A good Burpee Broad Jump time needs to be read alongside the rest of the race. The split shows how long the station took. On its own, it does not explain your movement execution, where you paused or how you felt when you started running again.
This guide lets you select your individual category, age and event location. You can look up a reference without entering a time, or enter your station split. For groups with enough data, the panel also shows what happened between run four, before the Burpees, and run five, after the station.
These are real race entries in the OUTLIER database. Brazil and international events are kept separate, and the sample size appears alongside the times. The aim is to help you ask better questions about your race, without turning a clock difference into a promise of improvement.
How do Burpee Broad Jumps work in HYROX?
Burpee Broad Jumps are the fourth HYROX station, after the fourth run. The individual rulebook for season 26/27 specifies 80 metres, in both Open and Pro. Athletes move forward with burpees and broad jumps; there is no single repetition count for everyone.
The standard includes chest contact with the floor and simultaneous take-off and landing with both feet. Specific rules cover hand position, the start of each length and crossing the finish line. See the official individual rulebook, section 8.4 for the details and penalties.
Open and Pro stay separate in our lookup. Although the Burpee distance is the same, athletes arrive after different demands in earlier stations, and each division has a different participant profile. A lower reference time in Pro does not establish that this station is easier in that division.
What is a good Burpee time?
Start with the same category and, where the data supports it, the same age group. No single threshold classifies every person and race equally.
For Brazilian Men's Open, pooling the available ages, the typical time was 5:34, with the middle half of splits between 4:40 and 6:46. This included 2,370 entries across five editions. For Brazilian Women's Open, the typical time was 6:39, with a central range of 5:30 to 8:18, from 827 entries in the same five editions.
These are starting points. In the lookup, you can narrow the age group or change division without mixing categories. We use simple labels for the references:
- Typical time: the middle of the group, with approximately half the splits on either side.
- Most common range: the middle half of observed times.
- Front reference: the threshold marking approximately the fastest 25% of the selected group.
Being ahead of that reference describes your split among the included entries. It is not a complete fitness assessment, an official placing or an exact individual percentile. Values are rounded to the nearest second and may include ties.
An example: Men's Open, ages 35–39
Imagine an entry with a Burpee split of 5:00. This is an illustrative time; we are not identifying an athlete.
Selecting Men's Open, ages 35–39 and Brazil gives 568 entries across five editions. The typical time is 5:24, with a most common range of 4:35 to 6:39. The example's 5:00 falls within that range and is 24 seconds below the typical time.
Selecting international changes the group to 19,745 entries across 67 editions. The typical time is 5:35, with a central range of 4:38 to 6:53. The same split is 35 seconds below this different reference.
Your result did not improve when you changed the filter. The comparison group changed. The samples cover different periods and have different compositions; “Brazil” and “international” describe the event location, not nationality. We do not use this difference to rank one country above another.
What happened on the next run?
In the Brazilian ages 35–39 example, the fourth run had a typical time of 5:11 and the fifth 5:22, rounded to the nearest second. However, the typical change calculated within each entry was 10 seconds longer on run five. These are different calculations: the median of individual differences does not have to equal the difference between two medians.
In this group, 426 of the 568 entries — 75% — had a longer fifth run than fourth run. This describes the sample. It does not mean that you have a 75% chance of slowing down, or that Burpees caused a 10-second loss.
The lookup panel follows your selected group. It shows the two splits and the typical change, without predicting your fifth run from your station time. It also does not convert these durations into pace per kilometre: each event's timing lines and course layout must be considered before making that conversion.
Across the all-age groups, the typical Brazilian change ranged from 6 to 10 seconds longer, depending on sex and division. For international events, it ranged from 5 to 10 seconds longer. These summarise distributions: some entries changed little, some had a shorter fifth run and others had larger increases. The range and the group's composition matter more than memorising one number.
Does this prove that faster Burpees hurt the run?
No. Our analysis did not compare the same person using two strategies under controlled conditions. Participants who take longer on Burpees may also take longer to run, for reasons that were already present before the station.
Alongside the descriptive sequence, we therefore tested the relationship within the same event, sex, division and age group, accounting for the fourth-run time. In Men's Open, both in Brazil and internationally, the apparent link between the two splits became much smaller when this context was considered. Part of the apparent relationship with Burpees already followed the participants' running pattern.
The remaining positive association indicates that longer Burpee splits still tended to accompany longer fifth runs in this test. This does not demonstrate that completing the station faster causes a slower run, or tell us how much time someone would gain by changing strategy.
We also checked differences between editions and repeated the calculation leaving out one edition at a time. Men's Open retained a positive association in events with enough data. Other groups varied more. For Brazilian Women's Pro, the descriptive sample has 149 entries across four editions, but the age-adjusted test found only 46 entries in one edition that met the minimum cell size. We do not generalise this limited test to all athletes in that group.
A split does not measure physiological fatigue, technique or internal effort. For that discussion, also read the guide to pace, consistency and fatigue resistance. The running study and this analysis help you observe a race; they do not replace an individual assessment.
How to use the comparison in your own race
A useful question is: does my Burpee split stand out from the rest of my sequence, or does it follow my running pattern?
If you were slower than the most common range, look at what happened during execution. If you were among the fastest splits, the next run also deserves attention. Neither position, on its own, identifies your training priority.
- Check the right result. Use the published station split for your individual entry, with the category and age recorded for that race.
- Read the sequence. Look at run four, the Burpees and run five, as well as transitions and the remaining stages.
- Add what the clock cannot show. Pauses, movement difficulties and pacing decisions need records or observation; they cannot be inferred from a split alone.
To review your own sequence, open the OUTLIER results hub, select an available event and find your entry. The search and available free preview require no registration. The full performance assessment is paid and optional, with availability and the offer checked before purchase.
You can also learn how the HYROX performance assessment works and how to interpret your race beyond the finish time. This article's lookup provides a group reference; the hub connects that context to your real result.
Source and method of this analysis
We made a read-only extraction from the OUTLIER database on 26/10/2026, specifically for individual Open and Pro races, male and female. The sample retained 4,028 entries across five Brazilian editions, from 20/09/2025 to 18/10/2026, and 171,474 across 67 international editions, from 19/07/2025 to 09/08/2026. The international scope examined 70 editions with previously reconciled dates; three had no eligible entries after screening. This is not a global census or a survey of every recent race.
The unit is one entry in an edition. A person can appear in several events. We removed aggregate ranking views and repeated copies, checked for conflicting entry identities, and preserved the published sex, division and age group. We retained one specific sex-and-rank correction previously checked against the official source in the earlier station study.
In Brazil, we started with 4,992 records. Five failed the initial finish-time and classification screen. We then removed 469 with a historical provisional-result flag, 409 with a known penalty or bonus, 33 with a stored component-sum discrepancy, 42 with incomplete or screened components, three without a usable age and three with extreme middle-run times set aside for review.
Internationally, we first removed 141,474 records from aggregate views. Of the remaining 212,436, 32 fell outside the broad finish-time screening bounds. Among the 212,404 that continued, we excluded 18,425 with a penalty or bonus, 8,954 with a historical provisional-result flag, 2,921 with a stored sum discrepancy, 5,932 with incomplete runs or components, 4,600 whose component sum differed from the finish time by more than 30 seconds, 65 with extreme middle-run times, 30 without a usable age, and three Burpee splits below this analysis's one-minute lower bound.
On 27/10/2026, we checked the 26 initially isolated extreme splits against detail pages and category lists on the official platform. Station times, the preceding and following runs, finish times and age groups matched the archive. We restored 23 long splits, from 30:06 to 39:41. The other three values — 43, 43 and 48 seconds — are also published, but remain outside the benchmark under the previously defined lower bound. The page alone cannot confirm completion of the full 80 metres; we are not alleging a timing error or an infringement. None of the 26 detail pages displayed a penalty or disqualification.
The review changed the international Women's Open median for ages 30–34 from 6:39 to 6:40; for ages 50–54, the upper end of the central range moved from 9:12 to 9:14. The other displayed station and running references stayed the same. The sensitivity test including the three short values produced the same two changes in displayed times. This does not make the extremes performance targets.
We required eight runs with valid labels and positions, eight stations in distinct positions and one Roxzone, and checked the component sum against the finish time. The station had to appear as “80m Burpee Broad Jump” in position eight, between “Running 4” and “Running 5”. We used broad review bounds: a race from 45 minutes to five hours; runs 2–7 from two to 20 minutes; Burpees from one to 30 minutes. A time outside these bounds is not automatically invalid.
Explicit official-result status was missing for the retained entries. Removing known historical warnings does not officially certify the entire sample. We also did not check every entry individually. Official results and corrections remain on the HYROX results platform; OUTLIER provides an independent interpretation that may be updated.
Typical times and the most common range use empirical percentiles 25, 50 and 75, with interpolation and rounding to the nearest second. We checked the Brazilian ages 35–39 example by sorting times in a separate calculation. For running changes, we calculated run five minus run four within each entry before finding the group's percentiles.
There are 88 groups by location, sex, division and age: 60 with a full reference, 12 initial references and 16 without enough data for interpretation. A full reference requires at least 50 entries across three editions; with 20 across two editions, we show only the typical Burpee time. Below that, we show no reference times or interpretation of the next run. These are presentation criteria, not confidence levels. “All ages” pools the available age groups and does not age-adjust the descriptive times.
The association test uses ranks with ties handled, within event × sex × division × age-group cells of at least 20 entries. The main fifth-run analysis also accounts for run four; “all ages” pools the age-stratified cells. We checked the direction by event and sensitivity to removing one edition. An additional descriptive sensitivity uses other runs, including later ones, and is not causal control for prior ability. We do not calculate individual probabilities or treat repeated entries as independent athletes in significance tests.
For Brazilian Men's Open, the rank association fell from 0.57 to 0.12 after accounting for run four; internationally, from 0.67 to 0.16. These are descriptive coefficients, not error percentages or probabilities. Full group values and sensitivity analyses are recorded in the study's validation report.
The data does not identify the cause of a pace change, pauses, no-reps, jump length or physiological cost. The differences shown are not recoverable minutes, and the observed relationship does not establish an ideal pacing strategy.