New Era, New King: Asics DS Light X-Fly Pro 3

*This article was originally written in August 2025 on other social media. Modified and uploaded to the blog in July 2026. Slightly adjusted in August 2026.

Intro:

The Asics X-Fly Pro 3 was launched at the end of 2024, about nine months ago. No more kangaroo leather is what Asics says but what they have done is far from disappointing, they even made it better. At this point, I can confidently say it has changed my tier list of football boots. For the first time, in my opinion, Asics has finally surpassed Mizuno in terms of performance and tech, making the X-Fly Pro 3 the only model that earns over 95 out of 100 points on my 2024–2025 list.

Generally speaking, the X-Fly Pro 3 manages to maintain all the strengths of previous Asics products while improving on most of their weaknesses. Let’s dive into the details.

Soleplate:

The soleplate has always been the highlight of the Pro line. In contrast to the “stability” focus of the X-Fly 5 and 6, the Pro’s soleplate emphasizes “sprint”—or the ability to move forward. They literally have the slogan on the outsole.

Although it’s a different soleplate, the design language remains the same: three semi-triangular studs at the front instead of full conical ones, and the signature arrow stud near the big toe remains. (My friend really likes this arrow stud, as it helps with the “Mitoma step.”)

One notable change is the new extra plastic piece in the cutout area—like a fence—with smaller cutouts, unlike previous models where the cloth was directly exposed. This is meant for those who play on rougher pitches like AG, where the cloth section in older models would break down easily.

Another change is the midsole shank (the plate underneath the insole). Previous models—including the X-Fly 5, Ultrezza 3, and even Mizuno’s Morelia 2—had a full-length mixed-material shank. The X-Fly Pro 3 now has a half-length forefoot-only shank, similar to most mainstream shoes from major brands.

Transitioning while running feels smooth with no complaints. The bending point is natural underfoot (looking at you Mizuno, please do something to the Alphas). The rebound or snapback feels slightly different compared to the X-Fly Pro 2, but I’m not entirely sure.

Best surfaces for usage are high-quality FG and AG pitches. (Well, it’s the “Pro” line, so it’s made for better fields.)

Upper:

The upper update is the standout feature of the X-Fly Pro 3. The “Silkywrap” upper is one of the most comfortable on the market and also addresses durability issues seen with previous kangaroo leather models.

Note that this is not the softest synthetic upper available (I’d say the 442 Elite is even softer), nor is it trying to be the most natural leather-like upper. “Silkywrap” is softer than the previous K-leather used, possibly even softer than Mizuno’s MIJ leathers. However, it feels thin and slightly rubbery—rather than plush or cushioned. Yes, it’s soft, but unlike natural leather, it doesn’t stretch much. The lockdown remains consistent over time, just like Asics advertises.

Compared to the X-Fly Pro 2 Limited (which also used a microfiber upper), the Pro 3 feels noticeably softer and thinner. The Pro 2 Limited felt more like Asics' kangaroo leather models, especially with its cushioned inner foam.

Also, while the X-Fly 6 also uses “Silkywrap” material, the uppers on the two models feel slightly different. In my opinion, the Pro 3 is softer.

Another change is the laces. They're now similar to those found on the Morelia series—softer, with better friction. However, I suspect durability might be slightly worse.

Heel:

I think the heel has been improved. The shape and padding now fit my heel better compared to the X-Fly Pro 2 and X-Fly 5. (The Ultrezza 3 has the least padding among them, but it suited me better than these two.)

That said, the reduced padding around the collar creates a small gap on the outside of my ankle. Not a big issue, but it could be annoying if debris gets into the boot while running.

Shape and Feel:

For reference, my usual size is JP 27cm / US 9 / EU 42.5. My foot length with socks is between 26.5 and 27cm.

For the X-Fly Pro 3, I went with JP 26.5cm. Here's a quick comparison with other boots I’ve worn: 

X-Fly 5: 27cm

Furon V7/V7+: 27.5cm

Mercurial Vapor 16: 27cm

442 V2 Pro/Elite: 27cm

The shape reminds me of the Ultrezza 3, but with a higher toe box volume—more so than the X-Fly Pro 2—making the fit feel more natural to my foot shape. Width is standard for Japanese boots, somewhere between E and 2E, which is perfect for me.

One notable feature is the fit around the arch. I have low arches, and these boots feel very comfortable in that area. (The X-Fly 5 was the opposite.)

And the insole is removable. In Japan, it’s common for players to swap insoles for brands like Zamst or Sidas. There are lot of companies out there making insoles. I personally like Zamst’s Footcraft Football Style.

Build Quality and Design:

For the first time, I want to talk about build quality. More specifically, the designs of details. Because I feel like they have gotten worse compared to the previous X-fly 5 and X-fly Pro 2. While the X-Fly Pro 3 is a top-tier boot, its build quality and how they handle the details don’t quite match the “flagship” status. These could also because Asics was trying to save some weights so they had to cut down something.

These don’t affect performance, but visually it’s a bit disappointing. For example:

The parting line of the soleplate is obvious.

Excess glue between the upper and soleplate.

One part of the stitching wasn’t cleaned properly.

The 3D “Asics” logo on the tongue and side is now just a print. And the prints on the side do have texturing but could be worn off after use. (Although this is more about design than quality of the manufacturing. The logo was made with 3D texturing on the previous models and I thought such details increase the general "premium" feeling of the boots.)

On the heel, they simply use a tape-like design to cover up the connection gap of the upper. However, the gap is still visible due to the material they use for the tape. They could have made it similar with its predecessors with quality feelings but they decided not to.

Again, none of these affects the performance. They just don’t look premium. So don’t treat them like collectibles. These are meant to be worn on the pitch.

Conclusion:

There's not much to say. The X-Fly Pro 2 Limited was already one of my top picks in 2024, but the X-Fly Pro 3 is even better.

It’s not for everyone—if you're looking for something with more stability, multi-directional agility, advanced tech, or strong ball grip, there are better options out there. But for me, the X-Fly Pro 3 is the best football boot of 2025(till now) since it fixes the weaknesses of its predecessor while enhancing its already top-tier characteristics.