Compression boots
Evidence: limited
They modestly ease perceived soreness but are not clearly better than a well-fitted compression garment, do little for objective recovery, and cost a great deal more. Graded limited, in line with the other passive perceptual modalities.
Keep it in proportion
This is one of the last few per cent, at most. It pays off only once the basics are already in place: consistent volume, sleep and adequate fuelling. Most runners gain far more from those than from anything on this page.
Pneumatic compression boots, such as the Normatec range, inflate and deflate sleeves around the legs to apply intermittent pressure. A meta-analysis finds they reduce perceived muscle soreness by a trivial-to-moderate amount, roughly 13 to 20% versus passive rest, with the effect largest around 48 hours after exercise, and restore some perceived function (compression-boots meta-analysis). The benefit to objective performance recovery is small, and crucially the boots are not clearly superior to a well-fitted static compression garment costing a fraction as much.
The honest summary is the same as for the other passive modalities: a real but modest, largely perceptual benefit. For a professional or serious athlete in a dense competition block, where every marginal perceived-recovery gain and the simple comfort of elevating and squeezing tired legs is worth having, they can be justified. For most runners the cost is hard to defend against the cheaper, near-equivalent option of a compression garment, or simply elevating the legs, and against the foundations (sleep and nutrition) that do far more. A pleasant luxury, not a recovery essential.