Brooks Cascadia 19 vs Brooks Cascadia 20 GTX
Brooks Cascadia 19 vs Brooks Cascadia 20 GTX, side by side on equal terms. Differences are emphasised; matching specs are dimmed.
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $150 | $190 |
| Weight | 303g | 323.2g |
| Drop | 6mm | 6mm |
| Stack (heel/forefoot) | — | — |
| Lug depth | 4mm | 4mm |
| Surface | Trail | Trail |
| Primary use | Long Distance | Technical |
| Cushion | Moderate | Moderate |
| Firmness | Balanced | Balanced |
| Stability | Neutral | — |
| Plate | None | Unknown |
| Waterproof | No | Yes |
| Midsole | — | Nitrogen-infused DNA FLASH v2 |
| Outsole | — | Vibram Megagrip with Traction Lug technology |
| Width availability | Standard | Standard |
| Best for | Runners who want a stable, protective workhorse for long or technical trail miles. | Runners tackling wet, muddy, or technical trails who want a stable, waterproof shoe and don't mind the extra weight. |
| Avoid if | You want a light, responsive shoe for fast terrain or racing. | You want a light, breathable shoe for fast efforts or hot, dry conditions, since the GORE-TEX upper adds weight and traps heat. |
| Lowest offer | — | — |
Which should you pick?
head-to-head · opinionBoth are stable, moderately cushioned trail workhorses, so the real choice is weather protection versus weight and breathability. Pick the Cascadia 20 GTX at 323 g if you're running wet, muddy, or technical trails and want the waterproof GORE-TEX upper; choose the lighter, non-waterproof Cascadia 19 at 303 g (and $40 less) for long miles in dry or hot conditions where breathability matters more than staying dry.