Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15 vs. ASICS GT-2000 4 review

Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15 provides a smooth ride with lots of support and stability. ASICS GT-2000 4 delivers a stable, comfortable, and soft ride with a secure fit...

NEW! Brooks Adrenaline GTS 16 vs. ASICS GT-2000 4 and Brooks Adrenaline GTS 17 vs. ASICS GT-2000 4 and Brooks Adrenaline GTS 17 vs. ASICS GT-2000 5

The Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15 and the ASICS GT-2000 4 fall in the same category of stability running shoes for runners who overpronate with the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15 intended to provide lots of support close to a motion control running shoe.

ADVERTISEMENTS

While both the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15 and the ASICS GT-2000 4 have uppers that have a mixture of no-sew and stitched-on overlays, it is the ASICS GT-2000 4 that has its stitched-on overlays in the right place, that is, on the medial side.

The stitched-on overlays of the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15 are wrapped around the heel, and on the medial side it provides a broad no-sew overlay for support.

No-sew overlays tend to increase comfort and reduce irritation points, but generally provide less support than stitched-on overlays.

Both the ASICS GT-2000 4 The preceding link takes you to Amazon.com and the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15 have no-sew overlays running over the toe box, but the overlays of the ASICS GT-2000 4 are very light welded-on overlays and they do not run over the bunion window or little toe.

Therefore, the ASICS GT-2000 4 may provide a more comfortable fit in the toe box than the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15, which may provide a much tighter fit.

At the back of the shoes, the ASICS GT-2000 4 has a sturdy external heel counter for added support, while the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15 only has stitched-on overlays to provide extra support.

All in all, the upper of the ASICS GT-2000 4 turns out to be somewhat more supportive than that of the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15 and also somewhat more comfortable, especially in the toe box.

Both the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15 and the ASICS GT-2000 4 provide heel-to-toe cushioning through their midsoles, but in different degrees.

The Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15 is known to have cushioning that is not too firm, nor too soft, so somewhere in the middle.

The ASICS GT-2000 4 has a two-layered midsole with softer foam closer to the foot and more responsive foam closer to the ground, and in between those two layers, there is GEL cushioning in the heel and in the forefoot.

One may assume that this would make the ASICS GT-2000 4 super cushy compared to the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15.

Running shoe lab tests confirm that the ASICS GT-2000 4 is overall more cushy than the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15, but show that the heel cushioning of the ASICS GT-2000 4 is not too far off from that of the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15, especially for women.

So while the ASICS GT-2000 4 has a fairly cushy forefoot, its heel cushioning is close to being average.

The ASICS GT-2000 4 does not have a crash pad per se, but uses its GEL cushioning and topmost softer layer of foam to manage impact when you land.

The Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15, on the other hand, has a full-length crash pad on the lateral side of the shoe that should not only provide a good amount of shock absorption when you land, but also a smoother transition to toe-off.

The Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15 and the ASICS GT-2000 4 provide pronation control via a medial post to help stop your foot from rolling too far inward.

This piece of firmer foam on the medial side of the midsoles is quite long, but much longer in the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15 than in the ASICS GT-2000 4.

It runs also much higher in the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15 than it does in the ASICS GT-2000 4, which has its softer layer of foam closest to the foot.

Both have a midfoot shank that hooks into the medial post to provide extra reinforcement, but whereas the midfoot shank of the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15 can only be found on the medial side, the midfoot shank of the ASICS GT-2000 4 connects the medial side to the lateral side, and thus increases the amount of stability provided.

Overall, you can expect to get a stronger degree of pronation control from the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15 than you would get from the ASICS GT-2000 4, but the ASICS GT-2000 4 is still a pretty stable running shoe.

The rubber outsoles of the two running shoes differ considerably in construction with the ASICS GT-2000 4 having large durable slabs of rubber and the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15 having smaller rubber pods that should help increase the flexibility of the shoe in addition to shock absorption.

Both have a good amount of flex grooves with the ASICS GT-2000 4 having an extra vertical flex groove to help with gait efficiency.

Running shoe lab tests show that the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15 is the more flexible running shoe of the two and that the ASICS GT-2000 4 lies on the stiffer end of the spectrum for both men and women.

The women's version of the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15 weighs approximately 9.3 oz (264 grams), while the ASICS GT-2000 4 for women weighs approximately 9.2 oz (261 grams).

The men's version of the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15 weighs about 11.3 oz (320 grams), and the ASICS GT-2000 4 for men weighs 11.3 oz (320 grams).

If you are a moderate overpronator who is looking for a running shoe that can give you both a good amount of stability and support as well as a soft ride, you may want to look into the ASICS GT-2000 4.

And if you know that you need lots of stability and support in the pronation control department, then the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15 would be the one to consider.

Note: The weight of a running shoe depends on the size of the running shoe, so any weights mentioned in this review may differ from the weight of the running shoe you choose to wear. Running shoes of the same size were compared for this review.

The two links above will take you to Amazon.com where you can read more about the running shoes.


This review falls under: ASICS | Brooks

Disclaimer: This running shoe review on www.motioncontrolrunningshoe.org is based on personal research and analysis of data that has been made publicly available by running shoe manufacturers and other companies that are dedicated to serving runners, and is not claimed to be accurate, complete, or up to date. While the information presented in this review is intended to help you better understand the differences between running shoes, we shall not be held liable for any purchasing decisions you make based on this information. Please use your own good judgment before making a purchase. The owner of this website receives a small compensation whenever you buy a product after clicking a product link on this website. Read our full disclaimer and privacy policy.