Brooks Glycerin 23 Review: Sound At The Core

Introduction to the Brooks Glycerin 23

ROBBE: Premium is a word that carries an elevated air. As it should– it’s not standard or basic, it’s not something the average person can just grab off the shelf without further considerations. It’s leather seats, elevated sound, wood-grain trim, fine materials, and a sniff of superiority.

Unless you’re talking about running shoes. Premium is better, but sometimes it’s the same. Or worse. Everyone can buy it for a few bucks more. It sits above other models, but it’s in the same row at your local running store. The price tag may be premium, but the shoe can often feel pretty close to everything else.

That doesn’t mean the brands won’t continue to pump out those models. Especially the legacy ones that have been around for decades. They’re the meat on the bones of the balance sheet, and those margins ain’t gonna sell themselves.

And there are very few shoes that sell like the Brooks Glycerin, one of the three-headed hydra of Brooks Running, along with the Ghost and Adrenaline. It’s a shoe that has stayed the course over its 20-plus-year career, though it has seen some recent improvements with upgraded materials and technology.

I was a big fan of the Glycerin 22, the first version to use a DNA Tuned midsole, which employed different durometers of nitrogen-infused foam in the heel and forefoot for a more balanced ride. I thought it was a pretty great innovation, as it eliminated the need for dual layers by strategically giving more cushion in the heel for a comfortable landing and more firmness in the forefoot for a propulsive toe-off. Was it the best shoe of 2025? No, but it was a really solid daily trainer.

It’s been a year since that one, and now we have the Glycerin 23 (which came out at the same time as the Glycerin Flex, essentially this shoe but with much more flexibility). Overall, not much has changed. We still have the DNA Tuned midsole, but this time we get 2 mm more of foam underfoot. The upper has been built up, now using a triple jacquard warp knit with a thick, plush tongue. It’s also gained almost half an ounce of weight. Aside from that, the basics are the same.

And yet, I can’t help but feel a lot has changed. Let’s see how that affects our experience in the shoe.

KARL: I said it last year in my Brooks Glycerin 22 review, but I’ve had a soft spot for this line since the 19th iteration was the first “real” pair of trainers I bought when I first started running consistently. Although it weighed more than its predecessors, Brooks’ switch to the DNA Tuned midsole was a very welcome upgrade in my book.

But now, things look a little different in the Glycerin family. As Robbe mentioned, the Glycerin Flex made its debut this year, and it’s leaving me wondering what the future holds for the standard model. For the 23rd iteration, it looks to be a minor update, but it still has some notable changes — whether or not for the better, we shall find out.

CARYN: Having worked for several years in specialty running, I fully experienced the cult following of Brooks’ big three: the Ghost, Glycerin, and Adrenaline. Folks would wait with bated breath every year, hoping their beloved trainer wouldn’t be ruined by the brand’s update. Inevitably, some would be thrilled, and some would be disappointed, and we’d rinse and repeat with each season of updates.

I’ve waxed poetically about the concept that not every shoe has to do it all — there’s still value in a simple, effective, non-plated daily trainer. The Glycerin has embodied this over the years — no broke boys, no new friends. Er, no wild foams, no fancy geometries. With a new DNA Tuned midsole, 2 mm of additional foam, and a new jacquard upper, the Glycerin could be getting a bit of a facelift, albeit a minimal one, kind of like Lisa Barlow’s facial threads. Let’s find out if the Glycerin 23 still holds up as a tried-and-true trainer.

What we like about the Brooks Glycerin 23

ROBBE: I already mentioned it, but I’m a big fan of the DNA Tuned technology that Brooks is using in the Glycerin line (even if the Glycerin Max 2 was a disappointing dud). I think it’s a novel way to approach the ground-impact-then-takeoff motion of a foot in its stride. And as I said earlier, I think it works if it’s done right.

The good news is that it’s done right in the Glycerin 23. Brooks raised the stack height in the shoe, which weirdly brings it closer to the Glycerin Max range, though it’s still not max cushion by today’s standards, as it comes in at 38 mm in the heel and 30 mm in the forefoot — you know, legal in the eyes of World Athletics. Nevertheless, you get plenty of cushion underfoot, especially in the heel area. It feels like a plush landing without being too soft, which transitions into the more responsive toe area. By far, this was my favorite aspect of the shoe. A great ride is what you want from a reliable daily trainer, and I felt like the Glycerin 23 delivers on that front. It also does it without feeling even a bit unstable — a really nice ride throughout.

The upper fit is perfectly fine. I’m kind of in between sizes on Brooks, so I went a half-size down. They were definitely too snug in the toe, though it didn’t render them unrunnable. For this reason, I won’t comment on the room in the toe box, because I’m sure it would be fine if I went a half-size up. I’ve never had a problem with Brooks fit, and I don’t think it’d start now. That said, I do have some qualms with the upper, which I’ll cover in the next section.

The outsole had solid traction overall, and the generous layer of rubber will provide great durability over hundreds of miles. I took it on a couple of runs in the rain, and I thought it held up well on wet pavement and sidewalks. Not the grippiest, but I also wasn’t slipping and sliding around corners.

I don’t love the weight of this shoe, but I was also surprised to see how much it weighs. It actually feels much lighter on the foot, and at no point did I feel that it was clunky or overbearing.

KARL: The return of DNA Tuned is nice, and although Brooks said this is the same DNA Tuned previously used, I feel like it’s somewhat firmer. Thomas and Meg found this to be the case with the Glycerin Max 2, and based on the styling of the midsole, the Glycerin 23 uses the same composition. I like that Brooks has changed the drop to 8 mm, adding 2 mm of stack under the forefoot, which I’m always here for. Even though there isn’t much of a rocker, the ride is fluid and stable throughout.

Like last year’s iteration of the Glycerin, the fit was dialed in for me. The one thing I will say about most Brooks shoes is that I’ve never had an issue when it comes to fit — whether in the Glycerin, Hyperion, or even some of the race day options I’ve been able to try. So if you’re a Glycerin fan, you can rest assured that not much has changed in this department.

I’ll get more into it in the next section, but the shoe also looks pretty good. This is my fourth Glycerin, and the only one that hasn’t been some form of dark blue with some bright accent colors. The off-white Coconut/Bleach Sand colorway with some dark gray accents looks relatively unassuming and is easy to match with any outfit. I even like Robbe’s white/green colorway, which borrows heavily from the Brooks Glycerin Flex.

A lot of the Glycerin 22’s design language carries over, including the plush heel counter, extended collar, and heel pull tab. The outsole is pretty grippy, and the shoe itself just feels like a tank — I’d have no worries stacking hundreds of miles on this.

The last thing I’ll say, which will preface my dislikes and overall feelings about this shoe, is that it’s very comfortable to wear daily. I’ve laced this up to run in the morning, then worn it to the office, and it really does feel like a premium shoe that is super comfortable to walk around in. So the Brooks Glycerin 23, although not the most stylish, definitely checks the box for a crossover shoe.

CARYN: I know this is the “what we like” section, but why must there be so many different versions of each model these days? Between the OG, GTS, Max, and Flex, we’re approaching a world in which there’s a different Glycerin model for each day of the week (and I promise, that’s not a world we need). Anyway, I digress.

The Glycerin 23 was comfortable right out of the box on step-in. I’ve never had an issue with Brooks’ fit or sizing, and this holds true here. The upper is soft, structured, and thicc, which is nice for walking around but could feel a bit too much (more on that below). I didn’t have to make any adjustments to the shoe on the run, and didn’t have any weird hot spots — always appreciated. The shoe feels very substantial and stable due to the decently sized platform. The extra 2mm of DNA Tuned feels firmer than I’m accustomed to with prior Glycerin models, but in my opinion, this is a good thing — I’m not a marshmallow cushion girl.

While the structure and weight of the Glycerin lend themselves to great durability, the shoe feels a bit clunky on the run. I found the shoe to really shine when walking. I absolutely loved wearing this shoe to work for 14-plus hours on my feet or walking the dog. While this certainly wasn’t the intent, I know many coworkers who use the Glycerin on long days, and they won’t be disappointed with this update. In the same vein, the shoe is pretty easy on the eyes. I’m accustomed to wild neon from Brooks, and this colorway is certainly tamer and easier to wear.

What we don’t like about the Brooks Glycerin 23

ROBBE: Nothing bothers me more than changes for the sake of changes. You’ll see this all the time with uppers on in-between-year models (typically on even-numbered shoe versions). Maybe even worse is the combination of changes and stubborn mainstays, with nothing improved. So it is with the upper on the Glycerin 23.

The triple jacquard warp knit is definitely premium and is borderline bomb-proof thanks to its intricate construction. Highly doubtful you’ll blow it out before the midsole dies. That said, while I appreciate the warp knit design and think it deserves premium status, I feel like a triple jacquard weave is a bit excessive. A double likely would’ve sufficed without sacrificing breathability. Or not, who knows? I’m not a textile expert.

The point remains — the upper is warm. I felt this even in moderate temperatures here in the Mid-Atlantic, so I can’t imagine what this will feel like come July. It’s not just the knit of the upper, it’s the absurdly padded tongue. I dragged it in the review of the Glycerin 22, and I’m disappointed to report that not much has changed. There’s just way too much going on there, meaning my foot was more in heat than my non-neutered dog (he’s getting snipped next week, but that doesn’t help the state of this shoe, unfortunately). There was a chance to change that from the last version, but I’m sorry to say it still sucks.

There’s plenty of padding around the ankle (not a bad thing), but then there’s this weird collar extension portion that creates a moat around the ankle, which I guess is fine but is kind of pointless and serves as a pebble/dirt catch. Just don’t really get why it’s even there.

As far as the weight, this shoe just keeps getting heavier. I mean, it’s a premium daily trainer; I don’t expect it to be that light. But I don’t think the extra stack height was necessary, at least for my taste.

I don’t know if this is a bad thing, but I think this shoe is way too close to the Glycerin Flex in terms of feel. Yes, it’s not as flexible. Yes, it’s much heavier (2 ounces, in fact), but the DNA Tuned midsole feels almost identical (save for a bit more cushion in the heel). So like, why not just get the Flex for $5 less? Not telling you what to do, but that’s probably what you should do.

Also, we’ve now entered the $175 price range for a plateless, non-superfoam daily trainer. This shoe was supposed to release at $170, but it’s already gone up by $5. That’s just so much money.

KARL: I’ll start this section with probably my biggest gripe, which is the weight gain. In my US M10.5, the shoe weighs 11.8 oz (335 g). And for a shoe without a plate or any type of real propulsion element, the Brooks Glycerin 23 kind of falls flat in the ride department. It’s fine, just not very exciting, and the longer you go in it, the more cumbersome it feels to roll through the stride.

The weight is substantially high for a relatively standard daily trainer that doesn’t even have that much stack in today’s world. For reference, the Brooks Glycerin 21 in my size weighed 10.3 oz (292 g). The continual weight gain is making me wonder what the deal is. The Glycerin Max 2 gained a bit of weight this year, too, so maybe the DNA Tuned midsole is slightly denser and heavier? It could be that, but it could also be from the “premium comfort” features like the triple-jacquard weave.

I have to agree with Robbe that it may be overkill. The feel of it is very nice and premium, but it may be a major contributor to weight, since not much else has changed from the Glycerin 22. To further agree with Robbe, the upper is indeed pretty warm. It’s a bit deceiving based on the amount of ventilation holes scattered throughout the top layer (so much so, it may trigger your Trypophobia), but during my testing, I was running in 28 degrees Fahrenheit (-2 degrees Celsius) and my feet were still pretty toasty with very little air passing through. I can’t imagine what running in the summer would feel like.

With all that this shoe has to offer, and the introduction of the Glycerin Flex, I ultimately feel like this shoe is primarily geared toward walkers/service industry/healthcare workers on their feet all day. It certainly works in that context, but at $175, that is a pretty steep price to pay for a shoe in this category. And if you’re looking for a pure running shoe, you’re paying $170 for the Brooks Glycerin Flex, which is much lighter and more “exciting” in terms of performance and ride.

CARYN: Robbe and Karl have covered some of my points, so I’ll keep things simple. This shoe feels heavy and a bit slappy, $175 feels excessive for a non-plated daily trainer that’s just “okay,” and the upper feels like a very warm knit sock. When we’re talking about a daily trainer with a more singular purpose, weight is a key factor. The Glycerin doesn’t feel horrible on the run, but it certainly lacks the ease of turnover I love in some of my other traditional trainers.

I found myself flashing back to the Hyperion Max 3, which has a very similar woven upper. I found the upper stifling in the dead of winter, which doesn’t bode well for the soupy summer here in Baltimore. And look, I get it, everything is more expensive these days. But I can think of at least four shoes off the top of my head that are $30-35 cheaper than the Glycerin, and I’d snag them in its place.

Final thoughts on the Brooks Glycerin 23

ROBBE: The Brooks Glycerin 23 is a reliable daily trainer, but it exists in a sea of reliable daily trainers. It’s not particularly versatile and is competing with its alter ego, the Glycerin Flex, a shoe that feels just as good underfoot but comes in at a lower price point and much lower weight. It’s not a bad shoe by any means; it’ll certainly get the job done, and the midsole mostly absolves the sins of the upper. It’s just that $175 is a lot for a one-trick workhorse that will leave you sweating like a swine in an Italian deli.

If you’re intent on running in the Glycerin, I’d recommend looking for the previous version on sale or trying out the Glycerin Flex (which is similar, lighter, and cheaper). And if you want a true max cushion shoe that’s loads of fun, opt for the Brooks Glycerin Max (version 1).

For now, premium may be out of reach.

KARL: Take everything Robbe said right above me and just copy and paste it here. For pure running, I’m just not so sure about the main Glycerin series now that the Glycerin Flex is here. And if your intention is to run/walk, go to the gym, or be on your feet all day, $175 is a high price to pay for a heavy shoe with a rather standard ride, no matter how durable the shoe may be. My recommendation would also be to pick up last year’s version on sale or find the original Brooks Glycerin Max, which is also on sale.

CARYN: The guys have it right: this shoe just may not be worth the price tag, given what it provides. There are several other brands that offer lighter, more dynamic, and less expensive models while serving the same daily training purpose. I’d likely look into those before dropping $175 on the Glycerin 23, though I do acknowledge that my healthcare friends would certainly find it solid for a long shift at work.

You can pick up the Brooks Glycerin 23 for $175 from Brooks by using the buttons below.