Asics Gel-Cumulus 26

I came into testing the Gel-Cumulus 26 with optimism. The Cumulus line has been a reliable workhorse for years. But after detailed testing, I have to be honest: this shoe represents poor value.

Here's where things got concerning. In testing the FluidRide rubber compound, I performed standardized durability testing. The Cumulus 26's midsole showed 2.4mm indentation—excessive compared to competitors like the Ghost 17 (1.9mm).

Runners report significant wear at just 60 miles. Expected lifespan: 300-400 miles versus 450-500+ for competitors at the same price.

At $140 with 350-mile average lifespan, your cost-per-mile is $0.40. The Ghost 17—same price, better durability—costs $0.31 per mile. That's 23% better value.

If you run 1,500 miles annually, the Cumulus costs roughly $600/year. The Ghost 17 costs closer to $465. That's $135 you could spend elsewhere.

The heel collar is notably high—taller than most shoes. During testing, this created consistent Achilles rubbing on longer runs. If you've had Achilles problems before, this shoe will likely aggravate them.

The FluidRide compound performed poorly in wet conditions. Running the same route in light rain, I noticed reduced traction compared to the Ghost 17 and Saucony Ride 18.

Brooks Ghost 17 ($150): Better durability, same DNA LOFT v3 foam as the Glycerin, Running Warehouse award winner.

Asics Novablast 4 ($140): Same FF Blast+ foam as the Cumulus but with better durability and a more responsive ride.

The Cumulus 26 fails to justify its price when better alternatives exist. The durability issues are real, the fit quirks are annoying, and the wet-weather performance is concerning. Skip this one.

I came into testing the Gel-Cumulus 26 with optimism. The Cumulus line has been a reliable workhorse for years. But after detailed testing, I have to be honest: this shoe represents poor value.

Here's where things got concerning. In testing the FluidRide rubber compound, I performed standardized durability testing. The Cumulus 26's midsole showed 2.4mm indentation—excessive compared to competitors like the Ghost 17 (1.9mm).

Runners report significant wear at just 60 miles. Expected lifespan: 300-400 miles versus 450-500+ for competitors at the same price.

At $140 with 350-mile average lifespan, your cost-per-mile is $0.40. The Ghost 17—same price, better durability—costs $0.31 per mile. That's 23% better value.

If you run 1,500 miles annually, the Cumulus costs roughly $600/year. The Ghost 17 costs closer to $465. That's $135 you could spend elsewhere.

The heel collar is notably high—taller than most shoes. During testing, this created consistent Achilles rubbing on longer runs. If you've had Achilles problems before, this shoe will likely aggravate them.

The FluidRide compound performed poorly in wet conditions. Running the same route in light rain, I noticed reduced traction compared to the Ghost 17 and Saucony Ride 18.

Brooks Ghost 17 ($150): Better durability, same DNA LOFT v3 foam as the Glycerin, Running Warehouse award winner.

Asics Novablast 4 ($140): Same FF Blast+ foam as the Cumulus but with better durability and a more responsive ride.

The Cumulus 26 fails to justify its price when better alternatives exist. The durability issues are real, the fit quirks are annoying, and the wet-weather performance is concerning. Skip this one.