Are 3D-Scanned Insoles Worth Your Money? What the Science and Reviewers Say

Are 3D‑Scanned Insoles Worth Your Money? A skeptical shopper’s guide (2026)

Hook: If you’re drowning in options—dozens of foam inserts, direct‑to‑consumer scanned insoles, and shiny wellness gadgets that promise to fix your feet—this guide is for you. You want clear signals: when a custom insole will deliver measurable relief, when it’s probably placebo tech, and how to avoid wasting money on hype. We dissect The Verge’s January 2026 critique of Groov, review the science, and give a practical decision map you can use before you buy.

Why this matters now (2026): the landscape has changed

In late 2024 through early 2026, a wave of startups moved from physical clinics to smartphone scans and mail‑order custom insoles. Companies marketed 3D foot scans, AI‑tailored arch profiles, and materials like thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) as next‑gen orthotics. By the end of 2025 regulators and clinicians started pushing back: several consumer reports and mainstream tech outlets flagged inconsistent outcomes and confusing product claims.

Most notably, The Verge’s January 16, 2026 piece—written after a hands‑on Groov fitting—called the product “another example of placebo tech,” kicking off broad discussion among skeptical shoppers and podiatrists. That critique matters because it reflects two converging trends of 2025–26: the rise of tech‑first foot wellness brands, and heightened public scrutiny when marketing outpaces clinical evidence.

“The Verge called Groov ‘another example of placebo tech’ after an in‑person iPhone scan and a disappointing follow‑up.”

Short answer: sometimes. Context is everything.

Bottom line: 3D‑scanned insoles are worth it when they address a specific, diagnosed biomechanical problem or when they replace a poorly fitted orthotic with a clinically validated alternative. They’re less likely to help if your issue is general foot fatigue, mild soreness from bad shoes, or a pain driven primarily by non‑mechanical factors (in which case the perceived benefit may be placebo‑driven).

How to read that: the difference between subjective relief and objective correction

Comfort is real, but comfort doesn’t always equal correction. A softer or higher‑arched insole can make your foot feel better immediately—this is a legitimate short‑term win. But true orthotic intervention aims to change load distribution, reduce abnormal joint stress, or offload vulnerable tissue (for example, plantar ulcers in diabetes). The former is comfort; the latter requires measurable biomechanical effects.

What the science says (and what it doesn’t)

Research into orthotics and insoles spans decades. By 2026, a set of consistent findings has emerged:

• Condition‑specific value: Custom orthotics prescribed by clinicians show consistent benefit for some conditions—plantar fasciitis, certain biomechanical malalignments, and offloading in diabetic foot care. For high‑risk clinical uses, orthotics are part of evidence‑based care.
• Mixed evidence for broad claims: For generalized foot pain, knee pain, or performance gains, randomized controlled trials and meta‑analyses through the mid‑2020s show mixed or modest benefits. Outcomes vary by study design, comparator (sham insert vs no insert), and follow‑up duration.
• Placebo effect is strong in pain trials: Pain perception is highly susceptible to expectation. Trials that use a believable sham insole often reduce observed treatment effects, suggesting some improvement from insoles comes from expectation and improved comfort.
• Objective measures matter: Studies that include plantar pressure mapping, gait kinetics, or imaging can detect real load shifts. Products that provide and validate those objective changes have more credible claims.

In plain terms: if a 3D‑scanned insole company publishes peer‑reviewed trials showing pressure redistribution, reduced peak plantar pressure, or pain score improvements vs a legitimate control, that’s stronger evidence than glossy testimonials.

Dissecting The Verge’s Groov review

The Verge’s hands‑on critique is useful because it illustrates two failure modes common to direct‑to‑consumer scanned insoles:

1. Experience over evidence: The fitting process often feels high‑tech and reassuring—smartphone scans, 3D visualizations—but those steps can be performative if not tied to measurable biomechanical testing.
2. One‑size‑fits‑many customization: Many DTC brands offer “custom” profiles based on algorithms rather than clinician assessment. When the algorithm’s output isn’t validated with objective measures, the result can be a well‑made product that simply doesn’t correct the underlying pathology.

Victoria Song’s review emphasized the performative nature of the scan and the company’s marketing. That’s an important consumer signal: the more time a brand spends selling the scan as the unique value, the more you should ask for proof the scan delivers clinical benefit.

What makes a 3D‑scanned insole credible? A checklist for skeptical shoppers

Before spending $100–$400 on a custom‑scanned insole, run the brand through this practical checklist:

• Clinical validation: Does the company cite peer‑reviewed trials or independent lab reports comparing its insoles to validated controls (sham inserts, off‑the‑shelf orthotics)?
• Objective metrics: Can they show plantar pressure maps, gait data, or force‑plate results that demonstrate load redistribution specific to your complaint?
• Clinician involvement: Is a licensed podiatrist or orthopedist part of the intake or design process? Tele‑podiatry consultations strengthen credibility.
• Return/trial policy: Do they offer a realistic trial period and easy returns? A 90‑day in‑shoe trial with money‑back is a strong signal.
• Transparent materials & build specs: Know the materials (EVA, TPU, carbon fiber), rigidity, and expected lifespan. Durable, documented materials matter for support and long‑term value.
• Data privacy: What do they do with your 3D scan? Be wary if biometric foot scans are stored without clear opt‑out or deletion policies.

How to decide: a simple decision flow

Follow this three‑step flow to decide whether to buy a 3D‑scanned insole:

1. Define the problem: Is your issue diagnosed (plantar fasciitis, diabetic neuropathy, structural malalignment) or non‑specific soreness? If diagnosed, move to step 2. If non‑specific, try off‑the‑shelf measures first.
2. Try low‑cost interventions: Good footwear, OTC orthotics (arch support, heel cups), and targeted stretches for 4–8 weeks. Many people improve without custom devices.
3. If persistent, seek objective assessment: Get a clinician evaluation, plantar pressure scan, or gait analysis. If a DTC brand can replicate or improve on those objective metrics with published evidence, the scanned insole may be worth the investment.

When custom insoles are clearly worth the money

Spend on custom or clinician‑prescribed orthotics when any of these apply:

• Medically indicated offloading: Diabetic foot ulcers, Charcot foot, or areas at high risk for breakdown benefit from custom offloading insoles.
• Structural pathology confirmed by clinician: Significant pronation/supination with correlated symptoms, advanced bunions causing biomechanical change, or Achilles tendonitis tied to foot mechanics.
• Failed conservative care: After proper trials (shoe changes, OTC insoles, physical therapy) with persistent functional limitation or pain, a custom orthotic made in collaboration with a clinician is a reasonable next step.

When a 3D‑scanned insole is likely placebo tech

Be skeptical when the product ticks these boxes:

• Marketing heavy, evidence light: Lots of consumer photos but no clinical trials or objective metrics.
• No clinician check: Algorithm‑only design with no licensed practitioner review for complex cases.
• Vague outcome claims: Promises like “better alignment” or “optimized gait” without measurable definitions or before/after data.
• Price premium for aesthetics: High price because of packaging, luxury materials, or a fancy scan experience rather than biomechanical benefit.

Practical buying tips (acting like a value shopper)

Follow these practical steps to get the most value out of any insole purchase:

1. Start cheap: Begin with quality OTC insoles ($20–$60) and a 4–8 week trial. Document baseline pain and function (steps walked, pain scale).
2. Keep a pain log: Track pain on a 0–10 scale, distance walked, and activities; take short video of gait if possible. This makes before/after comparisons meaningful.
3. Ask for data up front: Request the company’s validation studies, sample plantar pressure maps, and material specs before paying.
4. Use trial windows: Choose brands with at least a 60–90 day trial and full refunds; that’s the best way to test subjective improvements versus placebo effect.
5. Mix interventions: Combine insoles with strengthening and mobility work. If symptoms improve only when you’re doing exercises—or only when you wear the new shoes—that nuance matters.
6. Watch for wear patterns: True biomechanical changes often create consistent long‑term changes in wear, pain distribution, and activity capacity; placebo effects fade for some users after weeks.

Orthotics vs mass‑market insoles: breaking down the cost

Price alone doesn’t guarantee efficacy. Here’s what you’re generally buying:

• Mass‑market insoles: Foam or gel inserts for cushioning and basic arch support. Cheap, immediately comfortable, and good for general fatigue or cheap shoes.
• 3D‑scanned DTC insoles: Custom contours based on scans plus engineered materials. Better fit than a generic insert; potential for targeted support—value depends on validation.
• Clinician‑prescribed custom orthotics: Built after examination, sometimes plaster casts or lab scans, designed to correct specific biomechanical issues. Most expensive, but most appropriate for clinical needs.

Privacy and data concerns in 2026

As foot‑scan tech proliferated in 2025–26, data privacy became a real consumer issue. 3D foot scans can be considered biometric data. Ask the company these direct questions before scanning:

• Do you store the 3D scan? For how long?
• Can I delete my scan and associated data on request?
• Is my data shared with third‑party analytics or advertisers?

If a brand avoids clear answers, that’s a red flag—especially if they charge a premium for “custom” products.

Future trends: what to expect in the next 2–3 years

Looking ahead from early 2026, here are trends likely to shape value shoppers’ choices:

• Integration with wearables: Shoe‑embedded sensors and smart insoles will provide continuous pressure data, allowing companies to validate interventions in real‑world use rather than lab snapshots.
• Regulatory clarity: Increased scrutiny and guidance from regulators and professional bodies will push companies toward clinical validation for therapeutic claims.
• AI + clinician hybridization: Effective products will combine algorithmic profiling with clinician oversight—AI to scale, clinicians to validate edge cases.
• More robust trials: Expect brands to publish randomized controlled trials or at least independent lab reports to compete credibly in a crowded market.

Two real‑world scenarios (case studies)

Case A — When a custom insole helped (runner with medial knee pain)

Profile: 34‑year‑old runner, persistent medial knee pain after 6 months of conservative care. Gait lab showed overpronation with increased knee valgus on midstance. Clinician recommended a semi‑rigid custom orthotic with medial arch support and lateral posting.

Outcome: After a 3‑month adaptation and concurrent strengthening protocol, pain decreased 70%, running volume returned, and gait analysis showed reduced peak medial knee load. This is a clear example where a clinician‑prescribed orthotic delivered measurable change.

Case B — When a scanned insole was mostly placebo (retail worker with foot fatigue)

Profile: 28‑year‑old retail worker with general fatigue and soreness after 8‑hour shifts. Bought a DTC 3D‑scanned insole after an attractive in‑store scan experience.

Outcome: Immediate comfort improvement reported for 2–3 weeks; by 6–8 weeks the benefit was inconsistent. No clinician assessment, no pressure maps, and the company provided limited return options. In this case the scan experience likely drove expectations more than lasting biomechanical change.

Actionable takeaways: a final checklist before you buy

• Define the problem: Diagnosed and structural? Consider clinician pathways. Non‑specific? Try OTC first.
• Demand data: Ask for independent validation, pressure maps, or clinician involvement.
• Use trial periods: Prefer vendors with 60–90 day trials and easy returns.
• Combine therapies: Insoles rarely cure alone—pair with footwear upgrades and targeted exercise.
• Protect your data: Ask how 3D scans and biometric data are stored and deleted.

Final verdict: be skeptical, but pragmatic

3D‑scanned insoles are not categorically worthless, nor are they a guaranteed fix. The Verge’s Groov review is an important reality check: a flashy scan and a premium price don’t equal clinical efficacy. For shoppers in 2026, the smartest approach is pragmatic skepticism—demand evidence, prefer clinician‑validated products for medical needs, and use inexpensive trials for general soreness. When you follow the checklist above you’ll spend less on placebo tech and more on solutions that measurably improve how you move.

Call to action

If you’re shopping for insoles this year, don’t buy blind. Start with a 4–8 week OTC trial, keep a short pain and activity log, and only escalate to custom solutions when objective data or clinician assessment supports it. Want a printable checklist and a one‑page decision flow to use in store or at your tele‑podiatry visit? Click the download link on this page to get our free buying kit and consumer‑grade questionnaire—designed for skeptical shoppers who want results, not hype.

Related Reading

• Top 7 Portable Power Stations for Power Outages and Road Trips (Jackery, EcoFlow & More)
• Building a Micro-App for Your Family: A Step-by-Step for Non-Developers
• How to Choose a Diffuser That Won’t Interfere with Your Robot Vacuum
• Interactive Dashboard: Travel Recovery Indicators Versus Macro Growth
• Eco Alternatives to Plastic Tape: Compostable Paper Tape vs. Recyclable Options for Retailers