Crocs are crocs, so relatively they're more comfortable and practical than the vast majority of shoes out there. However, as crocs tries to develop styles that are less obviously "crocs" (which initially seemed like a great idea...), they seem to have lost a number of the properties that made crocs so uniquely useful. I bought these shoes to replace a tortured old pair of "Alice" flats, which I had been wearing everywhere. The "Lily" model is much sleeker, more narrow and, well, attractive. They look more-or-less like normal shoes. Unfortunately, a number of negative changes seem to have been made to achieve this sleeker look. The most obvious is that the footbed cushioning is substantially more compressed, which eliminates the "bouncy" feel you get while wearing older-model crocs. Also, the back of the "Lily" heel comes up quite a bit higher (around 3/4" higher) than that of the "Alice" -- presumably to help the shoe stay on your foot without the "Alice" model's Mary-Jane strap? In any case, this change is a blister magnet, not at all helped by the fact that the suedelike covering over the "lip" of the heel back is barely an inch wide (thus hardly worth bothering to have it there), whereas the "Alice" had a covering that made a true "C" around the back of your foot. At the end of the day they're still crocs, so they won't get ruined in the rain and are much more comfortable than a traditional ballet flat, but I really wish the company had worked harder to balance aesthetic style with what used to be such brilliantly wearable design.