Brooks Ghost 17 vs Ghost 16

Look, I'm going to be straight with you – when Brooks announced the Ghost 17, I wasn't exactly jumping out of my seat with excitement. I mean, the Ghost 16 had just introduced that DNA Loft V3 foam everyone was raving about, so what more could they possibly improve? More cushioning? Great, another "max" shoe I don't need.

But then I started hearing whispers. "The forefoot feels way better." "The drop is lower now." "It's actually noticeably softer."

So I did what any slightly obsessive runner would do – I kept my Ghost 16s (which still had plenty of life left) and grabbed the Ghost 17 when it dropped. Over the past few months, I've put serious miles on both: 180+ on the Ghost 16, another 120+ on the Ghost 17. I've done side-by-side runs, back-to-back long runs in each shoe, and spent way too much time analyzing what actually changed between these versions.

Here's the truth: the Ghost 17 is better. Not dramatically, earth-shatteringly better, but meaningfully better in ways that actually matter when you're logging miles. And that surprised me.

The Stack Height Story (And Why 3mm Actually Matters)

Okay, so let's start with what Brooks changed on paper, because this is where everything else flows from.

Ghost 16:

• Heel: 35.5mm (some sources say 36mm)
• Forefoot: 23.5-24mm
• Drop: 12mm
• Weight: 9.7 oz / 277g (men's size 9)

Ghost 17:

• Heel: 36.5-37mm (1mm more)
• Forefoot: 26.5-27mm (3mm more)
• Drop: 10mm
• Weight: 10.1 oz / 286g (men's size 9)

So yeah, the Ghost 17 has more foam. About 1mm in the heel, 3mm in the forefoot. And because they added more to the forefoot, the drop went from 12mm to 10mm.

Now, normally I'd tell you that 3mm is barely noticeable. And in most cases, it wouldn't be. But here's the thing – the Ghost 16's forefoot always felt a bit thin to me. Like Brooks was holding back on the cushioning where I actually needed it most. That 3mm addition? It fixes that issue completely.

The Ghost 17's forefoot just feels... right. More protected, more cushioned, but not mushy or disconnected. When I'm pushing off on mile 12 of a long run, that extra forefoot cushioning is legitimately noticeable.

The Drop Change: From 12mm to 10mm (Finally!)

This might be the most significant change, honestly.

Brooks has been stubbornly sticking with that 12mm drop on the Ghost line for years. And look, I get it – if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Plenty of people love that high drop feel. But the trend in running shoes has been toward lower drops for a while now (6-8mm seems to be the sweet spot for most modern trainers).

Dropping to 10mm brings the Ghost 17 more in line with contemporary running shoe geometry. It's still a relatively high drop, but it's less aggressive than 12mm.

What this means on the run: the Ghost 17 feels a bit more balanced. Less of that "tipping forward" sensation. My foot sits more naturally in the shoe. The transition from heel to midfoot to toe-off feels smoother and less exaggerated.

I'm primarily a midfoot striker, and I definitely prefer the 10mm drop. If you're a heavy heel striker who loves that 12mm drop, you might notice this change more than I did. But honestly, after a few runs, I think most people would adapt just fine.

The Foam: Same DNA Loft V3, Different Feel

Both shoes use DNA Loft V3 foam – the nitrogen-infused stuff that Brooks introduced in the Ghost 16. It's good foam. Lightweight, resilient, reasonably responsive for a daily trainer.

But here's what's weird: the Ghost 17 feels softer than the Ghost 16, even though it's technically the same foam.

I spent way too much time trying to figure out why. Best theory I have: it's probably a combination of factors. Maybe Brooks changed how they're injecting the nitrogen. Maybe the extra stack height in the forefoot changes how the foam compresses. Maybe the outsole rubber is slightly softer (it does feel softer to the touch, though Brooks hasn't officially confirmed this).

Whatever the reason, the Ghost 17 definitely has a plusher, softer feel on the run. It's not dramatically different, but it's noticeable. The Ghost 16 felt balanced and protective. The Ghost 17 feels balanced, protective, and comfortable in a more luxurious way.

More article: Brooks Ghost 16 vs Ghost Max

The Outsole Tweaks Nobody Talks About

Brooks made some subtle changes to the outsole that actually matter more than you'd think.

Flex grooves: The Ghost 17 has revised flex groove patterns that angle more toward the big toe. This helps with the push-off phase – the shoe bends more naturally where your foot wants to bend. The Ghost 16's flex grooves were fine, but these are better.

Heel bevel: The Ghost 17 has a more aggressive heel bevel. It curves up more at the back of the shoe, which smooths out the initial contact with the ground. When your heel hits, the transition is just a bit smoother and less abrupt.

Rubber compound: Like I mentioned, the rubber feels softer to the touch. It's got more grip, more flex, and allegedly it's made with recycled silica (which is cool from an environmental standpoint). The Ghost 16's rubber was durable but felt a bit harder and less responsive.

These aren't revolutionary changes, but they add up. The Ghost 17 just flows better through the gait cycle.

The Upper Changes (Some Good, Some... Unnecessary?)

Both shoes have engineered mesh uppers. Both are breathable and comfortable. But there are some differences.

The tongue: The Ghost 17's tongue is noticeably thicker and more padded than the Ghost 16's. Honestly? I don't think this was necessary. The Ghost 16's tongue was already comfortable and did its job of protecting from lace pressure. The extra padding on the Ghost 17 doesn't hurt anything, but it also doesn't really add value. It might contribute slightly to the weight increase.

The heel collar: More padding around the heel collar on the Ghost 17. Again, this adds comfort, but the Ghost 16 was already comfortable here. Brooks might be overdoing the padding a bit.

The Achilles tab: This is actually an improvement. The Ghost 17 has a heel tab that flares away from the Achilles tendon. This reduces any potential irritation and makes the shoe easier to slip on. The Ghost 16 had a more traditional straight heel tab that could occasionally dig in a bit.

The Ghost 16 had that annoyingly stiff heel counter that bothered some people (including me on longer runs). The Ghost 17's heel counter is still stiff – it's still very much there for structure and stability – but the extra padding around it makes it less noticeable.

Aesthetic changes: The Ghost 17 has a jacquard engineered mesh pattern that looks more modern. The design is cleaner, more contemporary. This is purely subjective, but I think the Ghost 17 looks better than the Ghost 16.

How They Actually Feel on Different Types of Runs

Alright, enough specs. Let's talk about what matters: how do these shoes perform when you're actually running?

Easy Recovery Runs (3-5 miles, conversational pace)

Both shoes are excellent here. This is their bread and butter.

The Ghost 16 feels smooth and reliable. The cushioning is protective without being soft. You can just cruise along and the shoe does its job without calling attention to itself.

The Ghost 17 feels noticeably plusher and more comfortable. That extra forefoot cushioning makes landing feel softer. The revised flex grooves make toe-off feel more natural. It's a more comfortable experience overall.

If I'm really tired and just need to get some easy miles in, I reach for the Ghost 17 now. It feels more forgiving.

More article; Brooks Ghost Max 2 vs Original Ghost Max

Long Runs (13+ miles)

This is where the Ghost 17 really shines compared to the Ghost 16.

That 3mm of extra forefoot cushioning makes a real difference when you're out there for 2+ hours. Around mile 10-12, when fatigue is setting in and my form is getting sloppier, the Ghost 17's forefoot cushioning provides noticeably more protection.

I did a 16-miler in the Ghost 17, and my feet felt better at the end than they typically do after long runs in the Ghost 16. Not dramatically better, but enough that I noticed.

The Ghost 16 is still perfectly capable of handling long runs – I've done plenty of 14-16 milers in them without issues. But the Ghost 17 is just... more comfortable for extended efforts.

Tempo/Moderate Pace Running

Neither shoe is a tempo shoe. Let's be clear about that. These are daily trainers, not speed shoes.

That said, both can handle moderate pace efforts (7:30-8:30 min/mile for me) reasonably well.

The Ghost 16 actually feels slightly more responsive at faster paces. It's 15g lighter, it's got a bit less foam, and it feels a touch more nimble.

The Ghost 17 can do moderate pace stuff, but it feels a bit more sluggish. That extra cushioning and weight work against you when you're trying to move faster.

If I know I'm going to throw in some tempo segments or mile repeats during a run, I'd probably grab the Ghost 16. But for pure easy day training, the Ghost 17 is the better choice.

Walking and All-Day Wear

Both shoes are fantastic for walking. Probably better for walking than running, honestly.

The Ghost 17 edges ahead here because of that extra cushioning. I've worn these for full days of sightseeing (we're talking 20,000+ steps), and my feet felt great. The plush feel that's maybe slightly excessive for running is perfect for walking.

I've seen reviews from people who buy these specifically for standing and walking all day at work, and they absolutely love them. The Ghost 17 is legit one of the best walking shoes you can buy if you want something that looks like a running shoe but provides maximum comfort.

The Ghost 16 is also good for walking, just slightly less cushioned and comfortable.

The Fit and Sizing Situation

I wear a size 10.5 in both shoes, and both fit true to size for me.

Ghost 16 fit:

• True to size (felt slightly short initially, broke in after 10-15 miles)
• Snug through the midfoot
• Roomy toe box (enough space without being sloppy)
• That stiff heel counter could irritate Achilles on long runs
• Normal volume overall

Ghost 17 fit:

• True to size
• Still snug through midfoot (good lockdown)
• Toe box has similar room, maybe slightly more vertical space
• More padding everywhere (tongue, heel collar)
• The flared Achilles tab is noticeably more comfortable
• Feels slightly higher volume due to all the extra padding

If the Ghost 16 fit you well, the Ghost 17 will fit you well. Brooks didn't mess with the fundamental fit, just added padding.

One note: if you have narrow feet, all that extra padding in the Ghost 17 might make it feel a bit bulkier. The Ghost 16 might actually fit better if you prefer a more streamlined feel.

Durability: 300+ Combined Miles Later

I've got 180+ miles on my Ghost 16s and 120+ on my Ghost 17s, so I can give you some durability insights.

Ghost 16 durability:

• Outsole rubber is wearing evenly, minimal wear even after 180 miles
• Upper is holding up perfectly, no tears or separation
• Midsole foam still feels resilient
• These will easily hit 350-400 miles

Ghost 17 durability:

• Too early to fully judge, but so far looking excellent
• That softer outsole rubber actually seems to be wearing better than the Ghost 16's
• Upper is pristine after 120 miles
• Based on build quality, expecting 350-400 miles minimum

One thing I noticed: the Ghost 16's tread pattern can wear unevenly if you have an aggressive heel strike. I've seen some reviews mentioning heel wear issues. The Ghost 17's revised outsole pattern seems to distribute wear more evenly.

The Weight Difference: Does 15g Matter?

The Ghost 17 is about 15g heavier than the Ghost 16 per shoe. That's roughly 30g total (about 1 ounce).

Honestly? I don't notice it at all during runs. Brooks shoes have always been good at "disappearing" on your foot despite their weight, and both of these shoes do that.

If you're obsessive about shoe weight and every gram matters to you, the Ghost 16 is lighter. For 99% of runners, this weight difference is completely negligible and not worth considering in your decision.

Price and Value: Same Money, Better Shoe?

Both shoes retail for $140. So you're paying the same price either way (assuming you're buying new at full retail).

Here's the thing though: the Ghost 16 is the outgoing model, which means it's starting to hit some solid sales. I've seen it for $100-110 fairly regularly. The Ghost 17 is the current model, so it's mostly still at full price.

If money is tight: Get the Ghost 16 on sale. At $100-110, it's killer value. You're getting 90% of what the Ghost 17 offers for 30-40% less money. That's a great deal.

If you can afford full price: Get the Ghost 17. It's the better shoe. Not by a huge margin, but by enough that I think it's worth the extra money if you're paying retail for either one.

If the Ghost 16 is on deep sale ($80-90): Just grab it. At that price, who cares about the minor improvements in the Ghost 17. The Ghost 16 is an excellent shoe that'll serve you well for 400 miles.

Real User Experiences (What Other Runners Are Saying)

I've been reading through reviews from actual buyers (not just professional reviewers), and there's a consistent pattern:

People who love the Ghost 16:

• Praise the durability (multiple people mentioning 400-500+ miles)
• Love the cushioning for walking and standing all day
• Appreciate the fit and comfort
• Some mention wanting slightly more forefoot cushioning

People who love the Ghost 17:

• Immediately notice the softer, more comfortable feel
• Love the extra forefoot cushioning
• Appreciate the lower drop feeling more natural
• Some long-time Ghost users mention it's the best Ghost yet

People comparing both:

• Most say the Ghost 17 has "more bounce"
• Agree the Ghost 17 is more comfortable for longer distances
• Some prefer the Ghost 16 for gym work and shorter walks
• General consensus: Ghost 17 is better for running, both are great for walking

One guy who compared both said it perfectly: "The 16s are a great shoe and for 50 bucks less get the edge. But for longer walks the 17s get the edge."

That pretty much sums it up.

Who Should Buy What (My Honest Recommendations)

Buy the Ghost 17 if:

• You're paying full price anyway (might as well get the better shoe)
• Long runs (13+ miles) are a regular part of your training
• You want maximum cushioning and comfort
• You prefer a more modern, lower drop feel (10mm vs 12mm)
• You're buying primarily for walking/standing all day
• That flared Achilles tab appeals to you (sensitive Achilles)

Buy the Ghost 16 if:

• You can find it on sale for $100-110 or less
• You prefer a slightly lighter shoe
• You like traditional high-drop shoes (12mm)
• You occasionally do moderate pace running in your daily trainer
• You want to save $30-40 and don't care about incremental improvements
• You already know you love the Ghost 16 and just need another pair

Skip both and look elsewhere if:

• You want a light, versatile daily trainer (try Saucony Ride 18)
• You need maximum softness (look at Hoka Clifton or Nike Invincible)
• You want a shoe for tempo runs and workouts (try Saucony Endorphin Speed or ASICS Novablast)
• You prefer minimal, low-drop shoes (try Altra or Topo)

My Personal Take After 300+ Combined Miles

Alright, so which shoe is actually in my rotation now?

Honestly? The Ghost 17 has become my go-to easy day and long run shoe. It's just more comfortable. That extra forefoot cushioning, the softer overall feel, the smoother transitions – it all adds up to a more pleasant running experience.

The Ghost 16 is still a great shoe, and I still wear it occasionally (it's got plenty of life left). But when I reach into my shoe closet for an easy day, I grab the Ghost 17 probably 80% of the time now.

Are the improvements revolutionary? No. Could I happily run in the Ghost 16 for another 200 miles without complaining? Absolutely.

But the Ghost 17 is measurably better in ways that matter: more comfortable on long runs, better forefoot protection, smoother transitions, more modern geometry with that 10mm drop.

If I'm being completely honest, Brooks could've been more aggressive with the changes. They could've gone to an 8mm drop. They could've used a lighter foam. They could've reduced the weight instead of adding to it.

But what they did do is take an already excellent daily trainer and make it noticeably more comfortable without breaking what was already working. That's a smart, conservative approach that I think most Ghost fans will appreciate.

The Bottom Line: Worth Upgrading?

If you currently own the Ghost 16 and they're still in good shape: Probably don't need to rush out and buy the Ghost 17. The improvements are nice but not essential.

If you're in the market for a new daily trainer and choosing between these two: Get the Ghost 17 if they're the same price. Get the Ghost 16 if it's on significant sale.

If you've never tried a Ghost before: Either one will serve you well. These are both comfortable, durable, reliable daily trainers that'll handle 90% of your training miles without complaint.

For me, the Ghost 17 edges out the Ghost 16 by a noticeable but not dramatic margin. It's the better shoe. But the Ghost 16 is still damn good, especially at sale prices.

My ratings:

• Ghost 16: 8/10 – Excellent daily trainer that introduced great foam tech
• Ghost 17: 8.5/10 – Refined version with meaningful improvements in comfort

Both shoes are solid choices. The Ghost 17 is just slightly more solid.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a 18-miler scheduled tomorrow, and I already know which shoes I'm lacing up...