Saucony Vs. Brooks: The Differences in Sizing, Style, Price, and Popular Models (2024)

As we noted in a recent head-to-head, maximalist cushioning is all the rage among running shoes. This cushiony tech lets shoes absorb tons of repeated impact without permanently flattening the cushion into a pancake. And industry mainstays Saucony and Brooks have embraced this trend, pumping plenty of plushness into their pillowy soles while still opting for a “less is more” design approach.

Both brands offer shoes that fall pretty close to the sweet spot between overbuilt and minimalist. In other words, they balance forward-thinking design without inflating the cost—or the outsole. But they diverge greatly in terms of how they strike that balance, so much so that many runners prefer one over the other.

Each brand has its popular mainstays that offer supreme cushioning, solid energy return, and a comfortable fit, but depending on your needs, one brand’s shoe may be a better fit than the other. Let’s explore the differences between Saucony and Brooks to determine which of the brand’s best is suited for you.

Saucony Versus Brooks Running Shoes

• Daily Trainers: Saucony Ride 16 vs. Brooks Ghost 15
• Budget Shoes: Saucony Cohesion 16 vs. Brooks Trace 2
• Race Day Shoes: Saucony Endorphin Pro 3 vs. Brooks Hyperion Max
• Max Cushioned Shoes: Saucony Triumph 21 vs. Brooks Glycerin 20
• Trail Shoes: Saucony Peregrine 13 vs. Brooks Catamount 2

Key Differences Between Saucony and Brooks Running Shoes

→ Fit

Saucony and Brooks are similar technical shoes, but they differ significantly in terms of fit. The former tends to have a narrower, snugger fit, while the latter is roomier, particularly in the toe box. If you prefer shoes with very little play for your foot to move around, you might like the snug stability of Saucony. Some runners find them too tight, though, so if you like your foot to have room to breathe, lean toward Brooks.

This difference also extends to the drop. Saucony shaves a few millimeters off, resulting in a slightly more natural feel, whereas the Brooks may have a more noticeable differential between toe and heel.

→ Cushioning

Each brand has its own proprietary foam tech for maximalist cushioning.

Brooks’ DNA LOFT emphasizes marshmallow softness above all else. It’s achieved by pumping common EVA foam with air and nitrogen, resulting in extra cushioning without extra weight.

The company’s BioMoGo DNA is more adaptive, shifting the balance toward springiness. While it’s still soft due to a toned-down version of its proprietary foam, it may feel more natural to some runners than DNA LOFT foot pillows.

Saucony’s somewhat new Pwrrun tech, on the other hand, is lighter and delivers more energy return. The latest version is Pwrrun HG, which uses compressed PEBA (polyether block amide) foam beads to create a bouncy, moderately cushioned structure. It’s known for its outstanding energy return and lightweight.

How We Compared

I’ve spent a lifetime running in various conditions and know all too well what to look for in a great running shoe. I used this experience while testing models from each brand, from Brooks’ much-anticipated Ghost 15 to the latest version of Saucony’s race-favorite Endorphin line, ultimately choosing five that suit the most essential shoe categories: daily trainers, budget, race day, max cushioning, and trail running. Then, I compared them based on whether their fit was snug or roomy, and their cushioning, geometry, and energy return.

There are a few of the brands’ shoes, like the Brooks Revel and Launch or the overpriced Saucony Axon, that I didn’t include because, while acceptable, they don’t offer an exceptional running experience.

I also looked through our archives of previous guides about Brooks and Saucony to see how the latest editions of different lines stacked up against previous releases. This helped determine which lines have proven staying power in the long run so that you can know that you’re buying shoes you’ll enjoy for many miles.

Saucony’s Ride 16 is a highly versatile daily trainer solid for most road running and easy technical trails. It feels excellent on longer runs, thanks to its well-cushioned midsole and light weight. While it’s a bit too tight to slip on if you prefer to leave your trainers tied, that snugness translates into pretty decent stability. Super durable, this is the kind of workhorse shoe you’ll enjoy for several hundred miles.

The updated Ghost 15 from Brooks is a bit heavier than previous editions, but its outstanding cushioning and cozy upper result in an incredibly smooth, comfortable run. That weight makes them too much for speedwork, but they feel fantastic for long, lazy rides or even moderate-distance races. All that cushioning also makes them great for runners with joint pain.

The Saucony Cohesion 16 is geared toward value-forward beginners. It has decent cushioning for new runners, making it great for anyone training to get their distance up to five miles or so. It also grips the road well and is very durable. While it doesn’t offer the energy return or ample cushioning needed for distance running or speed training, the Cohesion gets the job done on a few quick weekly runs. It’s an especially attractive shoe for anyone looking to keep costs minimal.

While the Brooks Trace 2 costs a few dollars more than the Cohesion, it benefits from a slight boost in versatility. Again, the modest cushioning and energy return is likely not enough for advanced runners looking for longer, faster training, but the stable fit and platform allows the Trace 2 to double as decent gym shoes. The hard outsoles and limited forward cushioning make it unwieldy for runs over five or six miles, but it’s a solid pick for budget cross trainers.

The Saucony Endorphin Pro 3 is built to run comfortably until your legs give out. Its feather-light weight and pillowy cushioning feels fantastic during long runs, and the S-shaped carbon plate delivers plenty of propulsion. The company’s SpeedRoll tech, essentially a rocker that smooths the motion of your footfalls, results in fast transitions. It locks down firmly and is super breathable, and while runners with wider feet might find the toe box tight, I appreciate the stable snugness.

Similarly geared toward long-distance comfort, the Brooks Hyperion Max is competitively lightweight and supremely cushioned thanks, to the abundant use of the brand’s DNA Flash foam. The Rapid Roll tech, which is very similar to Saucony’s SpeedRoll, delivers quick, smooth transitions. While the Hyperion Max could benefit from a bit more bounce to support speed, it still feels excellent on an especially long run. Its upper is also highly breathable and provides a secure fit without becoming too restrictive.

Both of these shoes deliver fantastic levels of cushioning, but I think the Saucony Triumph 21 squeaks into the lead in terms of plushness, all due to the incredibly soft PRWRUN+ midsole. That midsole is great for distance running, heavier runners, or runners dealing with injury recovery or joint pain issues. It also has a solid energy return, adding an extra spring to your step. Its stability is questionable, however. While it does have the company’s GuardRails along each side to create a fairly stable platform, from my experience it can get mushy at times, especially when cornering.

The Brooks Glycerin 20 is certainly no slouch for cushioning either. The company’s updated nitrogen-infused DNA foam is not only tremendously soft, it also helps deliver excellent energy return. The upper is sturdy, soft, and breathable, and it’s great for pretty much any run, including extra-long distances. Here again, however, it has a distinct lack of stabilizing features.

These are two very different trail shoes. The Saucony Peregrine 13 leans into technical trail capabilities, providing plenty of traction and sensitivity. This helps maneuver over uncertain surfaces fast and prevent slipping by making it easy to feel the trail. While it could use a bit more rock protection underfoot, the toe is decently protected. All in all the Peregrine 13 can tackle pretty much any trail you throw at it, though some runners might find Saucony’s typically narrow toe box too tight.

The Brooks Catamount 2, on the other hand, doesn’t offer the traction necessary for more technical trails. They offer good stability, energy return, and cushioning, making them a good pick for flatter, less challenging terrain. Avid trail runners may find the durability somewhat lacking, though it’s still plenty comfortable. You probably wouldn’t want to run a race in a pair, but the Catamount 2 is a fine pick for casual, easy-to-moderate trail running.