Material | 72% Polyester 28% Spandex | 4 |
| Pockets | 4 pockets | 3 |
| Length/Style | 3.5” to 7” inseam high-wasted | 4 |
| Fit | XS-XXL | 5 |
| Value | $34 | 4 |
| Comfort | 5 |
One of my favorite ways to judge comfort? How often I reach for a pair of shorts outside of running. Hiking, walking the dog, hitting the gym, playing tennis—you name it, I grabbed the Senita Lux Baseline Shorts for it. So yes, they’re comfy. But how do they perform on the run?
For everyday easy runs, these were great. On longer, hotter days, though, they started to feel a little swampy and shifted around more than I’d like. I suspect that’s due to the fabric makeup: more polyester, less spandex. It gives these women’s running shorts a soft, matte look, but also means they’re more prone to holding onto sweat—and dog fur.
Still, for a relaxed 4-miler, they’re my go-tos. The two hip pockets worked great for keys and fuel, but weren’t snug enough to keep my phone in place while running. And the two upside-down pockets? I couldn’t find a running-related use for them. Finally, the price is right at $34 for a pair of shorts that look good, feel good, and work for almost everything.

| Specs | Stars | |
| Material | 77% polyester 23% spandex | 5 |
| Pockets | 2 pockets | 2 |
| Length/Style | 4"-8" inseam high-waisted | 4 |
| Fit | XS-4XL | 5 |
| Value | $16 | 5 |
| Comfort | 4 |
At $16, I grabbed a blue pair and a black pair—and I’m so glad I did. These shorts look great on a wide range of body types, and the fabric feels soft and lightweight without being see-through or clingy in unflattering ways. I should note, these are less compression, more just biker short style—so if you need true compression running shorts, it’s best to look at the other three on this list.
While they’re simple, they’re surprisingly functional for easy runs and strength sessions. I even wore them for a speed workout and was impressed by how well they stayed in place. I only found myself tugging them down occasionally, and only during rest breaks.
That said, the pockets aren’t great, and the more I yank on them, the looser they get. They couldn’t keep my phone secure, even on a hike, so they’re not ideal for long runs or carrying much more besides fuel and maybe a car key. Still, I loved these budget running shorts for their value. Am I a little biased by the low price? Maybe. But they actually reminded me a lot of the Bullet Shorts in both feel and style—and that’s high praise.

| Specs | Stars | |
| Material | 84% Nylon 16% Lycra Elastane | 5 |
| Pockets | 5 pockets | 4 |
| Length/Style | 2”-8” inseam high-waisted | 5 |
| Fit | Lululemon sizing 0-20 | 5 |
| Value | $64 | 3 |
| Comfort | 5 |
If you can stomach the nearly $70 price tag, go all in on the Fast and Free High-Rise Short. These were the closest match I found to my beloved Saucony Bullet Shorts and were maybe even an upgrade in a few ways.
First, the grippy strips on the inner thighs (a common Lululemon feature) are a game-changer. They actually keep these running shorts from riding up. The fabric is another win: lightweight but durable, breathable without being flimsy or see-through.
My only real issue was the pockets. There are five of them, but the back pocket at the belt didn’t fit my phone, and the two thigh pockets didn’t hold it in place as securely as I would’ve liked. Still, it wasn’t a dealbreaker. I genuinely loved running in these and put them through both a 10-miler and track workout (not on the same day!). I now look forward to days when they are clean and I can take them on a run.

| Specs | Stars | |
| Material | 82% polyester 18% spandex | 4 |
| Pockets | 4 pockets | 5 |
| Length/Style | 3"-7" high-waisted | 3 |
| Fit | XS-XL | 2 |
| Value | $46 | 4 |
| Comfort | 2 |
I’m always looking for a solid pair of women’s running shorts with pockets. If you feel like regular shorts pockets are not cutting it, these are worth a try. Honestly, you could probably fit the contents of your entire purse in these shorts if you wanted to. But seriously, they’re the only pair of running shorts with pockets I tested where my phone didn’t bounce, I wasn’t paranoid about losing my key, and I could easily carry (and access) my fuel mid-run.
With all that storage, I wanted to give these a five-star rating. But they weren’t quite perfect. I was mainly annoyed by the bulk. They felt more scuba suit than second skin—thick and just a little too much for hot summer miles. That said, I think they’ll shine in cooler weather. They stayed put during runs, felt super durable, and it seems like they’ll last. Just be aware they run a bit snug—my usual medium felt tighter than expected, and the seams leave marks on my skin. I’ll definitely be sizing up next time.
The first pair I tried was the Nike High-Waisted 4″ Tight Running Shorts with Pockets—and the one that caused the greatest despair. They look cute, but they did not stay in place, and I was yanking them down from bikini position the whole run. Next, I tried the Saucony Fortify 6-inch shorts and thought they would be the closest to the bullet shorts, but they were a different fabric, rode up quite a bit, and left really bad seam marks in my skin. The Athleta Interval Stash High Rise 5″ Short is a really good option, but they are pricey ($69 for a black pair) and felt incredibly similar to the $16 Old Navy pair on this list. Since Athleta and Old Navy are under the same umbrella company, I felt like the main difference was branding. Finally, I loved the pockets and comfortable fit on the UA Launch Elite Women’s 4″ Shorts, but since I didn’t have much else to say about them, I didn’t think the $60 price tag was justified.