Marathon pace chart: pace and splits for your goal time

Find your goal time for the even pace and splits to run it, per kilometre and per mile, then see what the research says about holding that pace over 42.195 km.

By RunFast · Updated 9 October 2026 · 15 min read

A marathon pace chart turns a goal finish time into the pace to run and the times to expect on the way. Find your goal finish time in the first column: its row gives the even pace per km and per mile, and your time at 5 km, 10 km, halfway, 30 km and 40 km. The tables below cover finish times from 2:30:00 to 6:30:00 in 5-minute steps, by kilometre and by mile.

Every pace in the chart is an even pace, the same from start to finish, because that is what a chart can show. In two systematic reviews of marathon studies and in large datasets of marathon finishers, runners generally slowed in the second half.^{1, 2, 3, 4} More even pacing, or slightly negative pacing (a second half a little faster than the first), has generally been associated with better results.^{5, 6} But a 2026 meta-analysis of studies in endurance time trials found no consistent performance advantage of any imposed pacing strategy over self-selected pacing, in which athletes set their own.⁷

Most of the marathon evidence is observational: in a 2024 systematic review of marathon pacing, 29 of its 39 studies were observational.¹ The trials in the meta-analysis were time trials in healthy athletes in sports such as cycling, running and swimming, not marathon races.⁷ So the chart’s numbers are exact arithmetic, while the best way to pace 42.195 km is not settled.

Marathon pace chart by kilometre

Paces and times are rounded to the whole second. Each split is worked out from the exact pace, not the rounded one, so a rounded pace multiplied by a distance can be a few seconds off the row: at most about 21 s over 42.195 km, because rounding moves a pace by no more than half a second per km.

Marathon pace chart by mile

If your watch shows miles, here is the same marathon pace chart per mile.

How to use the chart

Find the row for your goal finish time. If your goal falls between two rows, the pace changes by about 7 s per km (11 s per mile) for every 5 minutes of finish time, so you can estimate between them. For an exact time, a time outside 2:30:00 to 6:30:00 or another distance, use the pace calculator.

On an even plan, halfway is half your finish time. Use the 5 km and 10 km times (5 mi and 10 mi) to check your start against the plan, halfway as the midpoint, and 30 km and 40 km (20 mi and 25 mi) as the checkpoints for the late race. The chart covers race day itself; for the weeks before it, see how long a marathon taper should be.

Choose the row from a recent race, not from the time you would like to run. The pace calculator’s equivalent race times show what a recent 5K, 10K or half marathon predicts for the marathon, once you have trained for the distance. In a questionnaire study of 139 marathon runners about their training and a 2017 marathon, higher weekly training volumes were strongly associated with smaller declines in pace.⁶ That is an association, not proof; still, let your training, not the chart, set the goal.

If your second half is slower

The chart assumes you run both halves at the same pace. The table below keeps the first half at chart pace and slows the second: 5% slower means the second half takes 5% longer than the first, at a pace per km 5% higher. It is arithmetic, not a prediction.

For context, a study of 91,929 performances in 14 US marathons in 2011 measured pace maintenance as the percentage change in pace from the first half to the second.⁴ The mean change in pace was 15.6% for men and 11.7% for women.⁴ Those are means across many runners, and the table is arithmetic, not a prediction, so don’t read them off its 15% column.

What the research says about pacing a marathon

The chart shows an even pace. Whether to run one is a question for the research: what it found, in whom, and how sure it is. Each claim below links to its source, and our editorial standards say how each one is checked.

Even, negative or positive splits

An even split means running both halves at the same pace, and a positive split, or positive pacing, means slowing down in the second half. A negative split is running the second half faster than the first, and a 2025 mini-review calls it a potentially optimal strategy for endurance athletes.⁸ Among the advantages it proposes are improved energy conservation and glycogen sparing, enhanced thermoregulation and reduced cardiovascular drift.⁸ It also says negative splits are not universally applicable, and calls for individualised approaches based on fitness level, environmental conditions and race profile.⁸

A 2008 review of pacing in athletic competition, not marathons in particular, suggested that in prolonged events, over 2 minutes, performance times may improve if athletes distribute their pace more evenly.⁹

A 2026 narrative review synthesised 37 studies of half-marathon and marathon pacing.⁵ In the observational evidence it drew on, pacing was generally more even in the half marathon and more positive in the marathon.⁵ More even or slightly negative pacing has generally been associated with more favourable performance.⁵ Its authors say this should be read as an observed association rather than a direct prescription.⁵ A 2020 study of marathon runners opens by noting that even pacing within the marathon has been associated with faster marathon times.⁶

Trials that impose a pace ask a different question: does telling athletes how to pace beat letting them choose? A 2026 systematic review and network meta-analysis pooled 24 studies with 302 participants, healthy athletes in endurance time trials in sports such as cycling, running and swimming.⁷ Each study compared at least one imposed strategy, fast-start, even or slow pacing, with a self-selected or alternative strategy.⁷ It found no consistent performance advantage of any imposed pacing strategy over self-selected pacing.⁷ In those time trials, prolonged slow starts were associated with impaired performance.⁷

How marathoners actually pace

A 2024 systematic review set out to characterise pacing strategies in marathon road races, in healthy adult athletes at any level.¹ Of its 39 studies, 30 reported positive pacing in marathon competition, 7 negative pacing, 5 even pacing and 3 parabolic pacing; the counts overlap because some studies reported more than one pattern.¹ The review reports gender, age, performance, running in a pack, and physiological and psychological factors as influences on pacing, a conclusion drawn mostly from observational studies.¹

A 2026 systematic review of 76 publications on the New York City Marathon, covering runners of all ages, sexes and performance levels, found that runners generally adopted a positive pacing strategy with a final spurt in the last segment, from 40 to 42.2 km.² The fastest split was between 5 and 10 km and the slowest between 35 and 40 km, coinciding with the undulating terrain on the way into Central Park.² Faster runners maintained the most even pacing.² The 2026 narrative review also found faster runners’ pacing more stable.⁵

In a study of 190,228 New York City Marathon finishers from 2006 to 2011, all runners developed a positive pace profile, with less variation in speed through the race among the top runners.³ The authors suggest that both men and women try to keep an even pace, partly by avoiding an excessively fast start that might lead to a pronounced drop in speed in the second half.³

In the study of 14 US marathons above, the mean change in pace from the first half to the second was 15.6% for men and 11.7% for women.⁴ A 2021 study of recreational marathon runners used more than 4 million race records to define hitting the wall by pacing, as a sustained period of slowing in the latter stages of the marathon.¹⁰ By that definition, 28% of male runners hit the wall, compared with 17% of female runners.¹⁰ The definition is a proxy for hitting the wall, based on pacing alone.¹⁰ And in the questionnaire study of 139 marathon runners, higher weekly training volumes were strongly associated with smaller declines in pace.⁶

Where the evidence is thin or mixed

Trials outside the marathon

The trials of imposed pacing were time trials in healthy athletes in endurance sports such as cycling, running and swimming, not marathon races.⁷ The meta-analysis’s abstract doesn’t say how many of its studies were in runners. The marathon evidence is mostly observational, so it shows associations, not causes: 29 of the 2024 review’s 39 studies were observational, and the narrative review’s authors present their main finding as an observed association rather than a prescription.^{1, 5} In practice, use the chart as a plan, and don’t treat any way of splitting the race as proven for you.

Reviews that overlap

The 2026 narrative review synthesised 37 studies found through a structured but non-systematic search.⁵ The New York review is systematic but covers one race, in 76 publications with no restriction on study design.² The 2024 review included 39 studies and rated their quality with a median score of 8 on the scale it used.¹ Read the three as overlapping bodies of evidence, not three separate confirmations.

Slower runners

On slower runners, the narrative review and the New York review partly disagree: the first found greater variability and a more pronounced pace decline, while the second found greater early-race deceleration but larger late-race speed increases.^{5, 2} Both found that faster runners paced more evenly or more stably.^{5, 2}

Course and conditions

In a study of 91,493 runners from four marathons, the authors concluded that race characteristics affect pacing, more so in slower time categories.¹¹ Its abstract doesn’t say which characteristics they were. In New York, the slowest split, between 35 and 40 km, coincided with undulating terrain.² None of the sources here gives a figure for how much to allow for hills or heat, so this guide doesn’t either.

Who was studied, and what the sources leave open

In 2014, the authors of the New York study noted that most studies had focused on competitive or elite athletes rather than recreational runners.³ The 2024 review took in healthy adult athletes at any level.¹ And none of the abstracts read for this guide says how much faster a slightly negative second half is, so this guide gives no target for one.

Common questions

What pace do I need for a 3, 4 or 5-hour marathon?

For 3:00:00, run 4:16 /km (6:52 /mi) and reach halfway in 1:30:00. For 4:00:00, it is 5:41 /km (9:09 /mi), with halfway at 2:00:00. For 5:00:00, it is 7:07 /km (11:27 /mi), with halfway at 2:30:00. To run under 3, 4 or 5 hours, aim a little faster than the row for that time: the 3:55:00 row, for example, is 5:34 /km (8:58 /mi).

How do I work out my marathon pace?

Divide your goal finish time by the distance: 42.195 km for a pace per km, or 26.22 miles for a pace per mile. A 4:00:00 goal, for example, works out at 5:41 /km or 9:09 /mi. For an exact time, use the pace calculator, and choose the goal from a recent race rather than from the chart.

Should I run even splits or a negative split in a marathon?

The research doesn’t settle it. More even or slightly negative pacing has generally been associated with better results, and a 2025 mini-review calls negative splits a potentially optimal strategy, though not universally applicable.^{5, 8} But the marathon findings are observed associations, and trials in endurance time trials found no imposed pacing strategy consistently better than self-selected pacing.^{5, 7} In the 2024 systematic review, 30 of the 39 studies reported positive pacing in marathons, and 7 negative pacing.¹ In practice, plan the chart’s even pace, check your start against the 5 km and 10 km times, and use 30 km and 40 km to see how you are holding it.

How much do runners slow in the second half?

In 91,929 performances in 14 US marathons in 2011, the mean change in pace from the first half to the second was 15.6% for men and 11.7% for women.⁴ In more than 4 million race records of recreational marathoners, 28% of male and 17% of female runners hit the wall, defined by pacing as a sustained period of slowing in the latter stages of the race.¹⁰ In New York, all runners in a study of 190,228 finishers developed a positive pace profile, and a systematic review of the race found that runners generally adopted positive pacing, with a final spurt between 40 and 42.2 km.^{3, 2} Of the 39 studies in the 2024 systematic review, 30 reported positive pacing in marathon competition.¹ The table for a slower second half shows what slowing does to a goal time.

This guide is general information, not medical advice. If you have an injury, a health condition or are pregnant, ask a doctor or physiotherapist before changing how you train or eat.

Related guides

• How long should a marathon taper be?Two to three weeks, with weekly volume cut and fast running and most running days kept, is what the research supports. Whether two or three is better is not settled.
• How a marathon training plan is builtA marathon training plan combines rising weekly distance, a long run, easy and hard running, lighter weeks and a taper. The research backs some of these parts and says little about how to combine them.
• 80/20 running: what the research says80/20 running means keeping most training easy. A 2024 meta-analysis found a small VO2peak advantage for polarised training, but small studies in recreational runners found no significant difference in performance.

Sources

1. Sha J, Yi Q, Jiang X, Wang Z, Cao H, Jiang S. Pacing strategies in marathons: A systematic review. Heliyon. 2024. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36760
2. Knechtle B, Thuany M, Nikolaidis PT, Forte P, Leite LB, Lepers R, Chlíbková D, Weiss K, Rosemann T, Vancini RL, Duric S. The New York City Marathon: A systematic review of performance, participation, pacing, and health-related outcomes. EXCLI Journal. 2026. doi:10.17179/excli2026-9354
3. Santos-Lozano A, Collado PS, Foster C, Lucia A, Garatachea N. Influence of sex and level on marathon pacing strategy. Insights from the New York City race. International Journal of Sports Medicine. 2014. doi:10.1055/s-0034-1367048
4. Deaner RO, Carter RE, Joyner MJ, Hunter SK. Men are more likely than women to slow in the marathon. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2015. doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000000432
5. Ristanović L, Stojiljković S, Ćuk I, Weiss K, Rosemann T, Knechtle B. Pacing Profiles in Half-Marathon and Marathon Running Based on Performance Level, Sex, and Age: A Narrative Review. Medicina. 2026. doi:10.3390/medicina62081503
6. Swain P, Biggins J, Gordon D. Marathon pacing ability: Training characteristics and previous experience. European Journal of Sport Science. 2020. doi:10.1080/17461391.2019.1688396
7. Ramos-Campo DJ, Foster C, Andreu-Caravaca L, Rubio-Arias JÁ, Rosenblat MA. Comparative Effects of Pacing Strategies on Endurance Performance: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine. 2026. doi:10.1007/s40279-025-02367-3
8. Grivas GV. The physiology and psychology of negative splits: insights into optimal marathon pacing strategies. Frontiers in Physiology. 2025. doi:10.3389/fphys.2025.1639816
9. Abbiss CR, Laursen PB. Describing and understanding pacing strategies during athletic competition. Sports Medicine. 2008. doi:10.2165/00007256-200838030-00004
10. Smyth B. How recreational marathon runners hit the wall: A large-scale data analysis of late-race pacing collapse in the marathon. PLOS ONE. 2021. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0251513
11. Oficial-Casado F, Uriel J, Pérez-Soriano P, Priego Quesada JI. Effect of marathon characteristics and runners' time category on pacing profile. European Journal of Sport Science. 2021. doi:10.1080/17461391.2020.1838621