Compare Running Shoes
Brooks Ghost 17 scores higher on safety - here's why.
R3 scored the ASICS Gel-Kayano 32 6.5/10 and the Brooks Ghost 17 7.1/10 on the same running shoes scoring system, weighing safety, efficacy, and usability. The Brooks Ghost 17 comes out ahead, led by its safety score (7.1/10 vs 5.1/10).
The most important dimensions, side by side.
See which one actually scores higher — and why
Free account unlocks full safety scores, spec-by-spec breakdown, and the R3 verdict on ASICS Gel-Kayano 32 vs Brooks Ghost 17.
Unlock the full ASICS Gel-Kayano 32 vs Brooks Ghost 17 breakdown
Free account unlocks all safety scores, complete spec comparison, scoring rationale, and the R3 verdict on which one to buy.
Everything you need to make the call - who each one is for, and who should skip it.
Go for it if you...
You want a structured, supportive everyday trainer that lasts many months.
You have hard-to-fit feet and want a real choice of widths.
You like a cushioned, stable ride for steady daily miles over a fast, plate-driven feel.
A brand that runs a restricted-substances program is reassurance enough for you.
You want a predictable, comfortable everyday trainer that just works.
You need a precise fit and want narrow, wide, or extra-wide options.
You value a brand that states its shoes are made without PFAS.
You prefer a steady, durable ride over a bouncy, high-energy one.
The main thing to know
ASICS does not publicly confirm this shoe is made without PFAS, the long-lasting chemicals lab testing has found in some footwear. The brand runs a real restricted-substances program and is moving toward PFAS-free finishes, but the in-writing PFAS-free statement that the category's top picks publish is missing here.
The standard cushioning foam returns less energy than the springier supercritical-foam trainers, so this shoe feels steady and comfortable rather than bouncy. If you want a lively, propulsive ride, look elsewhere.
Skip this if you...
You want a shoe with a published, in-writing PFAS-free statement for this exact model.
You want a third-party chemical-safety certification like OEKO-TEX or bluesign on the shoe.
You want a light, springy trainer rather than a heavier, supportive daily build.
You want a lively, high-energy-return foam with plenty of pop.
You want the lightest possible daily trainer.
You require an independent third-party chemical certificate rather than a brand statement.
Neither of these quite what you're looking for?
I've reviewed all Running Shoes options at every price pointEvery Running Shoes in our database is scored using R3's deterministic scoring system - the same inputs always produce the same score. For this comparison, we evaluated ASICS and Brooks across 3 independent criteria: Safety (67%), Efficacy (22%), Usability (10%). No sponsored rankings. No paid placements.
Straight answers - no sponsored content, no filler.
I'd start with Brooks Brooks Ghost 17 - it scored 7.1/10 overall in our scoring system. Safety is our top-weighted scoring pillar, followed by efficacy, and usability. Check which pillar matters most to your family and compare those specific scores.
R3 uses a deterministic scoring system - the same inputs always produce the same score. We evaluate each Running Shoes across Safety, Efficacy, Usability using independently verified data. No sponsored rankings. No paid placements. Every score is fully reproducible.
Not necessarily. The overall score reflects how we weight those three pillars, but your priorities may differ. If you care most about safety, compare the safety scores directly. If budget drives your decision, the prices tell a clearer story. The "right" pick is the one that matches what matters most to your family.
Not the right match? Explore these alternatives in the same category.
