Saucony Guide ISO 2 vs. Brooks Ravenna 10 review

Saucony Guide ISO 2 provides a custom fit and a responsive ride to overpronators. Brooks Ravenna 10 provides comfort and a responsive ride to moderate overpronators...

The Saucony Guide ISO 2 and the Brooks Ravenna 10 are stability running shoes that can be seen as being on a similar level in serving mild to moderate overpronators.

ADVERTISEMENTS

The uppers of both the Saucony Guide ISO 2 The preceding link takes you to Amazon.com and the Brooks Ravenna 10 can be seen as lightweight uppers, but you might get more from the upper of the Saucony Guide ISO 2 than from that of the Brooks Ravenna 10.

The upper of the Brooks Ravenna 10 The preceding link takes you to Amazon.com consists mostly of mesh from heel to toe with an internal bootie to give you a more close-to-foot fit.

The amount of support offered by the upper of the Brooks Ravenna 10 is minimal, but it should be able to keep your foot on the running platform.

The upper of the Saucony Guide ISO 2 is different in that it has mostly mesh in the forefoot and part of the midfoot, but the area around the heel consists of a different type of material that delivers a bit more support.

In addition, unlike the upper of the Brooks Ravenna 10, the upper of the Saucony Guide ISO 2 can be customized through the eyelets in the saddle, and Saucony says that the footbed of the Saucony Guide ISO 2 is contoured in a way to give you a better fit.

Therefore, the Saucony Guide ISO 2 is not only concerned with providing comfort like the Brooks Ravenna 10 but also with providing a better and more custom fit.

The midsoles of the Brooks Ravenna 10 and the Saucony Guide ISO 2 greatly differ in construction.

The Saucony Guide ISO 2 comes with one main layer of foam that runs from heel to toe and that is meant to deliver a good amount of cushioning but not too much to hold you back, and then it has another thinner but softer layer of foam on top of the midsole to give you heel-to-toe softness and energy return.

The Brooks Ravenna 10 is different in that it has just one main layer of foam without any additional layers.

The type of foam used by the Brooks Ravenna 10 is also meant to deliver a good amount of cushioning but not too much to hold you back, so in that respect, both the Saucony Guide ISO 2 and the Brooks Ravenna 10 are meant to be responsive running shoes.

The Brooks Ravenna is a running shoe that typically delivers a just below average amount of forefoot cushioning and a bit more heel cushioning than forefoot cushioning but nothing over the top.

ADVERTISEMENTS

Brooks says that the Brooks Ravenna 10 has a bit more foam under the forefoot, which should also increase the amount of cushioning you get under the forefoot. However, more foam also means more stiffness, but stiffness is good for stability.

The Saucony Guide ISO 2 has been found to deliver a moderate amount of heel and forefoot cushioning, but women get a bit more forefoot cushioning to make their run feel overall soft.

The Saucony Guide ISO 2 is meant to provide runners with a plush ride but not too plush, because one of its goals is also to deliver responsiveness.

The biggest difference between the Brooks Ravenna 10 and the Saucony Guide ISO 2 is the way in which they deliver stability and support.

The Brooks Ravenna 10 comes with GuideRails, which are elevated sections along the upper edge of the midsole on the medial and lateral side. They are meant to help your body align its joints and Brooks claims that they help tackle knee issues.

Because GuideRails do not force your feet to move in a certain way, they should not get in the way of neutral runners, so theoretically speaking, the Brooks Ravenna 10 could also be worn by neutral runners. Note that Brooks has listed the Brooks Ravenna 10 as being for runners with flat or medium arches.

The Saucony Guide ISO 2 uses a more traditional way of delivering stability and support in the form of a medial post. This post is a piece of higher density foam on the medial side of the midsole that is meant to help stop your foot from rolling too far inward.

Therefore, as your foot rolls inward as an overpronator, it would encounter the medial post that resists the movement.

The medial post used by the Saucony Guide ISO 2 is not very long and only covers an area that would serve average overpronators.

This medial post would not get in the way of a neutral runner who does not turn their feet in during the gait cycle, but because it runs high, you might still feel it as a neutral runner, which would make the Saucony Guide ISO 2 less suitable for neutral runners who do not need any stability and support.

Medial posts have been the standard way to deliver support in stability running shoes for a very long time and are generally also considered to be more supportive than GuideRails, which would make the Saucony Guide ISO 2 more supportive than the Brooks Ravenna 10.

The outsoles of the Brooks Ravenna 10 and the Saucony Guide ISO 2 differ in layout.

While both running shoes display a large degree of separation under the heel and under the forefoot, the Saucony Guide ISO 2 is the one that has more and wider flex grooves under the forefoot, while the Brooks Ravenna 10 comes with rubber directly under the midfoot to help with faster heel-to-transitions.

The Saucony Guide ISO 2 has been found to be rather stiff for both men and women, and while the Brooks Ravenna has been moderately flexible in the past, the Brooks Ravenna 10 is expected to be a tad stiffer due to the addition of extra foam under the forefoot.

The Brooks Ravenna 10 is lighter than the Saucony Guide ISO 2 for both men and women, according to manufacturer's data.

The Brooks Ravenna 10 and the Saucony Guide ISO 2 are similar in that you should be able to get a responsive ride and smooth heel-to-toe transitions from both running shoes.

If you are a mild to moderate overpronator who is looking for a comfortable ride, you could turn to either the Saucony Guide ISO 2 or the Brooks Ravenna 10.

The Brooks Ravenna 10 sticks out in that it has been set up in a way for you to run faster, and it implements a midsole technology that is meant to help prevent knee injuries.

The Saucony Guide ISO 2 is unique in that its upper can deliver a more custom fit, and it implements a more traditional way of delivering stability and support.

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.


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.