Our verdict

We found that the ASICS GT 1000 13 excels in a fiercely competitive value-oriented market, despite a minor price hike to $110. Sure, we weren't thrilled with the $10 increase, yet the improvements—enhanced cushioning, better stability, and the introduction of PureGEL technology—made it a worthwhile upgrade. Although the energy return is on the lower end and the updated upper slightly reduces breathability, this mild stability shoe remains a top choice for runners seeking an affordable yet reliable option.

Pros

  • Enhanced overall comfort
  • PureGEL technology for softer landings
  • Increased cushioning
  • Cozier feel
  • Durable outsole
  • Ready for long runs
  • Doubles for walking or gym sessions
  • Enhanced for heel strikers
  • Reasonable weight

Cons

  • Price increase
  • Still lacks energy return
  • Breathability downgrade

Audience verdict

81
Good!

Who should buy

We've rigorously tested the ASICS GT 1000 13 and we're convinced it's an exceptional choice for:

  • Runners with just over $100 to spend who desire a shoe that’s stable, durable, and comfortable—perfect for daily training!
  • Fans of the GT 1000 series who will find this version to be among the best yet, now featuring the PureGEL technology.
  • Heel strikers looking for moderate support in a shoe versatile enough for grocery shopping and dog walking.

ASICS GT 1000 13

Who should NOT buy

We found that the GT 1000 13 falls a bit short for runners seeking a bouncy ride. The FlyteFoam midsole, lacking energy return, may disappoint those who prioritize responsiveness during their runs.

For a similar shoe with enhanced foam, we recommend considering the ASICS GT 2000 12. And if you are willing to get the best stability shoe from ASICS, check the Kayano 31. Both shoes incorporate the more responsive FF Blast+ along with PureGEL technology.

ASICS GT 1000 13 parts

We also believe that for runners with an extreme heel-striking technique, the GT 1000 13 might not offer the best geometry due to its medium drop. In our experience, the Brooks Launch 10, featuring a significant 12.2 mm offset, is a better choice for them.

Breathability

Despite having just minor changes in the upper, we found that breathability suffered slightly with this update.

Following our smoke test, we observed reduced airflow compared to previous versions, leading us to rate it 3 out of 5 in the lab. While not a dismal score—it ensures comfort in most conditions and enhanced performance in cooler weather—it does feel to us like a step down from the previous version's 5/5.

Why the change? We think there are several factors, but primarily, we found the focus was on enhancing durability, which was a significant weakness of the GT 1000 12 (we'll explore this aspect in a minute). We also noted with the light that ASICS focused on designing a thicker upper for improved comfort and stability, particularly around the midfoot.

ASICS GT 1000 13 microscope

Examining the shoe under our microscope, we identified a densely engineered mesh that includes ventilation holes. However, these are obstructed by an underneath fabric layer, restricting air movement from inside to outside the shoe.

ASICS GT 1000 13 microscope

It's worth mentioning that the upper boasts exceptional padding, and the materials are comparable to those found in more expensive daily trainers.

Although airflow has decreased, we think this update compensates with several other enhancements.

Test results
GT 1000 13 3
Average 3.8
Compared to 234 running shoes
Number of shoes
1
Breathability
5

Durability

Toebox durability

We previously mentioned that durability was a significant concern for ASICS, especially since the predecessor of this shoe received a teeth-grinding 1 out of 5 in our durability tests, clearly lacking in this aspect. So, how did the 13th edition fare?

Well, it still doesn’t perform exceptionally well in our durability tests, but we observed clear signs of improvement and gave it a 2 out of 5.

ASICS GT 1000 13 Toebox durability
Test results
GT 1000 13 2
Average 2.4
Compared to 168 running shoes
Number of shoes
1
Toebox durability
5

Heel padding durability

With the Dremel already set to 5000 RPM, we targeted the heel padding for testing.

In this test, the padding earned a solid 4 out of 5 rating. This result reassures us that the GT 1000 13 are unlikely to experience premature wear in this area.

ASICS GT 1000 13 Heel padding durability
Test results
GT 1000 13 4
Average 3.2
Compared to 164 running shoes
Number of shoes
1
Heel padding durability
5

Outsole hardness

Interestingly, those looking for budget-friendly shoes often prioritize durability more than runners willing to spend $200 or $300 on their footwear. It's a fascinating paradox, but it's quite typical in the market. We're hopeful that the GT 1000 13, which is designed to be cost-effective, will meet these durability expectations with its outsole.

ASICS GT 1000 13 outsole

The outsole looks solid and includes multiple flex points and strategic rubber reinforcements in key areas, providing essential coverage for those with pronation issues.

ASICS has utilized AHAR (ASICS High Abrasion Rubber), renowned for its resilience and hardness (85.1 HC). However, it's worth noting that the grip is not superb at all, especially in wet conditions.

ASICS GT 1000 13 Outsole hardness
Test results
GT 1000 13 85.1 HC
Average 80.5 HC
We use an average of four tests. The photo shows one of those tests.
Compared to 285 running shoes
Number of shoes
52.1 HC
Outsole hardness
93.0 HC

Outsole durability

While hard rubbers typically promise excellent outsole durability, we don't just rely on assumptions—we put shoes through rigorous tests here in our lab.

So, we proceeded with our final Dremel test and were thrilled to discover only a minimal 0.7 mm dent in the outsole, which is a good outcome.

ASICS GT 1000 13 Outsole durability
Test results
GT 1000 13 0.7 mm
Average 0.9 mm
Compared to 146 running shoes
Number of shoes
0.0 mm
Outsole wear
2.0 mm

Outsole thickness

To conclude our examination of the outsole, we used a vernier caliper to measure its thickness. We noted that ASICS opted for a robust 4.1-mm outsole, a decrease from the previous version's massive 4.8 mm.

ASICS GT 1000 13 outsole

We believe a thinner outsole around 2.5 mm or 3 mm could be beneficial for this shoe. This adjustment would likely reduce the shoe's weight and enhance responsiveness, providing a livelier ride, and still feature enough durability.

ASICS GT 1000 13 Outsole thickness
Test results
GT 1000 13 4.1 mm
Average 3.2 mm
Compared to 304 running shoes
Number of shoes
0.0 mm
Outsole thickness
6.6 mm

Weight

One of the standout features of the GT 1000 series is its reasonable weight. We discovered that ASICS, despite the stack height increase, has successfully maintained the weight nearly identical to last year's, at just 9.7 oz or 276g.

This is particularly nice for a shoe that boasts substantial rubber in the outsole and ample cushioning underfoot, making it an excellent choice for those seeking a lightweight yet robust running shoe.

ASICS GT 1000 13 Weight
Test results
GT 1000 13 9.74 oz (276g)
Average 9.38 oz (266g)
Compared to 305 running shoes
Number of shoes
5.26 oz (149g)
Weight
12.56 oz (356g)

Cushioning

Heel stack

We've just discussed the increased stack height, and indeed, it's real.

At 33.7 mm, it has risen by 3.5 mm compared to its predecessor. This significant enhancement in cushioning underfoot makes the latest GT 1000 an outstanding choice for heel strikers or those covering long runs, marking it as the best version yet for marathoners.

ASICS GT 1000 13 Heel stack
Test results
GT 1000 13 33.7 mm
Average 33.7 mm
Compared to 304 running shoes
Number of shoes
7.6 mm
Heel stack
45.7 mm

Forefoot stack

Previously at 23.0 mm, we found the forefoot also grows to 25.0 mm, providing a more standard level of cushioning that solidifies this shoe's status as an ideal daily trainer.

ASICS GT 1000 13 Forefoot stack
Test results
GT 1000 13 25.0 mm
Average 25.0 mm
Compared to 304 running shoes
Number of shoes
7.6 mm
Forefoot stack
36.9 mm

Drop

Although it's marketed with an 8 mm offset, our precise stack measurements revealed a slight variation, resulting in an actual heel drop of 8.7 mm. While this variation is minor, it still places the GT 1000 13 within the mid-drop category.

This heel drop offers versatility, accommodating a broad range of runners, from those who strike at the heel to those who favor the midfoot.

ASICS GT 1000 13 Drop
Test results
GT 1000 13 8.7 mm
Average 8.7 mm
Compared to 304 running shoes
Number of shoes
-0.8 mm
Drop
16.1 mm

Insole thickness

The EVA insole is just average, measuring just 4.9 mm. It's also worth noting that it's not manufactured by ASICS, but by Ortholite.

ASICS GT 1000 13 Insole thickness
Test results
GT 1000 13 4.9 mm
Average 4.5 mm
Compared to 300 running shoes
Number of shoes
1.5 mm
Insole thickness
7.3 mm

Midsole softness

Note: a low durometer measurement equals a soft material, whereas a high measurement means it's firm.

There are no significant changes to the foam in this update, as ASICS continues to reserve its top-tier compounds like FF Blast+ for pricier models like the Novablast 4. Instead, we still have Flytefoam, an EVA-based foam that performs adequately given the price of this shoe.

With a softness score of 22.5 HA, the foam offers a balanced ride, although it may feel firm to those transitioning from a plusher model. However, we believe this firmness is appropriate for a mild stability shoe like this one.

ASICS GT 1000 13 Midsole softness
Test results
GT 1000 13 22.5 HA
Average 21.4 HA
We use an average of four tests. The photo shows one of those tests.
Compared to 232 running shoes
Number of shoes
8.5 HA
Midsole softness (soft to firm)
41.5 HA

Difference in midsole softness in cold

Runners that love colder climates can be assured that FlyteFoam won't become overly hard. Following a 20-minute test in the freezer, we observed that the foam only became 18.4% firmer!

ASICS GT 1000 13 Difference in midsole softness in cold
Test results
GT 1000 13 18.4%
Average 25.5%
Compared to 231 running shoes
Number of shoes
0%
Difference in midsole softness in cold
100%

PureGEL

The key incentive to upgrade from the GT 1000 12 to the 13 is the introduction of PureGEL. This evolution of GEL technology, now positioned directly under the footbed rather than in the lower part of the shoe, enhances underfoot comfort and reduces the energy-return losses typical of the older GEL.

Designed to ensure exceptionally soft landings, it's designed for heel strikers. Our testing confirmed that it indeed delivers a highly comfortable impact. However, it still reduces energy return when compared even to standard EVA foams.

ASICS GT 1000 13 PureGEL

Rocker

The GT 1000 13 offers a traditional ride, steering clear of the more recent rockered designs, and we believe this is the perfect approach for a daily trainer like this.

Stability

Lateral stability test

The ASICS GT 1000 13 introduces some impressive stability features, subtly enhancing the ride for those requiring moderate support—at a fair price.

We identified non-intrusive elements similar to those in the GT 2000 series and the Kayano, albeit a bit toned down. This model incorporates a 3D guidance system with enhanced arch support, elevated midsole sidewalls, a rigid overall build, and a wide heel to create a balanced and supportive ride.

Torsional rigidity

We assigned the GT 1000 13 a score of 4 out of 5 for torsional rigidity, which significantly contributes to its stability features. Much of this structural stiffness is due to the heel reinforcements, a characteristic commonly found in ASICS stability footwear.

This boost from a 3/5 rating in the v12 to a higher score in this version makes sense, as it features a higher stack height that needs to be compensated.

Test results
GT 1000 13 4
Average 3.2
Compared to 283 running shoes
Number of shoes
1
Torsional rigidity
5

Heel counter stiffness

ASICS avoided going overboard but still managed to preserve a significant level of comfort, leading us to give it a rating of 4 out of 5. Although the heel is quite rigid—as our video demonstrates—it remains surprisingly flexible for a stability shoe, offering a more adaptable feel than expected.

Test results
GT 1000 13 4
Average 2.8
Compared to 267 running shoes
Number of shoes
1
Heel counter stiffness
5

Midsole width in the forefoot

We measured the forefoot at 115.6 mm with our calipers, which is fairly average. This wasn't surprising, given that as a beginner-friendly shoe, the emphasis is likely on the heel. Let's see if this holds true.

ASICS GT 1000 13 Midsole width in the forefoot
Test results
GT 1000 13 115.6 mm
Average 113.7 mm
Compared to 305 running shoes
Number of shoes
100.5 mm
Midsole width in the forefoot
126.5 mm

Midsole width in the heel

A wider shoe often translates to a more stable ride, right? For those seeking a supportive experience in a mild stability shoe, a broad base is essential.

This is precisely why ASICS designed this shoe to be wider than the typical neutral daily trainer, especially catering to heel strikers who predominantly will purchase this shoe. In our lab, we measured its width at 96.6 mm, way broader when compared to a neutral workhorse Nike Pegasus 41, which measures only 89.2 mm.

ASICS GT 1000 13 Midsole width in the heel
Test results
GT 1000 13 96.6 mm
Average 90.5 mm
Compared to 305 running shoes
Number of shoes
74.9 mm
Midsole width in the heel
106.6 mm

Flexibility

Stiffness

This shoe is designed to be a jack-of-all-trades, capable of handling everyday tasks beyond running, which means it requires flexibility.

In our lab, we needed to apply only 17.7N of force to bend it to the 90-degree mark. This result perfectly aligns with what we were hoping to find!

Test results
GT 1000 13 14.6N
Average 29.2N
We use an average of four tests. The video shows one of those tests.
Compared to 287 running shoes
Number of shoes
2.2N
Stiffness
94.4N

Difference in stiffness in cold

Just as we observed with the midsole softness, FlyteFoam delivered another impressive performance in terms of longitudinal stiffness, showing only a 19.7% variation. This is a clear improvement over results from much pricier shoes.

Test results
GT 1000 13 19.7%
Average 35.9%
Compared to 287 running shoes
Number of shoes
0%
Difference in stiffness in cold
148%

Size and fit

Toebox width at the widest part

The widest part of the upper generally fits what we consider average, though it tends slightly more towards roomy than narrow in our experience.

ASICS GT 1000 13 upper fit

It's clear to us that ASICS aims to accommodate as many feet as possible, especially since they also offer the GT 1000 13 in multiple widths in certain markets.

ASICS GT 1000 13 Toebox width at the widest part
Test results
GT 1000 13 99.1 mm
Average 98.4 mm
Compared to 305 running shoes
Number of shoes
89.5 mm
Toebox width at the widest part
109.1 mm

Toebox width at the big toe

The big toe area didn't give us any trouble either. While it's not foot-shaped by any means, the taper meets our expectations for a daily driver at 79.0 mm.

We also found no issues with the toebox height, so those who tend to point their big toe upwards should find it comfortable as well.

ASICS GT 1000 13 Toebox width at the big toe
Test results
GT 1000 13 79.0 mm
Average 78.2 mm
Compared to 179 running shoes
Number of shoes
60.4 mm
Toebox width at the big toe
92.5 mm

Tongue: gusset type

ASICS continues to overlook the addition of a gusseted tongue in its budget-friendly models, which explains why the tongue of the 13th edition of the GT 1000 still shifts around freely.

ASICS GT 1000 13 Tongue: gusset type
Test results
GT 1000 13 None

Comfort

Tongue padding

Despite its budget-friendly price, ASICS didn't compromise on comfort everywhere, and we found the tongue to be exceptionally cushioned. It boasts two layers of foam, combining for a total thickness of 8.1 mm.

ASICS GT 1000 13 tongue

This is excellent news for runners who often experience discomfort in the instep or those looking to benefit from the enhanced plushness of the GT 1000 during long runs.

ASICS GT 1000 13 Tongue padding
Test results
GT 1000 13 8.1 mm
Average 5.6 mm
Compared to 302 running shoes
Number of shoes
0.5 mm
Tongue padding
14.2 mm

Heel tab

We weren't happy to find that ASICS did not include a finger-loop heel tab in this version of the GT 1000 13, despite our previous hopes in our lab review of the GT 1000 12. Regrettably, the heel remains boring and devoid of any tabs!

ASICS GT 1000 13 Heel tab
Test results
GT 1000 13 None

Removable insole

We encountered no issues replacing the insole of the GT 1000 13, thanks to its standard size.

ASICS GT 1000 13 Removable insole
Test results
GT 1000 13 Yes

Misc

Reflective elements

We discovered no reflective elements on the GT 1000 13, which didn't come as a surprise.

Adding reflective details is a simple and cost-effective method for brands to enhance the perceived value of shoes. Given that this model is priced around the hundred-dollar mark, we think that ASICS decided against including them.

ASICS GT 1000 13 Reflective elements
Test results
GT 1000 13 No