By Paul Freary
As both Brooks’ and ASICS’ premium stability training shoe models, the Glycerin and Kayano are now in their 2nd and 3rd decade of production, respectively, each with a loyal legion of fans.
Both shoes offer their brand’s premium cushioning midsoles and support systems, aimed at those wanting a luxurious yet utilitarian shoe for daily training.
At similar price points, both the Brooks Glycerin GTS 22 and ASICS Kayano 32 are worthy of consideration, but which is best?
If you click, or buy from, links on this page, we may receive compensation. Learn more
Stats
Running Shoes | Kayano 32 | Glycerin GTS 22 |
|---|---|---|
Best for | Easy miles | Daily training for those requiring support and control |
Support | Stability | Neutral |
Cushion | Max level cushioning | High cushioning, near max stack cushioning |
Stack Height | 40mm heel 32mm forefoot | 38mm heel 28mm forefoot |
Drop | 8mm | 10mm |
Weight | Men 304g (10.8oz) Women 260g (9.1oz) | Men 289g (10.2oz) Women 255257g (9.1oz) |
Suggested Retail Price | $165 | $165 |
Fit | True to size | True to size |
Rating | 8.5/ 10 | 9.1/ 10 |
ASICS Gel Kayano 32
The Kayano 32 has seen its cushioning increase in this, the latest version. The midsole stack in the forefoot sees an additional 2mm of FF BLAST PLUS foam, now to 32mm deep. This increase in the forefoot means the heel-to-toe drop is reduced by 2mm, down to an 8mm drop. This gives the Kayano the same stack and drop dimensions as its neutral stablemate, the Nimbus.
The FF BLAST PLUS foam has a soft feel and now with the lower drop and increased forefoot depth, a smoother ride than the previous Kayano.
Rearfoot PureGEL is still present in the heel area, but nowadays, the GEL is such a small amount, it’s more of a token gesture and nod to the brand’s use of the material in the model for many years.
Support and control come by way of the 4D guidance system, a small medial post made of a more responsive foam rather than the traditional firmer foam found in medial posts. The thought process here is that the post will ‘spring’ the arch out of an overpronated stated and make for a more natural feel.
Brooks Glycerin GTS 22
The Brooks Glycerin GTS 22 sees an update to its DNA v3 foam midsole in this model to the DNA Tuned foam. It remains a nitrogen-infused material, but rather than being a single density of cushioning, the DNA Tuned material sees larger cells created in the forming process in the heel to give a softer feel, with small cells in the forefoot for a more responsive toe-off.
The DNA Tuned midsole feels to be a significant improvement over the Glycerin 21, transforming the shoe into a much more versatile model that works well at a variety of paces.
The brand’s familiar GuideRail system GTS (Go To Support) remains and does a very efficient job of seating the heel centrally within the shoe’s cushioning and holding it neutral throughout the gait cycle.
Kayano 32
Shop Now at
Glycerin GTS 22
Shop Now at
Fit
Both the Glycerin GTS 22 and Gel Kayano 32 fit true to size in both length and width. Both feature soft, premium uppers with a good degree of natural stretch to their construction, offering a secure fit around the foot but with a nice degree of ‘wiggle room’ in the toe box.
The mesh construction is very similar in both models and they both offer a similar amount of breathability.
Both shoes have neat, plush padding around the ankle collar and heel area, and both have similar designs in this area, with padded collars and an outer, stretch collar with pull-on heel tab. The design of both shoes looks incredibly similar, and it’s also one we’ve seen in other models, such as the Puma Mag Max.
Performance
On the run, there is no separating the shoes in terms of immediate step-in comfort. Both welcome your feet inside with plush padding around the foot and soft cushioning under it.
The 2mm extra stack of cushioning is noticeable at first, but after a few runs in each, the difference is negligible.
The Kayano 32 offers a very soft and smooth ride that feels at its best at an easy pace, whereas the Glycerin GTS 22 tends to have a slightly more responsive feel on toe-off thanks to the variance in the midsole in the forefoot.
In terms of stability, the Brooks feels immediately more stable. The GuideRail system seats the foot neutrally within the shoe, and its presence is instantly noticeable. The Glycerin does a great job of controlling both supinators and overpronators, from my experience. Seeing many different types of runners in my store (using video gait analysis), the Glycerin GTS is a shoe that can control a wide range of pronation.
The Kayano 32, while a stability shoe, has become much less supportive than it was a few years ago. It has perhaps taken a more holistic approach to overpronation, guiding the foot into neutral rather than forcing it to be there. The 4D system does work, but it is at its best for mild overpronators rather than those who require a high level of control.
How Do I Decide?
Deciding between these two shoes is a rather difficult choice; both offer great levels of cushioning. Both have a high-quality construction and fit well, offering a luxurious feel around the feet. And both offer a reasonable amount of support.
For mild overpronators, the choice will be personal and I think you have to try both to feel which works best for your feet.
On the run, the Kayano 32 feels soft and smooth and works best at a constant, steady pace. If you want a shoe for this type of training and have other shoes for perhaps speed work or tempo running days, then the Kayano is great.
The Glycerin feels great during steady-paced runs. The cushioning is soft, with a little spring to it. Should you wish to pick up the pace a little, the different foam in the forefoot of the shoe makes a big difference and gives the shoe a much livelier toe-off compared to the Kayano.
My Verdict
So, given all of the above, the ASICS Gel Kayano 32 is a shoe that offers soft and SMOOTH cushioning.
The Brooks Glycerin GTS 22 is a shoe that offers soft and RESPONSIVE cushioning, making it a little more versatile and my choice.
The Brooks also wins in terms of support, offering a greater level of control for a greater variety of runners.
And, when it comes to value for money, the Brooks wins once again, at least in the UK. Whereas in the US, both shoes are priced the same, the Brooks is almost 10% cheaper than the Kayano, matching its US dollar price.
Check Out More Kayano 32 Comparisons
Here is our structural parameter testing results for the Glycerin 22 and the Kayano 32; Glycerin weighed in at 11.7 ounces, moderate midfoot stability with a torsional control index of 40 inch pounds, minimal hindfoot stability with a vertical compression index of 10.5mm, high energy return with a rebound index of 26.22, a loaded heel to toe drop of minus .5mm and a shoe stability index of 27.33.
The Kayano weighed in at 10.9 ounces, maximal midfoot stability with a torsional control index of54 inch pounds, minimal hindfoot stability with a vertical compression index of 13.42mm, a high energy return substantially over 25m, s minus loaded heel to toe drop of minus 5.42mm and a shoes stability index of13.2, Based on weight and energy return it is a faster shoe with half the stability of the glycerin
Out of the two, which one would work best for a narrow foot? My heal is narrow and I find that my feet wobble causing knee pain so trying to figure out if there is a shoe that is better over the other. Currently wear the glycerin but wondering if the Kayano might be better. I had good luck with asics and the narrow fit years and years ago.
Both these shoes fit pretty similarly in terms of width. I’d say the ASICS is slightly slimmer overall, but I’d suggest checking if a narrow width is available where you are. In some regions, the shoes are available in multiple width options. (Women A=Narrow, B=regular, D=wide. Men B=Narrow, D=regular 2E=Wide). Good luck.