vsversusfinder

ASICS Women's GT-2000 13 Running Shoe, 8.5, Black/White vs New Balance Women's Fresh Foam 680 v9 Running Shoe

Updated August 2026 — ASICS Women's GT-2000 13 Running Shoe, 8.5, Black/White wins on stability and durability, New Balance Women's Fresh Foam 680 v9 Running Shoe wins on weight.

The ASICS Women's GT-2000 13 offers advanced stability and durability, while the New Balance Women's Fresh Foam 680 v9 is a budget-friendly, lightweight option. Choose based on your running needs.

Why ASICS Women's GT-2000 13 Running Shoe, 8.5, Black/White is better

Price

ASICS offers better value for advanced features.

Durability

ASICS is known for its robust build.

Stability

ASICS has advanced stability features.

Why New Balance Women's Fresh Foam 680 v9 Running Shoe is better

Price

New Balance is significantly cheaper.

Weight

New Balance is lighter for casual runs.

Breathability

New Balance has a breathable upper.

Overall score

ASICS Women's GT-2000 13 Running Shoe, 8.5, Black/White
85
New Balance Women's Fresh Foam 680 v9 Running Shoe
75

Specifications

SpecASICS Women's GT-2000 13 Running Shoe, 8.5, Black/WhiteNew Balance Women's Fresh Foam 680 v9 Running Shoe
CushioningPureGELFresh Foam
Upper MaterialJacquard meshTextile
Sales Rank949113435
WeightLightweightUltra-light
SustainabilityRecycled contentNone

Dimension comparison

ASICS Women's GT-2000 13 Running Shoe, 8.5, Black/WhiteNew Balance Women's Fresh Foam 680 v9 Running Shoe

Price Comparison

The ASICS Women's GT-2000 13 Running Shoe is priced at $99.95, while the New Balance Women's Fresh Foam 680 v9 Running Shoe is about 17% cheaper at $72.24. This difference of $27.71 may make the New Balance option more appealing for budget-conscious shoppers. Both products fall within a reasonable price range for running shoes, but if cost is a primary factor, the New Balance offers a significant saving without sacrificing quality.

Design and Aesthetics

When it comes to design, both shoes have unique visual appeals. The ASICS GT-2000 13 features a classic black and white color scheme that provides a sleek look, while the New Balance 680 v9 showcases a more modern aesthetic with its breathable premium molded engineered mesh upper. The choice of materials in the ASICS shoe also emphasizes sustainability, as at least 50% of the main upper material is made with recycled content, making it an eco-friendly option.

Comfort and Fit

Both shoes are designed with comfort in mind but approach it differently. The ASICS GT-2000 13 utilizes a jacquard mesh upper for a supportive fit and incorporates a rearfoot PureGEL technology that promises lightweight cushioning and softer landings. On the other hand, the New Balance 680 v9 features a Fresh Foam midsole that is precision-engineered for an ultra-cushioned, lightweight ride. This difference in cushioning technology may appeal to runners seeking specific types of support during their runs.

Performance Features

The performance features of each shoe cater to different runner needs. The ASICS GT-2000 13 boasts a 3D GUIDANCE SYSTEM, which helps provide advanced stability for a smoother stride. This can be particularly beneficial for runners who need added support during long distances. In contrast, the New Balance 680 v9 focuses on underfoot comfort with its integrated rubber outsole and breathable upper, making it suitable for casual runs or jogs. These features reflect the shoes' intended use, with ASICS targeting more serious runners and New Balance catering to a broader audience.

Breathability

Breathability is essential in running shoes, and both options offer their take on it. The ASICS GT-2000 13 features a jacquard mesh upper that promotes airflow, which is crucial during intense workouts. Meanwhile, the New Balance 680 v9 includes a textile upper designed for breathability, enhancing comfort during runs. Runners who prioritize ventilation may find either shoe adequate, depending on personal preference for material feel and construction.

Durability and Longevity

Durability is a key factor when investing in running shoes. The ASICS GT-2000 13 has a solid reputation for longevity, particularly due to its use of high-quality materials like the jacquard mesh upper. The New Balance 680 v9, while also built for durability, may not hold up as well under extreme conditions due to its lighter construction. Runners who frequently log miles on various terrains might lean towards the ASICS for its robust build and stability features.

Brand Reputation

Brand reputation can influence purchasing decisions, and both ASICS and New Balance have strong followings in the running community. The ASICS GT-2000 13 has a bestseller rank of 9,491, indicating a solid customer base and positive reception. Conversely, the New Balance 680 v9 ranks at 13,435 in sales, suggesting it's a popular choice but perhaps not as widely embraced as the ASICS model. This difference in sales rank may affect a buyer’s perception of reliability and performance.

Which should you buy?

Ultimately, the choice between the ASICS Women's GT-2000 13 Running Shoe and the New Balance Women's Fresh Foam 680 v9 Running Shoe depends on your specific needs and preferences. If you are looking for a shoe with advanced stability features and are willing to invest a bit more, the ASICS model is a strong contender. However, if budget is your primary concern or you prefer a lightweight and cushioned option for casual runs, the New Balance shoe is a great alternative. Both options provide quality and comfort, making them worthy of consideration for any runner.