Brooks Ghost Max 3  Running Shoe Review

Reviewed Dec 04, 2025 at 09:08am
Retest Apr 17, 2026 at 11:01am
Tested using Methodology v0.8.2 
Brooks Ghost Max 3

Track

5.5
Marathon Racing 
4.9
5K/10K Racing 
2.4
Energy Return 
7.4
Cushioning 
7.5
Lateral Stability 

Track

 1

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

5.5
Marathon Racing 
4.9
5K/10K Racing 
2.4
Energy Return 
7.4
Cushioning 
7.5
Lateral Stability 
  • 5.5
    Marathon Racing
  • 4.9
    5K/10K Racing

  • Performance Usages

  • 2.4
    Energy Return
  • 7.4
    Cushioning
  • 7.5
    Lateral Stability
  • Changelog

    1.  Updated Apr 17, 2026: 

      We corrected a calculation error in the review’s Internal Shape section.

    2.  Updated Dec 04, 2025: Review published.
    3.  Updated Dec 02, 2025: Early access published.
    4.  Updated Sep 22, 2025: Our testers have started testing this product.

    Popular Running Shoe Comparisons

    Brooks Ghost 17

    Track

    The Brooks Ghost 17 and Brooks Ghost Max 3 share the same DNA, but they serve slightly different purposes within that comfort-focused lineup. The Ghost 17 is the classic daily workhorse, offering a comfortable, consistent ground feel and a stable platform that works well for a mix of running and walking, though it feels a bit on the heavier side. The Ghost Max 3 takes that formula and pushes it toward max cushioning, sitting higher with more protection underfoot and a more pronounced rolling feel. It's even heavier, but it delivers a more cushioned ride, making it the better pure running option overall. The trade-off is that it doesn't feel quite as stable or grounded as the Ghost 17.

    HOKA Bondi 9

    Track

    The Brooks Ghost Max 3 and HOKA Bondi 9 are two shoes that deliver very different experiences on foot. The HOKA is all about plush cushioning, and its supercritical EVA midsole soaks up even the heaviest of impacts. The HOKA does an okay job of returning the energy you put into it, so you'll get a bit of bounce in your step. The Brooks, on the other hand, is a firmer, less cushy shoe. The stiffer midsole, combined with a slightly lower stack height, makes the Brooks shoe a bit more stable than the HOKA. It also gives the shoe very little bounce. If you're planning to do more running than walking, the HOKA is the better shoe. If you want a walking shoe that you can occasionally run with, the Brooks is a solid choice.

    Brooks Glycerin 23

    Track

    The Brooks Ghost Max 3 and Brooks Glycerin 23 are two similarly stacked, decently cushioned running shoes from Brooks, but with a few key differences. The Glycerin has 2mm more drop from the heel to the toe than the Ghost Max, and has much better heel cushioning. Conversely, the Ghost Max has more cushioning under the forefoot. The platform of the Glycerin is slightly more streamlined, which makes it feel more nimble, and it has much better energy return, although neither shoe is particularly bouncy. The Glycerin feels better suited to running, while the Ghost Max is better suited for walking.

    Brooks Adrenaline GTS 25

    Track

    The Brooks Ghost Max 3 and Brooks Adrenaline GTS 25 are both comfort-focused Brooks trainers, but they're built for different runners. The Ghost Max 3 is the neutral max-cushion option, with a wider, higher-stack platform that provides more forefoot protection and a softer, more cushioned feel for easy runs or walking. The Adrenaline GTS 25 is the stability shoe, using guide-rail-style support and firmer sidewalls to correct excessive overpronation. Neither shoe feels lively underfoot, but the Ghost Max 3 is the better pick if you want a relatively stable, neutral-cushioned option. The Adrenaline GTS 25 makes more sense if you need dedicated support.

    Show more 
    How We Test Running Shoes
    How We Test Running Shoes

    We buy and test running shoes with a very data-oriented approach. While we're just getting started, our methodology already has dozens of tests to help you make the right purchasing decision for your needs. Not only do we use high-end equipment to gather objective data, but we also order multiple sizes of the same shoes so team members can log in miles. This real-world testing is conducted at various paces and conditions, across different types of workouts, to cover all the bases. This allows us to verify our results and ensure they align with what you might feel with a specific pair.

    Test Results

    perceptual testing image
    Sort:
    RATINGS
    Category:
    All
    Design
    4.3
    Weight
    Weight
    302.7 g (10.68 oz)
    Stack Heights
    Heel Stack Height
    39.5 mm
    Forefoot Stack Height
    31.9 mm
    Heel-To-Toe Drop
    7.6 mm
    Advertised Heel-To-Toe Drop
    6.0 mm
    External Shape
    Outsole Heel Width
    94 mm (3.7")
    Outsole Arch Width
    84 mm (3.3")
    Outsole Forefoot Width
    114 mm (4.5")
    Heel Width-To-Stack Ratio
    2.37
    Forefoot Width-To-Stack Ratio
    3.57
    Internal Shape
    Internal Length
    282 mm (11.1")
    Internal Heel Width
    70 mm (2.8")
    Internal Forefoot Width
    90 mm (3.5")
    Wide Sizing Available
    Yes
    Other Features
    Tongue Gusset Type
    Non-gusseted
    Plate
    None
    Performance
    2.6
    Heel Energy Return
    Heel Energy Return
    69.0%
    2.3
    Forefoot Energy Return
    Forefoot Energy Return
    68.5%
    7.2
    Heel Cushioning
    Energy Absorbed At 550N
    3.06 J
    Energy Absorbed At 1100N
    8.99 J
    Energy Absorbed At 1900N
    15.88 J
    7.6
    Forefoot Cushioning
    Energy Absorbed At 800N
    4.54 J
    Energy Absorbed At 1300N
    8.15 J
    Energy Absorbed At 2050N
    12.21 J
    5.6
    Heel Firmness
    Firmness At 550N
    55.4 N/mm
    Firmness At 1100N
    107.0 N/mm
    Firmness At 1900N
    226.9 N/mm
    7.7
    Forefoot Firmness
    Firmness At 800N
    101.0 N/mm
    Firmness At 1300N
    204.9 N/mm
    Firmness At 2050N
    375.8 N/mm