Asics Gel-Pulse 16 vs New Balance Fresh Foam 680v9:
Which to Choose
Verdict
This is a genuine coin-flip between two shoes built for the same job, so let the small differences decide. If you want lighter, with a bit more stack and newer foam, the Gel-Pulse 16 edges it; if you prefer New Balance's fit and a more grounded, lower-profile platform, the 680v9 does the same work equally well. Either way you're getting a stable, comfort-first neutral daily trainer for easy miles up to the half marathon — neither will reward a hard surge, and that's by design.
Pace
3 of 6
Cushioning
3 of 6
Responsiveness
2 of 6
Stability
4 of 6
Drop
8 mm
Support
Neutral
Plate
None
Distances
10KHalf
Pace
3 of 6
Cushioning
4 of 6
Responsiveness
2 of 6
Stability
4 of 6
Drop
8 mm
Support
Neutral
Plate
None
Distances
10KHalf
At a Glance
Asics Gel-Pulse 16New Balance Fresh Foam 680v9
Who Should Choose Each Shoe
Choose
Asics Gel-Pulse 16
Pick the Gel-Pulse 16 if you want the lighter of the two and value a touch more stack height for easy 10Ks and steady half marathons without the shoe feeling bulky. It's the better fit for a neutral runner building a reliable daily-mileage habit who'd prefer the newer, partly bio-based foam and a slightly more protective ride for longer relaxed efforts. If you're coming from an older Asics daily trainer, it'll feel immediately familiar.
Choose
New Balance Fresh Foam 680v9
Choose the Fresh Foam 680v9 if you're a beginner or base-building runner who prefers New Balance's fit and wants a planted, forgiving platform for easy and long training runs. It's the right call if you like a slightly lower-profile, firmly grounded feel and don't mind carrying a little more weight for that same calm, comfort-first ride at conversational pace. Runners already loyal to the Fresh Foam line will find it a safe, predictable continuation.
Head-to-Head
These two are more alike than different, and it's worth saying so plainly: same 8mm drop, same neutral setup with a wide and stable platform, same no-plate single-foam construction, and the same honest admission that the rebound goes flat the moment you try to pick up the pace. Neither is a speed tool, and both are at their best in the 5:30–6:30 min/km range. The real, verifiable differences are modest. The Gel-Pulse 16 is the lighter shoe at roughly 241g in a men's US9 versus about 258g for the 680v9 — a noticeable ~17g gap that makes the Asics feel a touch nimbler at easy effort. It also sits on slightly more foam, with a 36.5mm heel / 26.3mm forefoot stack against the 680v9's 33mm / 25mm, so there's marginally more underfoot protection for longer easy runs. The Asics does this with FF Blast+ Eco, a newer, partly bio-based foam, where the 680v9 uses an older-generation single-density Fresh Foam; in practice both read as soft-but-grounded rather than springy, so the foam story is more about build generation than a dramatic difference in bounce. Stability is a wash — both are above-average for neutral shoes thanks to their broad, predictable platforms. Bottom line: the Gel-Pulse 16 is the lighter, slightly taller-stacked, newer-foam option, while the 680v9 delivers the same comfort-first mission with a bit more shoe underfoot and New Balance's familiar fit.
© 2026 longrunshoes.ai | All rights reserved.
Use of materials from this site is permitted only with proper attribution and a link to longrunshoes.ai.