.png)
Brooks Ghost 18 Vs Asics Gel-Cumulus 28: Which One Should You Buy?
The Brooks Ghost 18 and Asics Gel-Cumulus 28 are two neutral road running shoes designed for runners who want comfort and reliability during everyday training. Both are suitable for regular mileage, from shorter weekday runs to the longer sessions involved in half marathon and marathon preparation.
Although they compete in the same category, they take different approaches to cushioning and construction. The Brooks focuses on a balanced, traditional running experience, while the Asics combines a substantial cushioning platform with a relatively lightweight design.
Which offers the better combination of comfort, versatility and value? Our Brooks Ghost 18 vs Asics Gel-Cumulus 28 comparison examines the specifications, construction and independent testing results to help you decide which running shoe is more likely to suit your needs.
Brooks Ghost 18 Vs Asics Gel-Cumulus 28: The Key Differences
Both models are neutral daily running shoes, meaning they do not incorporate the pronounced corrective features associated with dedicated stability footwear. Their primary purpose is to provide comfortable, dependable performance across regular training sessions.
The Ghost 18 uses Brooks' nitrogen-infused DNA Loft v3 cushioning, developed to balance softness and responsiveness. The Gel-Cumulus 28 uses Asics' FF Blast Max foam,
providing a different combination of cushioning depth and midsole characteristics.
The Asics is lighter according to manufacturer specifications and has a lower advertised heel-to-toe drop. It also provides more cushioning beneath the foot, although the amount of foam does not necessarily determine how soft a shoe feels.
Independent testing suggests the Brooks has a slight advantage in responsiveness, while the Asics provides more cushioning. These differences are relevant to runners choosing between a more conventional running feel and a deeper cushioning platform.
Fit And Comfort
The Brooks Ghost 18 uses an engineered air mesh upper, with a padded tongue and updated sockliner designed to improve comfort and security. Its construction aims to hold the foot comfortably without excessive movement during regular training.
Independent testing has highlighted the Ghost's comfortable upper, although laboratory measurements indicate a relatively tapered toe box. This may be worth considering for runners who prefer more space around their toes.
The Gel-Cumulus 28 also features an engineered mesh upper, combining ventilation with a padded interior. Independent testing suggests its forefoot is roomier than the previous version, potentially making it more accommodating for some runners.
Brooks offers the Ghost range in several width options, although availability varies by model and market. Asics also offers alternative widths for selected shoes, so runners should check the specific options available in their region.
Neither shoe has a universal advantage in comfort. Heel shape, forefoot width and personal preferences will influence the fit, making it important to try both where possible.
Cushioning And Running Feel
The Ghost 18 uses DNA Loft v3 foam, designed to deliver comfortable landings while maintaining a controlled transition through the stride. Its construction favours a relatively traditional running experience rather than an especially soft or springy sensation.
The Gel-Cumulus 28 uses FF Blast Max cushioning and provides a deeper layer of foam beneath the foot. Asics positions this material as combining softness with energy return, although independent testing suggests the shoe is primarily focused on comfort rather than speed.
Independent laboratory comparisons indicate that the Gel-Cumulus offers more cushioning, while the Ghost delivers slightly better responsiveness. However, neither shoe produces the particularly energetic ride associated with performance-focused running models.
This distinction matters because cushioning and responsiveness are not the same thing. A shoe can provide substantial impact protection without returning a particularly high proportion of energy during each stride.
Runners who enjoy a more conventional, controlled feel may prefer the Brooks, while those who favour a deeper cushioning platform may find the Asics more appealing. Neither approach is inherently better, and individual comfort remains the deciding factor.
Weight, Heel Drop And Shoe Geometry
Brooks lists the Ghost 18 at approximately 289g in its men's reference size, compared with approximately 259g for the Gel-Cumulus 28. This gives the Asics a published weight advantage of around 30g, although the manufacturers may use different reference sizes.
A lighter shoe can feel less cumbersome, particularly during longer sessions, but weight alone does not determine comfort or running efficiency. Fit, cushioning characteristics and shoe geometry can have a greater influence on the experience.
The Ghost 18 has a manufacturer-stated heel to toe drop of 10mm, compared with 8mm for the Gel-Cumulus 28. This describes the difference in height between the heel and forefoot rather than the total thickness of cushioning.
Independent laboratory testing by RunRepeat measured drops of approximately 12.2mm for the Ghost and 13.3mm for the Gel-Cumulus. These results differ from the advertised figures and even reverse their relative order, demonstrating why published drop measurements should be treated with some caution.
The difference between manufacturer and laboratory measurements reflects variations in testing methods and shoe construction. Runners accustomed to a particular geometry should therefore consider how a shoe feels rather than relying exclusively on the advertised figures.
Grip And Durability
The Brooks Ghost 18 uses RoadTack rubber in its outsole, designed to provide traction and resist wear during regular road running. The construction balances durability with flexibility through the stride.
Independent laboratory testing by RunRepeat found strong outsole durability in the Ghost 18. This is a useful advantage for runners concerned about wear, although laboratory results cannot guarantee how long a shoe will last under individual running conditions.
The Gel-Cumulus 28 combines FluidRide outsole material with AHAR Lo rubber in the heel area. Asics uses these materials to support smooth transitions while reinforcing an area exposed to repeated contact with the ground.
Both shoes are intended primarily for roads and other firm, maintained surfaces. Neither has the aggressive tread required for muddy trails or technical off road terrain.
While the Brooks has encouraging independent durability results, there is insufficient directly comparable long term evidence to conclude that it will consistently outlast the Asics. Running surfaces, individual movement patterns and training frequency all influence shoe lifespan.
Which Is Better For Everyday Running And Distance Event Training?
Both shoes are designed for the regular mileage that forms the foundation of most running programmes. Their cushioning systems prioritise comfort and consistency rather than maximum speed.
The Ghost 18 is particularly appealing for runners who prefer a traditional daily running shoe. Its balanced cushioning and slightly more responsive character make it a credible option for easy runs and steady training.
The Gel-Cumulus 28 offers an alternative for runners who want a substantial cushioning platform without choosing a particularly heavy shoe. This combination may appeal to those who enjoy a cushioned feel during longer sessions, although greater cushioning does not automatically produce better comfort over distance.
Either model could serve as an everyday shoe during half marathon or marathon preparation. The better choice depends on fit, personal preferences and whether the runner uses separate footwear for faster workouts.
Neither is primarily designed for runners seeking maximum propulsion during intervals or competitive racing. Those priorities may be better served by a dedicated performance shoe.
Price And Value For Money
The Brooks Ghost 18 and Asics Gel-Cumulus 28 both have a listed UK retail price of £135, placing them in direct competition within the everyday running shoe category.
At the same price, the Asics offers a lower published weight and a deeper cushioning platform. These are meaningful advantages for runners who prioritise those characteristics.
The Brooks counters with its balanced running feel, slightly better responsiveness in independent testing and encouraging outsole durability results. Its range of width options may also make it more suitable for runners who struggle to find an appropriate fit.
Retail discounts can change the value comparison, particularly when one model becomes available at a substantially lower price. However, a comfortable fit remains more important than a small difference in cost.
For runners choosing between the two, the best value will come from the shoe that suits their feet and intended training rather than whichever has the most impressive individual specification.
Brooks Ghost 18 Vs Asics Gel-Cumulus 28: Our Verdict
The Brooks Ghost 18 and Asics Gel-Cumulus 28 are closely matched everyday running shoes, but they offer different advantages.
The Gel-Cumulus 28 stands out for its combination of relatively low weight and substantial cushioning. It is particularly worth considering for runners who enjoy a deeper cushioning platform and want a comfortable shoe for regular road mileage.
The Ghost 18 offers a more traditional alternative, with balanced cushioning, slightly better responsiveness in independent testing and strong laboratory outsole durability results. It may be particularly appealing to runners who prefer a balanced, predictable ride, especially those who have enjoyed running in previous versions of the Ghost.
Neither shoe is the obvious choice for runners seeking a particularly energetic racing experience, and neither can be declared universally more comfortable. Fit and personal cushioning preferences are likely to have a greater influence on satisfaction than small differences in technical specifications.
For runners prioritising lower weight and cushioning depth, the Asics would be our first option to consider. Those who prefer a conventional ride, encouraging durability results and a wider choice of fits should give the Brooks serious consideration.
Ultimately, both are credible choices for everyday training and marathon preparation. Trying them on remains the most reliable way to establish which provides the comfort and running experience you prefer.
About This Comparison: Sapphire Running Zone has not personally tested these two shoes. This article is based on manufacturer specifications and published independent testing, including laboratory assessments of cushioning, geometry and durability. Individual experiences of comfort, fit and running performance may vary.
Affiliate disclosure: This article contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase through one of these links, Sapphire Running Zone may receive a commission at no additional cost to you.
Comments