ASICS GT-2000 13   Review

Reviewed Nov 19, 2025 at 09:02 am
Latest change: Test bench update Jun 30, 2026 at 12:24 pm
Tested using  Methodology v0.12 
ASICS GT-2000 13
5.3
Half/Full Marathon Racing 
6.2
5K/10K Racing 
6.2
Long Run 
7.2
Daily Training 
Notice This running shoes was replaced by ASICS GT-2000 14

We've tested these running shoes to expand our database and allow users to compare results to help with their buying decisions. We don't expect to write a full review, but if you have any questions about this product, please let us know!

Our Verdict

5.3
Half/Full Marathon Racing
6.2
5K/10K Racing
6.2
Long Run
7.2
Daily Training
  • 5.3
    Half/Full Marathon Racing
  • 6.2
    5K/10K Racing
  • 6.2
    Long Run
  • 7.2
    Daily Training
  • Changelog

    1.  Updated Jun 30, 2026:  We've converted this review to Test Bench 0.12, which fixes how we measure firmness, a component of the Stability and 5K/10K Racing usages. There may be inconsistencies between the text and the scores for these usages, but the scores should still be considered valid. We've also brought back the Energy Return score and added two new usages: Daily Training and Long Run. To read more about the changes, see the changelog.
    2.  Updated Jun 30, 2026:  We've converted this review to Test Bench 0.11, adding two new rocker measurements to the Design section, and three new responsiveness tests to the Performance section. The Energy Return usage score has been replaced with Responsiveness. Check out the details in our changelog.
    3.  Updated Apr 29, 2026:  We've converted this review to Test Bench 0.10, adding a new set of fit tests to the Design section and an overall fit performance usage. Check out the details in our changelog.
    4.  Updated Apr 13, 2026:  We've converted this review to Test Bench 0.9, which adds a Forefoot Long Run Cushioning test to our performance section. Read more in our changelog.
    How We Test Running Shoes
    How We Test Running Shoes

    We've bought and tested more than 250 running shoes. Every pair purchased with our own money, never supplied or sponsored by brands. Our data-driven tests are designed to go beyond marketing claims, and since every shoe goes through the exact same methodology, you can directly compare results to find the right pair for your needs. 

    Test Results

    perceptual testing image
    1.5

    Energy Return

    1.6
    Forefoot Compression Energy Return
    1.3
    Heel Compression Energy Return
    9.0

    Stability

    External Shape
    9.3
    Heel Firmness
    9.8
    Forefoot Firmness
    Other Features
    5.6

    Cushioning

    5.7
    Heel Cushioning
    5.5
    Forefoot Cushioning
    4.0

    Responsiveness

    3.6
    Forefoot Bending Energy Return
    4.9
    Forefoot Bending Stiffness
    6.8
    Forefoot Rocker Geometry
    5.0
    Rocker Stiffness
    8.4

    True To Size

    7.0
    Length Fit
    9.7
    Forefoot Fit: Width
    10
    Arch Fit: Width
    6.1
    Forefoot Fit: Height
    Additional Tests
    5.9
    Design Weight
    Design Stack Heights
    Design Internal Shape
    4.9
    Design Heel Rocker Geometry
    5.0
    Performance Forefoot Long Run Cushioning

    Popular Running Shoe Comparisons

    ASICS GT-2000 14

    The ASICS GT-2000 13 and GT-2000 14 are both moderate stability daily trainers of the same series with very similar weight, but the 14 tweaks the midsole and geometry to feel slightly more cushioned and a bit less harsh. The 13 uses a firmer foam and a more old-school stability feel, while the 14 switches to a new compound, FF BLAST MAX, that softens the ride a touch and raises the forefoot stack slightly, giving a bit more protection and bounce up front. 

    ASICS GEL-KAYANO 32

    The ASICS GEL-KAYANO 32 and the ASICS GT-2000 13 are both stability shoes, but they differ significantly in how they deliver support and cushioning. The GT-2000 13 is the lighter and lower-stacked of the two, making it feel more nimble but also firmer and less protective, especially on longer runs. Its 3D Guidance system provides mild to moderate stability through a flatter platform and structured midsole without the bulk of a full guidance wall. The KAYANO, on the other hand, uses a 4D Guidance system with more built-up sidewalls and torsional rigidity, offering more pronounced support and control, especially for heavier runners or those who overpronate significantly. It also rides softer and absorbs more shock thanks to its thicker midsole and higher stack, but feels heavier and less agile as a result.