How to Choose the Best Running Shoes for You

Since 2017, Wirecutter running-shoe testers have logged more than 5,500 total miles, with feet on the ground in places such as Miami, New York City, Portland, Maine, and Portland, Oregon.

We chatted with eight experts to get their takes on what matters — and what doesn’t — in a running shoe’s design and how to find ones that are right for you.

Colleen Brough, DPT, is an assistant professor of rehabilitation and regenerative medicine at Columbia University Irving Medical Center and director of the Columbia RunLab. Brough answered our questions on the relationship between running shoes and injuries, as well as how tools like gait analysis factor into finding the right pair of shoes.

Jolan Browne, DPT, is a senior physical therapist at NYU’s Running Lab at NYU Langone Orthopedic Center. Browne explained foot strike (heel versus midfoot versus forefoot) and the biomechanics of running for us.

Carson Caprara is senior vice president of footwear at Brooks. Caprara provided insight on how a large running-shoe company strategizes its approach to shoe updates and innovations.

Golden Harper is co-founder of Altra Running. Harper’s family ran a specialty running store, so he started deconstructing shoes at a young age. As an adult, he created a shoe with reduced heel cushioning for himself and his friends (he said this shoe felt more natural and comfortable). That shoe led to the founding of the shoe company Altra, which specializes in no-drop shoes. (VF Corporation, the Colorado-based company that owns The North Face and Timberland, bought Altra for an undisclosed amount in 2018.)

Melanie Kann is a New York City–based running coach and former running-shoe salesperson.

Paul Langer, DPM, is a podiatrist at Twin Cities Orthopedics and part owner of running-shoe store Fleet Feet Minneapolis. Langer helped us make sense of the current research on how running shoes can affect (or not affect) runners’ efficiency and injury rates.

Jim McDannald, DPM, is a podiatrist and running coach based in Montreal, and he previously wrote running-related reviews for Wirecutter.

Mariska van Sprundel is a science writer and author of Running Smart: How Science Can Improve Your Endurance and Performance. Van Sprundel answered our questions about the factors one should consider when choosing a pair of running shoes.

We also pored over peer-reviewed research about running shoes and injuries, and considered several articles on road-running shoes, including stories from Runner’s World and The New York Times.

According to the Sports & Fitness Industry Association, approximately 51.1 million people in the US laced up their trainers for some form of running or jogging in 2024.

No matter where you fall on the running spectrum, the right shoes can make all the difference in your relationship with the sport. A good pair is arguably the most important tool a runner needs to train comfortably and consistently; ideally, once your shoes are on your feet, you shouldn’t have to think too much about them. The wrong pair can bring on blisters, bruised toenails, or worse.

For this guide we considered go-to shoes for everyday running, either outside or on a treadmill. The shoes described here would be appropriate both for recreational runners (whose runs are usually of similar distance and intensity) and for competitive runners (those seeking a workhorse shoe for easy or recovery runs). Some of these shoes may not be ideal for long runs of more than an hour (where more cushioning might be appreciated) or for racing or speed work (where light weight and responsiveness are important). That’s not to say you couldn’t use the shoes we recommend for either or both purposes — over the years many of our testers have happily used our picks for marathon training as well as at the track.

The shoes in this guide would also be fine choices for those who walk for fitness and for injured runners who are eager to keep moving. These running shoes may not be your first choice for use at the gym, however: For that purpose, many people prefer shoes that are flatter (for weightlifting) or that have less side-to-side support (for easier movement in every direction, such as for an aerobics or boot-camp class).

Many running-shoe companies divide their shoes into two main categories: neutral and stability (or “motion-control”) shoes. A neutral shoe won’t affect your normal gait, but it will provide you with added support and cushion to protect your feet from the ground. Stability shoes, on the other hand, have denser foam along the arch of the foot. They may also have a stiffer heel, which reduces the foot’s side-to-side movement.

Everyone’s feet naturally pronate (roll to the inner edge) or supinate (roll to the outer edge) during each running stride. Pronation allows your foot to adapt to the landing surface, and supination propels you forward, according to podiatrist Paul Langer and physical therapist Jolan Browne. Both pronation and supination are biomechanically necessary for running. Running-shoe companies make both stability and neutral shoes because of the long-held idea that some people’s feet roll in too far and need correction. This is called overpronation, and it may contribute to pain in the feet, ankles, and knees.

According to our experts, however, overpronators make up a very small subset of the population. Langer explained pronation as a bell curve, with most people falling in the middle of the curve (those who won’t need extra stability while running) and a relative few falling at either extreme (oversupination and overpronation). Langer and fellow podiatrist Jim McDannald pointed out that there is no medical definition of overpronation. Langer said that overpronation “is an overused term, especially in the running retail setting, that most likely came out of some of the early biomechanics and sports medicine textbooks in the 1960s. The term was not based on any particular study and never quantified. It really was just accepted dogma that was then perpetuated.”

Even if you do overpronate, the scientific jury is still out on whether shoes can actually reduce the risk of injury. “Running shoes don’t, and can’t, prevent injuries, per se,” said Colleen Brough, director of the Columbia RunLab.

If you shop for shoes at a brick-and-mortar running store, you may be offered a running-gait analysis, usually done on a treadmill. A store employee will likely analyze a video recording of your gait, in order to identify biomechanical glitches that could provide clues to which type of shoe might work best for you. Brough, who conducts gait analyses at the Columbia RunLab, said an in-store analysis can be beneficial even if it isn’t conducted by a biomechanics or medical professional. But it doesn’t illuminate everything. Gait analysis is “only one piece” of putting together a runner’s full story, she said, especially if the runner has an injury history.

So how do you decide what to buy for your feet? Experts recommend that you start with neutral shoes. Move to stability shoes only if you feel like you want more support (some runners may simply prefer the feel of a less-flexible, more-stable shoe) or if a doctor or physical therapist suggests them.

Heel-to-toe drop is the difference between the thickness of the shoe’s sole at the heel and the thickness at the forefoot. Traditional running shoes tend to have a thicker heel than front, or a heel-to-toe drop in the 10 mm to 12 mm range. This provides more cushioning under the heel, as you can see in this diagram:

Approximately 90% of race runners are heel strikers, according to various studies. When heel strikers run, each foot lands heel first and then rolls through the toe. A smaller percentage of runners are midfoot or forefoot strikers, which means they land through the middle of the foot or on the toes, respectively, when they run. Most running shoes have a higher heel-to-toe drop with a thicker, cushioned heel that protects the foot during heel striking, since that design feels better for the majority-ruling heel strikers.

The whole foot-strike business is complicated, to say the least. Some people in the barefoot running community contend that the overly cushioned heels of modern running shoes encourage a heel-strike pattern. However, in terms of injury risk or prevention, researchers don’t agree on whether a forefoot or midfoot strike is any better or worse than heel striking.

All of our experts did agree that your body mechanics (including your foot strike) will adapt to the shoes that are on your feet, most particularly in response to discomfort. (Brough pointed out that running shoes can help promote a different foot strike, but a change that major isn’t recommended for everyone.) In other words, if your body isn’t happy as you run, it will alter its movement patterns to lessen or eliminate that unhappiness. This once again proves the point that comfort, however you define it, is the most important factor in determining whether a particular pair of running shoes is right for you. “If you’re just starting a running program,” Brough said, “you have to make sure no matter how fancy or expensive the running shoe is, comfort is the number one thing that dictates.”

If a “barefoot but better” shoe appeals to you, or if you haven’t found a traditional drop shoe that you love, you might like a low-drop shoe. Plenty of heel strikers also love low-drop shoes. (Wirecutter supervising editor Ingrid Skjong, a certified personal trainer, ran in the same motion-control running shoes for years — even wearing custom orthotics to help “correct” her pronation — before doing a chunk of her training over the past couple of years in a more-minimalist low-drop shoe.) But if you plan to make the switch, expect to feel a big difference. “If you’re used to cushioning, and you switch to a minimalist shoe without conditioning your calves and Achilles tendons before the switch, you have a higher risk of getting yourself an injury,” said Mariska van Sprundel, author of Running Smart: How Science Can Improve Your Endurance and Performance.

Ease into a new low-drop pair by starting out with shorter runs. (This is a wise approach with any new pair of shoes.)

Comfort is, of course, subjective. Still, there are some general guidelines you can use to help ensure that running shoes fit you correctly:

Be flexible about sizing: Common running-shoe advice is to buy a shoe that’s a half size or even a full size up from your street-shoe size, to account for your feet swelling while you run. However, after talking to brand representatives and industry experts, we learned that shoe sizing is more of an art than a science. Shoes are typically designed around what’s called a “last.” A last is a three-dimensional form that mimics the shape of a human foot, and it’s created in a sample size based on the sizing scale in a company’s country of origin (for example, with Brooks the sample size is a US men’s 9 or a US women’s 8½). From there, the additional sizes are scaled, and international size conversions are marked based on a company’s proprietary charts. Therefore, every brand’s sizes are a little different. The bottom line: Use your normal running-shoe size as a starting point, but don’t be shy about sizing up (or, more rarely, down) to find your best fit.

Pick the right width and length: Your feet expand and swell when you run, so wearing shoes that are too short or too narrow is a recipe for blisters and lost toenails. To avoid this, make sure you have at least a thumb’s width of space between your longest toe and the end of your shoe — no matter the size of the shoe. Most people will also want enough room in the toe box for the toes to spread wide and the nails not to touch the fabric inside. A snug fit around the heel is also important, to prevent your shoe from sliding up and down through the foot strike.

Compare shoes head-to-head: You may choose to order a few pairs of shoes online, with the intent of returning the ones that don’t fit. If it’s possible, however, we recommend that you first get fitted by a knowledgeable salesperson at a specialty running shop. Try on a bunch of shoes, and then go back to the pairs that seemed the most comfortable. To compare, put one model on one foot and another on the other foot, and do a lap around the store. Then switch shoes and do another lap. “Ask yourself which shoes you were least aware of and buy those,” said running coach Melanie Kann. You should also play around with the laces. Laces that are too tight or too loose — in the right or wrong places — can significantly affect the feel of the shoes. (Take note of the material the laces are made of, as well as their shape and general feel. They should tie securely, without slipping.) A heel-lock lacing technique can keep feet from sliding up in back, whereas nontraditional toe lacing can provide more spreading room in front.

Shop with a goal in mind: Consider what you want most out of the pair of shoes you’re buying. If it’s distance, pay attention to cushioning. If it’s speed, focus on the weight and responsiveness. “Think about where you are now, and where you want to be in the next 300 to 500 miles,” Kann said. That’s approximately how long a pair of shoes should last. (Along with supporting your training, choosing a shoe that you’ll wear happily for its entire lifespan is the best approach from an environmental perspective.)

This may mean you’ll want to have more than one pair of shoes in your rotation. Jim McDannald, previously a health technology writer at Wirecutter, pointed out that wearing the same shoe for every run can affect mechanics. “It’s good to throw your body a curve and [make it] adapt to another shoe, which can prevent overuse-injury issues in the future,” he explained. If you’re running on consecutive days, you can also let one pair of shoes “rest” while you run in the other. This allows the cushioning to fully spring back. (We are fans of rotating more than one pair of shoes. But there are differing opinions on whether the cushioning of a shoe really needs a break.) This strategy is also useful for when your primary pair gets wet on a run and needs time to dry out.

And don’t just assume you can buy the newest version of your current shoes and be all set. “People can get hung up on ‘that’s my favorite [model],’ which can be problematic because shoe manufacturers change things up,” McDannald said. Kann added: “Get fitted every year or two. Your body changes, and shoes change.”

Carson Caprara, senior vice president of footwear at Brooks, told us the company’s most popular shoes undergo annual tweaks (anything from a change to the geometry to a switched-up material in the upper to a slightly altered design). As a result, the company releases new versions just about every year. (Across several updates to this guide over six years, the new versions of our picks have ranged from minor updates to fairly extensive redesigns.)

Check the return policy: Specialized running shops are more likely to let you return shoes within a month or so if they aren’t right for you. “Anyone can run with perfect form on the [in-store] treadmill for 30 seconds,” Kann said. “What matters more is what happens when you’ve run 10 miles outdoors.”

Most likely you don’t need a gender-specific shoe — though it’s worth keeping in mind that not all feet are created equal. “There are certainly anatomical, biomechanical, and hormonal differences between men and women,” podiatrist Paul Langer said. “Women tend to have narrower heel bones and lower ankle bones, and are more prone to developing bunions than men, and monthly hormonal changes can alter females’ neuromuscular coordination, as well as tendon and ligament elasticity.”

Some manufacturers, like Altra, have invested time and research into designing different shoes for different genders based on anatomical foot differences. Other brands, like Brooks and Mizuno, focus on designing shoes with materials that mold to the wearer’s foot and respond to their body mechanics, gender notwithstanding. For these brands, the women’s size is usually one to two US size numbers higher than the matching men’s size (so a US men’s 7 might be a women’s 8, 8½, or 9, depending on the manufacturer). There are width differences, too: Women’s size shoes typically come in B (or what’s considered medium width) and possibly A for narrow and D for wide; men’s size shoes are D for medium, B for narrow, and E for wide. This shoe-design strategy may, in fact, work well for people with larger and/or wider feet (they can wear men’s sizes) and for those with smaller and/or narrower feet (they can wear women’s sizes).

Langer pointed out that although there can be anatomical and/or physiological differences between women’s and men’s feet, many variables exist within both. “I would be less concerned about which features are ‘female’ or ‘male’ and more about which shoe has the comfort features that each runner prefers for themselves,” he said.

Though comfort rules, resonance can also play a powerful role. “If women-specific shoes from well-known brands can connect to women who may be new to running or may be considering a return to running, the health-related benefits of physical activity speak for themselves,” said Columbia RunLab’s Brough.

For this guide, we primarily tested men’s and women’s versions of the same popular shoe models. In most cases, the shoes were identical except for width, length, and color offerings. In a few cases (with Altra shoes, for example), the shoes sported tiny, gendered differences on the women’s models, such as softer cushioning material and thinner heel cups.

We’ve tested more than 100 pairs of shoes over the past seven years. Our initial list included nearly 90 pairs of running shoes, so we asked our experts for intel on what people shop for and what runners need. Then we cross-referenced their suggested shoes with reviews from Runner’s World, Running Shoes Guru, Podium Runner, Women’s Running, and RunRepeat, as well as with customer reviews.

We looked for shoes described as being both cushioned and responsive (that is, ones with the “rebound” effect underfoot). Often these criteria are at odds with each other: Extra cushioning is likely to absorb the impact of each running stride, rather than give you much rebound. Shoes that promised both features caught our attention. In general, we favored lightweight models, though our experts pointed out that shoes are getting lighter and lighter across the board. We also considered heel-to-toe drop (the difference in the thickness of the sole from the heel to the toe). Traditionally, most running shoes have a sole that’s 10 mm to 12 mm thicker at the heel than at the forefoot. Most of the shoes we kept on the list fit that description. But because some runners prefer less heel cushioning and a flatter sole, we made sure to retain a few options with lower and no heel-to-toe drop, too. Price also matters, so we capped our search at about $175 . If you pay any more than that, you’re getting into shoes meant for niche purposes.

In most cases, the men’s and women’s versions of the same shoe model are virtually the same, apart from the widths, lengths, and colors. The number of female-specific shoes available is increasing, but we haven’t seen ultra-convincing evidence suggesting gendered shoes are a necessity.

We also skipped shoes that touted specialized features (ultra-lightweight, ultra-cushioned, ultra-stabilizing, or basically ultra-anything, as well as so-called super shoes) because we weren’t looking to recommend shoes for more-specialized users or uses (racing, for instance).

Each time we’ve tested running shoes, we’ve recruited four or more testers to try the pairs over a roughly six- to eight-week period, putting at least 50 — but often many more — miles on each. Our testers have included marathoners (who regularly logged 20-plus miles a week) and casual joggers, representing a variety of anatomies and running shoe preferences.

Once they had spent some time on roads with each shoe, testers thoughtfully analyzed the way the shoes felt on their feet, considering the following criteria:

Cushioning: A shoe’s ability to absorb or soften impact was essential. We asked testers to rate both the quantity of padding and the quality in each shoe they tried.

Responsiveness: We defined responsiveness as “a rebound effect propelling you as you go.” Our testers considered how much they felt this effect as well as whether they liked what they felt.

Ride: Our experts told us that when you’re wearing good running shoes, your stride should feel effortless. We asked testers to rate the “ride” of shoes while keeping this idea in mind.

Ground feel: Running shoes need to protect your feet from the ground. However, you should be able to feel some irregularities underfoot, too, so you can micro-correct and not, say, twist an ankle.

Fit over time: Testers considered how the length, width, and overall fit of their shoes changed over time, to see whether there was a break-in period and how long it lasted.

Sole and upper support: A good running shoe should support a runner’s entire foot without constriction, pressure points, or chafing. It shouldn’t feel too soft or too firm underfoot, either. To get at that key element of fit and comfort, testers were asked to rate both the upper and the sole underfoot separately.

Weight: When we selected our testing pool, we kept in mind how much the shoes weighed (we avoided picking superheavy shoes). But a number on a scale tells only part of the story — testers also considered the subjective “heaviness” of the shoes on their feet.

Style: Many runners care about whether their shoes look good, so we asked testers for their opinions on the shoes’ visual appeal.

Asics Novablast 5

Top pick

Our favorite neutral running shoes

Asics Novablast 5 (women’s)

These light daily trainers are good for long and short runs and have noticeable propulsion and plenty of bounce.

$140 from REI

$140 from Amazon

$150 from Zappos

Our favorite neutral running shoes

Asics Novablast 5 (men’s)

This is the same shoe, in men’s sizing.

$140 from REI

$150 from Amazon

$150 from Zappos

The Asics Novablast 5 (women’s, men’s) is a versatile neutral trainer, good for fast-paced runs or long distances. Soft padding around the foot creates a comfortable ride and the 9-ounce shoe doesn’t weigh you down, creating a feeling of propulsion from the midfoot down to the forefoot. They showed plenty of bounce after 250 miles of use but began to feel a bit slick when running in wet conditions.

These shoes feel broken in out of the box. Some shoes require a break-in period of a few runs before your foot starts to feel comfortable in them. All four testers who tried the Asics Novablast 5 said the shoes felt great from the first run, describing them as “softer” and “more cushioned” than the Novablast 4, a former pick in this guide that we liked for speed training.

They’re good for a plethora of running workouts. Our testers tried these for a variety of workouts: short, fast runs of 1 to 2 miles, interval track workouts, and long distances up to 16 miles. Through them all, the Novablast 5 felt responsive and comfortable. “No matter what pace I happen to be going, I don’t notice that the shoes are on my feet because they just follow what I want to do,” one tester said.

There’s no need to worry about stopping in the middle of a run due to minor inconveniences in the shoe’s design. None of our testers had complaints about the size of laces, or the breathability of this shoe, making for uninterrupted runs free of loose laces or feet getting overly hot and sweaty.

Size range: 5 to 12 (women’s), 6 to 15 (men’s); medium and wide widths (women’s), medium and wide widths (men’s)

Flaws but not dealbreakers

They are not the best running shoes for rainy conditions. While the outer material of the Novablast 5 didn’t get soaked in the rain, we noticed the soles felt a bit slick on wet roads.

New Balance Fresh Foam X 1080v14

Top pick

A neutral trainer good for short and medium-length runs

New Balance Fresh Foam X 1080v14 (women’s)

These soft and cushiony shoes have ample bounce but start to feel heavy on longer runs.

$165 from Amazon

price may vary by color or style

$165 from REI

A neutral trainer good for short and medium-length runs

New Balance Fresh Foam X 1080v14 (men’s)

This is the same shoe, in men’s sizing.

$165 from Amazon

$165 from REI

If you seek a plush trainer that’s also comfortable for walking, the New Balance Fresh Foam X 1080v14 (women’s, men’s) has solid cushioning and plenty of bounce for short to medium runs. They feel heavier than the Asics Novablast 5, though.

It’s a solid workhorse trainer. Three of our four testers noted how they liked to grab the New Balance Fresh Foam X 1080v14 for early week runs before getting into heavier workouts/longer runs later in the week. The shoe has a bit of bounce in the heel and a decent amount of midsole cushioning.

They’re a great shoe for everyday use. Aside from frequent use for short to medium runs, two of our testers said the Fresh Foam X 1080v14 became a go-to shoe for days that required a lot of walking. “My feet feel supported and not like they’re sinking and losing energy with each step,” one tester said. The laces are long enough, and the foam isn’t as gaudy as on the Asics Novablast 5, making for a more stylish-looking shoe. If you want a firmer neutral trainer, consider the New Balance 880 Fresh Foam X v15 (women’s, men’s).

Size range: 5 to 13 (women’s), 7 to 16 (men’s); narrow, medium, wide, and extra-wide widths (women’s), narrow, medium, wide, and extra-wide widths (men’s)

Flaws but not dealbreakers

They’re a heavy-feeling trainer. Three of our four testers noticed the shoe began to feel heavy on longer runs, usually after about 5 miles. “I felt a bit dragged down by the shoe and really noticed it, like my legs were heavier when I was wearing it,” one tester said. This is a common criticism we’ve seen in reviews of the Fresh Foam X 1080v14, which weighs 10.5 ounces.

You might need to go up in size. One tester said they felt the shoe would’ve fit better a half size up from their normal sizing. The toebox on the Fresh Foam X 1080v14 also felt tighter than the previous version of this shoe that we recommended, and it took most of our testers a few runs before the shoe truly felt broken in.

Nike Pegasus 41

Top pick

A neutral trainer with minimal cushioning

Nike Pegasus 41 (women’s)

Neutral without a huge stack of cushioning, this minimalist trainer feels surprisingly bouncy from the get-go.

$140 $85 from Nike

Free Nike+ membership required (deal on blue, ivory/yellow, and brown/gray)

$140 from REI

A neutral trainer with minimal cushioning

Nike Pegasus 41 (men’s)

This is the same shoe, in men’s sizing.

$140 from REI

Nike Pegasus shoes have been some of the most popular (and divisive) running shoes for years. The Pegasus 41 version (women’s, men’s) shows off a lot of reasons why they can be so beloved. Some of our testers didn’t like how previous versions of this shoe felt heavy and lacked breathability. In a makeover, the Pegasus 41’s upper is very comfortable, and nothing about the shoe feels clunky. Despite not having huge stacks of foam, the shoe feels bouncy and cushy.

Less foam doesn’t mean less comfort. In recent years, running shoes with thick stacks of foam cushioning have become trendy, with many runners thinking more foam equals a more comfortable shoe. And while several of our top picks are quite foamy (Asics Novablast 5, New Balance Fresh Foam X 1080v14) the Nike Pegasus 41 isn’t as cushioned as those neutral trainers, and we still felt they provided a secure, comfortable run. “There were times I felt like I could feel the ‘bones’ of the shoe beneath my feet, but the cushion was plush enough that it didn’t bother me,” one tester said. Another tester said the shoe’s firmer feel propelled them more than other neutral trainers that have more cushioning.

The shoes are durable and sleek. After 100 miles, a majority of our testers noted that the Pegasus 41 still had more bounce than other brands and that they didn’t lose much pop after several weeks of use. “Running in these right out of the box was a dream, and I’m in awe of how much this shoe has stood the test of several months’ wear,” one tester said. We also liked how the lack of a thick foam bottom made the shoe look more like a classic trainer (without sacrificing support) and yet the thinner style didn’t feel tight around the foot. “I also really liked the tongue of this shoe, which was well-padded without being intrusive and made the overall ride very comfortable,” another tester noted.

Size range: 5 to 12 (women’s), 6 to 15 (men’s); medium, and extra-wide widths (women’s), medium and extra-wide widths (men’s)

Flaws but not dealbreakers

The laces are flimsy. As we’ve noticed on previous iterations of the Nike Pegasus, the shoelaces, which are thin, often come undone without a double knot.

Saucony Guide 17

Top pick

Our favorite stability running shoes

Saucony Guide 17 (women’s)

A drastic redesign has improved the smooth and cushy ride of a longtime favorite shoe.

$91 from Amazon

price may vary by color or style

Buy from REI

Our favorite stability running shoes

Saucony Guide 17 (men’s)

This is the same shoe, in men’s sizing.

$91 from Amazon

price may vary by color or style

$106 from REI

The Saucony Guide 17 (women’s, men’s) presents a jarring contrast from the Guide 16 (a shoe we previously recommended that is no longer widely available). Overall, though, the changes create a better, seemingly faster shoe.

They look clunky but perform smoothly. One immediate noticeable change is the high foam stack, which despite its design feels very responsive. Even with the bulk, the shoes have tons of zip, and the insoles resemble the plush and bouncy feel of Adidas’s popular Boost insoles. “That’s really rare in a stability model,” one tester noted.

Their extra cushion is a good thing. Another tester, who has lamented what they call the “Hoka-fication” of running shoes — whereby companies aim to create extra-cushiony models while sacrificing comfort in other areas — said the Guide 17 shoes “basically feel like the best of Hokas without the dead hollow feel.” Accelerating was easy, and the shoes felt cushioned but responsive, in contrast to the Asics GT-2000 12, which can feel squishy at faster paces.

They’re great for wide feet. One female tester with high stability needs and who wears wide-size shoes said the Guide 17 were the best option she’s found without a medial post, a small piece in the midsole that helps control pronation. A male tester who wears wide shoes said a lot of companies’ wide models don’t provide that much additional room, but the Guide 17 felt like a “true” wide option “with a nice wide toe box.”

Size range: 5 to 12 (women’s), 7 to 16 (men’s); medium and wide widths (women’s), medium and wide widths (men’s)

Flaws but not dealbreakers

These shoes require breaking in. The heel-to-toe drop feels a little more pronounced in the Guide 17 compared with the previous version, giving them more of a tilted-forward feel, which took our testers some time to get used to.

New Balance Fresh Foam X 860v14

Top pick

A less rigid stability trainer

New Balance Fresh Foam X 860v14 (women’s)

This shoe feels plusher than most stability shoes, almost resembling the soft feel of a neutral trainer.

$140 from Amazon

$140 from Zappos

A less rigid stability trainer

New Balance Fresh Foam X 860v14 (men’s)

This is the same shoe, in men’s sizing.

$140 from Amazon

Buy from REI

$140 from Zappos

The New Balance Fresh Foam X 860v14 (women’s, men’s) doesn’t feel like your typical stability trainer, with plush underfoot cushioning that rivals the softness of some neutral trainers. Still, it provides plenty of support. “It was a great balance between cushy and sturdy,” one tester said. “It wasn’t overly bouncy but also didn’t feel too hard on foot strikes.”

These shoes feel light underfoot. The Fresh Foam X 860v14 isn’t as soft as the Fresh Foam X 1080v13 neutral trainers, but the cushioning is noticeable. One tester who’s been wearing the 860 model since version 3, said past iterations felt “very hard under foot after about 90 to 120 minutes of running.” By comparison, they added, the 860v14 “feels more cushioned from the beginning, but still very stable.” Another tester said it almost felt like they were wearing soft insoles while running.

Yet they’re plenty sturdy. The Fresh Foam X 860v14 gives other stability shoes a run for the money in stability support. One tester realized their current stability trainers were overly cushioned for their needs, and the Fresh Foam shoes struck a nice medium. “They had a great balance of absorption and bounce and stiffness and support,” they said. Another tester, who noted the 860v4 and 860v11 were their favorites from the line, said the Fresh Foam X 860v14 “beats out both of those, because it kept the more intense support I relied on them for, and added a lot more comfort.”

Size range: 5 to 12 (women’s), 7 to 16 (men’s); narrow, medium, wide, and extra-wide widths (women’s), narrow, medium, wide, and extra-wide widths (men’s)

Flaws but not dealbreakers

The shoes may take a few runs to break in. Our seasoned 860 tester noticed a little stiffness around their ankles post run. “I think that was because for the first time, the 860 actually corrected ankle rolls going either way since they swapped out the medial post for a plate,” they said of the Fresh Foam X 860v14 pair. “After a couple of runs, my feet adjusted, and it was fine.” Another tester reported that the front toe and back heel felt “a bit too upturned for me” and created a sense of rocking back and forth. “I got used to this, but it took a bit of time,” they said.

Wet conditions affect the insoles. During runs in rainy conditions, the insoles in the shoes shifted.

Altra Escalante 4

Top pick

Our favorite low-drop running shoes

Altra Escalante 4 (women’s)

This is the rare zero-drop shoe that feels springy but still flexible underfoot. An ample toe box creates a comfortable fit that helps prevent blisters and hot spots.

$105 from Amazon

price may vary by color or style

$130 from REI

Our favorite low-drop running shoes

Altra Escalante 4 (men’s)

This is the same shoe, in men’s sizing.

$130 from Amazon

price may vary by color or style

$130 from REI

The Altra Escalante 4 (women’s, men’s) is for runners who already know they prefer low- or no-drop shoes, as well as for those who are curious to try a “barefoot but better” shoe.

They perform well on roads and more rugged surfaces. The Escalante 4 is good not just on paved surfaces, but a few of our testers tried them on dirt roads and hilly, paved roads and felt great support on less-even surfaces. “I find them very comfortable and light with some spring in their step,” one tester said.

They have soft cushioning for a zero-drop shoe. Compared with more minimalist zero-drop shoes, the cushioning on the Escalante 4 is plush, but not too soft. “I’m impressed with the degree of cushioning they offer while still being flexible underfoot,” one tester said. “I especially appreciated the added cushioning for running on pavement, especially for long runs. It feels gentler on my feet and hips for running longer distances. For me, they’re perfect and they retain the flexibility I’ve found in more minimalist, barefoot shoes.”

Size range: 5½ to 12 (women’s), 7 to 15 (men’s); one width (women’s and men’s)

Flaws but not dealbreakers

They’re not stylish shoes. The colorways aren’t very diverse or flashy, as one tester described the Escalante 4 as “dad sneakers.” Also, the wide toe box, while comfortable, looks noticeably fatter than other running shoes.

They’re not a stiff zero-drop shoe. One of our testers who predominantly ran in barefoot shoes before trying the Escalante 4 said that if someone wants a no-drop shoe with the foot support and positioning cues of a stability shoe or a stiff bottom for trail running, this is not for them. They didn’t feel like a true minimalist or barefoot shoe, either, but came closer to mimicking that feel.

Neutral shoes

If you want a firmer neutral shoe: The New Balance 880 Fresh Foam X v15 (women’s, men’s) is less cushiony than the New Balance Fresh Foam X 1080v14 we recommend, but the shoe is flexible enough to not feel clunky. Despite feeling more firm than other neutral trainers, it has some bounce and is supportive in the sole while still feeling soft — but not so soft that your foot feels like it’s sinking in. “It’s a nice everyday trainer that has some versatility,” one tester said. Another tester recommended these shoes for beginners looking to do short jogs. “I would not use these for a track, interval, or race-pace session,” they added, because “they’d feel too heavy or hinder my faster paces and make me work harder than needed.”

If you are a beginner runner and prefer to spend less than the cost of our picks: The Saucony Axon 3 (women’s, men’s) costs about $100 and is a good neutral shoe for people who are just starting to run. It’s lightweight and comfortable, with soft material that allows the feet and toes to move and expand. A stretchy mesh is breathable, and a padded, tall heel collar keeps feet secure. “They have the characteristics and structure of more expensive running shoes without the bulkiness,” one tester said. Multiple testers said they wished the toe box was bigger, and a few complained about the longer-than-typical laces. You won’t get the same propulsion in the Axon 3 as you will in some of our neutral picks and the sole feels a bit plasticky and stiff, making the heel-to-toe transition a little clunkier.

If you prefer ample cushioning for relaxed miles: The Hoka Clifton 10 (women’s, men’s) are great for recovery runs or relaxed miles. One tester, who trained in both the Clifton 9 and Clifton 10, appreciated that the latest version has more toe space for wider feet. All four of our testers who ran in the Clifton 10 found the shoe’s material breathable and that the padding around the collar keeps feet from sliding around, without feeling too thick or foamy. The insoles that come with the shoe are thin and feel a bit flimsy, so you may want to try an insert if you like a thicker insole.

If you’d like a lighter, less-cushioned shoe for speedier efforts: The On Cloudflow 4 (women’s, men’s) is a minimally padded option that also looks great with casual attire when not running. The material around the foot feels thin and breathable, with soles that our testers described as “springy” and “spongy.” “They’re buoyant, without being very cushiony,” one tester said. “I felt supported, but my feet weren’t at all sinking into the shoe as they would with a gel insole, for example.” Because of the unique design of the soles, the On Cloudflow 4 can take a few runs to get used to and some testers didn’t like the stiff upper of the shoe.

Stability shoes

If you want a plush stability trainer: The Asics GT-2000 13 (women’s, men’s) has a comfortable medium foam stack and provides a soft landing. The shoe’s upper is snug, but allows enough wiggle room. These stability trainers have proven to be very durable after a few hundred miles. One tester commented that many plush shoes develop latitudinal creases in the soles after a lot of use, but the GT-2000 13 did not, “which suggests the foam on the Asics is keeping its integrity,” they said. Two of our four stability shoe testers wear wide sizes and said the GT-2000 13 fits like a true wide shoe. Two of our testers noted, though, that they developed hot spots on longer runs. The toe box is more pointed than other stability shoes, which may be the culprit for the hot spots.

If you want a stability trainer with medial support: The Brooks Adrenaline GTS 24 (women’s, men’s) has solid support in the midfoot and arch and is one of the few remaining stability shoes with a medial post, which helps control pronation. “It let my foot relax into its shape without being too high or aggressive, and the toebox was wide enough that I didn’t feel my toes annoyingly hugged by the sides of the uppers,” one tester said. Two of our testers did complain about rigid heel cups, calling them “constricting” and “uncomfortable” leading to the sensation of being pinched. The Adrenaline GTS 24 is durable, showing no signs of wear after 250 miles, and the cushioning feels more lightweight compared to many stability shoes.

We’re testing two additional stability shoes — the Saucony Hurricane 25 (women’s, men’s), a springy, more cushioned shoe than the Saucony Guide we recommend; and the Nike Structure 26 (women’s, men’s), which has a cushioned midsole and midfoot support system that wraps around the heel and arch.

We’re also testing two neutral shoes. The Nike Vomero 18 (women’s, men’s) has more cushion than the Nike Pegasus 41 we recommend, and the Adidas Adizero Evo SL (women’s, men’s) is a lightweight shoe designed for short and long runs.

This is not a comprehensive list of all the running shoes we’ve evaluated. Here we include shoes that are still available.

The Adidas Adizero SL2 (women’s, men’s) is light and responsive. However, it’s quite stiff — the little foam on the shoe does not have much give. Three of our four testers wished this shoe had a higher stack, and one tester thought they had a narrower fit than most other neutral shoes they’d tried. “I think these are nice for a lighter weight runner that doesn’t do more than 30 miles a week and likes a more responsive shoe versus bouncy,” another tester said. “I found myself using this shoe for either easy treadmill runs or for short track sessions where I knew I’d get a little cushion from the track and I’d benefit from the responsiveness.”

The Asics Gel-Cumulus 26 (women’s, men’s) is a neutral shoe that our testers agreed felt stiffer and heavier (even at a weight of 9 ounces) than our picks. This shoe felt so heavy on the foot that one tester said it was distracting, with another tester commenting that the shoe felt like it “worked against me rather than for me.” After a break-in period, the Gel-Cumulus 26 was a bit easier to run in for some but still wasn’t very breathable. One heel-striker tester appreciated the curved bottom of the shoe, leading to a full and smooth stride. We experienced durability concerns with the Gel-Cumulus 26 — one tester fell during their first run in them, which caused a small tear on the top front of the shoe, while another runner grazed a rough surface during an early run, causing a rip in the sole cushion. Tightening the shoes was another concern, as the eyelets on the Gel-Cumulus 26 felt farther apart than most.

The Asics GT-2000 12 (women’s, men’s), a former pick in this guide, is still available from third-party sellers We like this stability shoe for its cushioning and medial support, particularly on recovery runs and easy miles. Some of our testers with wide feet said wide sizes still felt a bit snug.

The Brooks Adrenaline GTS 23 (women’s, men’s), another former pick, is still available from third-party sellers. The Adrenaline GTS 23 prioritized support over cushioning. It took less effort to step off and did not create a sinking into the ground feeling that shoes with more cushion can sometimes have. Some testers found these shoes less stable in slippery conditions, though.

Brooks’s Ghost 16 (women’s, men’s) feels like they have less cushioning than the Ghost 15 shoes we formerly recommend. Out of the box they were stiffer and needed a longer break-in period. The Ghost 15 had a roomier toe box, and a few testers felt their pinky toes pinching against the sides of the Ghost 16 shoes on longer runs; one tester had repeated hot spots on the inside of their right foot after running in them. Some testers noted that the laces can be challenging to tie, so you might have to remove them from the first pair of eyelets for a snug fit. All four testers who ran in the Brooks Ghost 17 (women’s, men’s) agreed that this shoe didn’t cause hotspots or have troublesome laces like the Ghost 16 did, but the newer version is still noticeably stiff and needs more breaking in than most.

The Brooks Glycerin 21 (women’s, men’s) is softer than the Ghost 16. “The first time I ran in them, I felt like my feet were wrapped in a cozy comforter at the top and cushioned by springy clouds at the bottom,” one tester said. The heel collar is also made of thicker material, which helps to stabilize the foot. However, the Glycerin 21 is not the most breathable shoe, and our testers didn’t feel much energy return on both long and short runs. While the Glycerin 21 is a solid choice (especially for easy miles), we wish it had a wider toe box. Some of our testers found that this shoe runs a half size too small. The Glycerin 22 (women’s, men’s) initially felt a bit stiff, three of four testers agreed. Two pointed out the toe box felt narrow and the midfoot was more uncomfortable than that on previous versions of this shoe. Once broken in, though, the Glycerin 22 is easy to slide into, thanks to a padded heel collar and additional padding throughout the shoe that one tester described as “almost slipper-like.” This version also felt more breathable than the Glycerin 21. All in all, the Glycerin 22 is a solid trainer, but might not be the best choice for people with narrower feet.

The Brooks Revel 7 (women’s, men’s) is another shoe costing around $100 that isn’t as cushioned as some of our neutral trainer picks. Unlike the similarly priced Saucony Axon 3, the Revel 7 felt comparatively stiff. “The flat sole lacks the necessary geometry and arch support for serious running,” one tester said. “The bottom is essentially a single, flat piece, similar to a walking sneaker — it doesn’t give much flex.” We also felt the Revel 7 was less breathable than the Axon 3.

The Hoka Mach 6 (women’s, men’s) has firm cushioning and felt bulkier than other neutral Hoka shoes we’ve tested (Hokas are known for their soft, lightweight feel). After about 50 miles, we noticed the cushioning and initial pop in the shoes start to dissipate. One tester, who ran a half marathon in the Mach 6, noticed by mile eight that their legs were feeling more fatigued than usual due to the weight of the shoes. “While the toe box appears wide … I developed some pretty gnarly big-toe blisters from rubbing up against the side of the shoe,” they added.

The original Lululemon Blissfeel — a women-centric shoe produced from scans of more than a million feet, according to the company — felt “springy” in the heel to one of our testers wearing an 8½. One tester found that they fit “a bit narrower, especially at the front of the foot.” Another tester, in size 7½, considered the shoes “perfectly comfortable” but ultimately wasn’t bowled over. We haven’t tested the Blissfeel 2.

We tested New Balance’s Fresh Foam X 880v14 (women’s, men’s)which felt less comfortable, almost “squishy” when compared to the Fresh Foam X 1080 series. The dense foam did give some feeling of being propelled while running, but the shoe takes time to break in and, for some testers, led to some blisters on early runs. It also tended to run bigger than other New Balance shoes we’ve tested. Overall, a majority of our testers felt it was a shoe for light miles (around 3 or so) at an easy pace. “It kind of felt like an old-school, Dad, do-it-all shoe, for someone who just wants comfort and something not too stiff, not too soft,” one tester observed.

The On Cloudrunner (women’s, men’s) stability shoe felt a bit clunky and stiff, with little stability or arch support. As with some other On running shoes, testers reported small pebbles or debris getting caught in the spaces between the grip on the sole. These shoes have decent traction and felt responsive with a good amount of pop, but our testers preferred the Guide 17 and other stability picks.

The On Cloudsurfer (women’s, men’s) neutral shoes feel really light and have good cushioning, but they didn’t feel as supportive on longer runs over 10 miles. They’re not a stiff shoe by any means, but our testers did not feel amply supported in them, either. A few testers thought they’d be an ideal running shoe for travel, serving as both a casual fashion choice and something for squeezing in a few miles if you don’t want to pack extra shoes. All four testers for the Cloudsurfer 2 (women’s, men’s) noted that this shoe’s lightness has pros and cons. On one hand, they are ready to wear out the box and are among the most comfortable daily trainers we’ve tried. However, they feel really optimized for shorter runs. “The Ons are very light and cushiony, but I personally prefer the feeling of [daily trainers] being slightly more stiff and supportive,” one tester said.

The Reebok FloatZig1 (women’s, men’s) neutral shoes chafed our testers’ ankles — while running and walking, with socks long and short. Otherwise, the FloatZig1 has good grip and performed well on uphill and downhill test runs.

The first thing we noticed about the neutral Saucony Ride 17 (women’s, men’s) was the thick cushioning on the bottom that resembles styrofoam. It is supposed to be plush and springy. Overall, our testers thought the foam offered a lot of lift but felt it wasn’t very responsive and, actually, a bit firm. The shoes felt heavy during runs, and some of our testers believed they would have to go a half size down for an ideal fit. One tester noticed that the foam bottom started flaking after a few weeks.

Initially, all four of our testers of the Saucony Guide 18 (women’s, men’s) thought the shoe looked and felt pretty much the same as the Guide 17, one of our favorite stability shoes. But after a few weeks in the Guide 18s, we noticed some flaws. One tester, who’s worn both the Guide 17 and 18, said the uppers and treads on the 17 shoes lasted much longer. Another tester who has both shoes said the Guide 18s “lacked the rocker feel that I liked in the previous model where it encouraged forward movement, and even faster paces.” Another tester got hot spots on both feet during their first few runs in the Guide 18s, adding, “I can’t say I’d clamor to weave these into my rotation.” We suggest getting the Guide 17 while it’s still available.

The Under Armour Infinite Elite 2 (women’s, men’s) shoe is wide, with a large rounded toe box. Still, this pair felt comfortable despite the clunky design. These shoes don’t seem ideal for speed runs and the thin shoelaces bothered two of the four people who tested this pair.

Amy Roberts and Ingrid Skjong contributed reporting. This article was edited by Tracy Vence and Kalee Thompson.

Since 2017, Wirecutter running-shoe testers have logged more than 5,500 total miles, with feet on the ground in places such as Miami, New York City, Portland, Maine, and Portland, Oregon.

We chatted with eight experts to get their takes on what matters — and what doesn’t — in a running shoe’s design and how to find ones that are right for you.

Colleen Brough, DPT, is an assistant professor of rehabilitation and regenerative medicine at Columbia University Irving Medical Center and director of the Columbia RunLab. Brough answered our questions on the relationship between running shoes and injuries, as well as how tools like gait analysis factor into finding the right pair of shoes.

Jolan Browne, DPT, is a senior physical therapist at NYU’s Running Lab at NYU Langone Orthopedic Center. Browne explained foot strike (heel versus midfoot versus forefoot) and the biomechanics of running for us.

Carson Caprara is senior vice president of footwear at Brooks. Caprara provided insight on how a large running-shoe company strategizes its approach to shoe updates and innovations.

Golden Harper is co-founder of Altra Running. Harper’s family ran a specialty running store, so he started deconstructing shoes at a young age. As an adult, he created a shoe with reduced heel cushioning for himself and his friends (he said this shoe felt more natural and comfortable). That shoe led to the founding of the shoe company Altra, which specializes in no-drop shoes. (VF Corporation, the Colorado-based company that owns The North Face and Timberland, bought Altra for an undisclosed amount in 2018.)

Melanie Kann is a New York City–based running coach and former running-shoe salesperson.

Paul Langer, DPM, is a podiatrist at Twin Cities Orthopedics and part owner of running-shoe store Fleet Feet Minneapolis. Langer helped us make sense of the current research on how running shoes can affect (or not affect) runners’ efficiency and injury rates.

Jim McDannald, DPM, is a podiatrist and running coach based in Montreal, and he previously wrote running-related reviews for Wirecutter.

Mariska van Sprundel is a science writer and author of Running Smart: How Science Can Improve Your Endurance and Performance. Van Sprundel answered our questions about the factors one should consider when choosing a pair of running shoes.

We also pored over peer-reviewed research about running shoes and injuries, and considered several articles on road-running shoes, including stories from Runner’s World and The New York Times.

According to the Sports & Fitness Industry Association, approximately 51.1 million people in the US laced up their trainers for some form of running or jogging in 2024.

No matter where you fall on the running spectrum, the right shoes can make all the difference in your relationship with the sport. A good pair is arguably the most important tool a runner needs to train comfortably and consistently; ideally, once your shoes are on your feet, you shouldn’t have to think too much about them. The wrong pair can bring on blisters, bruised toenails, or worse.

For this guide we considered go-to shoes for everyday running, either outside or on a treadmill. The shoes described here would be appropriate both for recreational runners (whose runs are usually of similar distance and intensity) and for competitive runners (those seeking a workhorse shoe for easy or recovery runs). Some of these shoes may not be ideal for long runs of more than an hour (where more cushioning might be appreciated) or for racing or speed work (where light weight and responsiveness are important). That’s not to say you couldn’t use the shoes we recommend for either or both purposes — over the years many of our testers have happily used our picks for marathon training as well as at the track.

The shoes in this guide would also be fine choices for those who walk for fitness and for injured runners who are eager to keep moving. These running shoes may not be your first choice for use at the gym, however: For that purpose, many people prefer shoes that are flatter (for weightlifting) or that have less side-to-side support (for easier movement in every direction, such as for an aerobics or boot-camp class).

Many running-shoe companies divide their shoes into two main categories: neutral and stability (or “motion-control”) shoes. A neutral shoe won’t affect your normal gait, but it will provide you with added support and cushion to protect your feet from the ground. Stability shoes, on the other hand, have denser foam along the arch of the foot. They may also have a stiffer heel, which reduces the foot’s side-to-side movement.

Everyone’s feet naturally pronate (roll to the inner edge) or supinate (roll to the outer edge) during each running stride. Pronation allows your foot to adapt to the landing surface, and supination propels you forward, according to podiatrist Paul Langer and physical therapist Jolan Browne. Both pronation and supination are biomechanically necessary for running. Running-shoe companies make both stability and neutral shoes because of the long-held idea that some people’s feet roll in too far and need correction. This is called overpronation, and it may contribute to pain in the feet, ankles, and knees.

According to our experts, however, overpronators make up a very small subset of the population. Langer explained pronation as a bell curve, with most people falling in the middle of the curve (those who won’t need extra stability while running) and a relative few falling at either extreme (oversupination and overpronation). Langer and fellow podiatrist Jim McDannald pointed out that there is no medical definition of overpronation. Langer said that overpronation “is an overused term, especially in the running retail setting, that most likely came out of some of the early biomechanics and sports medicine textbooks in the 1960s. The term was not based on any particular study and never quantified. It really was just accepted dogma that was then perpetuated.”

Even if you do overpronate, the scientific jury is still out on whether shoes can actually reduce the risk of injury. “Running shoes don’t, and can’t, prevent injuries, per se,” said Colleen Brough, director of the Columbia RunLab.

If you shop for shoes at a brick-and-mortar running store, you may be offered a running-gait analysis, usually done on a treadmill. A store employee will likely analyze a video recording of your gait, in order to identify biomechanical glitches that could provide clues to which type of shoe might work best for you. Brough, who conducts gait analyses at the Columbia RunLab, said an in-store analysis can be beneficial even if it isn’t conducted by a biomechanics or medical professional. But it doesn’t illuminate everything. Gait analysis is “only one piece” of putting together a runner’s full story, she said, especially if the runner has an injury history.

So how do you decide what to buy for your feet? Experts recommend that you start with neutral shoes. Move to stability shoes only if you feel like you want more support (some runners may simply prefer the feel of a less-flexible, more-stable shoe) or if a doctor or physical therapist suggests them.

Heel-to-toe drop is the difference between the thickness of the shoe’s sole at the heel and the thickness at the forefoot. Traditional running shoes tend to have a thicker heel than front, or a heel-to-toe drop in the 10 mm to 12 mm range. This provides more cushioning under the heel, as you can see in this diagram:

Approximately 90% of race runners are heel strikers, according to various studies. When heel strikers run, each foot lands heel first and then rolls through the toe. A smaller percentage of runners are midfoot or forefoot strikers, which means they land through the middle of the foot or on the toes, respectively, when they run. Most running shoes have a higher heel-to-toe drop with a thicker, cushioned heel that protects the foot during heel striking, since that design feels better for the majority-ruling heel strikers.

The whole foot-strike business is complicated, to say the least. Some people in the barefoot running community contend that the overly cushioned heels of modern running shoes encourage a heel-strike pattern. However, in terms of injury risk or prevention, researchers don’t agree on whether a forefoot or midfoot strike is any better or worse than heel striking.

All of our experts did agree that your body mechanics (including your foot strike) will adapt to the shoes that are on your feet, most particularly in response to discomfort. (Brough pointed out that running shoes can help promote a different foot strike, but a change that major isn’t recommended for everyone.) In other words, if your body isn’t happy as you run, it will alter its movement patterns to lessen or eliminate that unhappiness. This once again proves the point that comfort, however you define it, is the most important factor in determining whether a particular pair of running shoes is right for you. “If you’re just starting a running program,” Brough said, “you have to make sure no matter how fancy or expensive the running shoe is, comfort is the number one thing that dictates.”

If a “barefoot but better” shoe appeals to you, or if you haven’t found a traditional drop shoe that you love, you might like a low-drop shoe. Plenty of heel strikers also love low-drop shoes. (Wirecutter supervising editor Ingrid Skjong, a certified personal trainer, ran in the same motion-control running shoes for years — even wearing custom orthotics to help “correct” her pronation — before doing a chunk of her training over the past couple of years in a more-minimalist low-drop shoe.) But if you plan to make the switch, expect to feel a big difference. “If you’re used to cushioning, and you switch to a minimalist shoe without conditioning your calves and Achilles tendons before the switch, you have a higher risk of getting yourself an injury,” said Mariska van Sprundel, author of Running Smart: How Science Can Improve Your Endurance and Performance.

Ease into a new low-drop pair by starting out with shorter runs. (This is a wise approach with any new pair of shoes.)

Comfort is, of course, subjective. Still, there are some general guidelines you can use to help ensure that running shoes fit you correctly:

Be flexible about sizing: Common running-shoe advice is to buy a shoe that’s a half size or even a full size up from your street-shoe size, to account for your feet swelling while you run. However, after talking to brand representatives and industry experts, we learned that shoe sizing is more of an art than a science. Shoes are typically designed around what’s called a “last.” A last is a three-dimensional form that mimics the shape of a human foot, and it’s created in a sample size based on the sizing scale in a company’s country of origin (for example, with Brooks the sample size is a US men’s 9 or a US women’s 8½). From there, the additional sizes are scaled, and international size conversions are marked based on a company’s proprietary charts. Therefore, every brand’s sizes are a little different. The bottom line: Use your normal running-shoe size as a starting point, but don’t be shy about sizing up (or, more rarely, down) to find your best fit.

Pick the right width and length: Your feet expand and swell when you run, so wearing shoes that are too short or too narrow is a recipe for blisters and lost toenails. To avoid this, make sure you have at least a thumb’s width of space between your longest toe and the end of your shoe — no matter the size of the shoe. Most people will also want enough room in the toe box for the toes to spread wide and the nails not to touch the fabric inside. A snug fit around the heel is also important, to prevent your shoe from sliding up and down through the foot strike.

Compare shoes head-to-head: You may choose to order a few pairs of shoes online, with the intent of returning the ones that don’t fit. If it’s possible, however, we recommend that you first get fitted by a knowledgeable salesperson at a specialty running shop. Try on a bunch of shoes, and then go back to the pairs that seemed the most comfortable. To compare, put one model on one foot and another on the other foot, and do a lap around the store. Then switch shoes and do another lap. “Ask yourself which shoes you were least aware of and buy those,” said running coach Melanie Kann. You should also play around with the laces. Laces that are too tight or too loose — in the right or wrong places — can significantly affect the feel of the shoes. (Take note of the material the laces are made of, as well as their shape and general feel. They should tie securely, without slipping.) A heel-lock lacing technique can keep feet from sliding up in back, whereas nontraditional toe lacing can provide more spreading room in front.

Shop with a goal in mind: Consider what you want most out of the pair of shoes you’re buying. If it’s distance, pay attention to cushioning. If it’s speed, focus on the weight and responsiveness. “Think about where you are now, and where you want to be in the next 300 to 500 miles,” Kann said. That’s approximately how long a pair of shoes should last. (Along with supporting your training, choosing a shoe that you’ll wear happily for its entire lifespan is the best approach from an environmental perspective.)

This may mean you’ll want to have more than one pair of shoes in your rotation. Jim McDannald, previously a health technology writer at Wirecutter, pointed out that wearing the same shoe for every run can affect mechanics. “It’s good to throw your body a curve and [make it] adapt to another shoe, which can prevent overuse-injury issues in the future,” he explained. If you’re running on consecutive days, you can also let one pair of shoes “rest” while you run in the other. This allows the cushioning to fully spring back. (We are fans of rotating more than one pair of shoes. But there are differing opinions on whether the cushioning of a shoe really needs a break.) This strategy is also useful for when your primary pair gets wet on a run and needs time to dry out.

And don’t just assume you can buy the newest version of your current shoes and be all set. “People can get hung up on ‘that’s my favorite [model],’ which can be problematic because shoe manufacturers change things up,” McDannald said. Kann added: “Get fitted every year or two. Your body changes, and shoes change.”

Carson Caprara, senior vice president of footwear at Brooks, told us the company’s most popular shoes undergo annual tweaks (anything from a change to the geometry to a switched-up material in the upper to a slightly altered design). As a result, the company releases new versions just about every year. (Across several updates to this guide over six years, the new versions of our picks have ranged from minor updates to fairly extensive redesigns.)

Check the return policy: Specialized running shops are more likely to let you return shoes within a month or so if they aren’t right for you. “Anyone can run with perfect form on the [in-store] treadmill for 30 seconds,” Kann said. “What matters more is what happens when you’ve run 10 miles outdoors.”

Most likely you don’t need a gender-specific shoe — though it’s worth keeping in mind that not all feet are created equal. “There are certainly anatomical, biomechanical, and hormonal differences between men and women,” podiatrist Paul Langer said. “Women tend to have narrower heel bones and lower ankle bones, and are more prone to developing bunions than men, and monthly hormonal changes can alter females’ neuromuscular coordination, as well as tendon and ligament elasticity.”

Some manufacturers, like Altra, have invested time and research into designing different shoes for different genders based on anatomical foot differences. Other brands, like Brooks and Mizuno, focus on designing shoes with materials that mold to the wearer’s foot and respond to their body mechanics, gender notwithstanding. For these brands, the women’s size is usually one to two US size numbers higher than the matching men’s size (so a US men’s 7 might be a women’s 8, 8½, or 9, depending on the manufacturer). There are width differences, too: Women’s size shoes typically come in B (or what’s considered medium width) and possibly A for narrow and D for wide; men’s size shoes are D for medium, B for narrow, and E for wide. This shoe-design strategy may, in fact, work well for people with larger and/or wider feet (they can wear men’s sizes) and for those with smaller and/or narrower feet (they can wear women’s sizes).

Langer pointed out that although there can be anatomical and/or physiological differences between women’s and men’s feet, many variables exist within both. “I would be less concerned about which features are ‘female’ or ‘male’ and more about which shoe has the comfort features that each runner prefers for themselves,” he said.

Though comfort rules, resonance can also play a powerful role. “If women-specific shoes from well-known brands can connect to women who may be new to running or may be considering a return to running, the health-related benefits of physical activity speak for themselves,” said Columbia RunLab’s Brough.

For this guide, we primarily tested men’s and women’s versions of the same popular shoe models. In most cases, the shoes were identical except for width, length, and color offerings. In a few cases (with Altra shoes, for example), the shoes sported tiny, gendered differences on the women’s models, such as softer cushioning material and thinner heel cups.

We’ve tested more than 100 pairs of shoes over the past seven years. Our initial list included nearly 90 pairs of running shoes, so we asked our experts for intel on what people shop for and what runners need. Then we cross-referenced their suggested shoes with reviews from Runner’s World, Running Shoes Guru, Podium Runner, Women’s Running, and RunRepeat, as well as with customer reviews.

We looked for shoes described as being both cushioned and responsive (that is, ones with the “rebound” effect underfoot). Often these criteria are at odds with each other: Extra cushioning is likely to absorb the impact of each running stride, rather than give you much rebound. Shoes that promised both features caught our attention. In general, we favored lightweight models, though our experts pointed out that shoes are getting lighter and lighter across the board. We also considered heel-to-toe drop (the difference in the thickness of the sole from the heel to the toe). Traditionally, most running shoes have a sole that’s 10 mm to 12 mm thicker at the heel than at the forefoot. Most of the shoes we kept on the list fit that description. But because some runners prefer less heel cushioning and a flatter sole, we made sure to retain a few options with lower and no heel-to-toe drop, too. Price also matters, so we capped our search at about $175 . If you pay any more than that, you’re getting into shoes meant for niche purposes.

In most cases, the men’s and women’s versions of the same shoe model are virtually the same, apart from the widths, lengths, and colors. The number of female-specific shoes available is increasing, but we haven’t seen ultra-convincing evidence suggesting gendered shoes are a necessity.

We also skipped shoes that touted specialized features (ultra-lightweight, ultra-cushioned, ultra-stabilizing, or basically ultra-anything, as well as so-called super shoes) because we weren’t looking to recommend shoes for more-specialized users or uses (racing, for instance).

Each time we’ve tested running shoes, we’ve recruited four or more testers to try the pairs over a roughly six- to eight-week period, putting at least 50 — but often many more — miles on each. Our testers have included marathoners (who regularly logged 20-plus miles a week) and casual joggers, representing a variety of anatomies and running shoe preferences.

Once they had spent some time on roads with each shoe, testers thoughtfully analyzed the way the shoes felt on their feet, considering the following criteria:

Cushioning: A shoe’s ability to absorb or soften impact was essential. We asked testers to rate both the quantity of padding and the quality in each shoe they tried.

Responsiveness: We defined responsiveness as “a rebound effect propelling you as you go.” Our testers considered how much they felt this effect as well as whether they liked what they felt.

Ride: Our experts told us that when you’re wearing good running shoes, your stride should feel effortless. We asked testers to rate the “ride” of shoes while keeping this idea in mind.

Ground feel: Running shoes need to protect your feet from the ground. However, you should be able to feel some irregularities underfoot, too, so you can micro-correct and not, say, twist an ankle.

Fit over time: Testers considered how the length, width, and overall fit of their shoes changed over time, to see whether there was a break-in period and how long it lasted.

Sole and upper support: A good running shoe should support a runner’s entire foot without constriction, pressure points, or chafing. It shouldn’t feel too soft or too firm underfoot, either. To get at that key element of fit and comfort, testers were asked to rate both the upper and the sole underfoot separately.

Weight: When we selected our testing pool, we kept in mind how much the shoes weighed (we avoided picking superheavy shoes). But a number on a scale tells only part of the story — testers also considered the subjective “heaviness” of the shoes on their feet.

Style: Many runners care about whether their shoes look good, so we asked testers for their opinions on the shoes’ visual appeal.

Asics Novablast 5

Top pick

Our favorite neutral running shoes

Asics Novablast 5 (women’s)

These light daily trainers are good for long and short runs and have noticeable propulsion and plenty of bounce.

$140 from REI

$140 from Amazon

$150 from Zappos

Our favorite neutral running shoes

Asics Novablast 5 (men’s)

This is the same shoe, in men’s sizing.

$140 from REI

$150 from Amazon

$150 from Zappos

The Asics Novablast 5 (women’s, men’s) is a versatile neutral trainer, good for fast-paced runs or long distances. Soft padding around the foot creates a comfortable ride and the 9-ounce shoe doesn’t weigh you down, creating a feeling of propulsion from the midfoot down to the forefoot. They showed plenty of bounce after 250 miles of use but began to feel a bit slick when running in wet conditions.

These shoes feel broken in out of the box. Some shoes require a break-in period of a few runs before your foot starts to feel comfortable in them. All four testers who tried the Asics Novablast 5 said the shoes felt great from the first run, describing them as “softer” and “more cushioned” than the Novablast 4, a former pick in this guide that we liked for speed training.

They’re good for a plethora of running workouts. Our testers tried these for a variety of workouts: short, fast runs of 1 to 2 miles, interval track workouts, and long distances up to 16 miles. Through them all, the Novablast 5 felt responsive and comfortable. “No matter what pace I happen to be going, I don’t notice that the shoes are on my feet because they just follow what I want to do,” one tester said.

There’s no need to worry about stopping in the middle of a run due to minor inconveniences in the shoe’s design. None of our testers had complaints about the size of laces, or the breathability of this shoe, making for uninterrupted runs free of loose laces or feet getting overly hot and sweaty.

Size range: 5 to 12 (women’s), 6 to 15 (men’s); medium and wide widths (women’s), medium and wide widths (men’s)

Flaws but not dealbreakers

They are not the best running shoes for rainy conditions. While the outer material of the Novablast 5 didn’t get soaked in the rain, we noticed the soles felt a bit slick on wet roads.

New Balance Fresh Foam X 1080v14

Top pick

A neutral trainer good for short and medium-length runs

New Balance Fresh Foam X 1080v14 (women’s)

These soft and cushiony shoes have ample bounce but start to feel heavy on longer runs.

$165 from Amazon

price may vary by color or style

$165 from REI

A neutral trainer good for short and medium-length runs

New Balance Fresh Foam X 1080v14 (men’s)

This is the same shoe, in men’s sizing.

$165 from Amazon

$165 from REI

If you seek a plush trainer that’s also comfortable for walking, the New Balance Fresh Foam X 1080v14 (women’s, men’s) has solid cushioning and plenty of bounce for short to medium runs. They feel heavier than the Asics Novablast 5, though.

It’s a solid workhorse trainer. Three of our four testers noted how they liked to grab the New Balance Fresh Foam X 1080v14 for early week runs before getting into heavier workouts/longer runs later in the week. The shoe has a bit of bounce in the heel and a decent amount of midsole cushioning.

They’re a great shoe for everyday use. Aside from frequent use for short to medium runs, two of our testers said the Fresh Foam X 1080v14 became a go-to shoe for days that required a lot of walking. “My feet feel supported and not like they’re sinking and losing energy with each step,” one tester said. The laces are long enough, and the foam isn’t as gaudy as on the Asics Novablast 5, making for a more stylish-looking shoe. If you want a firmer neutral trainer, consider the New Balance 880 Fresh Foam X v15 (women’s, men’s).

Size range: 5 to 13 (women’s), 7 to 16 (men’s); narrow, medium, wide, and extra-wide widths (women’s), narrow, medium, wide, and extra-wide widths (men’s)

Flaws but not dealbreakers

They’re a heavy-feeling trainer. Three of our four testers noticed the shoe began to feel heavy on longer runs, usually after about 5 miles. “I felt a bit dragged down by the shoe and really noticed it, like my legs were heavier when I was wearing it,” one tester said. This is a common criticism we’ve seen in reviews of the Fresh Foam X 1080v14, which weighs 10.5 ounces.

You might need to go up in size. One tester said they felt the shoe would’ve fit better a half size up from their normal sizing. The toebox on the Fresh Foam X 1080v14 also felt tighter than the previous version of this shoe that we recommended, and it took most of our testers a few runs before the shoe truly felt broken in.

Nike Pegasus 41

Top pick

A neutral trainer with minimal cushioning

Nike Pegasus 41 (women’s)

Neutral without a huge stack of cushioning, this minimalist trainer feels surprisingly bouncy from the get-go.

$140 $85 from Nike

Free Nike+ membership required (deal on blue, ivory/yellow, and brown/gray)

$140 from REI

A neutral trainer with minimal cushioning

Nike Pegasus 41 (men’s)

This is the same shoe, in men’s sizing.

$140 from REI

Nike Pegasus shoes have been some of the most popular (and divisive) running shoes for years. The Pegasus 41 version (women’s, men’s) shows off a lot of reasons why they can be so beloved. Some of our testers didn’t like how previous versions of this shoe felt heavy and lacked breathability. In a makeover, the Pegasus 41’s upper is very comfortable, and nothing about the shoe feels clunky. Despite not having huge stacks of foam, the shoe feels bouncy and cushy.

Less foam doesn’t mean less comfort. In recent years, running shoes with thick stacks of foam cushioning have become trendy, with many runners thinking more foam equals a more comfortable shoe. And while several of our top picks are quite foamy (Asics Novablast 5, New Balance Fresh Foam X 1080v14) the Nike Pegasus 41 isn’t as cushioned as those neutral trainers, and we still felt they provided a secure, comfortable run. “There were times I felt like I could feel the ‘bones’ of the shoe beneath my feet, but the cushion was plush enough that it didn’t bother me,” one tester said. Another tester said the shoe’s firmer feel propelled them more than other neutral trainers that have more cushioning.

The shoes are durable and sleek. After 100 miles, a majority of our testers noted that the Pegasus 41 still had more bounce than other brands and that they didn’t lose much pop after several weeks of use. “Running in these right out of the box was a dream, and I’m in awe of how much this shoe has stood the test of several months’ wear,” one tester said. We also liked how the lack of a thick foam bottom made the shoe look more like a classic trainer (without sacrificing support) and yet the thinner style didn’t feel tight around the foot. “I also really liked the tongue of this shoe, which was well-padded without being intrusive and made the overall ride very comfortable,” another tester noted.

Size range: 5 to 12 (women’s), 6 to 15 (men’s); medium, and extra-wide widths (women’s), medium and extra-wide widths (men’s)

Flaws but not dealbreakers

The laces are flimsy. As we’ve noticed on previous iterations of the Nike Pegasus, the shoelaces, which are thin, often come undone without a double knot.

Saucony Guide 17

Top pick

Our favorite stability running shoes

Saucony Guide 17 (women’s)

A drastic redesign has improved the smooth and cushy ride of a longtime favorite shoe.

$91 from Amazon

price may vary by color or style

Buy from REI

Our favorite stability running shoes

Saucony Guide 17 (men’s)

This is the same shoe, in men’s sizing.

$91 from Amazon

price may vary by color or style

$106 from REI

The Saucony Guide 17 (women’s, men’s) presents a jarring contrast from the Guide 16 (a shoe we previously recommended that is no longer widely available). Overall, though, the changes create a better, seemingly faster shoe.

They look clunky but perform smoothly. One immediate noticeable change is the high foam stack, which despite its design feels very responsive. Even with the bulk, the shoes have tons of zip, and the insoles resemble the plush and bouncy feel of Adidas’s popular Boost insoles. “That’s really rare in a stability model,” one tester noted.

Their extra cushion is a good thing. Another tester, who has lamented what they call the “Hoka-fication” of running shoes — whereby companies aim to create extra-cushiony models while sacrificing comfort in other areas — said the Guide 17 shoes “basically feel like the best of Hokas without the dead hollow feel.” Accelerating was easy, and the shoes felt cushioned but responsive, in contrast to the Asics GT-2000 12, which can feel squishy at faster paces.

They’re great for wide feet. One female tester with high stability needs and who wears wide-size shoes said the Guide 17 were the best option she’s found without a medial post, a small piece in the midsole that helps control pronation. A male tester who wears wide shoes said a lot of companies’ wide models don’t provide that much additional room, but the Guide 17 felt like a “true” wide option “with a nice wide toe box.”

Size range: 5 to 12 (women’s), 7 to 16 (men’s); medium and wide widths (women’s), medium and wide widths (men’s)

Flaws but not dealbreakers

These shoes require breaking in. The heel-to-toe drop feels a little more pronounced in the Guide 17 compared with the previous version, giving them more of a tilted-forward feel, which took our testers some time to get used to.

New Balance Fresh Foam X 860v14

Top pick

A less rigid stability trainer

New Balance Fresh Foam X 860v14 (women’s)

This shoe feels plusher than most stability shoes, almost resembling the soft feel of a neutral trainer.

$140 from Amazon

$140 from Zappos

A less rigid stability trainer

New Balance Fresh Foam X 860v14 (men’s)

This is the same shoe, in men’s sizing.

$140 from Amazon

Buy from REI

$140 from Zappos

The New Balance Fresh Foam X 860v14 (women’s, men’s) doesn’t feel like your typical stability trainer, with plush underfoot cushioning that rivals the softness of some neutral trainers. Still, it provides plenty of support. “It was a great balance between cushy and sturdy,” one tester said. “It wasn’t overly bouncy but also didn’t feel too hard on foot strikes.”

These shoes feel light underfoot. The Fresh Foam X 860v14 isn’t as soft as the Fresh Foam X 1080v13 neutral trainers, but the cushioning is noticeable. One tester who’s been wearing the 860 model since version 3, said past iterations felt “very hard under foot after about 90 to 120 minutes of running.” By comparison, they added, the 860v14 “feels more cushioned from the beginning, but still very stable.” Another tester said it almost felt like they were wearing soft insoles while running.

Yet they’re plenty sturdy. The Fresh Foam X 860v14 gives other stability shoes a run for the money in stability support. One tester realized their current stability trainers were overly cushioned for their needs, and the Fresh Foam shoes struck a nice medium. “They had a great balance of absorption and bounce and stiffness and support,” they said. Another tester, who noted the 860v4 and 860v11 were their favorites from the line, said the Fresh Foam X 860v14 “beats out both of those, because it kept the more intense support I relied on them for, and added a lot more comfort.”

Size range: 5 to 12 (women’s), 7 to 16 (men’s); narrow, medium, wide, and extra-wide widths (women’s), narrow, medium, wide, and extra-wide widths (men’s)

Flaws but not dealbreakers

The shoes may take a few runs to break in. Our seasoned 860 tester noticed a little stiffness around their ankles post run. “I think that was because for the first time, the 860 actually corrected ankle rolls going either way since they swapped out the medial post for a plate,” they said of the Fresh Foam X 860v14 pair. “After a couple of runs, my feet adjusted, and it was fine.” Another tester reported that the front toe and back heel felt “a bit too upturned for me” and created a sense of rocking back and forth. “I got used to this, but it took a bit of time,” they said.

Wet conditions affect the insoles. During runs in rainy conditions, the insoles in the shoes shifted.

Altra Escalante 4

Top pick

Our favorite low-drop running shoes

Altra Escalante 4 (women’s)

This is the rare zero-drop shoe that feels springy but still flexible underfoot. An ample toe box creates a comfortable fit that helps prevent blisters and hot spots.

$105 from Amazon

price may vary by color or style

$130 from REI

Our favorite low-drop running shoes

Altra Escalante 4 (men’s)

This is the same shoe, in men’s sizing.

$130 from Amazon

price may vary by color or style

$130 from REI

The Altra Escalante 4 (women’s, men’s) is for runners who already know they prefer low- or no-drop shoes, as well as for those who are curious to try a “barefoot but better” shoe.

They perform well on roads and more rugged surfaces. The Escalante 4 is good not just on paved surfaces, but a few of our testers tried them on dirt roads and hilly, paved roads and felt great support on less-even surfaces. “I find them very comfortable and light with some spring in their step,” one tester said.

They have soft cushioning for a zero-drop shoe. Compared with more minimalist zero-drop shoes, the cushioning on the Escalante 4 is plush, but not too soft. “I’m impressed with the degree of cushioning they offer while still being flexible underfoot,” one tester said. “I especially appreciated the added cushioning for running on pavement, especially for long runs. It feels gentler on my feet and hips for running longer distances. For me, they’re perfect and they retain the flexibility I’ve found in more minimalist, barefoot shoes.”

Size range: 5½ to 12 (women’s), 7 to 15 (men’s); one width (women’s and men’s)

Flaws but not dealbreakers

They’re not stylish shoes. The colorways aren’t very diverse or flashy, as one tester described the Escalante 4 as “dad sneakers.” Also, the wide toe box, while comfortable, looks noticeably fatter than other running shoes.

They’re not a stiff zero-drop shoe. One of our testers who predominantly ran in barefoot shoes before trying the Escalante 4 said that if someone wants a no-drop shoe with the foot support and positioning cues of a stability shoe or a stiff bottom for trail running, this is not for them. They didn’t feel like a true minimalist or barefoot shoe, either, but came closer to mimicking that feel.

Neutral shoes

If you want a firmer neutral shoe: The New Balance 880 Fresh Foam X v15 (women’s, men’s) is less cushiony than the New Balance Fresh Foam X 1080v14 we recommend, but the shoe is flexible enough to not feel clunky. Despite feeling more firm than other neutral trainers, it has some bounce and is supportive in the sole while still feeling soft — but not so soft that your foot feels like it’s sinking in. “It’s a nice everyday trainer that has some versatility,” one tester said. Another tester recommended these shoes for beginners looking to do short jogs. “I would not use these for a track, interval, or race-pace session,” they added, because “they’d feel too heavy or hinder my faster paces and make me work harder than needed.”

If you are a beginner runner and prefer to spend less than the cost of our picks: The Saucony Axon 3 (women’s, men’s) costs about $100 and is a good neutral shoe for people who are just starting to run. It’s lightweight and comfortable, with soft material that allows the feet and toes to move and expand. A stretchy mesh is breathable, and a padded, tall heel collar keeps feet secure. “They have the characteristics and structure of more expensive running shoes without the bulkiness,” one tester said. Multiple testers said they wished the toe box was bigger, and a few complained about the longer-than-typical laces. You won’t get the same propulsion in the Axon 3 as you will in some of our neutral picks and the sole feels a bit plasticky and stiff, making the heel-to-toe transition a little clunkier.

If you prefer ample cushioning for relaxed miles: The Hoka Clifton 10 (women’s, men’s) are great for recovery runs or relaxed miles. One tester, who trained in both the Clifton 9 and Clifton 10, appreciated that the latest version has more toe space for wider feet. All four of our testers who ran in the Clifton 10 found the shoe’s material breathable and that the padding around the collar keeps feet from sliding around, without feeling too thick or foamy. The insoles that come with the shoe are thin and feel a bit flimsy, so you may want to try an insert if you like a thicker insole.

If you’d like a lighter, less-cushioned shoe for speedier efforts: The On Cloudflow 4 (women’s, men’s) is a minimally padded option that also looks great with casual attire when not running. The material around the foot feels thin and breathable, with soles that our testers described as “springy” and “spongy.” “They’re buoyant, without being very cushiony,” one tester said. “I felt supported, but my feet weren’t at all sinking into the shoe as they would with a gel insole, for example.” Because of the unique design of the soles, the On Cloudflow 4 can take a few runs to get used to and some testers didn’t like the stiff upper of the shoe.

Stability shoes

If you want a plush stability trainer: The Asics GT-2000 13 (women’s, men’s) has a comfortable medium foam stack and provides a soft landing. The shoe’s upper is snug, but allows enough wiggle room. These stability trainers have proven to be very durable after a few hundred miles. One tester commented that many plush shoes develop latitudinal creases in the soles after a lot of use, but the GT-2000 13 did not, “which suggests the foam on the Asics is keeping its integrity,” they said. Two of our four stability shoe testers wear wide sizes and said the GT-2000 13 fits like a true wide shoe. Two of our testers noted, though, that they developed hot spots on longer runs. The toe box is more pointed than other stability shoes, which may be the culprit for the hot spots.

If you want a stability trainer with medial support: The Brooks Adrenaline GTS 24 (women’s, men’s) has solid support in the midfoot and arch and is one of the few remaining stability shoes with a medial post, which helps control pronation. “It let my foot relax into its shape without being too high or aggressive, and the toebox was wide enough that I didn’t feel my toes annoyingly hugged by the sides of the uppers,” one tester said. Two of our testers did complain about rigid heel cups, calling them “constricting” and “uncomfortable” leading to the sensation of being pinched. The Adrenaline GTS 24 is durable, showing no signs of wear after 250 miles, and the cushioning feels more lightweight compared to many stability shoes.

We’re testing two additional stability shoes — the Saucony Hurricane 25 (women’s, men’s), a springy, more cushioned shoe than the Saucony Guide we recommend; and the Nike Structure 26 (women’s, men’s), which has a cushioned midsole and midfoot support system that wraps around the heel and arch.

We’re also testing two neutral shoes. The Nike Vomero 18 (women’s, men’s) has more cushion than the Nike Pegasus 41 we recommend, and the Adidas Adizero Evo SL (women’s, men’s) is a lightweight shoe designed for short and long runs.

This is not a comprehensive list of all the running shoes we’ve evaluated. Here we include shoes that are still available.

The Adidas Adizero SL2 (women’s, men’s) is light and responsive. However, it’s quite stiff — the little foam on the shoe does not have much give. Three of our four testers wished this shoe had a higher stack, and one tester thought they had a narrower fit than most other neutral shoes they’d tried. “I think these are nice for a lighter weight runner that doesn’t do more than 30 miles a week and likes a more responsive shoe versus bouncy,” another tester said. “I found myself using this shoe for either easy treadmill runs or for short track sessions where I knew I’d get a little cushion from the track and I’d benefit from the responsiveness.”

The Asics Gel-Cumulus 26 (women’s, men’s) is a neutral shoe that our testers agreed felt stiffer and heavier (even at a weight of 9 ounces) than our picks. This shoe felt so heavy on the foot that one tester said it was distracting, with another tester commenting that the shoe felt like it “worked against me rather than for me.” After a break-in period, the Gel-Cumulus 26 was a bit easier to run in for some but still wasn’t very breathable. One heel-striker tester appreciated the curved bottom of the shoe, leading to a full and smooth stride. We experienced durability concerns with the Gel-Cumulus 26 — one tester fell during their first run in them, which caused a small tear on the top front of the shoe, while another runner grazed a rough surface during an early run, causing a rip in the sole cushion. Tightening the shoes was another concern, as the eyelets on the Gel-Cumulus 26 felt farther apart than most.

The Asics GT-2000 12 (women’s, men’s), a former pick in this guide, is still available from third-party sellers We like this stability shoe for its cushioning and medial support, particularly on recovery runs and easy miles. Some of our testers with wide feet said wide sizes still felt a bit snug.

The Brooks Adrenaline GTS 23 (women’s, men’s), another former pick, is still available from third-party sellers. The Adrenaline GTS 23 prioritized support over cushioning. It took less effort to step off and did not create a sinking into the ground feeling that shoes with more cushion can sometimes have. Some testers found these shoes less stable in slippery conditions, though.

Brooks’s Ghost 16 (women’s, men’s) feels like they have less cushioning than the Ghost 15 shoes we formerly recommend. Out of the box they were stiffer and needed a longer break-in period. The Ghost 15 had a roomier toe box, and a few testers felt their pinky toes pinching against the sides of the Ghost 16 shoes on longer runs; one tester had repeated hot spots on the inside of their right foot after running in them. Some testers noted that the laces can be challenging to tie, so you might have to remove them from the first pair of eyelets for a snug fit. All four testers who ran in the Brooks Ghost 17 (women’s, men’s) agreed that this shoe didn’t cause hotspots or have troublesome laces like the Ghost 16 did, but the newer version is still noticeably stiff and needs more breaking in than most.

The Brooks Glycerin 21 (women’s, men’s) is softer than the Ghost 16. “The first time I ran in them, I felt like my feet were wrapped in a cozy comforter at the top and cushioned by springy clouds at the bottom,” one tester said. The heel collar is also made of thicker material, which helps to stabilize the foot. However, the Glycerin 21 is not the most breathable shoe, and our testers didn’t feel much energy return on both long and short runs. While the Glycerin 21 is a solid choice (especially for easy miles), we wish it had a wider toe box. Some of our testers found that this shoe runs a half size too small. The Glycerin 22 (women’s, men’s) initially felt a bit stiff, three of four testers agreed. Two pointed out the toe box felt narrow and the midfoot was more uncomfortable than that on previous versions of this shoe. Once broken in, though, the Glycerin 22 is easy to slide into, thanks to a padded heel collar and additional padding throughout the shoe that one tester described as “almost slipper-like.” This version also felt more breathable than the Glycerin 21. All in all, the Glycerin 22 is a solid trainer, but might not be the best choice for people with narrower feet.

The Brooks Revel 7 (women’s, men’s) is another shoe costing around $100 that isn’t as cushioned as some of our neutral trainer picks. Unlike the similarly priced Saucony Axon 3, the Revel 7 felt comparatively stiff. “The flat sole lacks the necessary geometry and arch support for serious running,” one tester said. “The bottom is essentially a single, flat piece, similar to a walking sneaker — it doesn’t give much flex.” We also felt the Revel 7 was less breathable than the Axon 3.

The Hoka Mach 6 (women’s, men’s) has firm cushioning and felt bulkier than other neutral Hoka shoes we’ve tested (Hokas are known for their soft, lightweight feel). After about 50 miles, we noticed the cushioning and initial pop in the shoes start to dissipate. One tester, who ran a half marathon in the Mach 6, noticed by mile eight that their legs were feeling more fatigued than usual due to the weight of the shoes. “While the toe box appears wide … I developed some pretty gnarly big-toe blisters from rubbing up against the side of the shoe,” they added.

The original Lululemon Blissfeel — a women-centric shoe produced from scans of more than a million feet, according to the company — felt “springy” in the heel to one of our testers wearing an 8½. One tester found that they fit “a bit narrower, especially at the front of the foot.” Another tester, in size 7½, considered the shoes “perfectly comfortable” but ultimately wasn’t bowled over. We haven’t tested the Blissfeel 2.

We tested New Balance’s Fresh Foam X 880v14 (women’s, men’s)which felt less comfortable, almost “squishy” when compared to the Fresh Foam X 1080 series. The dense foam did give some feeling of being propelled while running, but the shoe takes time to break in and, for some testers, led to some blisters on early runs. It also tended to run bigger than other New Balance shoes we’ve tested. Overall, a majority of our testers felt it was a shoe for light miles (around 3 or so) at an easy pace. “It kind of felt like an old-school, Dad, do-it-all shoe, for someone who just wants comfort and something not too stiff, not too soft,” one tester observed.

The On Cloudrunner (women’s, men’s) stability shoe felt a bit clunky and stiff, with little stability or arch support. As with some other On running shoes, testers reported small pebbles or debris getting caught in the spaces between the grip on the sole. These shoes have decent traction and felt responsive with a good amount of pop, but our testers preferred the Guide 17 and other stability picks.

The On Cloudsurfer (women’s, men’s) neutral shoes feel really light and have good cushioning, but they didn’t feel as supportive on longer runs over 10 miles. They’re not a stiff shoe by any means, but our testers did not feel amply supported in them, either. A few testers thought they’d be an ideal running shoe for travel, serving as both a casual fashion choice and something for squeezing in a few miles if you don’t want to pack extra shoes. All four testers for the Cloudsurfer 2 (women’s, men’s) noted that this shoe’s lightness has pros and cons. On one hand, they are ready to wear out the box and are among the most comfortable daily trainers we’ve tried. However, they feel really optimized for shorter runs. “The Ons are very light and cushiony, but I personally prefer the feeling of [daily trainers] being slightly more stiff and supportive,” one tester said.

The Reebok FloatZig1 (women’s, men’s) neutral shoes chafed our testers’ ankles — while running and walking, with socks long and short. Otherwise, the FloatZig1 has good grip and performed well on uphill and downhill test runs.

The first thing we noticed about the neutral Saucony Ride 17 (women’s, men’s) was the thick cushioning on the bottom that resembles styrofoam. It is supposed to be plush and springy. Overall, our testers thought the foam offered a lot of lift but felt it wasn’t very responsive and, actually, a bit firm. The shoes felt heavy during runs, and some of our testers believed they would have to go a half size down for an ideal fit. One tester noticed that the foam bottom started flaking after a few weeks.

Initially, all four of our testers of the Saucony Guide 18 (women’s, men’s) thought the shoe looked and felt pretty much the same as the Guide 17, one of our favorite stability shoes. But after a few weeks in the Guide 18s, we noticed some flaws. One tester, who’s worn both the Guide 17 and 18, said the uppers and treads on the 17 shoes lasted much longer. Another tester who has both shoes said the Guide 18s “lacked the rocker feel that I liked in the previous model where it encouraged forward movement, and even faster paces.” Another tester got hot spots on both feet during their first few runs in the Guide 18s, adding, “I can’t say I’d clamor to weave these into my rotation.” We suggest getting the Guide 17 while it’s still available.

The Under Armour Infinite Elite 2 (women’s, men’s) shoe is wide, with a large rounded toe box. Still, this pair felt comfortable despite the clunky design. These shoes don’t seem ideal for speed runs and the thin shoelaces bothered two of the four people who tested this pair.

Amy Roberts and Ingrid Skjong contributed reporting. This article was edited by Tracy Vence and Kalee Thompson.