Asics GT 2000 vs. Gel Kayano (Comparison 2022): Which One?
These two stability shoes from the Japanese brand differ primarily in the level of foot support they offer to prevent overpronation.
Thus, the Asics Gel Kayano 29 uses a Trusstic unit, a firm foam on the medial side of the shoe (DuoMax), and other TPU parts to guide the foot while running and prevent excessive pronation. Therefore, this type of configuration offers an advanced level of support for runners who want enhanced stability during their runs.
On the other hand, the Asics GT 2000 10 is a lighter configuration with just a LiteTruss unit (more discreet than Trusstic) and foam sidewalls inside the shoe. As a result, it’s supportive but not as much as the Kayano. However, there’s an upside: the GT 2000 is 0.7 oz/19 g lighter than the Kayano. It makes it a good option for runners who hesitate between neutral and stability shoes.
Then, the cushioning is similar on both shoes, with just 3 mm more heel stack height for the Kayano: 25 mm compared to 22 mm for the GT 2000. However, the underfoot feel is firmer on the Kayano, which uses FlyteFoam Blast. The GT 2000 provides softer cushioning and uses FlyteFoam Propel.
Last but not least, testers note that the Kayano is a bit more responsive with its firmer platform. Also, they note that the Kayano is more flexible than the GT 2000, especially under the forefoot.
GT 2000 or Kayano: which one to choose?
The choice depends primarily on the level of support you need. People who want a high level of stability (at the expense of some comfort) will opt for the Kayano.
Others looking for more discreet foot support will choose the GT 2000.
Finally, the price difference between the two shoes is not negligible: the Kayano is the more expensive of the two.
Side-by-side comparison
|
9.1  |
9  |
|
|---|---|---|
| Overview | ||
| Description | The Asics GT 2000 10 is a stability shoe with medium support. This new version is softer and more flexible. | The Asics Gel Kayano 29 is a convincing update to one of the most popular stability shoes. It keeps the stellar support of previous iterations while being more lightweight and responsive. |
|
9
8.5
9
9.5
9.5
9.5
8.5
|
9.5
8.5
9
9.5
9
8
8.5
| |
| Facts | ||
| Terrain | Road | Road |
| Support | Overpronation (stability) | Neutral |
| Heel stack height | 22 mm | 25 mm |
| Forefoot stack height | 14 mm | 15 mm |
| Heel-to-toe drop | 8 mm | 10 mm |
| Weight (men) | 280 g | 299 g |
| Weight (women) | 238 g | 275 g |
| Features | Wide feet, Heavy runner, Recycled materials, Eco-friendly | |
| Athletes | ||
| Release year | 2021 | 2022 |
| Technologies | ||
| Outsole | AHAR, AHAR+ | ASICS High-Abrasion Rubber (AHAR) |
| Midsole | FlyteFoam Propel, LiteTruss, Rearfoot GEL | FF BLAST PLUS |
| Upper | Engineered knit | Engineered Stretch-Knit |
| Cushioning | ||
| Cushioning | Soft | Soft |
| Responsiveness | Medium | Medium |
| Use | ||
| Distance | Short, 5K, Mid, 10K, Half marathon, Long, Marathon | Mid, 10K, Half marathon, Long, Marathon |
| Speed | Slow, Moderate | Slow, Moderate |
| Workouts | Daily running | Daily running, Recovery |
Thanks so much for this comparison. As a overpronator (woman) I’ve used Asics Gel Foundation for years. I was lost when Foundation was scrapped. (The last version was hell). I needed options kinder to my groin. So I’ll be oscillating between the GT and the Kayano just purchased (after a hour of trying various options) from Run and Become in London Victoria.