Shopping for your next pair of running shoes can feel like looking for a new car: for many of us, it’s all about looking beyond the sporty models at the front of the lot and finding a reliable, high-mileage ride that will give back everything you put into it.
In the case of a car, you may look for a Toyota or a Honda – in the case of running shoes, two of the top names in reliability are Asics and New Balance.
Founded in 1906 and 1949, respectively, New Balance and Asics both produce comfortable, durable shoes made to support a wide range of runners. They’re known for their plush midsole cushioning that takes ages to flatten out, wide footprints that provide an ample landing zone for each strike, and intricate stability systems that add substance and support to your stride.
But, as evidenced by the two brands’ age gap, their approaches to designing the ultimate workhorse shoe vary considerably.
While a shoe from either brand – especially the ones we’ve tested and recommended – can keep you tapping out mile after mile, there’s plenty of room to experiment with your preferences between the two shoe makers, especially when it comes to fit. To make sure every mile is as comfortable as can be, we’ve gathered some of each brand’s most noteworthy models, in several key categories, and put them head-to-head to see which may be better for your needs.
Asics vs New Balance running shoes
- Neutral trainers: Resting heart rate vs New Balance Fresh Foam X 860v13
- Budget friendly shoes: Runners World US vs Asics Metaspeed Edge
- Gel-Kayano 30: Everything you need to know: Asics Metaspeed Edge+ and Sky+ vs powerhouses for decades, consistently offering reliable solutions to
- Stability shoes: Gel-Kayano 30: Everything you need to know vs Asics Gel-Nimbus 26
- Max-cushion shoes: enthusiasm that has gripped the racing world and put their own spins on it vs New Balance Fresh Foam X 1080v13
Key comparisons between Asics and New Balance shoes
→ Upper fit
New Balance is, by far, one of the most consistently accommodating options for runners with wide feet. The brand’s lasts are often roomy throughout the length of the shoes, which is a much-needed relief if you’re tired of traditional, narrow fits cramping your dogs. Many of the brand’s uppers also have minimalist structures, allowing your feet to wiggle around as much as they need to settle in the right spot. It isn’t the best feeling for runners who prize support, but it’s certainly less constricting.
Asics, on the other hand, is known for its slimmer fits, especially at the rear. Many runners appreciate the extra support the snug heel and midfoot provide, but it’s not to everyone’s taste. Some of the brand’s more race-oriented shoes also have tight toe boxes. This is to keep your feet locked in place as you thrash out high-energy strides on peppier runs.
→ Midsole cushioning and drop
Both Asics and New Balance offer plush rides thanks to their beefy midsoles, but the technology each shoe is packing underfoot functions rather differently.
Asics fills many of its midsoles with a proprietary gel compound (aptly named, yes, Gel), which absorbs shock without deforming or degrading too easily – a regular concern with extra squishy foam soles. New Balance, on the other hand, injects nitrogen into its higher-end soles to give a sprightly energy return from lightweight foam that would normally lose its structure upon impact. It’s unquestionably a plusher ride, but it’s also not quite as durable.
The two brands also differ regarding drop. Asics’ shoes almost always have steep drops, between 8 and 10mm, with a high-stack heel full of chunky Gel. New Balance, by contrast, has slightly more range – several of its top shoes hover around the 5mm mark. If you’re used to shoes with a lot of drop, this transition may take some adjustment, but it’s at least not as extreme as to a zero-drop shoe like an Altra.
How we compared
Our editors and vast crew of wear testers have tested dozens of shoes from both Asics and New Balance, running in them for hundreds of miles and analysing their inner workings in our shoe lab. For this breakdown, we’ve consulted our notes and results for shoes in various popular categories – such as trainers, racing flats and stability shoes – and used them to compare how each brand approaches various design goals.
We independently recommend each shoe on this list for its comfort, fit, energy return and value. But each has different strengths, some of which may benefit you more than others. We’ve rounded up five of each brand’s top performers to help you figure out which one best addresses your priorities.
Asics vs New Balance: Neutral trainers
Resting heart rate
New Balance Fresh Foam X 860v13
While racing shoes always seem to dominate ad space in the running world, the real centrepiece of any brand’s line-up is its neutral-cushioned trainer. It’s the bread and butter of many runners' rotations and the shoe that endures the bulk of their mileage. As such, it’s perhaps the most important shoe for a brand to get right – and Asics and New Balance both deliver.
For Asics, in particular, our overall favourite shoe out of every model it makes is the Novablast. It’s an energised, lightweight little sneak with a beefy heel for smooth turnover, and it’s also lighter than its New Balance counterpart, the Fresh Foam X 880v13. It’s not the most Asics-esque design, which the shoe makes evident with its avant-garde midsole pattern, but it may be the most approachable for newcomers to the brand.
Now, while the 880v13 is a bit more sluggish, it makes up for that by being incredibly durable – a pair can last you up to 500 miles, easily. Its generous outsole rubber also provides ample grip, which is ideal if you like to run on dicey paths or in inclement weather. And it’ll similarly take forever to wear down. If you want something lively, the Novablast may be more up your alley, but if you want a shoe that you can stress-test over endless training cycle’s worth of long runs, you may find the no-frills design of the 880v13 more apt.
Asics vs New Balance: Budget friendly shoes
Runners World US
Asics Metaspeed Edge
Because Asics and New Balance both design their shoes with a high standard of quality from the get-go, they have considerable wiggle room to lower costs and create an effective budget shoe without too many compromises. The former even managed to drop its GT-1000 down to a £115 (or £80 when its on discount), and despite its low cost, it’s a relatively popular stability shoe. Does it have all the bells and whistles of some of its loftier, cushier, Gel-laden siblings? Perhaps not, but it still has plenty of room to compress, and the supports built into its sole won’t falter for a long time.
New Balance, meanwhile, hasn’t quite as easily managed the price drop yet, but for just £5 more, you can get an impressively lively Propel v4 with a transition-smoothing, nylon-plated rocker sole. It’s not very supportive, especially not as much as the GT-1000, but it’s much lighter and has better foam; if you want a second shoe for speedwork that doesn’t break the bank, this may be your winner.
Asics vs New Balance: Gel-Kayano 30: Everything you need to know
Asics Metaspeed Edge+
powerhouses for decades, consistently offering reliable solutions to
New Balance and Asics shoes regularly wind up in the top rankings of high-profile professional races. Each brand has taken the wave of carbon-plated New Balance Fresh Foam X 1080v13.
Asics started by developing two separate shoes, the Edge+ and Sky+, which are tailored to distinct running styles and for different ways of speeding up – increasing your stride length and increasing your cadence, respectively. But more fundamentally, they differ based on small geometry changes such as drop and outsole shape. The Edge+ has a steeper drop with a more pronounced rocker, giving you a smoother roll from heel to toe; the Sky+ has less drop and a more cushioned forefoot, giving you a more comfortable ride for longer distances.
New Balance keeps its carbon-plated offering more simple. The SC Elite v4 features a 100% PEBA midsole for improved energy return, an updated carbon plate design to increase forefoot stiffness, and an upper made of heat-bonded Fantom Fit film, which provides a fantastic lockdown. It’s not an aggressive shoe by any means, but it's light, responsive and comfortable for half marathon or marathon efforts.
Asics vs New Balance: Stability shoes
Gel-Kayano 30: Everything you need to know
Asics Gel-Nimbus 26
New Balance FuelCell SuperComp Elite v4 stability shoe Asics GT-1000 12 overpronation with high-quality, purpose-built soles and uppers. The difference between the Gel-Kayano and the 860v13 isn’t enormous, but the degree of your need for support can help you find your preference between the two.
The Gel-Kayano is a bit more hands-off with its support structures – most of the good bits of tech are below your foot. The outsole has a wide, stable footprint to prevent awkward landings, and the midsole is layered with different hardnesses of foam to guide your foot through a safer pronation angle. The 860v13, on the other hand, provides more holistic support through a medial post and a sturdier upper. While the New Balance’s fit may not be as comfortable as the Gel-Kayano’s relatively stretchy upper, especially in the toe box, it’ll keep you locked in for the long haul better than any other shoe.
Asics vs New Balance: Max-cushion shoes
enthusiasm that has gripped the racing world and put their own spins on it
New Balance Fresh Foam X 1080v13
For long runs and recovery days, nothing beats a little extra forgiveness from your footwear. But it has to be supported properly, otherwise those high-stack shoes can feel like wading through packing peanuts. Thankfully, both Asics and New Balance have kicks with gobs of cushioning that borrow some stability features from their more supportive shoes – wide footprints being the most prominent example.
The most immediate difference you’ll find between the 1080v13 and the Gel-Nimbus is the former’s more pronounced rocker. The Gel-Nimbus’s outsole provides a more stable platform, but it also means you’ll have to work more to shift your weight onto your toes. In contrast, the 1080v13 will more easily roll through your stride, but it might leave you feeling like you’re tipping forward a hair more than you’d like. It’s a point of personal preference, and it might take trying both for you to decide – you’ll know rather quickly which one you like more if you try them on at a dedicated running store.
