Saucony Guide 18  Running Shoe Review

Reviewed Dec 09, 2025 at 09:00am
Tested using Methodology v0.8.2 
Saucony Guide 18

Track

4.8
Marathon Racing 
5.4
5K/10K Racing 

Track

 0
Notice: This running shoes was replaced by Saucony Guide 19
  1. Recommended in:
  2. For Beginners
  3. Cheap

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

4.8
Marathon Racing 
5.4
5K/10K Racing 
  • 4.8
    Marathon Racing
  • 5.4
    5K/10K Racing
  • Changelog

    1.  Updated Dec 09, 2025: Review published.
    2.  Updated Dec 08, 2025: Early access published.
    3.  Updated Oct 15, 2025: Our testers have started testing this product.
    4.  Updated Sep 24, 2025: The product has arrived in our lab, and our testers will start evaluating it soon.
    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
    3.1

    Energy Return

    3.9
    Forefoot Energy Return
    Forefoot Energy Return
    70.5%
    1.3
    Heel Energy Return
    Heel Energy Return
    66.0%
    6.7

    Cushioning

    6.0
    Heel Cushioning
    Energy Absorbed At 550N
    2.60 J
    Energy Absorbed At 1100N
    7.39 J
    Energy Absorbed At 1900N
    14.14 J
    7.4
    Forefoot Cushioning
    Energy Absorbed At 800N
    4.42 J
    Energy Absorbed At 1300N
    7.88 J
    Energy Absorbed At 2050N
    12.05 J
    8.3

    Lateral Stability

    External Shape
    Outsole Heel Width
    103 mm (4.1")
    Outsole Arch Width
    84 mm (3.3")
    Outsole Forefoot Width
    117 mm (4.6")
    Heel Width-To-Stack Ratio
    2.93
    Forefoot Width-To-Stack Ratio
    4.43
    7.8
    Forefoot Firmness
    Firmness At 800N
    111.2 N/mm
    Firmness At 1300N
    201.8 N/mm
    Firmness At 2050N
    376.2 N/mm
    6.2
    Heel Firmness
    Firmness At 550N
    73.2 N/mm
    Firmness At 1100N
    122.7 N/mm
    Firmness At 1900N
    210.4 N/mm
    Other Features
    Tongue Gusset Type
    Fully-gusseted
    Plate
    None
    Additional Tests
    5.3
    Design
    Weight
    Weight
    277.5 g (9.79 oz)
    Design
    Stack Heights
    Heel Stack Height
    35.1 mm
    Forefoot Stack Height
    26.4 mm
    Heel-To-Toe Drop
    8.7 mm
    Advertised Heel-To-Toe Drop
    8.0 mm
    Design
    Internal Shape
    Internal Length
    280 mm (11.0")
    Internal Heel Width
    63 mm (2.5")
    Internal Forefoot Width
    94 mm (3.7")
    Wide Sizing Available
    Yes

    Popular Running Shoe Comparisons

    Saucony Guide 19

    Track

    The Saucony Guide 19 builds on the same formula as the Saucony Guide 18, but with more cushioning, a broader arch platform, and a more responsive ride. Both deliver excellent stability, but the newer model is more protective underfoot. The Guide 18 remains a dependable support shoe at a lower price, while the Guide 19 is the better pick for runners who want a bit more protection.

    On Cloudrunner 3

    Track

    The On Cloudrunner 3 and Saucony Guide 18 are two support trainers, but they approach their role quite differently. The Saucony uses a much wider platform, which makes it feel more substantial underfoot, even though it is slightly lighter. Its midsole is also a bit more cushioned, which adds protection without sacrificing control, resulting in a more stable and more complete ride overall. The On relies more on a structured heel clip and raised sidewalls, with a firmer, more rearfoot-focused approach to guidance that feels less forgiving and less well-rounded.