Saucony Omni 16 vs. ASICS GT-2000 6 review

Saucony Omni 16 provides a very stable and supportive running experience with a secure fit. ASICS GT-2000 6 is supportive and provides enough cushioning for long runs...

[Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Note that some links in this article are affiliate links.]

The Saucony Omni 16 and the ASICS GT-2000 6 are stability running shoes for runners who overpronate.


The uppers of the Saucony Omni 16 (affiliate link) and the ASICS GT-2000 6 differ in that the upper of the Saucony Omni 16 is more covered than that of the ASICS GT-2000 6.

The ASICS GT-2000 6 (affiliate link) has mostly the ASICS logo and some no-sew overlays to provide support around the midfoot in addition to straps that can be pulled tight through the laces in the saddle.

The Saucony Omni 16 has much broader no-sew overlays around the midfoot and these continue to run towards the back of the running shoe to wrap the heel, so the Saucony Omni 16 is quite closed from midfoot to heel, where overpronators tend to need the most support.

The ASICS GT-2000 6 is closed at the back, though, and provides a good amount of support in that area, whereas the Saucony Omni 16 has a more open Support Frame that wraps the top of the heel.

The forefoot of both running shoes is quite open, and while the ASICS GT-2000 6 has some welded-on overlays on top of its toe box, they do not obstruct the bunion window, so you should be able to get a good amount of comfort from the toe box of either running shoe.

The durability at the front is about the same, with both running shoes having a no-sew toecap.

All in all, the Saucony Omni 16 delivers more support through its upper than the ASICS GT-2000 6, and both running shoes provide an adequate amount of support at the back and comfort at the front.

The Saucony Omni 16 is meant to deliver a soft ride to overpronators, while the ASICS GT-2000 6 is meant to deliver a more moderate amount of softness.

The Saucony Omni 16 comes with a topsole of EVERUN cushioning that is meant to deliver heel-to-toe softness.

The ASICS GT-2000 6 has something similar by having a top layer of softer foam and a bottom layer of more responsive foam, which averages out in a ride that is not too soft nor too firm.

The ASICS GT-2000 6 might deliver a bit more forefoot cushioning than heel cushioning, which is also the case for the Saucony Omni 16, which tends to have a cushy forefoot but a more moderately-cushioned heel.


Saucony lists the Saucony Omni 16 at the bottom of the plush cushioning scale, so the Saucony Omni 16 is expected to deliver a good amount of cushioning but that is not too soft, because in the end, its main goal is to deliver support.

The midsole of the Saucony Omni 16 provides more ground contact than that of the ASICS GT-2000 6, which should add some more stability to the Saucony Omni 16 in addition to increasing its potential for delivering smoother heel-to-toe transitions.

Both the ASICS GT-2000 6 and the Saucony Omni 16 are stability running shoes that come with a support system on the medial side to help stop the feet of overpronators from rolling too far inward.

The medial post of the Saucony Omni 16 runs high and is fairly long, thereby covering an area that is about the same as in the ASICS GT-2000 6.

However, the support system of the ASICS GT-2000 6 does not run all the way up, because there is a softer layer of foam just under the foot to prevent this.

Therefore, the Saucony Omni 16 is expected to deliver a somewhat stronger degree of pronation control, despite not having a midfoot shank like the ASICS GT-2000 6, which delivers support right under the midfoot.

The ASICS GT-2000 6 is listed as being for overpronators, while the Saucony Omni 16 is listed as being for moderate to severe overpronators and is placed close to the motion control category but not quite in it.

The ASICS GT-2000 6 has a typical ASICS outsole with large areas of rubber and flex grooves in both the forefoot and the heel.

It also features a vertical flex groove that is meant to help with gait efficiency.

The Saucony Omni 16 displays a bit more separation in its outsole than the ASICS GT-2000 6, and it has a good amount of flex grooves in its forefoot, but these flex grooves do not all run from side to side.

They are interrupted by rubber in the middle, which might add some stiffness to the running shoe, and because the Saucony Omni 16 delivers quite a bit of forefoot cushioning, it is not expected to be very flexible.

The ASICS GT-2000 6 delivers a more moderate amount of cushioning and its flex grooves run better from side to side, so it is expected to be a bit more flexible than the Saucony Omni 16.

Note however that stiffness benefits stability and is a good thing for heavier runners and runners who need lots of support.

The women's version of the Saucony Omni 16 weighs approximately 8.4 oz (238 grams), and the ASICS GT-2000 6 for women weighs 8.2 oz (232 grams).

The men's version of the Saucony Omni 16 weighs 10.1 oz (286 grams), and the ASICS GT-2000 6 for men weighs approximately 10.5 oz (298 grams).

If you are a moderate overpronator who is looking for a good amount of stability and support and a comfortable ride with enough cushioning, you may want to look into the ASICS GT-2000 6.

However, if you know that you will be needing tons of stability and support but not the amount that a motion control running shoe would deliver, you may want to check out the Saucony Omni 16.

The Saucony Omni 16 would probably also suit heavier and bigger runners better than the ASICS GT-2000 6 due to the good wrap it provides around the midfoot and the heel.

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 are affiliate links that will take you to where you can read more about the shoes.

Disclaimer and Affiliate Disclosure: This running shoe review on 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 might receive a small compensation when you make a purchase after clicking an affiliate link on this website. Read our full disclaimer and privacy policy.