The Brooks Glycerin 22 releases in early February 2025 and continues a long-running, high cushion line. It tends to be the favorite Brooks daily trainer among our running reviewers (at least when it comes to the non-”Max” Brooks lineup) mostly because of its all-around comfort. While that all-around comfort hasn’t changed with the 22nd iteration, several technical aspects of the shoe have.
Let’s take a look at what’s different and how the Brooks Glycerin 22 performs on the roads.
Brooks Glycerin 22
Release Date: February 1, 2025
Price: $165
Men’s Weight: 10.2 oz. / 289g
Women’s Weight: 9.1 oz. / 258g
Drop: 10mm (38mm heel, 28mm forefoot)
Sizing: True to size
- Rundown: The Brooks Glycerin 22 is another strong entry in the Glycerin line and will take its usual place as WearTesters’ favorite daily trainer in the traditional Brooks lineup.

What is the Brooks Glycerin 22?
According to Brooks, you’ll “feel limitless in this super-soft running shoe”, and “softness has never been this powerful. Experience DNA Tuned, our new nitrogen-infused cushioning in the midsole that delivers plush landings and responsive toe-offs with every step.”
That’s some good marketing speak, but it does tell us that the cushioning on the Brooks Glycerin 22 is all new. DNA Tuned, the same type of foam used in the Brooks Glycerin Max, replaces DNA LOFT v3 (another nitrogen-infused foam). Brooks also says it’s created using dual-cell technology. That means larger cells of foam in the heel help with cushioning heavy heel landings, while smaller cells in the forefoot improve responsiveness when pushing off the ground.
We loved the way DNA Tuned made the forefoot of the Brooks Glycerin Max something special, so it’s exciting to see it translated into one of Brooks’ standard-bearing daily running shoes.
The midsole sculpting is also new and signals that Brooks is working on making its shoes look sleeker and faster, likely trying to appeal to a young demographic while hoping they don’t alienate longtime fans. The new sculpting looks good and still looks Brooks-y while bringing some pizazz to the table.
The outsole is different, with a looping pattern replacing the sort of circular and radial vibes of the Glycerin 21. There’s slightly more rubber coverage at the midfoot, but the rest of the rearfoot is covered in a similar manner to last year’s version. There are still plenty of flex grooves in hopes of keeping this highly cushioned shoe flexible and adaptable to the wearer’s footstrike (spoiler alert: results may vary).
And finally, the upper still brings that plush feel of a Brooks Glycerin but uses an engineered double jacquard knit upper in place of last year’s engineered warp knit upper. Though Brooks talks about it being different, it’s similar to last year’s fit and feel in practice.

How did the Brooks Glycerin 22 perform for Drew?
Drew: “Feels a lot like last year” is probably my headline for the Brooks Glycerin 22. The midsole is a little bouncier in the forefoot thanks to the DNA Tuned cushion, but heel and midfoot strikes offer lots of protection and some squish (but not too much). And this is all done without any extra foam underfoot versus last year’s Glycerin 21…which is what many brands resort to in order to add that extra squish.
Also, unlike some other brands’ comparable models but like its forebears, the Glycerin 22 can pick up speed when necessary. That’s a nice bonus that other daily trainers priced at $160-170 don’t always have. Picking up the pace won’t feel easy like it does in more speed-focused shoes; but once you get to cruising speed, the Glycerin 22 does well at maintaining it.
Below the new midsole, the outsole feels pretty much the same in terms of traction in various conditions. I did see wear accumulating quickly in my high wear areas, so long-term durability looks to be less than the Glycerin 21 and Glycerin 20. There is still enough rubber to last a long while, but topping 400 miles may not be in the cards for this year’s model.
Finally, the upper. It feels different to the touch but on-foot maintains that Brooks feeling of padded plushness all around. I like the reworked heel collar and elasticized pull tab (both basically copied from the awesome heel collar of the Asics Gel-Nimbus 25, 26, and 27), and the comfort around the ankle is fantastic. Normally, I’d chide a brand for stealing a feature…But, since this is done to take ankle and heel comfort to the next level, I’ll forgive it (though Asics might not, lol).
Enough about my experience, let’s see what Annie thought. She LOVED DNA LOFT v3 so I’m interested to see what she thinks about the all-new midsole.

How did the Brooks Glycerin 22 perform for Annie?
Annie: As much as I’ve enjoyed DNA LOFT v3 over the years, I loved the DNA Tuned in the Glycerin Max even more. So I was pumped to learn it would be appearing in the Brooks Glycerin 22.
While the properties of DNA Tuned aren’t as dramatically expressed here as in the Glycerin Max (due to a vastly different geometry as well as stack height), it retains its recognizably bouncy responsiveness in the forefoot. It’s at least as protective as the DNA LOFT v3 of the Glycerin 21/20, and the ride has more life. While that response definitely gives the Glycerin 22 moderate-effort capability that exceeds many of its direct competitors, it remains best suited to easier paces.
The upper is plush and comfortable as is typical of a Glycerin. Though I found there is just a touch more structure through the eyelet chain when compared to the Glycerin 21. And while it’s not constrictive, it does result in a feeling of a touch less volume in the upper of my women’s pair.
The shift to a Nimbus-esque heel collar is excellent for comfort, but I had minor difficulty staying locked into the heel cup the longer I was out on the roads (which, coincidentally, was also the case in the Nimbus 25. Go figure). It’s the first time I’ve ever had to use a runner’s knot on a Brooks Glycerin. It didn’t cause any rubbing or discomfort, and the fit was in no way sloppy. Heel lockdown just didn’t feel quite as foolproof as I’ve come to expect from the line.
The dual-cell setup of DNA Tuned means I was able to compress the heel of the Brooks Glycerin 22 better than I could that of the Glycerin 21. Because of that, the Glycerin 22’s cushioning shines when it comes to heel-striking.
In fact, my expectation was that the difference in density between the heel and forefoot of the Glycerin 22 would make the drop feel lower. But it didn’t play out that way for me, and here’s my best guess as to why…
…One of the things I loved most about last year’s Glycerin 21 is what Brooks did with its outsole. Not only did it grip exceedingly well and seem virtually indestructible, but it was also laid out in a segmented pattern that allowed for unexpected flexibility both side-to-side and front-to-back – even in combination with a relatively dense midsole material.
That’s not the case here in the Brooks Glycerin 22. I had to take the two versions out for direct comparison just to be sure my memory wasn’t totally skewed.
The forefoot grooves of the Glycerin 22’s outsole do a decent job, but they can’t quite compete with the two-piece layout of the Glycerin 21’s forefoot rubber. The piece of rubber at the medial side of the heel also extends farther up through the arch on the Glycerin 22, and it denies my preferred flexpoint just enough to feel less natural underfoot and detracts from what little efficiency I have (and it ain’t much to begin with, trust me).
It’s such a nitpicky thing that I feel a tad loony even typing all of that out. And I realize it seems like it wouldn’t have much impact; and, in fairness, it would probably go largely unnoticed for most runners.
But in my case – and perhaps it’s just a function of being a relatively small human – being less able to manipulate what’s underfoot made the Glycerin 22’s 10mm drop feel higher to me than the same 10mm drop in the Glycerin 21.
That’s no big deal if you do well in higher-drop shoes. But it’s something to be aware of if you often gravitate toward a different geometry. For instance, a similar outsole layout doesn’t feel like as big of a deal to my stride in a lower drop shoe. It’s when a more structured rubber layout is combined with a higher drop that I run into issues.

Pros
- All-around comfort
- Bouncy DNA Tuned forefoot
- Stable, plush heel for soft landings
- Super plush heel collar and pull tab

Cons
- Outsole durability
- Change in outsole pattern doesn’t allow as much flexibility
- Heel lockdown is comfortable, but not quite as foolproof as in previous version

Is the Brooks Glycerin 22 wide foot friendly?
Drew: The length of the Brooks Glycerin 22 was true-to-size, and length/width was consistent with Glycerins of the past. The ample room in the forefoot means some wide-footers will get by going true-to-size in the standard width. Wide (2E) and extra wide (4E) versions will be available as is typical for the Glycerin line.
Annie: Agreed. Those who need slightly-more-than-average width in the forefoot will likely be okay in the standard-width Brooks Glycerin 22. Those who need more room overall will be happiest in wide sizing.

Is the Brooks Glycerin 22 worth $165?
Drew: With $165 being the new going price for highly cushioned daily trainers, the Brooks Glycerin 22 delivers enough value to justify the price.
However, it’s not all that different from the Glycerin 21. So I’d recommend continuing to buy the Glycerin 21 until you can’t find it anymore and then move over to the Glycerin 22. True, the Glycerin 22 is slightly better, but you’ll be able to save good money by waiting a few more months for the extra forefoot bounce.
Annie: The Brooks Glycerin 22 gives consumers what a $165 shoe should, both when contextualized within Brooks’ own greater selection and when compared to its competitors. So in that sense, it’s worthy of its price.
But while I do prefer the DNA Tuned midsole of the Brooks Glycerin 22, some of its upside is negated by how the redesign of the outsole can affect the ride. In my case, I’d be trading one thing for another between the Glycerin 22 and the Glycerin 21.
As long as you get along well with higher-drop shoes as a general rule, you’re unlikely to go wrong with either version… But you still might as well scoop up the more affordable option for the time being

Brooks Glycerin 22 Summary
Drew: The Brooks Glycerin 22 is another strong entry in the Glycerin line and will take its usual place as WearTesters’ favorite daily trainer in the traditional Brooks lineup. The forefoot bounce basically ensures that and overcomes the slight decrease in outsole durability. The Glycerin 22 continues to be a reliable, accommodating, and plush daily trainer, and we’ll once again see it on a lot of runners’ feet in 2025.
Annie: I’d love to see Brooks either bring back the more flexible (and better-performing) outsole setup of the Glycerin 21 or lower the drop by a few millimeters. But personal preferences aside, the Brooks Glycerin 22 is still an easy-to-recommend daily trainer for those who find a higher drop agreeable to their running style. It brings plenty of plush comfort to the table for easy and long miles; and moderate efforts are within reach, thanks to DNA Tuned’s pleasantly responsive forefoot.
How does the Author Run?
Drew Whitcomb (age 43, 6’6″ 195lbs): Runs daily with a once a week rest day. Runs a lot of miles due to testing needs and a growing affinity for long-distance races. Regularly competes in marathons, half-marathons, 10k, and 5k races.
Annie Keris (age 39, 5’0” 117lbs): Typically follows a “two days on, one day off” running routine. “On” days include daily miles, speed work, and long runs. An “off” day usually involves yoga and mobility/recovery work. Enjoys occasional racing but perhaps enjoys the training process even more. Gravitates most toward the half marathon distance, but ventures into the 10k and 5k as well. The marathon is thus far uncharted territory…
Disclosure
While Brooks did provide pairs of the Glycerin 22 to facilitate this review, the company had no involvement in this review, didn’t receive an advance look at it, and has not attempted to influence it.