ASICS GEL-Cumulus 16 vs. ASICS GT-2000 3 review

ASICS GEL-Cumulus 16 provides a comfortable ride to neutral runners. ASICS GT-2000 3 provides an overall soft, comfortable, and supportive ride without being too heavy.

NEW! ASICS GEL-Cumulus 17 vs. ASICS GT-2000 4 and ASICS GEL-Cumulus 18 vs. ASICS GT-2000 4

The ASICS GEL-Cumulus 16 and the ASICS GT-2000 3 fall in two different categories of running shoes, but share the fact that both can be worn by neutral runners or mild overpronators.

ADVERTISEMENTS

While the ASICS logo is located more towards the back of the ASICS GT-2000 3 than on the ASICS GEL-Cumulus 16, they share the fact that they both provide a pretty comfortable fit in the toe box and especially around the bunion window.

Two main differences in the upper is that the ASICS GEL-Cumulus 16 has more stitched-on overlays than the ASICS GT-2000 3 and that the ASICS GT-2000 3 has an external heel counter while the ASICS GEL-Cumulus 16 does not.

The first allows the ASICS GEL-Cumulus 16 to provide you with a good lockdown around the midfoot and the second allows the ASICS GT-2000 3 to provide you with a good lockdown of the heel.

However, this does not mean that the ASICS GT-2000 3 does not provide you with support around the midfoot or that the ASICS GEL-Cumulus 16 does not provide you with support behind the heel, because both do that; just the degree and style differ.

In addition to stitched-on overlays, both running shoes also have no-sew overlays running in their uppers to provide structure and lightweight support.

After taking everything into consideration, both the ASICS GEL-Cumulus 16 and the ASICS GT-2000 3 should be able to provide you with a good amount of support in their uppers and keep your foot securely on the running platform.

The ASICS GT-2000 3 and the ASICS GEL-Cumulus 16 provide heel-to-toe cushioning with their midsoles. While both have a FluidRide midsole, the one of the ASICS GT-2000 3 is a bit newer.

Both running shoes also have two layers of foam with GEL cushioning in between those two layers in the heel and in the forefoot.

While it is difficult to say which running shoe would provide the softest running experience, running shoe lab tests have revealed that for men both running shoes have an almost equally cushy heel with the ASICS GEL-Cumulus 16 being just a bit more cushy than the ASICS GT-2000 3, while the ASICS GT-2000 3 provides almost twice as much forefoot cushioning than the ASICS GEL-Cumulus 16.

For women, the ASICS GT-2000 3 turns out to be overall extremely cushy in both the heel and the forefoot. For both men and women, the amount of forefoot cushioning in the ASICS GEL-Cumulus 16 tends to be not too soft or too firm, so average.

The big difference in the midsoles of the ASICS GEL-Cumulus 16 and the ASICS GT-2000 3 can be found on the medial side where the ASICS GT-2000 3 has a support system in place that helps stop your foot from rolling too far inward, while the ASICS GEL-Cumulus 16 does not have such a support system in place.

Support in the ASICS GEL-Cumulus 16 comes in the form of a midfoot shank on the lateral and medial sides of the midsole to provide some midfoot integrity and support.

The ASICS GT-2000 3 also has a midfoot shank, but its lateral and medial pieces are connected to each other as a good indication that the ASICS GT-2000 3 provides much more stability and support than the ASICS GEL-Cumulus 16.

But this is understandable, since the ASICS GEL-Cumulus 16 is for neutral runners who tend to need little to no support, while the ASICS GT-2000 3 is for overpronators who may need a little or a moderate amount of support.

The rubber outsoles of the two running shoes are well-separated for shock absorption and dissipation and display a similar layout and amount of horizontal and vertical flex grooves.

Running shoe lab tests have shown that both running shoes are almost equally flexible for men, but that the ASICS GT-2000 3 is more flexible than the ASICS GEL-Cumulus 16 for women, which lies a bit on the stiff side.

The women's version of the ASICS GEL-Cumulus 16 weighs approximately 9.4 oz (266 grams) and the ASICS GT-2000 3 for women weighs 9.1 oz (258 grams).

The men's versions of the shoes weigh 11.9 oz (337 grams) and 11.1 oz (315 grams), respectively, with the ASICS GEL-Cumulus 16 being the heavier one.

If you are a neutral runner looking for a running shoe that provides you with a very soft ride as well as stability and support, you could go with the ASICS GT-2000 3, although it is for overpronators.

If you are a neutral runner who is not that into having a very cushy forefoot in a running shoe, the ASICS GEL-Cumulus 16 would suit you better than the ASICS GT-2000 3.

And finally, if you are an overpronator who needs stability and support, then the ASICS GT-2000 3 would be the only answer between these two running shoes.

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

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.