Products
Tested using Methodology v0.11
Updated Oct 28, 2026 03:11 PM
SEE PRICE
Amazon
Tested using Methodology v0.12
Updated Sep 16, 2026 04:52 PM
SEE PRICE
Amazon
Heel Stack Height
45.2 mm
Weight
291.0 g (10.26 oz)
Heel-To-Toe Drop
8.9 mm
Plate
None
Heel Stack Height
47.4 mm
Weight
304.9 g (10.75 oz)
Heel-To-Toe Drop
5.3 mm
Plate
None
Our Verdict
PUMA MagMax NITRO
Brooks Glycerin Max
The PUMA MagMax NITRO and the Brooks Glycerin Max are both maximalist trainers, but this Brooks shoe is the more maxed-out of the two. It is stacked higher and weighs in heavier, so it's unsurprising that the MagMax feels more nimble and bouncy. Both shoes are good options for everyday miles, but the Glycerin Max is a better choice for easy, recovery runs, whilst the MagMax would be better suited for runs that include some strides or even some light tempo work.
Variants
- MagMax NITRO (Black/Galactic Gray - (Men - US 9))
- MagMax NITRO (Black/Yellow Alert - (Women - US 7))
- Glycerin Max (Almond Peach/London Fog/White - (Men - US 9))
- Glycerin Max (Aurora Black/Ebony - (Men - US 9))
Main Differences for
Half/Full Marathon Racing
Half/Full Marathon Racing
Threshold
Half/Full Marathon Racing
6.7
6.4
Forefoot Compression Energy Return
6.6
2.1
Plate
None
None
Heel Compression Energy Return
5.1
1.7
Weight
4.8
4.2
Forefoot Bending Energy Return
6.1
4.3
Heel Firmness
3.9
8.1
Heel Width-To-Stack Ratio
2.28
1.86
Full Comparison
Design
Weight
4.8
4.2
Right Shoe Weight Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Left Shoe Weight Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Weight
291.0 g (10.26 oz)
304.9 g (10.75 oz)
Stack Heights
Stack Height Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Heel Stack Height
45.2 mm
47.4 mm
Forefoot Stack Height
36.3 mm
42.1 mm
Heel-To-Toe Drop
8.9 mm
5.3 mm
Advertised Heel-To-Toe Drop
8.0 mm
6.0 mm
External Shape
3D Model Full Shoe
Preview 3D
Preview 3D
Outsole Heel Width
103 mm (4.0")
88 mm (3.5")
Outsole Arch Width
81 mm (3.2")
85 mm (3.3")
Outsole Forefoot Width
125 mm (4.9")
114 mm (4.5")
Heel Width-To-Stack Ratio
2.28
1.86
Forefoot Width-To-Stack Ratio
3.44
2.71
Internal Shape
3D Model Internal
Preview 3D
Preview 3D
Internal Length
281 mm (11.1")
275 mm (10.8")
Internal Heel Width
67 mm (2.6")
66 mm (2.6")
Internal Forefoot Width
94 mm (3.7")
94 mm (3.7")
Wide Sizing Available
No
No
Forefoot Fit: Width
9.5
9.4
Forefoot Width Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Ball-Of-Foot TTS Deviation
2.1 mm (0.083")
1.7 mm (0.067")
Toe TTS Deviation
-1.3 mm (-0.052")
5.5 mm (0.215")
Forefoot Fit: Height
8.0
10
Forefoot Height Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Toe TTS Deviation
-2.5 mm (-0.098")
3.0 mm (0.117")
Arch Fit: Width
7.2
10
Arch Fit Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Arch Width TTS Deviation
-4.4 mm (-0.173")
1.0 mm (0.040")
Length Fit
10
10
Toe Clearance Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Heel Rocker Geometry
8.9
7.8
Heel Rocker Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Heel Spring
40 mm (1.6")
21 mm (0.8")
Heel Apex Position
21.7%
16.7%
Heel Rocker Angle
31.6°
31.0°
Forefoot Rocker Geometry
7.2
8.1
Forefoot Rocker Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Toe Spring
50 mm (2.0")
60 mm (2.4")
Toe Apex Position
66.6%
66.0%
Forefoot Rocker Angle
26.6°
31.0°
Other Features
Other Features Photo
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Tongue Gusset Type
Fully-gusseted
Non-gusseted
Plate
None
None
Performance
Heel Compression Energy Return
5.1
1.7
Heel Compression Video
Heel Energy Return
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Heel Energy Return
72.0%
67.1%
Forefoot Compression Energy Return
6.6
2.1
Forefoot Compression Video
Forefoot Energy Return
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Forefoot Energy Return
74.9%
68.1%
Heel Cushioning
8.8
8.2
Heel Cushioning Picture
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Heel Cushioning
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Energy Absorbed At 550N
3.74 J
3.29 J
Energy Absorbed At 1100N
11.37 J
10.39 J
Energy Absorbed At 1900N
20.25 J
18.78 J
Forefoot Cushioning
9.1
9.1
Forefoot Cushioning Picture
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Forefoot Cushioning
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Energy Absorbed At 800N
5.65 J
5.21 J
Energy Absorbed At 1300N
10.38 J
10.40 J
Energy Absorbed At 2050N
15.77 J
16.39 J
Heel Firmness
3.9
8.1
Heel Firmness
Preview Graph
Heel Firmness Graph
Preview Graph
Firmness At 550N
43.5 N/mm
50.6 N/mm
Firmness At 1100N
86.0 N/mm
55.5 N/mm
Firmness At 1900N
178.3 N/mm
74.2 N/mm
Forefoot Firmness
6.4
7.7
Forefoot Firmness
Preview Graph
Forefoot Firmness Graph
Preview Graph
Firmness At 800N
78.0 N/mm
61.9 N/mm
Firmness At 1300N
153.6 N/mm
72.3 N/mm
Firmness At 2050N
301.3 N/mm
95 N/mm
Forefoot Long Run Cushioning
8.4
8.5
Forefoot Long Run Cushioning
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Energy Absorbed At 10km
9.49 J
9.68 J
Energy Absorbed At 20km
9.20 J
9.41 J
Energy Absorbed At 30km
9.02 J
9.25 J
Energy Absorbed At 40km
8.89 J
9.14 J
Rocker Stiffness
7.1
7.8
Forefoot Rocker Stiffness Video
Forefoot Rocker Stiffness Graph
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Force To Flatten The Rocker
86 N
111 N
Forefoot Bending Energy Return
6.1
4.3
Forefoot Bending Video
Forefoot Bending Energy Return
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Forefoot Bending Energy Return
60.7%
54.4%
Forefoot Bending Stiffness
8.0
8.5
Forefoot Bending Resistance Picture
Compare High-Res
Compare High-Res
Forefoot Bending Resistance
Preview Graph
Preview Graph
Forefoot Bending Stiffness
16.1 N/mm
21.1 N/mm
Forefoot Bending Force
356 N
417 N
PUMA MagMax NITRO
Brooks Glycerin Max
Comments
PUMA MagMax NITRO vs Brooks Glycerin Max: Main Discussion
What do you think of these products? Let us know below.
Looking for a personalized buying advice from the RTINGS.com experts? Members have direct access to buying advice on our member forum.