The 5 Best Backcountry Ski Bindings of 2025

The Best Overall AT Binding

ATK Raider 13 Evo

Release Value Range	5 to 13
Weight (pounds for pair)	1.75
Brakes?	Yes
Brake Width Options	86, 91, 97, 102, 108, 120 mm
Weight of one binding and screws. Lightest possible configuration w/o brakes (in grams)	396.5

The ATK Raider 13 Evo is ATK's flagship binding, and many backcountry skiers – including our test team – love ATK's well-refined bindings. The Raider 13 Evo incorporates all the standard features we look for in a tech binding: adjustable length and release values, three heel risers, and brakes. But iterative improvements to this design have come together to deliver a backcountry binding with innovative release and retention characteristics that are unmatched. Even compared to our other Editors' Choice award winner, the Salomon MTN Summit 12 BR, the Raider 13 Evo has a more sophisticated release system.

That more sophisticated system, however, comes with more moving parts. Those additional parts complicate how you adjust this binding, all of which requires time to understand. For folks who count every gram, it also adds a significant amount of weight. Compared next to the very similar MTN Summit 12, the Raider 13 Evo is a touch heavier and takes quite a bit more time to dial in. The hardest charging skiers on our test team appreciate the enhanced retention and release characteristics, the sum of which does add meaningful value to this binding. For others, a lighter-weight binding like the ATK Haute Route 10 may be more suitable.

Read the full review: ATK Raider 13 Evo

The Other Best Binding

Salomon MTN Summit 12 BR

Release Value Range	6 to 12
Weight (pounds for pair)	1.86
Brakes?	Optional
Brake Width Options	80, 90, 100, 110 mm
Weight of one binding and screws. Lightest possible configuration w/o brakes (in grams)	310

The Salomon MTN Summit 12 BR is an incremental improvement on a binding we have long appreciated, one that has been at the top of our charts for quite some time. The MTN Summit 12 is an update to the still readily available MTN Tour. It is also exactly the same as the otherwise branded Atomic Backland Summit, while the MTN Tour is the same as the Atomic Backland Tour – a binding we tested and honored with a previous Editors' Choice award. The improvements from “Tour” to “Summit” are mainly in release and retention characteristics. The Summit series bindings are more readily adjustable than the Tour models and the Summit has a spring loaded heel piece in the track that provides greater heel “elasticity” for improved downhill performance and binding release.

The best part is that these upgrades come with minimal compromise. The MTN Summit 12 costs a bit more and weighs a bit more than similar designs, but the sophisticated release characteristics outweigh those costs. We particularly appreciated the improvements in adjustment – you can now adjust the release values with just a screwdriver, where on the Tour bindings, you needed to change out parts. It's more debatable how the spring-loaded heel piece improves performance. The additional elasticity certainly doesn't do any harm, but it isn't the boon that many espouse. We chose to test the “BR” version with brakes, but it's important to point out that the Summit 12 is also available without the brakes. However, if you aim to forego brakes, we recommend a binding like the Marker Alpinist, as the refined brake system on the Summit 12 is an important part of our overall recommendation.

Read the full review: Salomon MTN Summit 12 BR

Best Bang for the Buck

Dynafit Speed Turn

Release Value Range	4 to 10
Weight (pounds for pair)	1.61
Brakes?	No
Brake Width Options	N/A
Weight of one binding and screws. Lightest possible configuration w/o brakes (in grams)	364.5

The Dynafit Speed Turn is the best deal available for a tech-style binding, costing much less than most other models. With its tried-and-true, straightforward design, the Speed Turn is built to last, and we wouldn't hesitate to use it for remote backcountry ski trips. Many folks' primary complaint is in the required “spin” to change heel elevation modes. We can assert that, after a small learning curve, this is not as big of a problem as it is often made out to be. Some – including our lead tester – argue that the spin mechanism to adjust riser height is even better than the more common “flip-flop” style heel lifters. It certainly makes for some fast transitions with your skis on.

With a brakeless design and the unique rotating heel, the Speed Turn takes a bit more practice than other bindings in our lineup. There are nuances to backcountry skiing with no brakes. Based on the potential for beginner backcountry skiers to lose a ski, we really only recommend a binding like the Speed Turn to well-seasoned ski tourers. If you'd really rather have a binding with brakes – and that's a reasonable ask – it's unfortunate that the next most viable option, the Dynafit Seven Summits+ is much more expensive. Dynafit keeps costs low on the Speed Turn because it has seen very few incremental upgrades and refinements over its 30 years on the market. These bindings don't look much different than the Dynafit tech bindings of the early 1990s; in our book, this is a good thing.

Read the full review: Dynafit Speed Turn review

Best Ultralight Touring Binding

Dynafit Superlite 150

Weight: 179 grams | ISO/DIN Certified: No

Release Value Range	4 to 13
Weight (pounds for pair)	0.79
Brakes?	Optional
Brake Width Options	75, 90, 105 mm
Weight of one binding and screws. Lightest possible configuration w/o brakes (in grams)	179

The Dynafit Superlite 150 is the best ultralight ski binding in our test. It almost matches the weight of skimo race bindings but adds significant robustness and release value adjustment and range. Any binding with release adjustments from 4-13 is significant. That it is this light is remarkable. We do need to make one note on the weight because the marketing material for the Superlite 150 suggests that it weighs 150 grams. This award winner does indeed weigh 150 grams – just without the screws. Add the screws, and you get the weight we list above. Regardless of the length or how many, all bindings need screws to mount, so it only seems fair to include them in our measured weight.

You can add aftermarket adjustment plates and brakes to the Superlite 150 and still have a pretty lightweight package. But if you want those features, you are better off choosing one of our higher scoring options that come standard with those features, like the Atomic Backland Tour. Choose the Superlite 150 to optimize uphill performance, with just enough downhill performance to instill confidence in any scenario you might find yourself climbing into.

Read the full review: Dynafit Superlite 150 review

Best Hybrid Binding

Marker Duke PT 13

Release Value Range	4 to 12
Weight (pounds for pair)	5.38
Brakes?	Integrated
Brake Width Options	100, 125 mm
Weight of one binding and screws. Lightest possible configuration w/o brakes (in grams)	1219

Choose this binding for optimized downhill performance, but do so with caution. Regarding the inherent compromises we make with all backcountry ski gear, we can seldom make absolute claims. However, we can definitely assert that the Marker Duke PT is the best alpine skiing binding that can also tour. Aside from minor points, the Duke PT skis as well as basic to above-average resort bindings. That certainly sets it apart from most other bindings in this review.

That, though, is where the applause ends. To get that downhill performance, the Duke PT is too heavy and complicated to compete on any level with actual touring bindings. The Duke PT is literally seven times the weight of the lightest binding we tested (and 12 times the weight of the lightest options on the market!) For all that weight, you might get downhill performance that is twice that of the other lightweight options. That's tough math to reconcile, even compared to similar but lighter-weight options like the Atomic Shift2 13 MN. Basically, these bindings are for the resort or other mechanized skiing (i.e., helicopter or snowcat) that may involve only short ascents. “Regular” backcountry skiing is best done with regular and much lighter backcountry ski bindings, like the similarly priced Dynafit Ridge.

Read the full review: Marker Duke PT 13 review

Compare Products

Compare select up to 5 products to compare

	Score	Product	Price
	73	ATK Raider 13 Evo The Best Overall AT Binding	$700
	72	Salomon MTN Summit 12 BR The Other Best Binding	$600
	72	Plum R170	$445
	72	Atomic Backland Tour	$725
	71	ATK Trofeo	$500
	71	ATK Haute Route 10	$600
	71	Dynafit Ridge	$600
	71	Plum Race 99	$619
	70	Dynafit Seven Summits+	$430
	70	Marker Alpinist	$550
	69	Plum Oazo 8	$490
	69	ATK Crest 10	$500
	68	Dynafit Superlite 150 Best Ultralight Touring Binding	$650
	68	Plum Pika	$539
	68	G3 Zed 12	$572
	67	Dynafit Speed Turn Best Bang for the Buck	$280
	67	Marker Cruise 12	$650
	66	Dynafit Radical Binding	$550
	66	G3 Ion 12	$664
	64	Plum Karibou 12 Stopper	$709
	55	Fritschi Xenic 10	$520
	54	Marker Kingpin 13	$700
	50	Marker Duke PT 13 Best Hybrid Binding	$600
	45	Atomic Shift2 13 MN	$800

Why Trust GearLab

Testing backcountry ski bindings involved some lab time and then a whole lot of skiing. We weighed each binding (including mandatory mounting screws) to the nearest gram (and then made conversions). We obtained measurements of the stack height and binding delta for each binding to get a numerical idea of the edge-to-edge leverage and forward-to-back weight distribution. Next, things got fun. We put in tens of thousands of vertical feet in all sorts of conditions. Our team put each of these bindings through the wringer to take the guesswork out of your decision-making experience. Virtually all of our backcountry ski binding testing took place in the actual backcountry. This lattermost fact alone sets apart our review from many other reviews on the internet; to test in true backcountry circumstances is harder but far more useful. We hold ourselves to a high standard. Plus, we love backcountry skiing.

Related: How We Tested Alpine Touring (AT) Bindings

Our testing of AT bindings is divided into five metrics:

• Weight (35% of total score weighting)

• Downhill Performance (25% weighting)

• Touring Performance (20% weighting)

• Ease of Use (15% weighting)

• Durability (5% weighting)

Our lead tester, Jed Porter, is an internationally-certified IFMGA/UIAGM mountain guide. Jed's primary gig is guiding backcountry skiing around his home in the Teton Range and around the world. He has notched a summit-to-sea ski descent of Mount Saint Elias and made the first integral (and first solo) completion of California's historic Red Line Traverse. In 2020 he logged 800,000 vertical feet of human-powered mountain terrain, including a period in which he logged “half-a-mil in half a year”, all on skis. Other years aren't that far off of his 2020 stats. Jed leads a seasoned test team from a wide range of backgrounds to extensively test these bindings and consults with peers, partners, and clients for additional feedback.

Analysis and Test Results

Your absolute most important consideration is your application and usage patterns. Be real about how you will use your ski gear and think critically about marketing copy and the appeal of overblown generalizations that promise more than they can deliver. AT ski bindings can be light and simple and enable amazing adventures. Or they can be entirely unsuitable. Few categories of outdoor equipment are available with such a wide range of functionality. Further, few other categories of equipment have the most “exciting” developments in the most ineffective and niche subcategories. What's important and useful in AT ski bindings isn't the same as what's currently marketed. Buyer beware and read carefully.

Related: How to Choose AT Bindings

What's the Best Value?

AT ski bindings span a wide range of prices. What do you get at different price points? As bindings get lighter, they get more expensive. From the budget end of things, bindings also get more expensive and heavier with incrementally greater safety and downhill performance. Spend more in the lightweight direction, and you can cut the weight in half with almost no cost in performance. Spend more for greater downhill performance, and that downhill performance increases by a marginal amount. If you are looking for “bang for your buck,” going lighter is definitely better than going for more downhill performance.

The least expensive bindings are light and straightforward but not super light. Paradoxically, there is an inverse relationship between price and durability. Normally, we might expect more expensive products to last longer. In the case of AT ski bindings, the least expensive are the most robust and longest-proven designs. We love this sort of synchronicity. Subtract weight from something proven and affordable, and it gets more expensive and less durable. Add features (and, inherently, weight) to that same binding, and it gets more expensive and less durable. The Dynafit Speed Turn offers excellent, long-lasting value at a reasonable weight.

With the presence of the Shift2 and Marker Duke PT on the market, our review, and the award selection roster, we acknowledge a discussion of value decisions around these appealing “hybrid” resort/backcountry bindings. With acceptable resort performance, we know that it is tempting to choose the Shift or Duke as bindings to anchor a sort of “quiver of one” for resort and backcountry skiing. We advocate against this strategy, as it likely won't have the value or performance you hope for. If you're interested in a deeper dive into this conversation, our lead tester takes an editorial slant to this discussion.

Weight

While weight is a factor regarding touring performance, we kept it separate for our OutdoorGearLab scoring purposes. More than most other types of gear, the difference in weight from one binding to another is quite large. Look at the more than 1-kilogram difference between one of our review's lightest bindings, the Plum Race 99 (121 g per foot), and the heaviest, the Marker Duke PT (1219 g per foot). That is an immense difference, and that weight will have a major impact on your experience. Overall, touring on lighter bindings is noticeably easier. The old adage, “a pound on your foot is like five on your back,” runs at least slightly true, as people can endure noticeably more vertical gain with less weight on their feet.

To score and evaluate for weight, we also considered the feature set of these bindings. For an “apples-to-apples” comparison, we took the raw weight data and adjusted it for features and tweaking for optional add-ons. For instance, some bindings have optional brakes. For the bindings we tested with optional brakes, we've indicated both weights in the specifications.

There is a significant difference among tech bindings, especially when comparing a top performer like the Atomic Backland Tour (286 grams) to the Marker Kingpin 13 (737 grams). The Kingpin has all the same major features as the Backland but weighs much more. Both the Salomon MTN Summit and ATK Raider 13 Evo earn our highest award in great part thanks to their weight. These two bindings incorporate all of the basic features required, many more than we want, and do it all at a very reasonable weight.

We grant the Dynafit Superlite 150 our specialty award for its sweet spot ultralight construction and adjustable release value. The ATK Haute Route 10 is a close contender to the Dynafit Superlite. The insanely light Plum Race 99 is too fragile for all but the most specialized users. Both the Plum R170 and ATK Trofeo are sturdy skimo race bindings that can be pressed into all-around backcountry use.

Special mention must be made of the ATK Crest 10. This binding weighs significantly less than the top-tested models and has all the major features we look for in a touring binding. However, some of those features significantly compromise utility, so it hasn't yet earned an award. Similarly, the Plum Oazo 8 might have just the features you want and cuts weight from other fully-featured bindings. But it doesn't have all the features most people want, and it is heavier than similar ultralight options. But there's always the chance that the Plum Oazo strikes the perfect balance for your setup.

Some bindings are heavier than we would expect for their utility. The Plum Karibou 12 Stopper is one of the heaviest “traditional” tech bindings in our review and offers nothing meaningful that bindings half the weight don't have. The Marker Cruise 12 is slightly lighter weight, but it doesn't greatly improve upon the overall performance of the much lighter Marker Alpinist.

Downhill Performance

For our downhill performance score, we compared how well each AT binding performed on the down. We divide our assessment into two main categories: how does the binding perform in “routine” downhill, and how is it designed and built to work when a release is required? While most felt great in softer snow, we made sure to compare them in harsh, icy, and variable snow and at higher speeds where our testers could feel more of a difference.

Several factors contribute to downhill “routine” performance. We look at overall rigidity, release elasticity, stack height, and ramp angle (e.g., heel-toe-delta). A more rigid initial connection between ski and boot lends better downhill performance. Binding “elasticity” – or elastic travel – is the distance your boot can move within the binding before it is released. Bindings with more elasticity allow the boot to get deflected by normal skiing forces and then return to the center for the next turn.

If a binding had zero elasticity, every lateral force would result in a complete release, and every ski turn involves some degree of lateral force. Longitudinal ski flex creates the same sort of issue. Every ski turn involves longitudinal ski flex, which shortens the distance between toe and heel pieces. Bindings have to accommodate these flexions and forces. From the binding's perspective, many of the forces associated with normal skiing appear to be the same forces associated with a fall.

The elasticity of a binding offers some level of forgiveness so that you're not ejecting with every turn. If the force is short-lived – as in a normal turn – the binding and ski will return to normal position relative to your boot. If that force continues, the ski comes off, and the force is relieved before it is transmitted to your bones and connective tissues, in theory. Of course, binding release isn't perfect, and people get injured all the time. Release performance is also difficult to objectively assess in the field, as we simply cannot (and don't want to) crash enough to collect reliable data. What we look for here first are certification standards. Then, we consider the range of adjustment and type of non-certified release methodology.

AT bindings that form a more positive connection between the boot and the ski tend to perform better on the downhill because you are able to transfer energy from your boot straight into the ski. This is a fact, but it is also nuanced. Mainly, bindings differ less in the positivity of connection than others might claim. The fanciest, most “resort-like” bindings and the lightest, simplest bindings are more similar in connection than they are different. For routine, and even a lot of non-routine skiing, modern bindings hold your boot to the ski as securely as you could ever need.

Of the touring bindings we have reviewed, only the Atomic Shift2, Marker Duke PT, and Marker Kingpin have at least some part of the sole of the skier's boot pressing onto the binding. The Kingpin presses at the heel, while the Shift2 and Duke PT have a firm downward hold at both the toe and heel. These bindings also provide some “forward pressure” that assists in the elasticity of the binding. This forward pressure is best handled by the two (Shift2 and Duke PT) with “standard” looking toe pieces. The Kingpin presses forward into pin-in-socket touring-style toe pieces, which is less impactful.

Many bindings in our lineup, like the Dynafit Ridge, provide some degree of “simulated forward pressure” that, theoretically, creates a more secure fit and more reliable release function. Other, more traditional pin-style bindings, like the Dynafit Speed Turn, accommodate longitudinal flex and play with a gap between the boot and heel piece. In these, the pins slide in and out of the boot heel fitting, allowing the binding to compensate for the flex of the ski underneath your boot. Some others have both a heel gap and a spring-loaded heel piece.

Binding geometry varies from one product to the next. Each binding puts your boot sole at a different distance from the ski – like with running shoes, the distance between the boot sole and ski top sheet is called “stack height.” While some ski racers like more stack height because it allows them to tip their skis way over on edge, most skiers, especially backcountry tourers, prefer to be closer to the ski. This gives the user a better balance and “feel.”

Generally speaking, most manufacturers compete to see who can get the lowest stack height possible. The more sophisticated tech bindings, however, have a greater stack height because of the additional parts to improve the release function. The higher stack heights are in the mid-to upper-40 mm range, while the average hovers around 39 mm. Plum and ATK dominate the “low stack height” list, with the greatest number of bindings below 35 mm. It's important to point out that none of those bindings have brakes, which also require space between the boot and the ski.

The skiing ramp angle is the angle between your foot sole and the ski top sheet. This angle depends on boot size, insole choice, boot sole geometry, and binding construction. Here, we focus on just the binding component of this equation. The binding affects your ramp angle in that different bindings have different relative heights of their toe and heel pieces. We call the difference between toe and heel height “heel-toe delta.” We measure this by measuring the distance from the ski surface to the center of the effective toe pins and to the center of the effective heel pins. (We use the term “effective” because not all bindings have heel pins, and some hybrid designs do not use their toe pins in downhill mode).

AT bindings tend to feature a greater heel-toe delta than most resort bindings to help, theoretically, make up for generally softer, less aggressive, and forward-leaning boots. Unless you are 100% confident that you have strong preferences in ramp angle and you know your boot size and boot geometry (as it pertains to ramp angle), we don't recommend thinking too much about binding toe-heel-delta. If it does matter to you, pay special attention to bindings with particularly low stack heights.

There are three main categories of AT bindings in terms of release value adjustment. First, some have no adjustment to the release. Next, there are the adjustable release bindings with no certification. Finally, there is the category of bindings that have third-party-endorsed release values. It is important to take a moment to break down the “alphabet soup” that surrounds ISO/DIN certification. DIN is a German organization that defines binding release parameters. ISO is an international organization that does the same thing, meaning ISO and DIN parameters are generally synonymous (often, you see them paired as a single rating). ISO and DIN both write standards for alpine bindings as well as for AT bindings.

The Shift2 and Duke PT also meet the alpine binding release standard, which is more stringent than the AT standard. TUV is a company that tests ski bindings to the ISO/DIN standards. It's a common misconception, but you can't actually have “DIN-certified” bindings. The bindings are “TUV-certified” to the DIN standard. It may be semantics, but perhaps it's important to understand the difference.

As you ponder your binding choice, especially as it pertains to downhill performance, consider the following. Yes, you are here for the downhill. We all are. Nonetheless, you have to accept that you will spend 80-90% of your backcountry skiing time going uphill. Lighter gear gets you up the hill faster, with more energy to spare at the top. Bindings that go downhill better are heavier. More precisely, bindings that go downhill a little better are a lot heavier. The heaviest bindings we have tested are more than four times as heavy as the lightest but go downhill marginally better.

We've skied 50-degree, no-fall-zone, high-altitude lines on the lightest race bindings included in this review. Sure, something beefier would be better in that instance, but considering the full picture, beefier bindings just weren't the right choice. The certifications, springs, retention, and associated mass are appealing as you want to maximize downhill performance. Furthermore, heavier bindings tend to look more like the resort bindings you are accustomed to. This perception and familiarity and its bias in your decision-making process cannot be ignored. Familiar-looking equipment might make you feel better about a particular decision, but can you change your perception to be comfortable with proven and effective equipment? After watching hundreds of skiers of all abilities use dozens of different bindings, we can say on good authority that all else equal, more minimalist bindings enhance your experience more than beefier ones.

The absolute best case to be made for this might be the type of gear that ski guides in the Tetons are using. We surveyed the entirety of human-powered ski guides working in the region – one that arguably sees the greatest volume of guided ski touring in the US – and it's tough to come up with a single guide regularly using bindings weighing more than 375 grams per foot. All of these guides are skiing downhill a lot, at a very high standard, in consequential terrain, with high energy and confidence.

Touring Performance

We tested and compared the heel riser range, variety, deployment, touring range of motion, and the binding's resistance to icing up during certain conditions for our touring comparison. We kept weight and ease of use separate for this comparison category even though these things also affect touring performance.

First, let's discuss everything about heel risers. How easily does each heel riser engage and disengage? What does it take to switch between modes? Most of the products we tested have three levels of touring mode. All the bindings we tested have a “flat on ski” mode. We compared how easily the heel risers were to engage and disengage while using our poles, ideally, so we wouldn't have to bend over when we wanted to use them. As a whole, manufacturers have taken note of the consumer desire for easier and quicker-to-engage heel risers and have answered with continuously easier-to-use designs.

The G3 Ion and G3 Zed 12, Plum Pika, and the ATK Raider 13 Evo have risers that are the easiest to learn, engage, and disengage. The flip-flop style lifters are intuitive and have become the standard design. The major exception is the value-oriented Dynafit Speed Turn. To change modes – between ski and tour mode and between different lifter levels – you must turn the entire heel piece. Well-practiced moves, especially between flat and middle height (which should be the most common move you make), are just as easy on the Speed Turn as on any binding with a flip-flop-style lifter.

Next, we looked at each binding's toe piece range of motion. Some touring moves require more hinge range at the toe than others. A “normal” touring stride requires a little bit of heel lift (about 6-8 inches, at most), and all the bindings we tested allow enough for this. Steep uphill terrain requires a specialized “kick turn” technique. The most efficient kick turners get the tip of the ski to their knee (and, therefore, the top of the toe of their boot) near the top sheet of the ski during a kick turn. Most bindings we tested allow you to have all of the range of motion you need. However, there are notable exceptions to this rule.

The complicated toe piece of the Fritschi Xenic 10 has bulk and parts that limit the range of motion. During kick turns, this compromised range of motion is noticeable and unfortunate. The close competitor Marker Kingpin has less range of motion than other bindings but more than the Xenic. All the other bindings, especially the award winners, have all the range of motion you need.

The final step in binding touring mode examination was to assess how each contender resisted icing. All bindings ice up to some extent and need to be chipped free from time to time. Our review's simplest, lightest bindings are also the least prone to icing. The Shift2, Duke, and Kingpin bindings have more moving parts that collect ice. Any binding with brakes is more prone to icing than those without brakes.

The ultra-low-profile heel pieces of the ATK Trofeo, Plum R170, and Race 99 collect virtually no ice. In sticky snow conditions, the G3 Ion 12, Zed 12, and Plum Pika gather ice that simulates informal “heel lifts,” even when the binding is in low tour mode. Almost all “traditional” tech toes collect ice under the center of the toe piece. This manifests as toe pins that won't close entirely. In this case, the ski needs to be removed, turned upside down, and the ice cleared out. It may appear that your boot toe holes are full of ice or dirt, but the more likely culprit is ice between the toe piece and the ski top sheet. The Plum toe pieces seem to be especially vulnerable to this problem.

Ease of Use

Ease of use is summed up (you guessed it) by how easy the bindings were to use. First, we looked at how easy they were to step into and out of and how easy it was to transition to touring or downhill again. We also compared how easy it was to make adjustments to release value and boot length.

Ease of entry for tech bindings is where the G3 bindings take the cake, and it's the feature that impressed us the most about the Ion 12 and Zed 12. Instead of nearly all other tech bindings, where you need to either “hook” one side or line up your toe holes and use downward pressure to engage the front pins, both G3 bindings feature two vertical levers that, when lightly pressured, engage the side pins. The toe piece of the Fritschi Xenic is engineered entirely differently, but the result is similar in terms of ease of entry. Its spring-loaded closure was very sensitive, and when most folks first start trying to use it, their toe closes before their boot is in position. Once accustomed to it, getting into the Xenic goes smoothly. The Marker Kingpin was likely the next easiest of the tech bindings to get into. Similar to the Dynafit Ridge, it features two “posts” that help line your boot up correctly. The toe piece of the Atomic Backland Tour and Salomon MTN Summit both have a toe bumper that helps you line up the toe pins.

Different products have different advantages while transitioning. From up to down matters more, and nearly every backcountry tour will have at least one of these types of transitions. Many skiers regularly take their skins off without removing their skis. A binding that allows you to do this is an advantage, particularly while in deep, soft snow, where if you step down with a “ski-less” foot, you will plunge that leg to your hip.

On the flip side, it is challenging to put skins on your skis while they remain on your feet, so being able to transition on this end more quickly is a slightly overrated, over-publicized feature. The one time we dig being able to go into “cross country” mode where you want your heel free, but no skins on, is during the descent and while traveling on long, flat, snow-covered roads and frozen lakes.

The Atomic Backland Tour transitions pretty easily but requires an extra step with the brakes. The brakes must be manipulated by hand every time you switch from down to up or vice versa. You can also buy and mount this award winner without brakes. All bindings with brakes require some sort of extra step, at least in transitions from down to up. Transitions with the Dynafit Superlite 150, Plum R170, and Oazo are quick and easy.

Transitions with the Plum Karibou, ATK Raider 13 Evoand Crest 10 are very similar and about average. Atomic Shift2 and Marker Duke PT transitions are among the more onerous. Disengaging the Shift2 brake from tour to ski mode can be downright dangerous. One tester lost most of a fingernail early in the testing process. Further, you absolutely have to remove the Shift2 from your boot to go either direction between tour and ski mode. Transitioning the Marker Duke involves, in some cases, completely removing the toe piece and stowing it in your backpack. In just its first year of availability, we heard multiple stories of people ending up on top of their ski run with no Duke toe pieces. This is annoying, at best.

Construction Quality

For our durability test, we did our best to compare how burly each product was. For this comparison, we not only pooled our own experience but talked to over a dozen reputable backcountry ski shops, mountain guides, and a few sales reps and customer service contacts; we wanted to see what broke, how often, and on which models. Overall, there is a pretty strong correlation between durability and simplicity. Simple, proven products will last better. Very lightweight designs and, at the other end of the spectrum, very complex designs will be the least durable. Everything in the “middle” will be pretty close in terms of durability.

The specialized Atomic Shift2 incorporates more moving parts than typical for touring bindings, which does indeed present some issues in durability and usability. In a few seasons now of use, certain patterns have emerged. The toe pieces can break, and the brakes sometimes engage while touring, both of which are annoying at best. In our testing, we have found two major behavioral patterns at the root of these issues. Since the Shift2 looks like a resort binding, people use and treat them like resort bindings. Resort skiers are accustomed to cleaning the soles of their boots before entry by scraping or kicking their boots against the toe piece of the binding – don't do this with the Shift2. We tend to carry our skis around with their brakes interlaced. If you jerk them apart, as you can with regular resort bindings, you risk bending crucial, low-tolerance parts in the brake stowing mechanism. Be gentle; these aren't resort bindings.

The Marker Duke PT snags an award from the Shift2 mainly due to differences in durability. Our testing indicates that the Duke is exempt from most of the durability and functional issues of the Shift2. Both, though, are heavier and more complicated than is necessary for most backcountry skiers. The Fritschi Xenic feels significantly less robust than the similar Marker Kingpin. We broke an important part in the first tester pair of Xenic bindings. They worked to get us back to the trailhead, but even after replacing the entire toe piece, we remain suspect of their longevity.

The award-winning Salomon MTN Summit and ATK Raider 13 Evo each call on a well-proven lineage. We have spent the majority of the past decade skiing on different versions of the Summit and Tour platforms – durability and function continue to be entirely reliable. Both incorporate proven components and features in important places while adding carefully tailored innovations that also hold up. We especially like the reliability of the brakes on the Salomon Summit. Alternatively, we can also assure you that the diminutive “meat” of the Raider heel piece is equally reliable. Despite the sliding heel piece, both designs integrate a moving part without much drama. However, if we had to choose one binding based on all-time reliability, it would continue to be the Dynafit Speed Turn. The simplicity of that bomb-proof design is hard to beat.

Conclusion

The team tests various backcountry bindings across seasons to help identify the best options for your purposes. The new technology in touring bindings presents an opportunity to reduce weight and enhance performance, but discerning the differences can be challenging. Our reviews, comparisons, and reports on bindings aim to assist in human-powered backcountry skiing gear selection. The insights are based on real-world backcountry skiing experiences from a diverse team with varying skill levels. The team emphasizes the importance of making an informed ski-binding choice and offers expert opinions based on many years of cumulative experience. Make sure you examine the differences between what you want and what you need, the differences between what is proven and what is trendy, and the differences between what is important and what is prominent. Few purchases reinforce the need to think critically about catalog copy and “innovation” versus reliability and real-world use. We hope our reviews elucidate what is truly important.