No one really wants to hear this, but running shoes are terrible for the environment. One of the biggest reasons why is that they’re difficult—and therefore uneconomical—to recycle, so they’re either sent to landfill or incinerated.

A few brands have made strides to improve this situation and one of the main players is Asics, which began to print the carbon footprint of its shoes on insoles last summer.

Today, Asics announces the Asics Nimbus Mirai, a performance running shoe designed to be returned and recycled. It goes on sale on April 12 in limited quantities in limited markets, to better manage the untested process of taking the shoes back to be recycled. The shoes cost $180 in the US, £180 in the UK and €200 in France and the Netherlands, making it more expensive in the US (and as expensive in the UK) than the popular Asics Nimbus 26 cushioned shoe.

What Makes This Shoe Different?

The development that enhances the ability of the shoe to be recycled is a new one-piece upper and glue that melts away at high temperatures, leaving the material of the upper unaffected and able to be recycled. 

In 2021, Coach spoke to Dr Mark Sumner—a lecturer at the University of Leeds School of Design who specializes in sustainability—about recycling running shoes and he highlighted the elements of running shoes that are particularly problematic. “What makes it hard to recycle shoes is you've typically got a complex mixture of different materials,” he says, and that’s before you get to the bonding methods. “This makes it difficult to deconstruct, to extract those individual materials to try and work out how you can recycle them.”

Asics’ tests show that 87% of the upper can be turned into usable polyester material. It intends to collect returned Mirais then share with its recycling partner TerraCycle, which acts as a broker, moving them on to recycling centers.

It’s a first step, but Rohan van der Zwet, senior product marketing manager for Asics EMEA, said that the aim is to be able to say, “all our shoes can or should return because we can repurpose most parts”. While he couldn’t say when Asics would achieve that, his horizon was a few years.

What’s It Like To Run In?

Asics isn’t the first brand to launch a more recyclable shoe, or one that is designed to be returned, but we haven’t tested a more sustainable shoe that can match the performance of the best running shoes—that’s been the upshot of our testing of the On CloudNeo and AllBirds Tree Dasher 2.

That looks to be the case again here, although Asics is confident enough of its performance that it’s placed the Mirai in its popular Nimbus line of cushioned shoes. 

“In terms of pure shock absorption technology, the current Nimbus [26] would win,” says Van der Zwet, “but this is still up there. That’s why we were able to give it the Nimbus name because it’s still a comfortable shoe to run in.”

Where Can You Buy The Asics Nimbus Mirai?

In the US, the Mirai will be available in Asics stores, online from Asics as well as in the following specialty stores:

• A Runner's Mind, CA 
• Athletic Annex, IN 
• Big Red Running, CO 
• Charm City Run, MD 
• Farley Enterprises, VA 
• Fleet Feet Rochester, NY 
• Gazelle Sports, MI 
• Mill City Running, MN 
• Naperville Running Co, IL 
• Palmetto Running Company, SC 
• Playmakers, MI 
• Potomac River Running, VA 
• Road Runner Sports Shop, NJ 
• Running Logistics LLC 
• Skinny Raven Sports, AK 
• Sope Creek Enterprises, GA 
• The Exchange Running, TN 
• Three Amigos Running Co.

In Europe the shoe will only be available in three Asics stores and won’t be sold online.

• Paris, France 
• Amsterdam, Netherlands 
• London (Oxford Street), UK

Asics didn’t rush to bring out a successor to the Metaspeed Sky+ racing shoe, which was launched in spring 2022. However, taking its time has paid off because the Metaspeed Sky Paris includes important upgrades and is now clearly one of the best carbon plate running shoes. I put it at the top of the tree—even ahead of the Nike Alphafly 3—and the fact that it’s cheaper than many super-shoes is a bonus.

Asics Metaspeed Sky Paris: Price And Availability

The Asics Metaspeed Sky Paris launched in February 2024 and costs $250 in the US and £220 in the UK. That’s the same price as the Metasped Sky+ in the US, and £5 cheaper than the older shoe in the UK. The Metaspeed Sky Paris is at the cheaper end of the super-shoe spectrum: the Nike Alphafly 3 costs $285/£285. Asics also has the Metaspeed Edge Paris in its line-up, another carbon super-shoe designed to suit higher-cadence runners.

How I Tested This Running Shoe

I’ve run 60 miles in the Metaspeed Sky Paris, using it for a range of marathon training runs, including a 20-mile long run and an all-out parkrun. I have also tested the Metaspeed Sky and Metaspeed Sky+, along with the older models in the Edge line-up. I'm yet to review the Metaspeed Edge Paris but will be testing it soon. Aside from the Adidas Pro Evo 1, I have also tested all the leading carbon plate running shoes from other brands.

Design And Fit

The Metaspeed Sky Paris is one of the lightest super-shoes I’ve tested, weighing just 6.6oz/188g in my UK size 9. That’s a drop of 0.7oz/20g from the Metaspeed Sky+ and, while weight isn’t everything even with racing shoes, it’s significant how light the Metaspeed Sky Paris is. Most super-shoes, including the Nike Vaporfly 3, are more than 7oz/200g in my size.

Despite this, Asics hasn’t skimped on the cushioning. The stack height is 39.5mm at the heel and 34.5mm at the forefoot for a 5mm drop. Key to the reduction in weight is the new FF Turbo+ foam in the Metaspeed Sky Paris, which is softer, lighter and bouncier than the FF Turbo used on previous Metaspeed shoes.

The Motion Wrap 2.0 upper is lighter than the material used on the older shoes, though Asics has still been able to add a touch of padding at the heel for extra comfort over long distances. The shoe fitted well in my usual running shoe size, the same size I’ve used for all previous Asics racing shoes. 

Asics has made weight savings on the outsole. The forefoot is well covered with rubber that has lots of holes in it to reduce weight, though the strips of rubber running towards the back of the shoe stop short of the heel to leave some exposed foam. With previous versions of the Metaspeed, I’ve ripped this foam a little as a heel-striker; after 60 miles I’ve not seen the same wear on the Metaspeed Sky Paris, but it’s something to look out for if you do land on your heels.

The Metaspeed Sky Paris is Asics’ super-shoe for “stride” runners, who mainly increase their stride length when running faster. The Metaspeed Edge Paris is for “cadence” runners, who mainly increase their cadence (number of steps per minute) when running faster. The Paris editions have fewer differences than older models of the two shoes did. The shoes have the same stack height and drop, and similar weights, while the main differences are that the Edge has a longer rocker at the forefoot and more scooped carbon plate to aid turnover with a higher cadence. The Sky’s plate sits higher in the foam to give more energy return to bounding runners.

Running Performance

I’ve been a fan of the last two versions of the Metaspeed Sky and my PRs for the 10K and half-marathon were set in them (10K in the Metaspeed Sky, half-marathon in the Metaspeed Sky+). Although I’m a cadence runner with a shuffling gait, I’ve preferred the bouncier Sky to the Edge, though I’ll reserve judgment on comparing the Edge Paris and Sky Paris until I’ve tested the former.

However, it’s going to take something special to make me like it more than the Metaspeed Sky Paris, which I’ve found sensational. I’ve done a variety of sessions in it: three long progression runs including a 30km with 10K at 3min 30sec/k pace, along with probably the best track workout of my life running 6 x 5min 20sec/mile reps with float recoveries and a parkun in 15min 51sec.

On every run it’s felt amazing. The light design comes across late on fast runs when it helps to keep turning over your feet, but the shoe still has the spring you expect from a high-stack super-shoe. It’s less bouncy than some racers, like the Nike Alphafly 3 and Hoka Cielo X1, but the Metaspeed Sky Paris has a faster transition and a more aggressive feel while still being comfortable for long distances. 

Some may prefer a softer super-shoe for the marathon, but I had no discomfort even when running hard up to distances of 20 miles and would have no fears about going the full 26.2 in it. Over shorter distances the lightness and aggressive design is an obvious boon, especially when accelerating out of corners; while it’s not a stable shoe, I found the Metaspeed Sky Paris nimble enough on a parkrun course with a few sharp turns. The grip was good when running fast in wet conditions, despite the relatively small amount of rubber on the outsole. 

Is The Asics Metaspeed Sky Paris Worth It?

The Metaspeed Sky Paris is a perfect modern racing shoe for all distances. It’s light, but still springy and cushioned enough for the marathon, and the updates Asics has made put it at the top of my list of carbon racers. There are, however, still excellent alternatives to consider, including the Nike Alphafly 3 and Nike Vaporfly 3, which are equally impressive all-distance racers. There is also the bouncy Hoka Cielo X1 for the marathon. 

Everyone needs to find the racer that suits them, so I’m not saying the Metaspeed Sky Paris is objectively the best, but it’s my preferred pick right now. The shoe is cheaper than many top racing shoes, and it’s welcome news that Asics didn’t raise the price compared with the Metaspeed Sky+ despite making significant updates to the shoe.

The Asics Metaspeed Sky Paris and Metaspeed Edge Paris will be available to buy from Monday March 4, with both shoes priced at $250/£220, which is the same price as the Asics Metaspeed Sky+ and Metaspeed Edge+ in the US and an unexpected £5 drop in the UK.

It’s been almost two years since Asics launched the previous versions of the Metaspeed Sky and Edge, and though both are still competitive with the best carbon plate running shoes, the changes made to Metaspeed Paris shoes will hopefully help them challenge for the top spots.

The main update to both shoes is a new foam in the midsole, which is now made from Asics’s FF Blast Turbo Plus foam, a lighter and bouncier material than the FF Blast Turbo used in the Sky+ and Edge+ shoes.

Asics has also made the new shoes lighter by around 0.8oz/22g, which should make them the lightest carbon plate running shoes on the market, aside from the barely-available Adidas Adizero Pro Evo 1. Along with the new midsole foam, a lighter and more breathable Motion Wrap 2.0 contributes to the drop in weight. Asics has also adjusted the carbon plates in the shoes in a bid to improve performance.

As with previous generations of Metaspeed shoes, the differences between the Metaspeed Sky Paris and Metaspeed Edge Paris relate to the type of runner they are aimed at. The Sky shoes are designed for bounding runners who mostly speed up in races by lengthening their stride, while the Edge shoes are for those who mainly increase their cadence in races. 

The geometry of the shoes are tailored to each running style. The carbon plates are positioned differently within the midsole foams, though the drop of both the Sky Paris and Edge Paris is now the same at 5mm, whereas in the past the Sky shoes had a lower drop.

I am definitely a cadence runner, but have always enjoyed using the Metaspeed Sky more than the Edge, and I set both my 10K and half marathon PRs in the Sky shoes, so I wouldn’t say the stride and cadence labels should completely determine your choice. However it’s certainly an interesting idea and some other brands now have two carbon shoes that seemed tailored to different running gaits.

The Asics Metaspeed Paris shoes are cheaper than many other carbon options, and if they can improve upon the performance of the excellent Metaspeed Sky+ and Edge+ they will be an exciting new option for runners seeking PRs to consider.

Find out more about each shoe on the Asics UK website.

The Asics Gel-Nimbus 25 was a major update for the long-running Asics Gel-Nimbus line, with Asics increasing the midsole stack height and changing the foams used to make it a more comfortable shoe than ever. I rated it among the best cushioned shoes and didn't expect Asics to make sweeping changes with the Gel-Nimbus 26. On paper the minor updates look good: the 26 has a new outsole material to improve its grip and the upper has been adjusted to create a more secure fit around the midfoot.

However, having run 40-50 miles in both sets of shoes, as well as doing a short run with one on each foot, I can't say that the changes have improved the shoe. I found the Gel-Nimbus 25 a little slippery on greasy paved surfaces in my first couple of runs in it, but after that the outsole roughed up a little and I had no grip concerns when running on asphalt.

The fit of both shoes in my usual running shoe size was equally good for me. Both are comfortable and great for long and easy runs, with a smooth and soft ride that helps you to tick over at relaxed paces. It's one of the best marathon running shoes thanks to the way it helps you roll through long distances.

Given how similar the shoes are, the improved grip on the Gel-Nimbus 26 should make it a better shoe, yet the added traction doesn't come without drawbacks. I found the outsole material on the 26 felt harder than the rubber on the 25, which made the ride “slappier” because the impact of the shoe on the sidewalk felt harder, and was louder.

I also noticed forefoot discomfort with the newer shoe when I did a fast intervals session in it, and the ride was a little less comfortable than the 25 on long runs as well. The Gel-Nimbus 26 is still a comfortable shoe for long runs, but I prefer the feel of the Gel-Nimbus 25.

Since the shoe's main purpose is to be a comfortable cruiser, the Gel-Nimbus 25 is arguably a better shoe since it did that role better for me. I'd have no qualms in recommending that you look to buy the older shoe at a discount rather than the Gel-Nimbus 26.

Asics Gel-Nimbus 26 vs Asics Gel-Nimbus 25: Price And Availability

The Gel-Nimbus 25 launched in January 2023 and cost $160 in the US and £175 in the UK at launch, but is available for significantly less in sales: it's $130 at Asics right now, for example. The Gel-Nimbus 26 went on sale in January 2024 and is also $160 in the US, but the price increased to £180 in the UK. It's one of the most expensive cushioned shoes, especially in the UK.

The best deal I can see on the Gel-Nimbus 25 at the moment is the $30 saving at Asics, which has a range of colors and sizes of the shoe available for $129.95. 

In the UK the shoe has been widely reduced to around £122, with Asics, SportsShoes and Pro:Direct all offering the Gel-Nimbus 25 for this price.

The Asics Gel-Nimbus 25 was a substantial update for the Nimbus line and so the Gel-Nimbus 26 was always likely to receive a relatively modest update. Asics has mostly stuck to the same max-cushioned design of the 25, with a new outsole designed to improve grip, and a tweaked upper modifying the fit.

Given that the Gel-Nimbus 25 was one of the best cushioned shoes available, I expected these minor changes would only more firmly establish the 26 as a top option. However, I’ve found the new outsole on the shoe “slappy”—distractingly noisy when it hits the ground—and the Gel-Nimbus 26 is less comfortable than the 25, which means I’d recommend trying to find a deal on the older shoe myself.

Asics Gel-Nimbus 26: Price And Availability

The Asics Gel-Nimbus 26 will be available from January 15, 2023 and costs $160 in the US and £180 in the UK. The US price, while expensive, is on par for a max-cushioned shoe that’s at the top of Asics’s training range. However, the UK price is above par, and a £5 rise on the list price of the Gel-Nimbus 25.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run about 50 miles in the Asics Gel-Nimbus 26, using it mostly for easy runs, along with one 90-minute long run and a hard interval workout. I have also tested the past two versions of the Asics Gel-Nimbus line, along with a range of the best running shoes from other brands.

Design And Fit

The big change Asics made with the Gel-Nimbus 25 was to increase the stack height and turn it into a max-cushioned shoe. The midsole on the Gel-Nimbus 26 is mostly the same, with a big chunk of FF Blast Plus Eco foam and a little PureGel under the heel, but the stack height is 0.5mm higher than on the Gel-Nimbus 25: 42mm at the heel, 34mm at the forefoot.

This keeps the drop at 8mm, the same as on the previous version of the shoe, but the weight has increased slightly with the Gel-Nimbus 26. It weighs 11.2oz/318g for my UK size 9, compared with 11.1oz/315g for the Gel-Nimbus 25 in the same size.

Asics has made adjustments to the upper on the new shoe, which features redesigned eyelets to create a more secure hold around the midfoot. It’s an engineered knit upper with a stretchy tongue. I found that the shoe fitted well in my usual running shoe size, but didn’t notice an improved fit or more comfort compared with the Gel-Nimbus 25.

The most noticeable change with the new shoe is the outsole, which is now a blend of Asics AHAR and ASICSGRIP materials, with the aim of creating a better grip than with the Gel-Nimbus 25. I found the Gel-Nimbus 25 a bit slippery on greasy paved surfaces when I first used it, but didn’t have any substantial problems with grip after that. The Gel-Nimbus 26 is tackier on slick paved surfaces.

However, this improvement in traction doesn’t come without a cost. The new rubber on the outsole is firmer and I found I could hear the shoe hitting the ground more; it’s less comfortable under the forefoot as a result of this.

Running Performance

For the most part, the Gel-Nimbus 26 performs like the Gel-Nimbus 25 on the run: It’s a great cushioned cruiser for easy and long runs. The ride is soft and comfortable, but not squishy in a way that makes the shoe feel unstable, and the slight rocker profile helps to roll you through your footstrike.

It’s at its best for slowly ticking off long runs and easy daily training runs, but it’s too heavy for fast sessions. I used it for one hard workout while on vacation, since I didn’t have a speedier shoe to hand, pushing through two miles in 11 minutes, followed by timed intervals and another hard mile.

It didn’t feel great for this, not only because it’s a heavy shoe designed for slow runs, but also because I started to feel significant forefoot discomfort because of that slappy ride. I also noticed this a little on an easy long run, though it only became pronounced during the session when I was running hard and putting more force through the shoe.

I haven’t experienced this discomfort with the Gel-Nimbus 25 on any of the several long runs I’ve done in the shoe, though I haven’t done a fast session in it. I think the new outsole on the Gel-Nimbus 26 reduces its comfort, marginally—though what it takes away there, it gives back in improved grip.

Is The Asics Gel-Nimbus 26 Worth It?

Early in my testing of the Gel-Nimbus 26 I considered it only a small improvement on the 25, in that it was the same with slightly better grip. I’d have recommended getting the older shoe in a deal as a result. Now that I’ve done more running in the new shoe, I’m clearer about why I feel the Gel-Nimbus 25 takes precedence. I found it more comfortable, as well as being the better-value option.

There are many other great cushioned shoes you should look at, with the Puma Magnify Nitro 2 and Brooks Ghost Max being similarly comfortable shoes that are cheaper than the Gel-Nimbus 26. The Saucony Ride 17 is another good shoe that is more versatile than the Gel-Nimbus 26 because it has more pop for faster runs. 

I also suggest checking out the Asics Novablast 4, which is cheaper and lighter than the Gel-Nimbus 26 and a better all-rounder, and proved just as comfortable during my testing. 

The Asics Novablast 4 is the best version of this shoe yet, even though it loses some of the bounce of previous iterations. The ride is tamer, but smoother, and I found the shoe a great all-rounder and one that’s particularly enjoyable for longer runs.

It’s up there with the best running shoes and reasonable value too, though on that front there’s a case for finding a deal on the previous model, which is a good shoe itself and likely to pop up in sales regularly now the Novablast 4 has launched.

Asics Novablast 4: Price And Availability

The Asics Novablast 4 costs $140 in the US and £135 in the UK, the same price as the Novablast 3. The price is in line with other daily trainers like this, and similar to rivals like the Nike Pegasus 40, Adidas Supernova Rise and Saucony Ride 17.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run around 32 miles in the Asics Novablast 4, using it for a mix of training runs, including a 13-mile long run, an interval session and a progression run. I have also tested the past three generations of the shoe, as well as a range of the best Asics running shoes and daily training options from other brands.

Design And Fit

Asics has made changes to the upper, midsole and outsole of the Novablast 4, and while they’re all minor, they add up to make the shoe feel different to the Novablast 3. The most minimal change is in the upper, which is now made from a woven material and is meant to be more breathable. It’s a comfortable upper that holds the foot well, and the shoe fits well in my usual running shoe size, but that is true of the Novablast 3 as well.

More notable changes are found in the midsole and outsole. The latter now offers slightly better grip, and while the Novablast 4 is still not an outstanding shoe for wet paved surfaces—Adidas and Puma in particular offer road shoes with better outsoles—I didn’t slip too much in the shoe even on greasy all-weather paths.

The midsole is now made from FF Blast Plus Eco foam, rather than the standard FF Blast Plus used in the Novablast 3. It’s not the most eco-friendly of foams, since only 20% is made from bio-based materials. But it is nice and bouncy, and Asics promises even more energy return.

With a stack height of 41.5mm at the heel and 33.5mm at the forefoot, the Novablast 4 has an 8mm drop and is slightly higher and wider than the Novablast 3. This has increased the weight, with the new shoe 9.5oz/270g in my UK size 9, compared with 9oz/257g for the Novablast 3. It’s still a light shoe given its stack height, and didn’t feel heftier than the Novablast 3.

Running Performance

While I thought the Novablast 3 was a good shoe, I found that the bounce I got from the midsole dulled after a few runs, and I didn’t find it as enjoyable an all-rounder as many other reviewers, preferring to use it only for easy runs.

Although it’s less springy than the Novablast 3, I’ve found the Novablast 4 a more versatile shoe. The ride is smoother and the foam is firmer, which gives a more responsive ride that I found helped me pick up the pace in the shoe.

For my first run I did a session running 20 x 60sec on, 30sec recovery, before going into a parkrun pacing a friend to a sub-20min. The Novablast 4 felt smooth and lively on the short reps, running around 5min 20sec/mile pace, and cruising through the parkrun felt great in the shoe.

The next day I did a hilly half-marathon long run in the shoe and again I was impressed with its versatility. It was comfortable and protective when running at an easy pace, but lightweight enough to not be a burden when ascending hills, or when speeding up in the last few miles of the run.

It wouldn’t be my go-to pick for all-out speedwork, or hard long runs aiming for race paces, when I’d use a plated racing shoe or super-trainer, but it can do those runs if you don’t have a running shoe rotation. The Novablast 4 is great for anything at slower paces, especially long, relaxed runs.

I’ve also found the bounce from the midsole, while less noticeable than the springy feel of the Novablast 3 initially, is more long-lasting. The Novablast 3 would lose some of its lively feel over the course of long runs while the Novablast 4 is more resilient.

Is The Asics Novablast 4 Worth It?

The Novablast 4 is a great daily trainer and good value at its list price. For me, it’s an improvement on the Novablast 3, though if you can find the older shoe available at a substantial discount it’s the better-value pick, since the difference between generations is not night and day.

There are other great options in this category, like the Puma Velocity Nitro 2, which is cheaper than the Novablast 4 and has a better outsole, though it’s less cushioned. The Nike Pegasus 40 is another strong option, as are the Adidas Supernova Rise and Saucony Ride 17, but I prefer the ride feel of the Novablast 4 to those shoes and find the Asics more versatile.

If you don’t mind paying the extra $60, the Asics Superblast is also worth looking at. It does everything the Novablast 4 does, but a little better, thanks to the bouncier FF Turbo foam in the midsole. The Superblast is expensive though, and so the Novablast 4 is better value.

Asics has released details of the 26th edition of its popular Gel-Nimbus line. 

The current shoe, the Asics Gel-Nimbus 25, is one of the best cushioned running shoes, and it appears Asics has broadly stuck to the design of the 25, which had a much higher stack height and a softer, more comfortable ride than the Gel-Nimbus 24.

The midsole on the Gel-Nimbus 26 (and Gel-Nimbus 25) is a high stack of FF Blast Plus Eco foam, with some PureGel under the heel. The shoe has a mild rocker shape too.

I found the overall ride of the Gel-Nimbus 25 was excellent for easy runs—smooth and soft without being too squishy or unstable. It’s not a particularly versatile shoe, being a bit heavy and lacking the bouncy ride I want for faster runs, but as an easy run cruiser in a running shoe rotation, or a comfortable all-rounder for newer runners, it’s up there with the best running shoes (I also named it the best for beginners in my selection of the best Asics running shoes).

One complaint I had about the Gel-Nimbus 25 was the grip. While the Gel-Nimbus 25’s outsole was OK, it didn’t grip perfectly for me out of the box and I found it slippery on greasy pavements, although this improved after a few runs. 

Asics has added ASICSGRIP rubber on the outsole of the Gel-Nimbus 26, in combination with the AHARPLUS rubber used on the Gel-Nimbus 25, which should result in better traction in wet conditions in particular.

Asics also says the fit of the new shoe has been improved, with a better hold around the midfoot, though the Gel-Nimbus 26 still uses an engineered knit material like its predecessor. 

One thing I don’t love about the Gel-Nimbus 25 was its high price of £175 in the UK, though it is a more reasonable $160 in the US. The price of the Asics Gel-Nimbus 26 has risen in the UK to £180. I haven’t had the US price confirmed yet, so I’m not sure if this is a UK-only increase.

It’s a high price for a cushioned shoe, no matter how good the Gel-Nimbus is, though you can wait for it to be reduced in sales—the Gel-Nimbus 25 was reduced to $120 for Black Friday 2023 (in fact, it still is).

The Asics Gel-Nimbus 26 will be available from January 15th, 2024.

The Asics Gel-Nimbus 25 is exactly the kind of running shoe to look for in the Black Friday sales. It’s one of the best running shoes available, with a cushioned and extremely comfortable ride, and it’s very expensive at full price, two factors that make it especially attractive when there are discounts available.

Right now you can get $40 off the Gel-Nimbus 25 at both Amazon and Asics, bringing the price down to $119.95. It’s the pick of Amazon’s early Black Friday sales on running shoes, and there is a wide range of colors available on both sites.

I enjoy using the Asics Gel-Nimbus 25 for long easy runs in particular, and have kept it in my running shoe rotation for that purpose even after I finished testing it for my review on Coach. I’ve run over half marathon distance three times in it and it’s perfect for relaxed long runs thanks to the high stack of FF Blast+ cushioning, which is comfortable but not so squishy as to be unstable.

At its full price there are some max-cushioned shoes I rate as better value than the Gel-Nimbus 25, like the Puma Magnify Nitro 2, but with this discount the Asics is now great value and worth considering. If you’re a fairly new runner it’s a shoe that will handle all your runs while protecting your legs as you get used to the impact of the sport, while experienced runners will find it best serves in a rotation as an easy run shoe that can handle a lot of mileage.

If the choice of colors overwhelms you, one last recommendation I have is to get the Lite Show version of the Gel-Nimbus 25. Not only is it more expensive at MSRP so your savings are bigger—it drops from $170 to $119.95—but it’s a great color and has lots of reflective sections that will make you a little more visible on night runs.

Shopping around? Me too, and I’m collecting the best Nike Black Friday deals and the best On Running Black Friday deals. 

The original Asics Novablast launched with little fanfare but runners took to its bouncy ride and it quickly became a word-of-mouth sensation. The line has remained popular, with the Asics Novablast 2 and Asics Novablast 3 being among the best running shoes for those seeking a lively and versatile daily trainer.

Sometimes brands shy away from making too many changes to popular shoes, but Asics has made significant updates to each generation of the Novablast so far, and that looks set to continue with the Asics Novablast 4, which will be available from December 1st, 2023.

The Novablast’s key feature has always been the high stack of bouncy foam in its midsole, and this remains the case with the Novablast 4, but the foam is now FF Blast Plus Eco foam, rather than the standard FF Blast Plus used on the Novablast 3.

Asics says this Eco version of the foam still delivers the shoe’s signature bouncy feel, but is made from at least 20% bio-based materials. Whether something being 20% bio-based is enough to earn the eco tag is another question—I’d expect a completely bio-based material if it’s to be described as eco.

The Novablast 4 has a new woven upper, replacing the mesh upper on the Novablast 3. Asics says this change will make the new shoe more breathable, although I didn’t have any trouble with the Novablast 3 upper myself during testing. I did find that the 3 did struggle to grip wet pavements at times, so I’m pleased to see that the Novablast 4 promises improved grip.

I’m also pleased to see the UK price remains the same as the Novablast 3 at £135. While the US price hasn’t been confirmed yet, it is also likely to remain unchanged at $140. The Novablast 4 will launch globally on December 1st, with the main colorway being all light green for the men’s shoe, and cream for the women’s.

Asics has been on a roll in 2023 with impressive updates to long-running lines including the Asics Gel-Nimbus 25 and Asics Gel-Kayano 30, while the Asics Superblast has established itself as one of the best all-rounder shoes available, even if it is very expensive. It will be interesting to see how the Novablast 4 fits into this line-up and whether it slots into our selection of the best Asics running shoes, but hopefully it remains a versatile daily trainer with plenty of bounce.

If you’re looking for a comfortable pair of cushioned running shoes in the Amazon Prime Big Deal Days sale, then the two top picks both come from Asics. The Asics Gel-Cumulus 24 and Asics Gel-Nimbus 24 are both reduced in the sale, with the cheapest pairs available for just $63.

Within Asics’s range the Gel-Nimbus outranks the Gel-Cumulus as the brand’s flagship neutral cushioned shoe, and since the Gel-Nimbus is the more expensive shoe, you might think it’s the clear pick in the sale since both are reduced to the same price.

However, I racked up 50 miles in each of the two shoes for my Asics Gel-Nimbus 24 review and Asics Gel-Cumulus 24 review on Coach, and ended up preferring the Cumulus, so I’d suggest bagging it in the Amazon sale over the Nimbus.

The two shoes share some similar elements, with stretchy mesh uppers, and a thick layer of rubber covering most of the outsole to ensure good grip and durability. The Nimbus 24 uses Asics’s FF Blast+ foam in its midsole, compared to FF Blast on the Gel-Cumulus 24, but although Asics says FF Blast+ is softer and springier than FF Blast, I preferred the ride feel of the Cumulus.

Part of that is down to it having a lower drop compared with the Nimbus. The Cumulus has an 8mm offset, while the Nimbus has a 10mm drop on the men’s shoe and 13mm on the women’s. The lower drop created a smoother ride for me, and the extra forefoot cushioning on the Cumulus meant it was more comfortable on long runs.

Both are good cushioned shoes though, and very different from the latest Gel-Nimbus 25 and Gel-Cumulus 25, which have much higher stack heights—and are much more expensive to boot. I’d get the Cumulus 24 in the sale, but if you like higher-drop shoes then the Nimbus is just as good a bargain.

There are plenty of sizes and colors available of both shoes for now, though you will find the price jumps around as you choose different sizes and colors, so you might have to pay a little more than $63 for your size and preferred design.

Asics is among the biggest running brands in the world and makes some of the best running shoes on the market. Its huge range of shoes can be confusing at first glance, but within the line-up there are options to suit every kind of runner, whether you’re looking for a reliable cushioned shoe for daily training or one of the best carbon plate running shoes for racing.

How I Tested These Shoes

I’m a keen runner who logs around 50-70 miles (80-110km) a week in training, usually in the build-up to a marathon—I have a PR of 2hr 28min. I have been testing Asics shoes, along with every other major brand, for many years and have tried most of the top road running models in its current range. My favorite at the moment is the Asics Superblast, which is one of the most versatile shoes you can find.

The Best Asics Running Shoes

The Asics Gel-Nimbus 26 is the top-of-the-line neutral cushioned shoe in the Asics range, offering new runners a high amount of comfort and protection during their fledgling efforts. It provides a smooth ride with a rocker helping to move you through your footstrike, and it’s great for cruising along at a relaxed pace, even if it’s not the best for doing speedwork. It’s expensive, so I’d advise that if you find the previous model, the Gel-Nimbus 25, in a deal then grab that instead, as I found the updates to the Gel-Nimbus 26 were minimal.

Read more in my Asics Gel-Nimbus 26 review

The Superblast is the best daily trainer in Asics’s range, but most people aren’t going to spend $200 on a daily trainer, and the Novablast 4 is also an excellent shoe—and much cheaper. The latest version of the Novablast is my favorite yet, with a smoother and more resilient ride than the Novablast 3, so while it’s heavier and less bouncy than its predecessor, I found it a more versatile shoe that feels better at faster paces.

I enjoyed the Novablast 4 most for long runs, either done entirely at an easy pace or when picking up the pace throughout to finish strong. Given the high stack of cushioning it feels surprisingly light on the foot, and Asics has also improved the outsole grip on the latest version of the shoe compared with the Novablast 3, which is helpful for running in wet conditions.

Read more in my Asics Novablast 4 review

The Superblast blew me away during my testing, with its towering stack of bouncy FF Turbo foam delivering a fun and versatile ride. I’ve used the Superblast for every kind of run from short recovery plods and easy long runs to tempo sessions and track reps, and it always comes up trumps. The high stack and lack of ground feel that comes with it take some getting used to, and the high price may be off-putting, but if you want a shoe for everything (including races, though it’s not as fast as a carbon plate running shoe), then the Superblast is Asics’ top option.

Read more in my Asics Superblast review

The Metaspeed Sky Paris is one of the best carbon plate running shoes from any brand. I currently have it top of my list overall thanks to the lightweight design, which still features a high stack of bouncy foam and a full-length carbon plate. It’s a brilliant racing shoe for any distance, with the lightness and aggressive feel you want for 5K and 10K events coupled with the springy cushioning you need for marathons. Asics also has the Metaspeed Edge Paris super-shoe in its line-up, which is similar to the Metaspeed Sky Paris but has tweaks that make it better suited for high-cadence runners, such as a longer forefoot rocker and a more scooped plate.

Read more in my Asics Metaspeed Sky Paris review

The Asics Gel-Kayano 30 is the stability counterpart to the Gel-Nimbus 25, with a similarly high stack of soft FF Blast+ foam in the midsole to create a comfortable, smooth ride. The Kayano 30 adds several elements to make it more supportive than the Nimbus 25, such as sidewalls of foam, a wider base and a soft, springy section of foam on the medial side to bounce your foot back into a neutral position during runs.

It’s a stability shoe that works for anyone and I enjoyed using it for long runs even as a neutral runner. It’s fairly heavy and not the best for faster runs, but for cruising through easy daily training and long runs, the Kayano 30 is a great option. It’s certainly one of the most comfortable stability shoes on the market.

Read more in my Asics Gel-Kayano 30 review

The Magic Speed 3 is billed as the fast training partner shoe to the Metaspeed racers, but also works as a cheaper racing option thanks to the speedy ride its carbon plate provides. It’s not as bouncy as the Metaspeed shoes because the FF Blast+ foam in the Magic Speed 3’s midsole isn’t as springy as the FF Turbo in the Sky+ and Edge+, although the Magic Speed 3 is more durable and much cheaper. It’s perfect for hammering out tough training runs and allows you to save your expensive super-shoe for race day.

Read more in my Asics Magic Speed 3 review

The trail-racing shoe scene has never been healthier, with major launches like the Nike Ultrafly and Adidas Terrex Agravic Speed Ultra joining the fray in recent months to compete with the likes of the Hoka Tecton X2 and Saucony Endorphin Edge.

All these shoes use cutting-edge tech from the best carbon plate running shoes for the roads, and come with eye-wateringly high prices. However, one trail-racing shoe that bucks this trend is the Asics Fujispeed 2, which is cheaper than its rivals, and yet still delivers a rapid ride aided by its carbon plate. It’s one of the best trail-running shoes available for shorter race distances, although I’d choose a comfier option for ultra-marathons.

Asics Fujispeed 2 Review: Price And Availability

The Asics Fujispeed 2 launched in Europe in August 2023 and costs $160 in the US and £160 in the UK. That price is not exactly cheap, but given that most trail super-shoes with tech like carbon plates cost £200 or more, the Fuji Speed 2 is a bit of a steal.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run just over 30 miles (around 50km) in the Asics Fujispeed 2, most of that on dry forest paths, with some road sections and occasional forays on to muddy single-track trails. I’ve done runs at a mix of paces, with one hard 10-miler and a long hills session, plus a couple of easier runs. I didn’t test the original Fujispeed, but I have tested several other trail super-shoes, including the Nike Ultrafly, Hoka Tecton X2 and Adidas Terrex Agravic Speed Ultra.

Design And Fit

The Asics Fujispeed 2 has much in common with the Asics Magic Speed 3 road shoe, which I’m a big fan of. It has a full-length carbon plate running through the rockered midsole, which is made from FF Blast+ foam. This is not Asics’ best foam, which is the bouncy FF Turbo material found on the Superblast and Metaspeed Sky+ shoes, but it’s still a light and springy foam that’s firm enough to be quite stable when off-road.

Asics hasn’t confirmed the stack height, but to my eye it’s pretty high at the heel, probably above 35mm. The heel-to-toe drop of 5mm has been confirmed. There are small sidewalls of foam your foot sits within to add stability, but it’s not as deep a “bucket seat” design as on other shoes like the Adidas Terrex Agravic Speed Ultra.

The woven upper has a reinforced section running around the front of the toe box and the collar of the shoe is well padded to add comfort and hold the back of your foot securely on the run. The shoe has a gusseted tongue and a lace garage, along with a pull tab at the back of the shoe.

Asics uses its own Asicsgrip material for the outsole of the shoe, rather than outsourcing it to a brand such as Vibram. The three-pronged lugs have bite on soft ground, but are not that deep and the Fujispeed 2 is best suited to dry, hard trails.

At 9oz/257g in my UK size 9, the Fujispeed 2 is light for a trail shoe, especially considering that it has a high midsole stack. It’s the lightest trail super-shoe I’ve tested, and has a narrow design that makes it feel agile. The downside of this shape is that the fit may not work for everyone. I have a narrow fit and was fine with my normal size, but the Fujispeed 2 is less roomy in the toe box than most trail shoes. This design also reduces stability on tricky downhills, in contrast to the wide landing zones you have on shoes like the Nike Ultrafly and Adidas Terrex Agravic Speed Ultra.

Running Performance

Many of the trail super-shoes available are geared towards ultra-marathons, and that means they often don’t feel that fast when you first pull them on. This isn’t the case with the Fujispeed 2, and its tight fit also gives it a racier feel than other trail shoes.

The ride is great when moving at speed. The rocker is smooth and, while the midsole foam is not especially bouncy, there is propulsion off the toes from the plate once you’ve rolled through onto your forefoot. 

I did a one-hour progression run on the trails, increasing my heart rate over the course of three 20-minute increments, and averaging just under six minutes a mile overall, and the Fujispeed 2 felt fantastic. It’s not explosively springy, but it is easy to keep your cadence high and turn your legs over because it is nimble and light. 

That nimbleness was evident when I did a hill session in the shoe, running six three-minute reps. While other options like the Hoka Zinal 2 are lighter, the Fujispeed 2 manages to feel agile while having a higher stack for extra comfort and bounce. It doesn’t have as much comfort as others, though. The FF Blast+ midsole, combined with the carbon plate, creates a firmer feel than you get from the Nike Ultrafly, Hoka Tecton X2 and Adidas Terrex Agravic Speed Ultra when moving at slower speeds. 

I’d fancy racing up to marathon distance in the Fujispeed 2, especially on well-maintained, flatter trails where your speed will be high throughout. For longer events, or runs with sections on harder, jagged ground and steep descents, I’d prefer the added comfort of the Ultrafly or Agravic Speed Ultra, and the Hoka and Nike running shoes are more stable when landing on uneven ground.

I’ve been running in dry conditions and so far have had no concerns about the grip of the Fujispeed 2. The lugs probably won’t bite deep enough for really muddy events, but they can handle the odd boggy patch and stick to rocks and roots well. The shoe is comfortable for long stretches on the road as well.

Is The Asics Fujispeed 2 Worth It?

The Fujispeed 2 is not just a more affordable alternative to the new breed of expensive trail super-shoe, I’d say it’s probably the best racing option for most people tackling shorter off-road events. It’s fast, it grips well on a variety of terrain, and it has enough cushioning to push hard for a few hours on undulating routes.

Over longer distances, or when on rockier trails with steeper climbs and descents, the added comfort of shoes like the Nike Ultrafly or Hoka Tecton X2 comes into play. I’d say those shoes have more stability than the narrow Fujispeed 2 when running downhill, where the Saucony Endorphin Edge also feels more reliable, thanks to its width.

The Adidas Terrex Agravic Speed Ultra is another strong option for any distance, as long as you get on with the aggressively rockered design. It’s bouncier than the Fujispeed 2 and has a wide forefoot to add stability, but the soft foam and narrow rear and midfoot of the shoe won’t work for every runner on technical trails.

All those are considerably more expensive than the Fujispeed 2, however. Unless you’re a long-distance mountain runner then the Asics shoe will probably serve you just as well as, if not better than, a speedy off-road option.

The Asics Gel-Kayano is one of the most popular stability shoes available and when shoe lines are popular, brands often hesitate to make sweeping changes to new versions for fear of alienating fans. 

However, Asics has opted for a big update with the Gel-Kayano 30. It has a higher stack height than its predecessor and a new stability system that moves away from traditional elements like a medial post.

The update is mostly a success. The shoe remains stable and is now more comfortable for overpronators and neutral runners alike. It’s one of the best stability shoes, and one of the best cushioned shoes too. But it’s expensive, and long-term Kayano fans may find it less versatile than previous editions.

Asics Gel-Kayano 30 Review: Price And Availability

The Asics Gel-Kayano 30 launched in July 2023 and costs $160 in the US and £180 in the UK. It is Asics’s top-tier stability shoe and is priced to match that status, but in the UK in particular it’s an expensive option compared with options like the Saucony Guide 16, Brooks Adrenaline GTS 23 or Puma ForeverRun Nitro. My sample for this review was provided by SportsShoes.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run 20 miles (32km) in the Asics Gel-Kayano 30 across three runs, mostly done at an easy pace. I’m a neutral runner so it’s hard for me to judge the benefits of the stability elements in the shoe, but I have tested past models of the Gel-Kayano and many other stability shoes.

Design And Fit

The Asics Gel-Kayano 30 is taller and wider than the previous model of the shoe. The stack height has increased by 4mm—it’s now 40mm at the heel and 30mm at the forefoot for a 10mm drop. It’s one of the widest shoes I’ve ever tested, especially in the midfoot, which helps to create stability despite the high stack.

It’s a bigger shoe all around than the Gel-Kayano 29, but its weight is about the same because the midsole is now entirely made from FF Blast+ with a small PureGel insert under the heel, a lighter combo than the materials used in the 29. The Gel-Kayano 30 weighs 11.1oz/315g in my UK size 9, which is about the same as other max-stack cushioned shoes like the Asics Gel-Nimbus 25 or Nike Invincible 3.

Along with the new midsole, Asics has changed the way the Gel-Kayano delivers stability. Instead of the medial post found in previous models, there is now a 4D guidance system that uses several features to create stability in a more subtle way. These features include the wide base, sidewalls of midsole foam to cradle the foot, a heel counter and a midsole shaped to provide stability along the length of the shoe. The bevel (or rocker) at the heel is also shaped to guide your landings into a neutral position.

Instead of a firmer section of foam in the inside of the midfoot, which is the classic method to counter overpronation used in running shoes, the Gel-Kayano 30 has a section of softer, bouncier foam. This unusual feature is designed to help spring your foot back into a neutral position, rather than block pronation.

The engineered knit upper has lots of padding around the collar and tongue, as well as inside the back of the shoe to cradle the foot. The shoe fitted well in my normal size, with a roomier toe box than Asics’s more speed-focused shoes like the Magic Speed 3, and good hold around the midfoot and heel.

The outsole is made from Asics’s AHAR+ rubber. It’s not a full outsole but there is good coverage in impact areas. It is a hard-wearing material, if not as good at providing traction as the best outsole rubbers, like the Continental rubber used on Adidas shoes or Puma’s PumaGrip.

Running Performance

In the past when I’ve tested Asics Gel-Kayano shoes, they have been hard to love as a neutral runner. The midsole has been quite firm and the stability features obvious, and while they undoubtedly did a good job as a versatile and relatively comfortable option for overpronators, the best neutral shoes were a clear upgrade for me.

The Asics Gel-Kayano 30 will certainly have broader appeal. It’s soft and comfortable, and the ride is smooth for such a large shoe. The stability features are subtle but present, and the wide base, in particular, helps ensure you get enough support from the shoe.

Even though it feels lighter than its listed weight because of the rocker, I found it an especially versatile shoe that worked well for faster paces. For rolling through easy runs, it felt great.

As is often the case with Asics shoes, the outsole felt slick and struggled for grip on my first run, but since then it has roughed up and now does a good job of providing traction on wet pavements. 

The Gel-Kayano 30 reminded me of the Asics Gel-Nimbus 25, which is its neutral counterpart and has a similar design, just without the 4D guidance system. The Nimbus is softer, but the gap between the two shoes is smaller than with previous versions.

Is The Asics Gel-Kayano 30 Worth It?

The Asics Gel-Kayano 30 could win new fans over to the shoe line while still satisfying its existing fans. It’s still stable but is now more comfortable and fun to run in if you are a neutral runner. It’s one of the best stability shoes I’ve tested.

The Asics Gel-Nimbus 25 would be the obvious choice if you are a neutral runner looking for a highly cushioned shoe, but the extra stability of the Kayano may be appreciated by all runners—especially at the end of long runs when you’re tired and your form might be getting ragged.

The high price of the Kayano is off-putting though, and there are good cheaper alternatives like the Puma ForeverRun Nitro and Saucony Guide 16 for stability-seeking runners. I’d say the Kayano is more comfortable than the Guide 16 and more stable than the Puma. 

Owing to its size and weight, the Kayano is also not the most versatile shoe, so if you do want a speedier stable option to use in a rotation with it the Saucony Tempus is an excellent option.

The Asics Magic Speed 3 is about as close as you can get to a super-shoe experience without buying a super-shoe. It’s a plated super-trainer that, while it doesn’t use the best foam Asics has available, has all the other ingredients of the brand’s super-shoes—the Metaspeed Sky+ and Edge+—including a full carbon plate.

It’s a terrific shoe for speed sessions and races, and will appeal to those who don’t want to splash out on one of the best carbon plate running shoes. However, it doesn’t offer the same level of performance as a super-shoe like the Asics Metaspeed Sky+, and there are other plated trainers that offer more versatility.

Asics Magic Speed 3 Review: Price And Availability

The Asics Magic Speed 3 launched in May 2023 and costs $160 in the US and £160 in the UK. That’s cheaper than the best carbon plate running shoes, and in line with other plated super-trainers, like the Saucony Endorphin Speed 3. My Magic Speed 3 sample for this review was provided by SportsShoes.

Design And Fit

Asics has updated the Magic Speed 3 to make it a more speed-focused shoe than the Magic Speed 2. The plate in the midsole is now a full carbon plate, rather than a mix of carbon and TPU plastic, and the midsole is entirely made from FF Blast+ foam, whereas the Magic Speed 2 had FF Blast+ on top of a later Flytefoam. FF Blast+ is not the brand’s best foam—the FF Turbo material used on the Metaspeed racers—but it’s bouncier than Flytefoam.

The new shoe also has a 1mm lower stack than the Magic Speed 2, standing 36mm tall at the heel and 29mm at the forefoot for the men’s shoe, and 35mm at the heel and 28mm at the forefoot for the women’s shoe. The 7mm drop is the same as on the Magic Speed 2.

Asics has also brought its Motion Wrap upper to the line. This is the same upper as on the Metaspeed shoes, and it’s breathable and supportive while being lightweight. These changes combine to make the Magic Speed 3 lighter than its predecessor. At 7.8oz/221g in my UK size 9 (US 10) it’s dropped 0.6oz/17g and now weighs a similar amount to most carbon plate super-shoes, though the Metaspeed Sky+ is lighter at 7.3g/207g.

The other changes are that the Magic Speed 3 has a cut-out on the bottom of the midsole, which helps reduce weight, as well as a more extensive rubber cover on the outsole to increase durability, especially on the medial side and at the heel.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run 22 miles in the Asics Magic Speed 3 across four runs: two speed sessions, a parkrun, and a progression run moving from easy to steady pace. This is less mileage than I usually do for a review, but I view the Magic Speed 3 as a speed shoe so I focused on fast runs in my testing rather than racking up miles with easy runs. I’ve also tested the Asics Magic Speed 2, plus the brand’s carbon racers the Metaspeed Sky+ and Metaspeed Edge+, and the top plated trainers from other brands.

Running Performance

For my first run in the Magic Speed 3, I used it for a tough workout running eight 1km reps on the road at around 3min 20sec/km pace (5min 20sec/mile). I also used the Metaspeed Sky+ for two of the reps as a comparison. It’s impressive how close to the full carbon shoe the Magic Speed 3 feels. It’s not as propulsive, and the felt less cushioned under the forefoot, but it’s a fast shoe and a good alternative to carbon racers for training sessions.

I also used the Magic Speed 3 for an all-out parkrun, running 16min 43sec over 5K. On a wet day the grip was impressive, especially when charging down a hill on the course. I did feel like the shoe was less bouncy than a true super-shoe, yet this didn’t make it any slower over this distance.

Over longer races, I’d want the extra cushion and propulsion of a shoe like the Metaspeed Sky+, and the speedy credentials of the Magic Speed 3 come at the cost of its versatility as a training shoe.

I’ve used it for slower-paced runs, but it’s not great for these thanks to its stripped-back design. It’s a shoe that wants to go fast, and I was less comfortable on easy runs in it than the Magic Speed 2. This isn’t a problem if you’re picking the Magic Speed 3 to use purely as a speed shoe, but it makes it less versatile than other plated trainers, which are comfortable on easy runs while still fast enough for interval sessions and races.

I did one track session where I used the Asics Superblast for some reps before switching to the Magic Speed 3. The Superblast is a heavier, larger shoe without a plate, but it has Asics’s FF Turbo foam in the midsole and, as a result, the ride is bouncier than with the Magic Speed 3. The Magic Speed 3 felt better than the Superblast on the track, especially for shorter reps, but the Superblast is more versatile while still being great at speed.

Is The Asics Magic Speed 3 Worth It?

The Asics Magic Speed 3 is an impressive shoe, and a good, cheaper alternative to carbon shoes if you’re looking at RRP. However, older carbon shoes like the Nike Vaporfly 2 and Saucony Endorphin Pro 3 are often in sales for a similar price, and they offer a higher level of performance for fast runs than the Magic Speed 3.

If you can nab the Magic Speed 3 in a sale then it becomes a good budget racing option once again, though it loses out to other plated trainers on versatility. The Saucony Endorphin Speed 3 and Adidas Adizero Boston 12 stand out as all-rounders that might not quite have the top speed of the Magic Speed 3, but are close to it, while being more comfortable for easy and long runs.

Overall, the Magic Speed 3 is a niche option. If you have a gap in your running-shoe rotation for a speed-focused trainer that doubles as a cheaper racing option, it will fill that gap nicely, especially if you find it in a sale. However, for most people, bagging a deal on an older carbon shoe or opting for a more versatile super-trainer is probably a smarter approach.

On paper, the Asics Superblast sounds like a ridiculous shoe. It has a stack height of 45.5mm at the heel, and its price is no less absurd, especially for a shoe without any plate in the midsole.

Once you start running in it, however, none of that matters because the Superblast is incredibly fun and versatile. It’s one of the best running shoes and the best all-rounder without a plate.

Asics Superblast Review: Price And Availability

The Asics Superblast launched in late 2022 with a price of $220 in the US and £210 in the UK, but this dropped to $200/£195 with the latest round of colors, which came out in July 2023. Even with the drop in price it’s still expensive, comparable to the best carbon plate running shoes, and significantly pricier than most training options.

Design And Fit

The Superblast is a highly cushioned shoe with a stack height of 45.5mm at the heel and 37.5mm at the forefoot for a drop of 8mm. That huge stack is made of two foams. The dominant foam is Asics’s FF Turbo foam—the same material used on the Asics Metaspeed Sky+ and Metaspeed Edge+ carbon super-shoes— and so far, the Superblast is the only training shoe in Asics’s range to use the FF Turbo foam, which is the brand’s bounciest and lightest material. Underneath the layer of FF Turbo is a thinner layer of FF Blast+ foam that is firmer and more durable.

To ensure the Superblast is stable there are sidewalls of foam your foot sits within, plus an internal heel counter to cradle the foot. It also has a wide base, especially in the forefoot, along with a rocker profile to roll you smoothly through your footstrike.

The upper is a lightweight and flexible mesh with padding around the collar. The shoe fitted well in my usual running shoe size: It was roomy and comfortable but still felt secure enough when running fast.

There is not a lot of rubber on the outsole, though the main impact areas in the heel and forefoot are covered with Asics’s AHARPLUS rubber, and the shoe gripped well in wet and dry conditions. There is a lot of exposed foam on the outsole, but this hasn’t shown undue signs of wear after 30 miles. The little holes in the foam have a habit of picking up small stones but these aren’t noticeable when running, thanks to the large stack of foam.

Given the size of the shoe, the Superblast is remarkably light at 8.8oz/251g in my men’s US 10/UK 9. This sets it apart from other max-stacked shoes, like the Asics Gel-Nimbus 25, and points to the fact the Superblast is built to handle fast runs as well as easy ones.

How I Tested This Shoe

I’ve run just over 30 miles (50km) in the Asics Superblast, using it for a variety of runs, among them recovery runs, track sessions and a couple of longer runs including a half marathon. I’ve also tested many other super-trainers and most of Asics’s current range.

Running Performance

I didn’t expect to love the Superblast as much as I do. It seems a superfluous shoe until you run in it, at which point you realize its role is simply to make running more fun. It’s amazingly light for such a big shoe and doesn’t feel unwieldy when running, and cruising through long runs in particular is enjoyable in the shoe.

While the midsole is undoubtedly bouncy, it isn’t overly squishy and the shoe felt stable to me. The rocker is noticeable but not too aggressive, and overall the Superblast feels almost subtle on the run—with the main clue to its size being the lack of feel for the ground you have while using it.

I took it to the track to use alongside the Asics Magic Speed 3 plated trainer for a session of 400m and 800m reps at a fast but not flat-out pace. I was surprised at how good the Superblast felt when running 2min 40sec 800 reps. It doesn’t feel like you’re running fast in the shoe because of how cushioned it is, but you can hit fast paces easily because of how light it is and the bouncy midsole foam.

While the Magic Speed 3 is more propulsive and better for this kind of session, the Superblast was great on the track, and is more enjoyable to use for almost every kind of run on the road.

I don’t have it down as a great short-distance racing shoe, and obviously a carbon super-shoe would be best for races of any distance. But if you’re not using a plated shoe and don’t mind the 40mm+ stack, the Superblast would be a top option for half marathons and marathons.

Is The Asics Superblast Worth It?

The Superblast is a fantastic running shoe and I’d keep an eagle eye out for sales that make its price more reasonable. Even at full price, its versatility may make it worth the outlay, since it can handle every kind of run. However, you can get similarly versatile shoes for less, like the Saucony Endorphin Speed 3 or Adidas Adizero Boston 12, which are the best super-trainers available and have plates (or rods in the case of the Boston) in the midsole to add propulsion for faster runs.

If you’re undaunted by the price, I’d pick the Superblast as an option for your running shoe rotation because it’s so much fun to run in. If you’re thinking in more practical terms, the Endorphin Speed or Boston is probably a smarter buy. They’re cheaper and have a slight edge for speed sessions and races.

The Asics Gel-Nimbus has been a popular pick with runners for a quarter of a century, which usually means that new versions stick to the formula – why risk alienating the existing audience? 

However, Asics has come out swinging with the Gel-Nimbus 25, launching it with quite a fanfare and calling it “the most comfortable shoe in the world”. The shoe has been overhauled to turn it into a max-cushioned shoe with 20% more foam in the midsole than the Gel-Nimbus 24, as well as a new upper. 

For the most part the changes are positive – the Gel-Nimbus 25 is one of the best running shoes thanks to the improved ride, and stands out far more than the Gel-Nimbus 24 in a busy shoe market. However, the high price and lack of versatility mean that it won’t suit all runners.

Asics Gel-Nimbus 25 Review: Price And Availability

The Asics Gel-Nimbus 25 launched in January 2023 and will be available to buy from 1st February. It costs $160 in the US, the same price as the Gel-Nimbus 24, but it’s £175 in the UK, a £10 price rise on the 24.

Design And Fit

The biggest changes made to the Gel-Nimbus 25 are in the midsole, which is higher and wider than on the Gel-Nimbus 24. The 24 used a mix of FF Blast+ and Flytefoam in its midsole, while the 25 only uses FF Blast+, which is softer and bouncier than Flytefoam. 

Asics has also ditched the Gel that gives the Gel-Nimbus line its name, and replaced it with PureGel. This isn’t visible from the outside of the shoe, but is a softer material than the original Gel and a slab of it sits on top of the FF Blast+ foam under the heel.

With a midsole that’s now 41.5mm high at the heel, and 33.5mm at the forefoot, the Gel-Nimbus 25 now firmly falls into the max-cushioned category. Despite this increase in midsole size the shoe isn’t much heavier than the Gel-Nimbus 24. The 25 weighs 11.1oz/315g in my UK size 9 compared with 10.7oz/304g for the Gel-Nimbus 24.

The shoe’s upper has also been completely changed from an engineered mesh to a stretchy knit material with a large padded strip running around the heel to cradle the back of the foot. I found that the Gel-Nimbus 25 fit me well in my normal size.

On the outsole there is good rubber coverage under the forefoot and heel, and the rubber at the heel is harder, which should increase the durability of the shoe for heelstrikers. I found that the shoe slipped a little on greasy pavements straight out of the box, but after around 16km of running the outsole had roughed up a bit and gripped fine.

How I Tested This Shoe

I have run 55km in the Asics Gel-Nimbus 25 including a 24km long run. I’ve used it mostly for easy runs with one progression run ending at a faster pace. I have also tested the Asics Gel-Nimbus 24 and the Asics Novablast 3, but not the Superblast – another max-stack shoe in the Asics range.

Running Performance

Given the bold claims from Asics at launch, I expected something fairly dramatic from the ride. However, that wasn’t really the case on my first run. It’s a comfortable shoe for sure, and much more so than the Gel-Nimbus 24, but didn’t feel especially novel.

Over time and more runs, however, the ride has grown on me greatly. It’s well balanced as well as notably soft and protective, but still stable and quite smooth rather than being so squishy you sink into the foam. 

I’m not a big user of max-cushioned shoes even for easy runs, because I find them a bit heavy and cumbersome, but I did enjoy using the Gel-Nimbus 25 whenever the pace was slow, and on one longer run the day after a brutal 16km cross-country race the high stack of cushioning was just what my aching muscles needed.

It runs lighter and feels smaller than it is when you are cruising along, but it isn’t a versatile shoe. Whenever I tried to significantly up the pace it started to feel a bit awkward and large. This is a shoe built for easy daily training and long runs, whereas the Gel-Nimbus 24 did have a bit more snap to it for faster runs.

Is The Asics Gel-Nimbus 25 Worth It?

The Gel-Nimbus 25 is one of the best cushioned shoes available and while it’s not as versatile as options like the Brooks Glycerin 20 or Saucony Triumph 20, if you just want a comfortable cruiser it’s excellent.

I would say it matches the performance of other great max-cushioned shoes like the New Balance More V4 and Nike Invincible 2 but has a different ride feel. The Invincible is supremely squishy and bouncy but more unstable, while the More V4 has a firmer, more rockered ride than the Nimbus.

The high price is definitely a concern. You’re splashing out a lot of money on a shoe that I would say works best in a rotation with a faster option, when you could get a more versatile cushioned option for less, like the Glycerin or Triumph, or even the Asics Novablast 3, which isn’t as comfortable but is still well cushioned and far lighter than the Gel-Nimbus 25.

Asics Gel-Nimbus 25 Vs Asics Gel-Nimbus 24

The Gel-Nimbus 25 is a more enjoyable shoe to use than the 24, and it’s much better for easy and long runs thanks to the added comfort of the higher midsole. The Gel-Nimbus 24 has more pace in it if you do want a versatile daily trainer, though I would say it loses out to many shoes from other brands in that category. 

I’d say most people will prefer the new and improved Gel-Nimbus, but if you’re a long-term fan of the line and find the new shoe too soft and cushioned, the Novablast 3 might be a better alternative from Asics.

The Magic Speed 2 is the plated training shoe in Asics’s range, designed to be used in partnership with one of the brand’s carbon plate running shoes – the Asics Metaspeed Sky+ and Metaspeed Edge+.

However, the Magic Speed 2 stands on its own as a good racing option if you don’t want to splash out on a full super-shoe, while still being comfortable enough to use for daily training as well. It’s one of the best running shoes, and a stern competitor to the Saucony Endorphin Speed 3, which we rate as the best all-rounder shoe available.

Asics Magic Speed 2 Review: Price And Availability

The Magic Speed 2 was launched in September 2022 and costs $150 in the US and £170 in the UK, which is considerably cheaper than Asics’s top super-shoes the Sky+ and Edge+, which are $250/£225.

Design And Fit

Asics has made a few notable updates to the Magic Speed shoe with version 2. First, the plate in the midsole (which is a mix of carbon and TPU) now runs the whole length of the shoe, whereas the original Magic Speed only had a half-plate under the forefoot.

The drop of the shoe has also increased to 7mm from 5mm on the first Magic Speed, and the top layer of foam in the midsole is now FF Blast+, a bouncier foam than the FF Blast used on the Magic Speed. The stack height is 37mm at the heel and 30mm at the forefoot including insole and outsole (it’s listed as 34mm/27mm by Asics without including those layers).

Underneath the layer of FF Blast+ on the Magic Speed 2 is a layer of Flytefoam, which is less springy but firmer and more durable. This is important because there is a lot of exposed foam on the outsole of the shoe, and this is all Flytefoam, which means it doesn’t get torn up as easily as the softer exposed foam on the Asics Metaspeed Sky+ and Edge+ shoes.

There is rubber coverage on the forefoot of the outsole, and the two strips at the back of the Magic Speed 2 provide just enough traction without adding too much weight. The shoe weighs 8.4oz/238g in my UK size 9.

The upper on the shoe is made from a lightweight engineered mesh, with a little padding around the heel collar. The shoe fit me well in my normal size, though people with wider feet might find it runs a little narrow in the midfoot.

How I Tested This Shoe

I have run 50km in the Asics Magic Speed 2, using it for several speed sessions plus a couple of easy runs. I did not test the original Magic Speed, but I have tested the Metaspeed Sky+ and Edge+.

Running Performance

The Asics Magic Speed 2 impressed me on every run. It has a speedy but comfortable ride that makes it suitable for a variety of training runs, and while it doesn’t have the all-out propulsive pace of a full carbon super-shoe, it’s still fast enough for racing if you want a cheaper option.

I did a couple of interval sessions in the shoe, one that included a hard 5K and then shorter reps and one where I used it for the second half of a 10 x 3min session, after using the New Balance Rebel v3 for the first half. The Magic Speed 2 works well for short and long reps alike, being light and nippy enough for sprints and then comfortable and efficient when cruising through longer reps.

The comparison with the Rebel v3, which is a light and fast shoe but doesn’t have a plate, showed the efficiency benefits of the Magic Speed 2’s design. The Rebel is bouncy and great fun, and I ran a similar pace in both shoes, but the plate and more rockered design of the Magic Speed 2 helped me tick through 3min reps well even as I tired towards the end of the session.

I also ran a steady hour in the Magic Speed 2, covering around 16.5km, and this was the run I enjoyed most in the shoe. Like other top-tier plated training shoes such as the Saucony Endorphin Speed 3 and Puma Deviate Nitro 2, the Magic Speed 2 helps you maintain a controlled effort and when running on feel or heart rate your pace can be faster than you might expect.

The Magic Speed 2 was also comfortable to use on short easy runs, though it wouldn’t be the ideal choice for plodding through long relaxed runs since it is geared for speed and isn’t as comfortable as the best cushioned shoes. However, it would be a good option for faster long runs, and racing half marathons and marathons.

Is The Asics Magic Speed 2 Worth It?

I wasn’t expecting to enjoy wearing the Magic Speed 2 as much as I did. It’s certainly one of the best running shoes out there, with a versatile and enjoyable ride, and one to consider for those seeking a fast trainer for their rotation in particular.

The problem is the competition is so fierce in its category – the Saucony Endorphin Speed 3 and Puma Deviate Nitro 2 are also excellent shoes. There’s also the fact that full carbon super-shoes like the Nike Vaporfly 2 and Saucony Endorphin Pro 3 now regularly drop well below $200/£200 in sales, which means the Magic Speed 2 loses some appeal as a cheaper racing option.

As a fast daily trainer the Saucony Endorphin Speed 3 probably still has the edge for me. It has a bouncier midsole foam and a wider, more stable design that makes it better for long runs. The Magic Speed 2 is just as fast, maybe even slightly faster, but the Speed 3 is more versatile.

The Puma Deviate Nitro 2 is heavier and less speed-focused, but a better daily trainer than the Asics because of its thicker outsole, which offers more grip and durability. It’s also still fast enough for speed sessions, though I would certainly prefer to be in the Magic Speed 2 or Endorphin Speed 3 when racing.

The original Novablast was, for Asics, an uncharacteristically soft and springy shoe that was unhyped but proved extremely popular. For some runners the ride was a little too unstable, but that complaint was remedied by the Novablast 2, which had a firmer and more stable feel – although it lost a little of the fun in the process.

Asics has managed to split the difference with the Novablast 3, which has a livelier ride than the 2 while being more stable than the original shoe. It’s one of the more enjoyable cushioned shoes on the market, but falls just short of the standards of the best running shoes.

Asics Novablast 3: Price And Availability

The Asics Novablast 3 is available now and costs $140/£135, which is a small rise on the $130/£130 price of the Novablast 2.

Design And Fit

Asics has made a few important updates to the Novablast 3: the most significant is that the midsole is now made from its FF Blast Plus foam, which is softer, lighter and bouncier than the FF Blast foam used on the Novablast 2.

The midsole is also wider, which improves the stability of the shoe, and the stack slightly higher, with a millimetre of cushioning added to both the heel and forefoot, so the 8mm drop is retained. The overall stack height is listed at 31mm at the heel and 23mm at the forefoot, but Asics does not include the outsole and insole in its measurements so the Novablast 3 is probably comparable in height to 35mm-plus stack shoes from other brands.

The updated midsole foam makes the Novablast 3 lighter than its predecessor. The new shoe weighs 9oz/257g in my UK 9, whereas the Novablast 2 was 10.2oz/289g. That’s very light for such a cushioned training shoe, and you can save even more weight by going half a size down, which I’d recommend because the Novablast 3 is quite long in the toe box.

Asics has changed the upper and tongue design on the shoe, with the mesh upper being made from at least 75% recycled materials. The collar of the shoe is well padded and my heel didn’t slip at all.

I did have slipping problems with the outsole, however, especially in my first couple of runs in the shoe. On greasy pavements the thin rubber outsole often failed to find reliable traction and the shoe did regularly slip a bit on landing. This knocked me off my stride, particularly when running quickly. 

Fortunately with extended use the outsole seems to have roughed up and the grip has improved. I’m still a little wary when using it on early-morning runs when the pavements are slick, but it’s become more reliable in the wet.

How I Tested This Shoe

I have run 60km in the Asics Novablast 3, using it for a range of types of training runs including very easy efforts, and some progression and tempo runs. I have also tested both of the previous versions of the Novablast.

Running Performance

I loved the first couple of runs in the Novablast 3. It felt like the perfect versatile daily trainer. The ride was terrific – enjoyably soft and bouncy without being unstable – and the reduced weight of the shoe made it better for faster running.

Since then, however, I have found that the feel of the midsole has dulled and the ride has lost some of its spring. It’s still a bouncy shoe, but it’s not nearly as fun as it was fresh out of the box.

The bigger consequence of the loss in bounce has been that the Novablast 3 doesn’t feel as versatile any more. When using it for progression runs finishing at a steady or tempo pace, it now feels a bit big and cumbersome, and even a little heavier than it actually is.

I still enjoy using the shoe for easy runs, but where it once looked set to be one of my favourite versatile daily trainers of 2022, I now rate several shoes higher than the Novablast 3 in this category, such as the Saucony Endorphin Speed 3, Hoka Mach 5 and Puma Velocity Nitro 2.

Is The Asics Novablast 3 Worth It?

After an exciting start the Asics Novablast 3 lost some of its charm, and while it’s still a great option for runners looking for a bouncy daily trainer, I prefer a rotation of several shoes. 

There are great plated options in the Saucony Endorphin Speed 3 and Puma Deviate Nitro 2, while the Puma Velocity Nitro 2 and Hoka Mach 5 are excellent, versatile daily trainers without plates. Opt for either of the Puma shoes and you also get a much better outsole than the one on the Novablast 3 – outsoles that will increase durability as well as improving better grip.

All the same, the Novablast 3 is the best version of the shoe yet, balancing stability with the springy ride the line is known for while also reducing the weight. If you were a fan of the Novablast 1 or 2 then the latest version will almost certainly be to your taste as well.

The Asics Metaspeed Edge struggled to escape the shadow of its more famous sibling, the Metaspeed Sky. Although Asics pitched them as equally impressive super-shoes, designed for different running styles, it was the Sky that became established as the brand’s best carbon plate running shoe.

With the updates made to the second editions of the Metaspeed range, the Edge+ has a better chance of standing up to the Sky+, since it now has the classic characteristics of a true super-shoe, including a higher stack of foam in the midsole. Will this be enough to challenge the Sky+ and earn the Edge+ a place among the best running shoes? Not quite, is my answer – even though the Edge+ is a great racing shoe.

Asics Metaspeed Edge+: Price And Availability

The Asics Metaspeed Edge+ is available now and costs $250 in the US and £225 in the UK, which is the same as the Metaspeed Sky+.

Design And Fit

The Metaspeed Edge+ shares the same ingredients as the Metaspeed Sky+, starting with the lightweight Motion Wrap mesh upper. I found that the Edge+, like the Sky+, fitted me perfectly in my normal size.

As with all super-shoes, the magic happens in the midsole in the Edge+, where Asics’s bouncy nylon-based FF Blast foam combines with a full-length carbon plate. It is also in the midsole where the key differences to the Sky+ arise.

While both shoes have a 39mm stack height at the heel, the Edge+ has an 8mm drop with a 31mm stack in the forefoot, while the Sky+ has a 5mm drop. The plate in the Edge+ also has more of a scooped shape and sits lower within the midsole to encourage a faster transition from heel to toe.

This ties in with Asics’s idea that there are two types of runners: stride and cadence. Stride runners have a bouncier gait and increase their speed predominantly by increasing their stride length; the Sky+ is designed to suit this style. Cadence runners have a shorter stride and higher cadence, and increase both their cadence and stride length when running faster; the Edge+ is designed to suit this style of running by promoting a fast turnover and flowing gait.

The outsole on the Edge+ has the same layout as the Sky+, with rubber covering the forefoot and then two strips of rubber at the back. As with the Sky+, the strips at the back do not extend far enough back to protect the midsole if you are a heelstriker. This results in wear and tear on the exposed foam there. It was also a problem with the first editions of the shoes, and I’m disappointed to see Asics hasn’t remedied it with the Edge+ or the Sky+ simply by extending the rubber strips slightly further back.

At 7.5oz/217g in my UK 9, the Edge+ weighs a little more than the Sky+, which weighs 7.4oz/206g.

How I Tested This Shoe

I have run 75km in the Metaspeed Edge+, using it for a range of fast and long training sessions and going all-out in it during a parkrun. I have also tested and raced in the Asics Metaspeed Sky+, as well as the original Metaspeed Sky, but didn’t use the original Metaspeed Edge.

Running Performance

As best I can tell, I’m the classic “cadence” runner. I have a shuffling high-cadence style and increase my cadence to 200 or higher when running fast, so the Edge+ should suit me down to the ground. I was excited about testing it because I have loved the Sky and Sky+ and have PBs in both. Given the Edge+ uses similar materials but with a design that suits my gait it should be even better, right?

Well, that hasn’t proved to be the case. For my first workout in the Edge+ I used it and the Sky+, using the Edge+ for three sets of 3/2/1 minutes on, 1 minute off, then swapped to the Sky+ for two more sets. The Edge+ feels more natural on the foot, and very fast, but when I swapped to the Sky+ it felt noticeably bouncier and propulsive. Running fast in both shoes felt good but the Sky+ felt better, despite not being aimed at my style.

I wanted to see if the Edge+ would come into its own during an all-out effort, so I hammered out a parkrun in 16 minutes and 17 seconds. It feels easier to run in the Edge+ than the Sky+ when tiring at the end of a race, where I have to focus on leaning forwards and picking up my feet to get the most from the shoe. I’m not sure this translates to being faster or better.

On a longer run in the Edge+, in which I ran six miles at 6min/mile and then six miles at 5min 40sec/mile, I missed the extra bounce and more cushioned feel of the Sky+. The Edge+ tips you forwards a bit more, but lacks some of the oomph you get from the extra cushioning under the forefoot in the Sky+.

I also did a workout where I used the Edge+ and Nike Vaporfly NEXT% 2, which has the same 8mm drop and a similar design all round to the Edge+. I rate the ZoomX foam in the Vaporfly as better than the FF Blast in the Edge+, being noticeably springier, with the result that the Vaporfly feels more explosive. The Edge+ is more stable than the Nike, but I prefer the more propulsive feel of the Vaporfly.

Is The Asics Metaspeed Edge+ Worth It?

There is something in Asics’s approach to making super-shoes suit different running styles, in that the Edge+ feels more natural to run in for me than the Sky+. That said, I would not get too invested in picking a shoe because of the gait it’s designed for, because overall I still slightly prefer the bouncier Sky+, despite having the style of an Edge+ runner.

However, it isn’t the Sky+ that is the real problem for the Edge+, it’s the Nike Vaporfly NEXT% 2, and its more impressive, faster ride. The Vaporfly is also lighter and cheaper (and now often discounted) and, let’s be honest, most runners who have invested in a carbon plate running shoe at this point probably have at least one pair of the Vaporfly. In that case, there’s little need to get the Edge+ in my opinion. It would be better to try the different feel of the Sky+ if you want an Asics super-shoe, while I would also rate the cheaper Saucony Endorphin Pro 3 as a more impressive racing shoe than the Edge+.

In isolation the Edge+ is a fantastic racing shoe with enough cushioning for longer events, while still agile and light enough for short reps and races. Its problem is the competition in the carbon plate running shoe market, where it doesn’t stand out from either its Asics stablemate or the best options from other brands.

Like its stablemate the Asics Gel-Nimbus, the Gel-Cumulus is a long-running and reliable line of running shoes. It’s the kind of shoe you keep using for ever, grabbing the latest version whenever you need a new set.

As a result, there have been few major updates to the Gel-Cumulus – but in the case of the 24, Asics has changed the design substantially, adding its bouncy FF Blast foam to the midsole to liven up the ride and changing the upper.

These changes have improved the shoe, which is a great daily training option, though I’d say it still falls short of the standard of the best running shoes.

Asics Gel-Cumulus 24 Review: Price And Availability

The Asics Gel-Cumulus 24 is available now and costs $130 in the US and £120 in the UK, which is a $10/£10 price increase on the previous version of the shoe. The Cumulus is the cheaper alternative to the similar Gel-Nimbus 24, which costs $160/£165.

Design And Fit

The Cumulus 24’s Jacquard mesh upper is excellent, wrapping the foot comfortably and securely, and the padding around the tongue and collar has been judged perfectly so that it feels luxurious without overheating on sunny runs. The fit was spot-on in my normal size.

In the midsole is where Asics has made the biggest updates to the Cumulus 24, which now has a full-length FF Blast midsole. This is the same bouncy foam used in the Novablast line and the Nimbus 24, and while it has a more muted feel to it than in the Novablast, it’s a step up from the dull Flytefoam used in past Cumulus shoes. 

Asics has increased the midsole stack height by 1mm at the heel and 3mm at the forefoot on the Cumulus 24, which reduces its offset to 8mm. There is also some of Asics’s Gel material in the heel and forefoot of the shoe, and the men’s and women’s shoes have different designs to provide specific cushioning.

The outsole has less rubber on it than the Cumulus 23, but it is still well covered and the rubber at the heel is hard-wearing. I had no gripes with grip in the Cumulus 24, and would expect it to be durable too.

Running Performance

The Gel-Cumulus 24 is built to be a cushioned daily trainer that you can pull on several times a week and enjoy a comfortable ride across various types of run. I’ve used it for several easy runs, plus a progression run where I finished at a fast pace before doing some strides.

I found that the shoe did a great job of “disappearing” on the foot, in that the ride feels natural and you quickly forget about the shoe, especially at easy paces. It’s not cumbersome or firm, nor so squishy and bouncy that you notice it with every step.

While it’s not the lightest shoe, weighing 10.5oz/298g in my UK size 9, it felt easy enough to move through the gears in the Cumulus on a progression run. It’s not as speedy as some other cushioned daily trainers, such as the Puma Velocity Nitro 2 or Saucony Ride 15, but the Cumulus offers impressive versatility.

I also found it more comfortable than the Asics Gel-Nimbus 24, partly because the Cumulus has a slightly lower drop at 8mm versus the 10mm in the Nimbus (13mm in the Nimbus women’s shoe) and more cushioning under the forefoot.

Is The Asics Gel-Nimbus 24 Worth It?

I slightly preferred the Cumulus 24 to the more expensive Nimbus 24. It offered greater comfort and I also found it easier to up the pace in the Cumulus. I’m not sure both shoe lines need to exist, given the similarities between them, but I’d go for the Cumulus if picking between the two.

The Cumulus 24 is a reliable pick for a cushioned daily trainer, but I do think you can find better shoes that cost less. The Puma Velocity Nitro 2 is $120/£100 and has a bouncier, more comfortable and quicker ride. The Nike Pegasus 39 is also better in my opinion, with a similarly comfortable ride to the Cumulus but a lighter design that’s more suited to speedier running.

If you’re a long-term fan of the Cumulus I don’t think you’ll be disappointed in the new shoe, and anyone who picks it up will be satisfied by it. However, you can find better value and performance elsewhere.

Although almost every shoe company has now released a carbon plate racing shoe, it’s fair to say that Nike continues to dominate with the Nike Vaporfly NEXT% 2 and Nike Alphafly NEXT%. Most, including myself, still regard these as the best carbon plate running shoes, but Asics provided stiff competition with the launch of the original Metaspeed Sky. With the improvements made to the Metaspeed Sky+, runners have another top-class option to consider for their racing if they don’t want to use the Nike Vaporfly or Alphafly.

Asics Metaspeed Sky+: Price And Availability

The Asics Metaspeed Sky+ was announced in late April and can be viewed on the Asics US and Asics UK websites now, but you can’t actually buy it until 14th June. It costs $250 in the US and £225 in the UK, which is the same price as the original Metaspeed Sky. 

Design And Fit

The Metaspeed Sky+ is one of two carbon plate shoes in Asics’s range, the other being the Metaspeed Edge+. This was the same with the original Metaspeed shoes, with Asics designed each to suit a different type of runner.

Asics calls these types “stride” and “cadence” runners. The Sky+ is suited to stride runners who have a bouncy gait and increase their stride length when racing, while the Edge+ is aimed at cadence runners who increase their stride length and cadence when running faster.

The Sky+ has a lower drop than the Edge+ at 5mm versus 8mm, and the carbon plate is placed higher in the midsole to provide more energy return to bouncy runners who put more downward pressure on the midsole with each step. The plate in the Edge+ plate has more of a scoop to encourage a flowing style and faster turnover in cadence runners.

Both shoes have a 39mm heel stack height, which drops to 34mm at the forefoot in the Sky+ and 31mm in the Edge+, and both use the same nylon-based FF Blast foam, which is a little firmer than Nike’s ZoomX but feels similarly springy. The Sky+ has 4% more foam in the midsole than the original Sky: that foam is packed into the forefoot, which is now wider and positively bulges with cushioning.

Despite all that foam the shoe still weighs only 209g/7.4oz, making it one of the lightest carbon plate shoes with a stack that runs up to the 40mm limit set by World Athletics.

Asics has changed the upper on the Sky+ to a lightweight woven mesh called Motion Wrap. The laces and tongue have also been tweaked to create a better fit. I found that the Sky+ fit me true to size, and my midfoot and heel were held securely.

The outsole has good rubber coverage on the forefoot, but towards the rear there are just two thin strips of rubber on either side that don’t extend all the way back to the heel. This is similar to the outsole pattern of many carbon shoes, which have a lot of exposed foam to reduce weight, but with the Metaspeed Sky and now Sky+ the heel is exposed to the point where heelstriking runners come into contact with the midsole foam and damage it, reducing the durability of the shoe. 

After 50km in the Sky+ I have notable wear on the left shoe and while this hasn’t affected performance yet, it does reduce the appeal of the shoe compared with other options if you’re a heelstriker.

How I Tested This Shoe

I have run just over 50km in the Asics Metaspeed Sky+ including a race test at the Edinburgh Half Marathon. I’ve also done some easy and speedy training in the shoe, and I logged around 150km in the original Metaspeed Sky last year.

• Asics Metaspeed Sky review

Running Performance

When the Metaspeed Sky+ landed on my doorstep the day I was due to travel to tackle the Edinburgh Half Marathon it seemed the perfect opportunity to test the shoe in race conditions. After a quick shake-out to make sure the fit was fine and wasn’t going to be uncomfortable over 21.1km, I used it for the race and came away with a two-second PB, logging 1hr 10min 23sec.

During the race the shoe showed off its best qualities. The ride is very bouncy and when I was feeling good, leaning forwards and running well, it felt fantastic. That’s despite the fact I am very much a cadence runner, with a fairly short, shuffle-y style rather than a springy stride runner.

However, when I started to flag or was running into a strong headwind, the shoe lost some of its magic. When you sit back in your stride, don’t lift your knees as high and don’t run with purpose it doesn’t tip you forwards as much as a shoe like the Vaporfly, which has a higher drop and a plate with more of a scooped design. 

If I was a bouncy stride runner this might not be the case – I could well be better suited to the Edge+, but it’s a shoe I’m yet to test. I still very much enjoyed racing in the Sky+ and it helped me run at my best in the half marathon, so I wouldn’t necessarily be put off if you don’t fit the running profile Asics has assigned to the shoe.

I also enjoyed using the Metaspeed Sky+ for some general training runs, but given the concerns about durability it’s one I would save for race day and the odd key training session. At 5mm the drop is also lower than most shoes I would regularly use and I did find it put more strain on my calf muscles than shoes with a higher drop, so if you normally use 8-10mm drop shoes that’s something to be aware of.

Is The Asics Metaspeed Sky+ Worth It?

The Asics Metaspeed Sky+ is a top-tier carbon racing shoe and a great option for racing at any distance. The price is high at $250/£225, even for a carbon shoe, but the performance is undoubtedly there, and runners who do fit the stride description may well enjoy the shoe even more than me.

However, the Nike Vaporfly NEXT% 2 is a little cheaper at $225/£209.95 (some colourways cost more, but are still the same as or cheaper than the Metaspeed Sky+), and is now often reduced in price as an older shoe. I still would reach for the Vaporfly over the Metaspeed Sky+ for my main races. Nike’s ZoomX foam is a little springier and the higher drop of the Vaporfly works better for me when I start to flag late in events – another reason to suspect the Metaspeed Edge+ might suit me better.

However, the gap in performance is small, and I rate the Metaspeed Sky+ as better than other great carbon shoes like the Adidas Adios Pro 2 and New Balance RC Elite 2. The Nike Alphafly NEXT% remains the best marathon running shoe in my book and has some similarities to the Metaspeed Sky+, such as a fairly low 4mm heel-to-toe drop, but it feels more cushioned and protective over long distances while still being very quick.

It’s rare that a long-running line of shoes like the Asics Gel Nimbus gets an overhaul, because so many runners already like the shoe and want updates to provide a similar feel. However, occasionally, it’s worth breaking the mould because a shoe line can start to feel stale and fall behind the times.

With the Gel Nimbus 24, Asics has made a substantial change by introducing a new midsole foam that’s lighter, softer and bouncier than the materials used in previous versions. While some may find it less stable than in the past, the new model is now a more exciting daily trainer, if not quite one of the best running shoes.

• NEWSFLASH: Asics Gel-Nimbus 25 Vs Asics Gel-Nimbus 24: First Look At The All-New Nimbus

Asics Gel Nimbus 24: Price And Availability

The Gel Nimbus 24 is available on the Asics website and costs £165, which is £10 more than the Gel Nimbus 23.

Design And Fit

The Gel Nimbus 24 has the same stack height and drop as its predecessor. The men’s version is 26mm in the heel and 16mm in the forefoot for a 10mm drop, and the women’s 28mm in the heel and 15mm in the forefoot for a 13mm drop. 

However, the new foam in the midsole has brought the weight down, with my UK size 9 weighing 304g compared with 324g for the Gel Nimbus 23. It’s still not a lightweight shoe, but the decrease in weight and updated midsole make it more versatile.

The upper is mesh with a stretchy tongue that holds the midfoot comfortably and securely. There is plump padding around the heel, though it’s not as plush as on some cushioned shoes like the Brooks Glycerin line.

In the midsole there are two layers of Asics’s new Flytefoam Blast+ (FF Blast+) foam, which is a softer and springier version of the material used in the Novablast line of shoes. The top layer of the foam is firmer than the bottom, which combines with a plastic Trusstic plate in the midfoot to ensure the ride of the shoe is stable despite the introduction of the new soft foam. The women’s version of the shoe has a softer top layer of FF Blast+ and the plastic plate is a different shape tailored to women’s feet.

There is also some of Asics’s Gel material around the heel and inside the forefoot of the shoe. This has a slightly firmer feel than the foam around it.

The outsole has thick rubber sections in all the key wear areas to make the Nimbus 24 a durable shoe, and I had no problems with grip on the road in wet conditions.

How I Tested The Asics Gel Nimbus 24

The Nimbus 24 is built to be a workhorse that can handle miles of daily training. I mainly used it for my base runs at easy or steady paces, which ranged from 14km to 24km in length. I also took it down to the track for one hard session doing 800m reps to see how it handled faster running.

Running Performance

I found the Gel Nimbus 23 to be a solid but unremarkable daily trainer, but it was clear from the first few steps in the Gel Nimbus 24 that the new shoe offers a more exciting ride. While it’s not as bouncy as the Asics Novablast 2, it provides a springy, protective ride that makes it more enjoyable than its predecessors for daily training.

It was not as soft as I expected though, and over the course of my first run in the shoe – a fairly miserable 24km slog through the strong winds that hit the UK in mid-February – I started to experience discomfort under the forefoot of my left foot. This didn’t come back as strongly in shorter runs in the shoe, but overall I’d say that the Nimbus 24 is not as all-out comfortable as something like the Brooks Glycerin 19, and is more of a daily trainer rather than a cushioned shoe purely designed for easy runs.

During longer runs I found that the shoe lost some of the bounce you can feel when you first put it on. The firmer layer of foam on top might contribute to the slightly flatter feeling that emerges once you pass around 8km, and the plastic wedge in the midsole becomes more noticeable. 

While the shoe is lighter and sleeker than many cushioned shoes, it is not versatile enough to be a great pick for fast training. During my track session, I ran eight 800m reps alternating 2min 30sec/km and 2min 40sec/km pace and while it got the job done, it was noticeably more of a drag than a lighter, more speed-focused shoe. The foam didn’t produce any extra bounce at those higher speeds.

After that run, I stuck to my base training runs in the Nimbus 24 and it proved a good workhorse for rolling through those. It’s still stable despite the updated midsole, though it lacks the versatility of daily trainers I enjoy running in more, such as the Saucony Endorphin Speed 2, Hoka Mach 4 or New Balance Rebel v2.

Is The Asics Gel-Nimbus 24 Worth It?

The Nimbus 24 provides an enjoyable and reasonably bouncy ride for daily training, yet it falls in between what I look for in a trainer: not comfortable enough to use on recovery days and not versatile enough to be a good workout or even tempo shoe.

However, if you’re looking for a durable daily trainer that has cushioning (without going overboard) while remaining stable, then it is worth considering. It has a more enjoyable ride than previous versions of the shoe, especially if you mainly stick to runs up to around 10km.

I think long-term fans of the Nimbus line will enjoy the updates, and it might bring in new converts as well. It would also be a good pick for those new to running who want a protective shoe that’s comfortable but versatile enough to use for faster running.

The rise in price is a shame on that front, because at £165 the Nimbus 24 will be a shoe that many beginners don’t consider. If you’re looking for better value, the Puma Velocity Nitro or Reebok Floatride Energy lines are fantastic options for less than £100.

While Asics did release a carbon plate running shoe in 2020 – the Metaracer – the Metaspeed Sky is its first real attempt to compete with shoes like the Nike Vaporfly and Alphafly, and the Adidas Adios Pro.

That’s because the Metaracer only had a carbon plate in the front half of the shoe, rather than a full-length plate. The stack of cushioning was also both lower and firmer than you’ll find on a typical super-shoe.

The Metaspeed Sky is still not as large as some shoes, with a listed stack of 33mm at the heel – lower than the 40mm limit set by World Athletics. It has a 5mm drop from heel to toe, which is again lower than most super-shoes (which come in around 8-10mm), but does have the standard full-length carbon plate.

Asics has also introduced a new foam, the nylon-based FF Blast Turbo – a souped-up version of the bouncy FF Blast foam used on the Asics Novablast. Its sprightliness is similar to the PEBA-based ZoomX foams used in Nike’s Vaporfly and Alphafly, though it’s not quite as soft as ZoomX, or the FuelCell foam New Balance uses in its carbon shoes.

Intriguingly, the Metaspeed Sky is but one of two new carbon racers from Asics – the other is the Metaspeed Edge, and each is designed to suit different running styles. The Sky is for bounding runners who increase their stride length when running faster and the Edge is for runners who shuffle more and increase both their cadence and stride length when increasing their pace.

Both shoes aim to increase your stride length when racing, but Asics suggests that where other super-shoes have been aimed at the bounding runner, its shoes are the first to support different styles.

I had doubts at first about the claim that other shoes suit bounders, because I am very much a shuffler and have enjoyed the benefits of carbon shoes as much as anyone. I haven’t run in the Edge yet, but it has a lower stack than the Sky and a higher drop, and reportedly has a firmer feel that’s more like traditional shoes.

It could be that the Edge blows my socks off, but the Sky is the one that sounds like a super-shoe to me, and after running 110km in it I can confidently say it feels like one too. Despite supposedly not suiting my running style, the Sky has been a joy to run in, offering an extremely lively ride that’s also a tad more stable than that of some other high-stack options.

After a short shakeout run, my first outing in the Metaspeed Sky proper was a 10K race on a flat course in Battersea Park in London, and I beat my PB by 30 seconds, finishing in 32min 32sec.

Obviously that left a very good early impression, though I won’t put it all down to the shoe. I was in good shape and hadn’t raced a 10K for more than a year, so a PB was on the cards, but the Metaspeed Sky felt superb when up at race pace. From a soft, slightly more bouncy ride during a slow warm-up run, the shoe became firmer and more responsive when I started racing. It feels similar to the Vaporfly in that respect. Although the Metaspeed Sky is a little harder on landing, it has a similar pop off the forefoot as the plate and foam combine to propel you forwards.

I’ve also used the Metaspeed Sky for short and long workouts in training, and enjoyed using it for both. I think it’s stable and fast enough for even the shortest of reps, and while it’s billed more as a long-distance racer, I think it’s excellent for 5K and 10Ks as well.

In one longer workout in the shoe I ran four 5Ks at a little slower than my marathon pace, broken up by 1km recoveries at an easy pace. This was my longest workout in a while and the Metaspeed Sky provided enough protection from the impact of the session, so the pace felt comfortable to hold throughout the run even as I did start to tire.

The following week I had another long session on the cards – 5 x 3km at 3min 25sec/km. A daunting workout for sure, and this time I chose the Metaspeed Sky not to test it out, but because I trusted it to help me through.

Each of those workouts totalled over 23km of hard road running on the flat, and they cast aside any doubts I had over whether the Metaspeed Sky would have a sufficiently cushioned ride for a full marathon.

See related

• The Best Carbon Plate Running Shoes Of 2021
• The Best Running Shoes
• The Best Marathon Running Shoes For Training And Racing

The extra cushioning and softer ride of the Nike Alphafly make it my top marathon pick, but the more stable ride of the Metaspeed Sky might well be preferable for some. I rate the Metaspeed Sky as similar to the Vaporfly, and both shoes perhaps have an edge over the Alphafly in shorter races with plenty of corners, because they are fairly stable for super-shoes.

The Sky is softer than some carbon racers like the Saucony Endorphin Pro 2, Adidas Adizero Adios Pro and Brooks Hyperion Elite 2, but a little firmer than the Nikes and New Balance’s RC Elite 2.

Importantly, the Metaspeed Sky is a substantial step up for Asics in the world of super-shoes. This is a top-tier carbon racing shoe that has matched the performance of the dominant Nikes. Which you choose may well come down to your preferred ride feel and how important stability is for you. Budget may also play a role: the Nike Vaporfly NEXT% 2 is a little cheaper than the Asics at £210 vs £225 – that £15 saving might just swing it.

Buy men’s from Asics | Buy women’s from Asics | £225

While every running shoe brand has been playing catch-up with Nike since the launch of the Vaporfly 4%, not all of them are following the Vaporfly (and now Alphafly) blueprint when creating their own racing shoe with a carbon plate in the midsole.

The Asics Metaracer, for example, has very little in common with the Vaporfly aside from the carbon plate. Even in that regard it differs in that the plate is under only the forefoot of the shoe and placed beneath the midsole foam, rather than a full-length plate placed within the midsole.

Asics’s Flytefoam cushioning, which is lightweight and durable, is also nothing like as soft and springy as the foam found in rival super shoes like Saucony’s PWRRUN PB, New Balance’s FuelCell or Nike’s ZoomX. The stack height is also much lower in the Metaracer at 24mm, whereas other shoes are going close to the 40mm limit imposed by World Athletics in response to records tumbling to athletes in high-stack shoes.

This relative lack of cushioning means the Metaracer Tokyo is lighter than shoes like the Nike Alphafly and Saucony Endorphin Pro, which come in around 230g for my UK 9, while the Metaracer is 210g. That said, the Vaporfly Next% is 198g in a UK 9, so there are lighter high-stack options with a carbon plate.

The Metaracer does earn its weight, though. A notably thick slice of rubber on the outsole, coupled with the durable Flytefoam cushioning used, should mean it lasts longer than other super-shoes. If you’re reserving it for fast runs and races – which you will be because it’s not all that fun to run easy miles in – you will have your speed shoe sorted for several race cycles.

As with other Asics shoes like the Glideride and Evoride, the Metaracer uses Asics’s Guidesole tech to roll you from heel to toe, promising to reduce ankle flexion and the demands on other muscles. I found the rocker felt far less pronounced in the Metaracer than in the other Asics shoes, which is no bad thing because it results in a more natural feel to the ride.

The Metaracer sounded very promising on paper, offering a few super-shoe benefits in the shape of a carbon plate, extra cushioning and the Guidesole rocker, while still being lightweight and feeling like a racing flat. I hoped it could provide an alternative, but equally good, racing option to high-stack shoes like the Vaporfly – but while it is certainly different, I wouldn’t say it’s as good for longer events like half marathons and marathons.

While the Endorphin Pro, Vaporfly and Alphafly all feel like they make running at a fast pace significantly easier and more sustainable, I didn’t feel much in the way of efficiency benefits from the rocker in the Metaracer, and the ride is much firmer and less springy.

However, it’s undoubtedly a quick shoe, and I loved using the Metaracer for interval sessions. I used it for a tough session of 400m and 800m reps in torrential rain (thanks, British summer), plus an interval workout of 20 x 60sec on, 30sec off. It felt great for both, and I do think the extra cushioning plus the plate means your legs are fresher at the end of hard runs compared with a racing flat.

It will be a great 5K and 10K shoe, I’d say, but on tempo and long runs it was harder on the legs and less fast than the other shoes in its class. You could race a marathon in the Metaracer, but it wouldn't protect your legs in the same way as others. Only lightweight runners used to racing flats would really enjoy the experience of using the shoe for the full 42.2km.

One major benefit the Metaracer does offer is grip in wet conditions. The rubber on the outsole never failed to find purchase on my runs, even in that rainy interval session. Over a twisting 5K route in the rain it might well have the edge over shoes like the Alphafly, which is less stable.

See related

• The Best Marathon Running Shoes For Training And Racing
• The Best Running Shoes

The main problem with the Metaracer is not the Metaracer itself – it’s not a bad shoe by any means. It’s very fast and more cushioned than a traditional racing flat, and also boasts an absolutely gorgeous design. However, right now I think the shoes coming out from Nike and Saucony in particular offer more benefits for long-distance racing. The Endorphin Pro is only £10 more and a slightly better all-round shoe; it’s even more comfortable for easy runs if you do want to use it for everything.

There might be a market for the Metaracer among runners used to racing flats who don’t want to change to a soft, high-stack shoe. I love a shoe with a high stack so would probably reserve the Metaracer for speed sessions and short races, but it’s good to have another carbon plate option available that offers a more traditional feel.

Sign up to be notified when it goes on sale | £180

Runners tend to show a great deal of loyalty to brands or even a particular line of shoes once they find one they like. That’s even more true for runners who use stability shoes because there are fewer options, and Asics’ Gel-Kayano line has long been a preferred pick for runners who overpronate, which means they excessively roll the foot inwards upon landing.

The Gel-Kayano 26 corrects overpronation through a series of additions to the midsole and outsole of the shoe, along with Asics’s Metaclutch heel counter. In fact, the shoe is so laden with additions to help guide your foot into a neutral position that I feared that it would be both heavy and uncomfortable to run in.

Fortunately, it was neither. The Gel-Kayano 26 is reasonably heavy at 315g (men’s) but feels far lighter than that on the foot. I used it mostly for steady runs along with some shorter, faster stuff and it didn’t feel clunky at all. It’s not an out-and-out speedster, but overpronators can feel confident they’re getting a shoe that will work for both training and racing.

The Gel-Kayano 26 is at its best when you up the distance. That’s partly because it’s comfortable, with the various stability features incorporated into the shoe in a non-intrusive way. The Gel-Kayano 26 gently guides your foot into the right position for a smooth heel-to-toe transition without you noticing. I’m a neutral runner and found the Gel-Kayano comfortable to use regardless.

See related

• The Best Stability Running Shoes For Overpronation
• What Is Gait Analysis And Is It Worth Doing?
• The Best Running Shoes

I was less keen on the ride of the shoe, however, but I prefer softer midsoles with plenty of bounce in them, like those in the New Balance FuelCell Rebel or Nike Zoom Pegasus Turbo 2. The Gel-Kayano 26’s Flytefoam Propel foam midsole is quite firm, which contributes to the shoe feeling lightweight and snappy when running, and also helps with the stability of the shoe. I can see why an overpronating runner might not want to use a squishy shoe but I didn’t find the Gel Kayano enjoyable to run in, especially when heading out for an easy run.

The midsole might ease up as your Kayanos rack up the miles, but there was little sign of that after the 50km so far, so if you’re planning on training for and running a marathon in this shoe, you should be aware that you’re in for a quite firm ride. The Brooks Adrenaline GTS 19 is a stability shoe that has a softer feel, so if you don’t like the sound of the Kayano’s ride it’s worth trying that shoe on.

The Gel-Kayano 26 is a solid update to the line that will not disappoint those who have used the shoes in the past. Asics has done little to change the shoe, apart from small tweaks to make it more comfortable, and the Kayano 26 is an even better option for long-distance running as a result. The stability features on the shoe get the job done without feeling intrusive and while the ride is a little firm for my taste, it’s a shoe that will work well for a range of training and racing.

Buy men’s from Asics | Buy women’s from Asics | £155

When a running shoe costs over £200, it needs to be absolutely amazing. The Nike Zoom Vaporfly 4% is, which is why runners will shell out silly money on it – £209.95 to be exact. After spending a couple of weeks running in the Asics MetaRide, however, I found little reason to justify its £225 price.

Asics spent a couple of years developing the MetaRide and has crammed a whole load of proprietary tech into it in an attempt to make it feel like something different, with the star feature being the curved and very stiff Guidesole. This creates a rocking motion with each stride that shifts you onto your forefoot, something that’s also aided by it being a zero-drop shoe – the stack of cushioning is the same height at the heel as at the forefoot.

This rocker (plus the increased stability around the ankle) is designed to reduce energy loss when you land, which is supposed to help the MetaRide’s achieve its aim – to make long runs feel easier. This is not a shoe designed to compete with the Vaporfly as a racer, despite the similarly high price. Instead, the MetaRide will help you complete long runs and races with less effort.

I used the MetaRide for several runs at a variety of paces, but predominantly easy and steady running, which should have been its bread and butter. However, I simply didn’t enjoy running in it at this pace. It has a firm, almost uncomfortable ride, and the rocker is noticeable but didn’t feel smooth or like it was making my running more effortless. Quite the opposite, in fact – it felt clunky and unnatural.

The shoe was actually more impressive when I upped the pace with a tempo run or an interval session. In those runs I did enjoy a pretty smooth heel-to-toe transition, though I never really felt the explosive pop off the toes that I thought might come from using a curved sole. Hoka One One has been making shoes with rockers in the soles for a while, and though these are less pronounced than the rocker on the MetaRide, I’ve found the ride of a shoe like the Hoka Mach far more responsive than the MetaRide.

Hoka shoes are also generally lighter. The MetaRide is 305g (men’s size 8.5) but feels heftier. This is fine for a shoe designed for long and easy running, but I’ve tried shoes in that category that feel more cushioned, springy and generally enjoyable to use for long runs, such as the Saucony Triumph ISO 5, Hoka One One Clifton 5 or the Adidas UltraBoost 19, all of which cost substantially less than £200.

See related 

• The Best Running Shoes Of 2021
• The Best Marathon Running Shoes For Training And Racing

It could be because I’m a heel striker who mostly uses 10mm-drop shoes and the zero-drop style of the shoe changed up my running form in an uncomfortable way – my calves were pretty tight after running in the MetaRide – so perhaps midfoot or forefoot runners might enjoy using the shoe more.

Where the MetaRide did impress was in the grip of its outsole, which afforded good purchase even on a couple of very wet and windy runs. It’s definitely a road shoe, however, if only because the long and deep gouge that runs through the middle of the forefoot on the outsole is prone to picking up pebbles. I’ve no idea why this gouge exists, but I’m sure there’s a sound scientific reason that you’ll want to hear about once you’ve finished picking stones out of the sole of the shoe.

The MetaRide isn’t a bad running shoe, but it’s far from revolutionary. It’s not even more enjoyable to run long distances in than other premium cushioned options that cost far less. Asics is set to bring this tech in the shoe into cheaper models in the future and it will be interesting to see how the rocker develops, but I was left underwhelmed by the MetaRide.

Buy men’s from Asics | Buy women’s from Asics | £225

Since the first edition of the DynaFlyte launched in 2016 the aim of the shoe has been simple: to deliver the ideal balance of speed and cushioning to make it suitable for all kinds of running. In the years since the shoe has been refined and improved to make it lighter and more responsive, while still retaining enough cushioning and support to make it suitable for long runs. I tried a variety of runs in the DynaFlyte 3 and although it undoubtedly has strengths and weaknesses, it does work as an impressive all-rounder shoe that most neutral runners will find fits the bill for training of all types as well as racing.

Key to that is the FlyteFoam Lyte midsole, which provides enough cushioning to protect you from the impact of logging big distances while still being light enough not to be much of hindrance on fast, short efforts. I say not much of a hindrance, because the DynaFlyte 3 is not an out-and-out racer. Its 257g weight (men’s size 8) is lightweight for a daily trainer, but it’s not as explosively responsive or lightweight as a shoe like the Adidas Boston 7 or Nike Zoom Fly. I tried a track session and a tempo run in the DynaFlyte 3 and while it’s no slouch, these aren’t the shoe’s strongest area. There’s little pop off the toe and the hefty stack of cushioning at the back of the shoe is noticeable and a little cumbersome when sprinting.

However, the track isn’t really where the DynaFlyte 3 is designed to spend its time, and when you take it out for longer efforts on the road it shines. The ride has a firm feel that’s quite different to the raft of bouncy shoes that have followed the trail blazed by Adidas’s Boost foam, and while I do love running in a bouncy shoe, that difference is no bad thing. The FlyeFoam Lyte cushions the impact of running without you losing the feel for the ground. The heel-to-toe transition is smooth and when you get into a rhythm at a good pace over long runs, the DynaFlyte quickly disappears on the foot.

See related

• The Best Running Shoes
• How To Choose Running Shoes

It’s a shoe that would work well for marathon and half marathons in particular, but it’s also comfortable to wear when you’re taking it easy over long distances.

The upper on the DynaFlyte 3 also impresses. The flexible Adapt Mesh 2.0 fabric stretches to accommodate the foot nicely without sacrificing too much support. Opt for the LiteShow version of the trainer and the fabric has reflective details woven throughout to make you more visible at night.

Advances in foam technology have resulted in a lot of brands making lightweight shoes that still carry a comfortable stack of cushioning to support you over long distances, and the DynaFlyte 3 is one of the best available on that front. If you’re looking for a running shoe to carry you through a lot of of training that’s also fast enough to help you impress over 22.1km or 42.2km come race day, it’s certainly a shoe to consider.

Buy from Asics | £135

When a sportswear brand releases a new version of a shoe you can expect either only very minor changes, or something more radical that will probably involve making the shoe lighter. However, Asics has thrown convention out the window with the new Roadhawk FF 2 by opting to make the shoe heavier, with an updated midsole and upper that is claimed to produce a more comfortable and bouncy ride.

The new upper on the Roadhawk 2 is breathable, and I had no issues with rubbing or discomfort while using them, as our reviewer of the first edition did. The design is also subtle enough to wear the shoes when not running as well, which hasn’t always been the case with Asics shoes. All in all I’d call the upper a successful change.

The bigger question is how the new FlyteFoam Propel midsole affects the ride. Although the Roadhawk 2 is heavier than the original, it’s still a fairly lightweight shoe at 265g, and suited to 5K and 10K runs rather than longer distances like marathons or even half marathons.

See related 

• The Best Running Shoes
• Asics DynaFlyte Running Shoe Review: Perfect For Parkruns
• 5K Training: Plans, Race Day Tips And More

The first couple of runs I used the Roadhawk FF 2 for were both alternating 10Ks, running 1km at tempo pace then 1km a little slower, and the shoe impressed. The ride was comfortable and smooth with an easy heel-to-toe transition, and it felt like the shoe disappeared on the foot – always a sign that you’re enjoying running in it.

However, when I tried an easy effort in the Roadhawk or took it to the track, I found it wanting. On easy runs the landing felt clunky and the ride lost its smooth transition from back to front, then when I pushed the pace on short intervals the Roadhawk didn’t feel particularly responsive or quick. You can forgive the lack of feel for track sessions, which many casual runners don’t tackle often if at all, but I think it should still be more comfortable to use on everyday easy runs than it is even if it’s not been built for the long haul of a marathon.

The ride of the Roadhawk FF 2 reminded me of the new Nike Pegasus 35, firm but not especially fast. Over 5K or 10K distances covered at a decent clip it feels smooth, but run shorter, longer or slower and it becomes slightly cumbersome.

However, I’ll concede that one possible reason I didn’t get on that well with the Roadhawk 2 is that it doesn’t fit my running. My plan involves a good amount of easy running mixed with speed sessions, with tempo runs once a week, and I’m often building up towards a half or full marathon. If most of your running is around 5K to 10K and done at a tempo pace, which is a typical routine for many people, the Roadhawk FF 2 could be a great option.

Buy from Asics | £105

It’s a balance most everyday running shoes aim to find – getting the right amount of cushioning to be comfortable without making the shoe too heavy. Everyone wants to be supported and stable when running, but no-one wants to feel like they’re lugging around lead weights on their feet.

With the DynaFlyte, Asics has gone all out to create a shoe that walks this fine line. Coming in under 300g (270g for a men’s size 9), the DynaFlyte feels light enough to take to the track, but the cushioning provided by the FlyteFoam midsole makes it supportive enough for long road runs too.

The upper on the DynaFlyte is designed for a close fit. In fact if you have especially wide feet, it might feel a bit tight, but I found it pleasantly snug, though I still prefer the looser, sock-like fit of knitted uppers that allow the toes to splay a bit more. I did wonder if the snug fit would make the DynaFlyte unpleasantly warm on longer runs, but this was not the case – the upper is very breathable.

See related 

• The Best Running Shoes

It took a couple of runs for the DynaFlyte to break in – I found them quite hard the first few times I ran in them. However, once broken in, it is a very comfortable shoe to run. The shoe almost seems to disappear on the foot, leaving a very responsive feel that encourages you to push a little faster.

My favourite runs in the DynaFlyte were pacy 5Ks and 10Ks. In particular, the shoe really shone at my local Parkrun in Alexandra Palace, where the terrain is a mix of Tarmac and trail paths. The DynaFlyte had enough cushioning and stability to feel secure on the bumpy terrain, but is also light enough to pick up the pace over a 5K race.

It also performed well over both a longer, steady run of around 10 miles and fast hill sprints. Simply put, it’s a great all-round shoe that shines at the distances most people will run regularly.

The only downside to this all-rounder status is that for more serious runners, it might not be light enough for track sessions. Also, if you prefer a very cushioned shoe for training runs over half marathon distance, the DynaFlyte might be a bit short on support. £130, buy on asics.com