Today, I’m going to dive into the matchup of Asics heavyweights – the Asics GT 2000 vs. 1000. I’m going to talk about the similarities and differences and hopefully help you decide which could be the next shoe in your running shoe rotation.
Before we dive in, I’m Eric Barber, your running companion on this journey. Full disclosure upfront – I’ve personally purchased both pairs. I’m under no obligation to spin things positively or negatively about these shoes. These are my personal thoughts, and I’ve got the freedom to share them as I see fit.
Let’s roll with it…
Related:
Asics GT 2000 vs. 1000
GT 2000 vs. 1000: what you need to know
Simply put, the GT-1000 is essentially just the budget stability version of the GT-2000 with less premium features and foams.
If I were to recommend the GT 2000 or the GT 1000, they’re going to be for a couple of important reasons. It could be that you’re flat-footed and your arch collapses inwards while you step, meaning you overpronate, and you need that extra support to stop that heavy overpronation.
Both shoes are great for people who want some guidance through their gait cycle without having to have such a large midsole like we see on the Asics Gel-Kayano 30.
In the Asics stability range both the GT 2000 and the GT-1000 are moderately cushioned stability running shoes. They offer mild support, which makes them quite a convenient option for runners who may not need full-blown support but rather something more stable than neutral. So, even neutral runners can get away with wearing the 2000 and the 1000.
The GT-2000 offers more cushioning than the 1000 with the 2000 having 34.5 mm of stack height in the heel and 26.5 mm while the GT-1000 only has 30 mm in the heel and 22 mm in the forefoot for the same 8 mm heel-to-toe drop.
But even though the GT 1000 is less cushioned than the GT 2000, most importantly, it gives runners that extra support to the medial arch when compared to regular neutral shoes like the Asics Gel Cumulus 25.
Also, this moderate cushioning makes the GT-1000 more versatile on foot for faster runners. Again, although the 1000 doesn’t contain all the bells and whistles that Asics has to offer, it gives you a competitive price tag for all the value the shoe brings.
In terms of GEL, the GT-2000 12 switched from that visible gel to a non-visible gel called Pure Gel while the 1000 11 still uses that visible gel in the heel.
In my experience, whether it’s visible or non-visible, gel doesn’t really make a huge difference and Asics has pretty much removed it from their top-tier shoes.
And if you’re a big fan of Asics shoes, if you like the Asics Nimbus but want a little bit more guidance, that’s where the Kayano comes in, and if you like the Asics Cumulus but want a little bit more support, I think that’s where the GT-2000 12 and the cheaper GT 1000 12 comes in.
The Kayano feels incredibly comfortable, but it’s just rather heavy and bulky in comparison to the GT-2000 or the GT-1000 series.
So, if I were to choose again, I would definitely go for the Asics GT 2000 over the GT 1000. After trying the GT 2000 12, I will say it feels noticeably softer and in my opinion becomes a more versatile stability running shoe for a couple of reasons; one, it’s a little bit lighter than before and it’s also a little bit more flexible and bendable.
The other thing is that the stability mechanisms aren’t as intrusive. It honestly feels like a neutral running shoe with just a hint of stability added.
| Where to buy GT 1000 (not affiliate) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Asics | Running Warehouse | |
| Where to buy GT 2000 (not affiliate) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Asics | Running Warehouse | |
Now let’s compare the GT 2000 and GT 1000 to their previous iterations…
Related:
Asics GT 2000 12 vs. 11
Stack Height and Weight
The GT 2000 12 has three more millimeters of stack height. Again, the 2000 12 is 34.5 mm in the heel and 26.5 mm in the forefoot compared to 31 mm and 23 mm in the 2000 11.
However, interestingly, the 2000 12 did lose a little bit of weight. The 2000 11 came in at 9.8 oz. (277 grams) for men’s size 9 and, now we’re down to 9.4 oz. (266 grams), which is pretty good for a stability shoe in this category.
The Gel Kayano 30, a thicker heavier shoe compared to the GT-2000 12, comes in at over an ounce heavier weighing at 10.7 oz. However, the Kayano has 40mm in the heel and 30mm in the forefoot for a 10-millimeter drop.
Related:
Upper
Moving on to the upper, we do have a slightly different kind of engineered mesh compared to what we saw on version 11. Overall, it’s about the same kind of fit. It’s true to size and maybe a smidge narrow.
The breathability was pretty average.
The tongue has been completely redesigned. It’s now incredibly thin with small bits of foam blocks scattered throughout to give you some protection from lace pressure.
I think it works fine, but it is noticeably less soft and plush compared to the very traditional tongue we are used to kind of seeing from Asics on most of their daily trainers.
For me, personally, I don’t mind this, but it may be an issue for some people who really do like those really soft, puffy, plush tongues.
The 2000 11 did not have a gusseted tongue and on the 2000 12, the tongue is now gusseted just like the Kayano 30.
I will say I do like the lockdown of the upper better on the 2000 11 compared to the 2000 12, but the latter is much more comfortable with that full-length consistent Flyte Foam Blast+ midsole.
Related:
Heel
Moving to the back of the shoe, we still have that incredibly stiff and rigid heel counter, which is an important part of stability running shoes as it helps limit excess motion and connects you to the stability platform.
You also have a new elf ear pull tab which, in my opinion, I wasn’t a huge fan of. I felt like the lockdown on last year’s version with its more traditional heel counter worked better. On the 2000 12, I had to kind of orient the lacing system to make sure I got proper fit, which I did not have to do on the previous versions.
Related:
Midsole
The midsole has been completely redesigned on the 2000 12.
On the GT-2000 11, the white foam was FlyteFoam Blast with a denser, firmer material which they call their Lite Truss System meant to stabilize the back half of the shoe, and then you had that classic Asics GEL on the lateral edge of the heel to help with shock absorption.
If that wasn’t enough, they also included something called 3D-Space Construction, which means as they construct the midsole, internally, there are geometric shapes printed inside that collapse in a strategic way to give you even more stability.
So, the 2000 11 was a very stable running shoe and I was quite happy with it, but Asics went back to the drawing board and completely changed the stability technology and cushioning method on the 12th edition.
Now, we have a full-length consistent FlyteFoam Blast+ (FFBlast+) midsole which is noticeably softer compared to the old FlyteFoam Blast midsole on the 2000 11.
They also added something called PURE GEL, so there’s no visible GEL along the lateral edge of the heel. It’s now directly underneath your heel, and they did the same thing with a Cumulus or the Nimbus.
You don’t necessarily feel this gel when you step into this shoe, but it does give you an extra material between you and the ground. As you run, it kind of helps with the overall shock absorption.
Related:
Stability
They also updated the stability mechanism. There’s no 3D-Space Construction and no geometric shapes inside the midsole like we saw on the 2000 11.
They did, however, implement something called the 3D Guidance System which refers to the large beveled heel, the incredibly wide outsole, and this lateral flare along the top of the forefoot.
There are also some other things that aid the overall ride and guidance. The first is, if you look on the lateral side of the heel, you’ll notice you have some sculpts which do not exist on the medial side, which means you have easier compression towards the lateral edge compared to the medial side, which means it keeps you from overpronating or rolling inwards.
The GT-2000 12 also has a mini foam guide rail on the lateral side which keeps you very connected to the platforms and adds to the overall lockdown and stability of the midsole itself.
So, essentially all those different components work together to create a moderately stable ride and it’s very unique in the way that there’s no medial post.
With that being said, I think the GT 2000 11 does feel more stable than the GT 2000 12 just because all the foams are more firm and you have some other technology that provides a much more strong feeling of guidance compared to what we see on the 2000 12.
Related:
Outsole
We still have a ton of rubber coverage, which is great for durability and, yes, you still have AHAR+ in the heel which is that more dense, more durable rubber.
As far as the surface area goes, if you line the GT 2000 v11 and v12 up, they are pretty comparable if not identical. Also, we still have that rubber through the midfoot, which stiffens things up and just gives the shoe even more stability.
But if we compare the GT 2000 12 to the Kayano 30, the Kayano does have slightly more surface area, especially through the midfoot, which makes sense as the Kayano shoe is bigger and bulkier, and has a big slab of FlyteFoam Blast+ foam which is very soft, which means you need that wider base to help stabilize things.
Overall, the GT 2000 and the Cumulus look awfully similar. Essentially, the Cumulus is the neutral version of the GT 2000. They both have that FlyteFoam Blast midsole with the only difference being the GT 2000 has that Lite Truss system that gives you a little bit more guidance.
They do have a very similar toe-off and forefoot experience, and if you’re someone who liked the Cumulus but did want a little bit more support, I think the GT-2000 will be right up your alley.
Related:
Asics GT 1000 11 vs 10
The first distinguishable difference between the 1000 11 and the 1000 10 is that the 11 is more flexible at the forefoot and softer at the heel.
Interestingly, the midsole foam has remained the same. Asics has lowered the density of FlyteFoam to make for a softer and more flexible underfoot experience.
The GT-1000 series has traditionally been a firmer-feeling shoe that has always required some break-in time. Well, not anymore. Now the 1000 11 and 12 are a lot plush on foot but not squishy, which is key as you don’t want a stability shoe to be too squishy as that makes the shoe unstable.
Although I haven’t disliked previous 1000s, I’ve just found them to be a bit rigid and boring, but the cushioning on the 1000 12 is an exciting update and the shoe offers a really nice run.
Related:
Midsole
On higher price point stability models such as the GT-2000 12 and Gel Kayano 30, Asics use their new foam called FFlyteFoam Blast+ which is a better foam than just ordinary FlyteFoam found in the 1000.
However, just two seasons ago, those models just were also using this regular FlyteFoam. So, in terms of comfort and responsiveness, the standard FlyteFoam on the GT-1000 should suffice as long as you’re not looking for the best of the best.
Related:
Stability
The next key update of the GT-1000 12 has to do with its stability structure on the inside of the shoe. Like most of the brands, the GT 1000 uses a medial posting which is a firmer layer of cushioning on the inside of the shoe. Because it’s firmer, it resists compression more and in turn reduces overpronation.
On the 1000 12, Asics is using Lite Truss which is their new stability structure. It’s still a dual-density compound that prevents your arch from collapsing, but they’ve done it a bit differently. They don’t have this high rubber sidewall like they had in the past nor do they have a plastic shank to reduce torsion.
So, they’ve saved weight, but they’ve also made a stability structure that’s less harsh or invasive underfoot. In other words, it’s more dynamic. It’s out of the way when you don’t need it but there when you do.
I have to say that a lot of neutral runners who don’t necessarily need extra middle support have been able to rack in some miles in the 1000, which just goes to show that the support it provides is pretty mild and less intrusive.
I think what the GT 1000 is quite good at is being a crossover between a neutral and stability shoe in that it gives you kind of training wheels. The stability structure is out of the way until you begin to need it. You could be a runner who is neutral for the most part, but when you fatigue, you end up collapsing and requiring support so this shoe will tick the box should you be that runner.
Related:
Outsole
On the outsole, they’ve also added a firm rubber layer around that medial arch in an area where you supposedly would be wearing the shoe more should you be a stability user.
Related:
Upper
Asics have also reconsidered the padding on the tongue and collar of the shoe. On the previous GT 1000’s, and just like the previous 2000 models, it was almost like Asics was under the impression that the more padding they added to the shoe, the better the shoe would be, but it was a bit of an overkill. While it was comfortable, it was just impractical for running.
So, on the GT 1000 11 and the 12, they’ve dialed back how much padding you find on the collar of the shoe and tongue to what I think is a more practical balance.
Overall, the GT 1000 version 11 is a slick update. The softer midsole and less invasive stability structure offers a really slick ride underfoot. It is especially applicable if you’re a runner looking for a moderately cushioned shoe with a mild stability structure that offers a slim fit.
I hope our Asics GT 2000 vs. 1000 comparison was helpful. Let me know down in the comments, do you like the direction that Asics is going with their stability running shoes?
