Best Running Shoes for Flat Feet (2026): A Podiatrist’s Guide
This is a specification analysis. We have no original product measurements, wear-test notes or comparative patient outcomes for these models. Manufacturer and independent laboratory figures are attributed to their publishers; construction observations do not establish injury prevention or a treatment ranking. Nothing here carries a score or the seal. How We Test describes the proposed physical-testing protocol.
Written and medically reviewed by Dr. Tom Biernacki, DPM, FACFAS · Last reviewed 14 October 2026
We earn a commission if you buy through links on this page, including Amazon links paid by brand partners through Levanta, at no cost to you. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. How we make money
On this page
- The short answer
- Flat feet and running: what actually goes wrong
- Stability, motion control or neutral — which one you need
- What a running shoe can — and can’t — change
- The five-minute test to run before you buy
- What a lab found when it twisted 24 shoes
- Best running shoes for flat feet: the picks
- Best running shoes for flat feet, by situation
- Who should skip a stability shoe
- The numbers, side by side
- What the research actually supports — and where it stops
- Where the arch fill actually comes from
- Frequently asked questions
- What we are testing next
The short answer
Model versions: the current Adrenaline is the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 25. The GTS 24 named below is the previous version and is usually the cheaper of the two while it is still stocked.
A flat arch alone does not establish which running shoe will be most comfortable or prevent injury. The Brooks Adrenaline GTS 24, New Balance 860v15 and HOKA Gaviota 6 are support designs to compare for fit and comfort, not default treatments selected by body weight or arch shape. Neutral designs may also suit some runners; symptoms, history and any prescribed support matter.
Compared head-to-head: New Balance 860v15 vs Brooks Adrenaline GTS 24 — the two most commonly recommended stability trainers, set against each other on measured figures rather than marketing language.
This is a companion to our general best shoes for flat feet guide (which covers walking, standing and work) and to best shoes for overpronation. Here we look only at running, where the forces are three to four times higher and shoe choice matters most.
Where to start
Seven places to start, drawn from the picks further down this page. None has been through our bench yet, so there are no scores here. A flexible flat foot with no pain may not need a stability shoe at all: see who should skip one.
- Support design to compare: Brooks Adrenaline GTS 24GuideRails engage only when the foot rolls too far, in Narrow, Medium, Wide and X-Wide.Men’s — check price
- Flat and wide: New Balance Fresh Foam X 860v15The widest true width range here: men’s B to 4E, women’s 2A to 2E.Women’s — check price Men’s — check price
- H-Frame support design: HOKA Gaviota 6Compare the platform, upper fit and support feel; no clinical severity threshold was tested here.Women’s — check price Men’s — check price
- The value pick: ASICS GT-2000 15Much of the Kayano’s support geometry in a lighter, cheaper package.Women’s — check price Men’s — check price
- A lower drop: Saucony Guide 19A lower-drop stability shoe, 6 mm, in regular, wide and extra wide.Women’s — check price Men’s — check price
- Higher mileage and maximum cushion: ASICS Gel-Kayano 32Heavier and more structured: maximum under-heel cushioning with the support built in. Its successor, the Kayano 33, is now on sale; the lab figures on this page are for the 32.Men’s — check price
- Arch fill, inside the shoe: CURREX RunPro insoleSold in low, medium and high arch profiles rather than one shape for everyone.Check price — choose your size
Paid links: we earn a commission at no extra cost to you, and it never changes what is listed. The reasoning for each is in the full picks, and the figures are in the numbers side by side.
Clarification (8 October 2026): Clarified that these are untested specification analyses and laboratory design comparisons. Removed automatic arch-based shoe rules, presumed protection and unsupported weakening claims. No new physical testing or clinician review is reported.
Flat feet and running: what actually goes wrong
A flat arch can occur with different patterns of movement and symptoms. Foot posture alone does not establish that running will overload the plantar fascia, shin, knee or hip. Assess symptoms, training and function rather than treating a low arch as an injury mechanism by itself.
Cushioning, heel fit, internal width, guidance features and comfort can all contribute to a useful comparison. This page has not established that a soft neutral shoe worsens a flat foot or that twisting resistance is the decisive clinical feature. In-store checks describe the shoe; they do not replace assessment of a painful foot.
Stability, motion control or neutral — which one you need
Flexible and stiff flat feet can have different causes and presentations. A painful or newly changed foot needs assessment; a self-check cannot establish a diagnosis or a universal neutral-versus-stability prescription.
The heel-rise test
A heel-rise observation may be one part of a clinical foot assessment, but it is not a validated shopping test that identifies the right shoe or distinguishes every cause of a flat foot. If the foot is painful, stiff, newly changed or difficult to assess, seek a clinician’s evaluation before using this observation to guide running or footwear.
When to see someone first
If one foot is flatter than the other and it came on in adulthood, or the inside of your ankle aches and swells, do not self-treat with a running shoe. That pattern can point to a posterior tibial tendon problem, which running can accelerate. A shoe is support, not a diagnosis.
What a running shoe can — and can’t — change
Three features do the real work. Everything else is marketing.
1. The heel counter
The heel counter is the structure around the back of the shoe. A squeeze check can describe its stiffness, but it does not establish how much it controls a particular foot during running. Compare heel hold and comfort in the actual size; a more flexible counter is not automatically ineffective for every flat-footed runner.
2. Torsional rigidity through the midfoot
A twist check describes mechanical resistance through the shoe. Brooks’ GuideRails, HOKA’s H-Frame, ASICS guidance geometry and Saucony sidewalls are different design approaches. Their names and laboratory twisting results do not establish an individual treatment requirement. The laboratory comparison below describes measured samples.
3. Stack, drop and the wedge myth
Heel-to-toe drop is a design measurement, not a treatment grade for flat feet. This guide does not establish a required 10–12 mm or 4–6 mm range. Compare the exact shoe’s fit and comfort, including any prescribed insole or custom device. A shoe or insert should not be represented as rebuilding the arch.
The five-minute test to run before you buy
- Squeeze the heel counter. It should resist, not fold.
- Twist the shoe. Heel in one hand, toe in the other. You want resistance through the middle, not a dishrag.
- Bend it. It should flex at the ball of the foot, where your foot flexes — not in the arch.
- Check the width honestly. A flat foot spreads. If the shoe only comes in one width and your foot hangs over the sole, size across, not up — most of the shoes below offer Wide and X-Wide.
- Run in them, don’t walk. Overpronation shows up at running speed. A treadmill minute in the store tells you more than a lap of the shop floor.
What a lab found when it twisted 24 shoes
The twist in the five-minute test is a rough version of a lab test. RunRepeat locks each shoe at the heel and forefoot, twists it 10 degrees toward the inside and 10 toward the outside, and adds up the torque, in newton-metres: the more it takes, the less the middle of the shoe gives under a foot that rolls in. It has done this for 24 of the shoes we review, and the result is not what the labels on the boxes would predict.
The stability label is a weak guide. The stiffest of the 24 is a neutral shoe, the ASICS Gel-Nimbus 28, at 20.5 Nm. Four stability shoes are close behind it: the ASICS Gel-Kayano 32 (20.2), HOKA Arahi 8 (19.5), New Balance 860v15 (18.2) and HOKA Gaviota 6 (17.7). But the ASICS GT-2000 15 (14.8) sits just over the 14.5 Nm median and the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 25 (14.3) just under it, and the Altra Paradigm 8 (12.4) and Saucony Guide 19 (10.7) twist more easily than most of the neutral shoes; the Guide is 23rd of the 24. HOKA’s new Arahi 9, not yet one of the shoes we review, measured 11.8 against the Arahi 8’s 19.5 (Arahi 8 vs 9).
The heel counter does not follow the label either. On the lab’s 1-to-5 squeeze test the Kayano 32’s heel counter scored 5; the 860v15, Gaviota 6, GT-2000 15 and Adrenaline GTS 25 scored 4; the Arahi 8 and Guide 19 scored 3; and the Paradigm 8 scored 2. Several neutral shoes, including the Brooks Ghost 17 and 18 and the Saucony Ride 19, scored 5. Two of the stability shoes do stand out on width: of the 35 shoes we review that a lab has measured, the Gaviota 6 has the widest base at the heel (105.6 mm), and the Guide 19 ties the neutral Bondi 9 for second (104.2 mm).
What the laboratory numbers mean. They describe sample construction under the laboratory method. They do not establish a preferred model for posterior tibial tendon problems, arthritis, pain or a particular arch. This page has no repeatability analysis that establishes a one- or two-newton-metre noise threshold. Use the numbers as design comparisons and assess actual fit, comfort and any clinically prescribed requirements separately.
RunRepeat lab, one retail pair of each, read 28 September 2026. Twist: the torque to twist the shoe 10 degrees toward the inside plus the torque to twist it 10 degrees toward the outside, the lab’s current method (March 2026); median of the 24, 14.5 Nm. Heel counter on the lab’s 1-to-5 scale; base width measured across the midsole at the heel. No shoe on this page has been on our own bench yet.
Best running shoes for flat feet: the picks
These are the running-specific stability models already in our review library that meet the criteria above, ordered roughly from the most widely suitable to the most specialised. None has completed the full measurement protocol yet, so none carries a score or the Podiatrist Tested seal — each links to its published specification analysis, where every figure is attributed to the brand that published it. How we test.
Disclosure: the Amazon links in this section are paid links. If you buy through one, Amazon pays us a commission at no extra cost to you. Commissions never influence which shoes appear here, their order, a score or the seal — see our independence policy.
Brooks Adrenaline GTS 24
A support design to compare for actual heel fit and comfort. Brooks’ GuideRails sit on both sides of the heel and only engage when the foot rolls too far, so a neutral stride barely feels them. Brooks publishes it in Narrow, Medium, Wide and X-Wide. Its successor, the GTS 25, needed 14.3 Nm to twist in a lab, just under the median of the 24 shoes we review.
New Balance Fresh Foam X 860v15
The widest true width range here — men’s B/D/2E/4E and women’s 2A/B/D/2E — which makes it the one to try first if your flat foot is also wide. Manufacturer drop 8 mm. A lab found it one of the harder shoes to twist, 18.2 Nm, with a heel counter of 4 of 5.
ASICS GT-2000 15
The value pick: much of the Kayano’s support geometry in a lighter, cheaper package. Manufacturer drop 8 mm; ASICS offers men’s D/2E/4E and women’s 2A/B/D widths. A lab found it 14.8 Nm to twist, just over the median of the 24 shoes we review and well short of the Kayano 32’s 20.2, with a heel counter of 4 of 5.
ASICS Gel-Kayano 32
A heavier, more structured stability trainer for higher-mileage runners who want maximum under-heel cushioning with the support built in. ASICS lists it in Medium, Wide and X-Wide for men. A lab found it the second-hardest to twist of the 24 shoes we review, 20.2 Nm, with a heel counter of 5 of 5.
Saucony Guide 19
A lower-drop stability shoe (manufacturer drop 6 mm, which a lab confirmed) for runners who find the traditional 10–12 mm trainers too built-up. Saucony offers Regular, Wide and Extra Wide in both men’s and women’s. A lab found it one of the easiest to twist of the 24 we review, 10.7 Nm, on one of the widest heel bases; the twisting figure does not establish a requirement for a stiffer shoe.
HOKA Arahi 8
Stability built into a firmer layer of foam that supports both sides of the foot (HOKA’s H-Frame) rather than a medial post pressing into the arch, on a taller, softer midsole. A lab found it the third-hardest to twist of the 24 shoes we review, 19.5 Nm; its successor, the Arahi 9, measured 11.8. Manufacturer drop 8 mm; Regular, Wide and X-Wide.
HOKA Gaviota 6
HOKA’s maximum-support model — the one to look at for a heavier runner or a more severe overpronator who finds the others still let the foot roll. Manufacturer drop 6 mm; Regular, Wide and X-Wide. In a lab it had the widest heel base of the 35 shoes we review (105.6 mm) and took 17.7 Nm to twist.
Compared head-to-head: HOKA Gaviota 6 vs Arahi 8 — the same HOKA support frame $30 apart, and what the extra actually buys.
Best running shoes for flat feet, by situation
For men
All seven models come in men’s sizing. The Adrenaline GTS 24 is the safe first try; men who want more shoe under the heel tend to prefer the Kayano 32 or the max-support Gaviota 6.
For women
Every pick here is sold in women’s sizing and widths. Women with narrow heels and flat forefeet often fit the 860v15 best — it offers a women’s 2A narrow as well as 2E wide, the broadest range in this list.
For wide flat feet
Flat feet and wide feet travel together. Rank the options by how far the widths go: the New Balance 860v15 (up to 4E men / 2E women) and the Adrenaline GTS 24 (up to X-Wide) are the two to try first, with the GT-2000 15 close behind (men’s 4E). Our wide toe box guide explains why internal shape, not just the width letter, is what actually decides comfort.
For the trail
None of the models above is a trail shoe, and we have not yet analysed a trail-specific stability model. Until we do, the honest answer is that a flat-footed trail runner is usually best served by a supportive road trainer on smooth trails, or by adding a supportive insole to a neutral trail shoe for grip on rough ground. We will label a trail pick here only once one has been through testing.
A note on Nike and neutral shoes
The neutral shoes in our library and the support designs above can be compared for fit, intended activity and comfort. A supportive insole is not automatically required because a runner has flat feet. If one is prescribed or helpful, check the combined shoe-and-device fit rather than assuming that the combination prevents injury.
Who should skip a stability shoe
A support shoe may or may not feel comfortable to an individual runner; a rigid arch or forefoot strike does not automatically exclude that category. This guide has not shown that support makes feet weaker over time. Reassess uncomfortable footwear and follow any plan made for symptoms, instead of selecting a category from a self-administered arch test.
The numbers, side by side
Here are the shoes named on this page with their published numbers beside each other — the comparison a shopper otherwise has to open six product pages to do.
| Shoe | Heel stack | Forefoot stack | Drop | Weight men’s, as published |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brooks Adrenaline GTS 24 | 39 mm | 27 mm | 12 mm | 283 g |
| New Balance Fresh Foam X 860v15 | 43 mm | 35 mm | 8 mm | 331 g |
| HOKA Gaviota 6 | 39 mm | 33 mm | 6 mm | 291 g |
| ASICS GT-2000 15 | 40 mm | 32 mm | 8 mm | 252 g |
| ASICS Gel-Kayano 32 | 40 mm | 32 mm | 8 mm | 304 g |
| Saucony Guide 19 | 37 mm | 31 mm | 6 mm | — |
| HOKA Arahi 8 | 39 mm | 31 mm | 8 mm | 278 g |
Manufacturer-published figures unless that shoe’s own review names a different source. A dash means nobody publishes the figure; we do not estimate it. None of these are Podiatrist Tested measurements.
These are the figures the brands print. Where an independent lab has cut one in half, the measured drop has usually come out higher than the box says — mostly because the forefoot is thinner than claimed — while the zero-drop models measured within 2.2 mm of zero, which is what an honest zero looks like. One shoe so far has measured lower than stated, so read it as a tendency rather than a rule. The figures and the sources are on the heel-to-toe drop chart.
What the research actually supports — and where it stops
Everything above this heading is clinical reasoning. This is the part with published evidence behind it, and the part that is still judgement.
One finding in the pooled evidence lands directly on this page, because it is about running specifically. A systematic review and meta-analysis by Oerlemans and colleagues (BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 2023, open access) examined foot orthoses for flexible flatfeet and reported pain outcomes separately by activity.
- If the flat foot hurts, the direction of effect favours a device. Pooling the adult trials, pain at rest and pain while walking both improved significantly more with orthoses than without. Pain while running did not reach significance. In children, three of the four trials in symptomatic feet favoured orthoses.
- Custom devices did not beat off-the-shelf ones. The review reports no meaningful difference in effectiveness between custom-made and prefabricated orthoses — which is not what the price gap implies, and is worth knowing before you spend.
- If the flat foot does not hurt, the one study that looked found nothing. The single trial that included children with non-symptomatic flat feet showed no difference between orthoses and control. A flat arch on its own was not a reason to treat it.
Now the honest part, and it is blunter than most sites will print. This is a small literature — nine studies, 353 children and 268 adults — with considerable heterogeneity between them, a very broad prediction interval, and a GRADE certainty for pain rated low. The authors’ own conclusion is that because of that heterogeneity they cannot conclude foot orthoses are useful for flexible flatfoot in children and adults. Read that as it is written: the signal points the right way for painful flat feet, and the evidence is not strong enough to promise you an outcome. The running result is the one to sit with: the benefit that shows up at rest and while walking did not reach significance while running. That is not proof that orthoses do nothing for runners — the trials are few and small — but anyone promising you they will is going beyond what has been shown.
There is a second review that speaks even more directly to the question this page exists to answer, and it is the largest piece of evidence in the whole field. In 2022 Nicola Relph and colleagues published a Cochrane review of running shoes for preventing lower-limb running injuries — 12 trials and 11,240 participants. Its central finding is uncomfortable for every shoe wall in the country: prescribing running shoes on the basis of static foot posture probably makes little or no difference to injury risk, a rate ratio of 1.03 (0.94–1.13) at moderate certainty across 3 studies and 7,203 people. Motion-control against neutral was very-low certainty. Neutral against minimalist, low. Soft against hard midsoles, low. And no trial has ever compared a running shoe with a non-running shoe at all.
The authors are careful about the limits, and they matter here: all three of the foot-posture trials were run in military populations, whose training loads and footwear choices are not a recreational runner’s, runners cannot be blinded to the shoes on their feet, and injury was defined differently across trials. So this is not proof that arch type is irrelevant to you personally. What it does mean is that “you have flat feet, therefore you need a stability shoe” is a rule of thumb, not a finding — and the honest advice that survives both reviews is to choose the shoe that feels best to run in and fits properly, and to use an orthosis for pain rather than for arch shape. That is why this page leads with comfort, fit and how a shoe feels at your own mileage instead of sorting you by the wet-footprint test.
- Relph N, Greaves H, Armstrong R, Prior TD, Spencer S, Griffiths IB, Dey P, Langley B. Running shoes for preventing lower limb running injuries in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2022;(8):CD013368. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD013368.pub2
- Oerlemans LNMT, Peeters CMM, Munnik-Hagewoud R, Nijholt IM, Witlox A, Verheyen CCPM. Foot orthoses for flexible flatfeet in children and adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient-reported outcomes. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2023;24:16. doi:10.1186/s12891-022-06044-8 — open access.
Where the arch fill actually comes from
The page says it plainly above: a shoe cannot rebuild your arch, and genuine arch fill comes from something inside it. For a runner that usually means a prefabricated insole rather than a custom device, at least to start. The CURREX RunPro (paid link) is the one worth trying first here because it is sold in arch-height profiles rather than one shape for everyone — low, medium and high — which is the variable that decides whether arch fill feels like support or like a lump. Around $60, profile and size chosen on the listing.
Pull the factory liner before it goes in, and expect the first few runs to feel different rather than better. If the arch feels sharp rather than full, you are on the wrong profile, not the wrong idea.
Frequently asked questions
Do flat feet need stability running shoes?
Not automatically. Foot shape alone does not establish a required shoe category or a preferred model. Support and neutral designs can be compared for fit and comfort; pain, stiffness or a newly changed foot may require assessment. The heel-rise observation does not select a shoe.
What are the best running shoes for men with flat feet?
The Brooks Adrenaline GTS 24, ASICS Gel-Kayano 32 and HOKA Gaviota 6 are men’s support designs to compare. This page has not established a best model by mileage, body weight or pronation severity. Verify the exact size and width and assess comfort.
What are the best running shoes for women with flat feet?
The same models are all made in women’s sizing. The New Balance 860v15 has the widest women’s range (2A narrow through 2E wide), which makes it the most fit-adaptable starting point.
What are the best running shoes for wide flat feet?
The 860v15 and Adrenaline GTS 24 reach the widest sizes here and are the two to try first. Fit the width to your forefoot, not to your longest toe.
How do I choose running shoes for flat feet?
Start with the intended activity, actual fit and comfort, your symptoms and any prescribed shoe or device requirements. Do not use a heel-rise result or a twisting rank as a treatment prescription. The laboratory section describes sample mechanics, not proven clinical winners.
Which running shoes for flat feet resist twisting the most?
Of the 24 shoes we review that a lab has twisted, the running shoes that took the most force were the ASICS Gel-Nimbus 28 (20.5 Nm), ASICS Gel-Kayano 32 (20.2), HOKA Arahi 8 (19.5), Skechers Aero Burst (19.3), New Balance 860v15 (18.2) and HOKA Gaviota 6 (17.7), against a median of 14.5. The Saucony Guide 19 (10.7) and Altra Paradigm 8 (12.4), both sold as stability shoes, twisted more easily than most.
Can I run in neutral shoes if I have flat feet?
Some runners with flat arches are comfortable in neutral shoes. New arch, shin or knee pain does not prove that the shoe’s pronation control is the cause; assess symptoms and training rather than automatically changing to a support shoe or adding an insole.
Do I need orthotics or will a stability shoe be enough?
An insert is not automatically needed for a low arch. If a device is recommended for a specific problem, check pressure points, heel hold and room with the actual shoe and foot. The insoles guide provides related fitting context; this page has not tested a universal pairing rule.
What we are testing next
These models remain specification analyses. No original measurements, wear-test notes or clinician-review records are available for this page. If physical testing is performed and documented in the future, the published review should identify the pair, size, method, observations and limits before adding a score or seal. How We Test and the review library explain the evidence tiers.
Browse the full list: 8 assessed for flat feet · 29 running shoes. Each page shows the published drop, stack, weight, widths and price side by side. Not sure which of them is you? Answer four questions and we will narrow it to two or three.
Compared head-to-head: ASICS Gel-Kayano 32 vs Brooks Adrenaline GTS 24 — the two support running shoes this page keeps coming back to.
Reviews for Flat Feet
Individual shoe pages state their evidence tier, published measurements and who should skip them.
New Balance 928v3
Spec AnalysisLeather motion-control walking shoe, ROLLBAR post, ABZORB cushioning — not yet tested.
New Balance Fresh Foam X 1540v4
Spec AnalysisMade-in-USA motion control, ROLLBAR post, 4 mm drop, widths to 6E — not yet tested.
Altra Paradigm 8
Spec AnalysisZero-drop, wide toe box with a medial GuideRail — not yet tested.
Our funding and evidence policy
We earn affiliate commissions from qualifying purchases. Our policy is to assess published evidence and fit needs rather than rank products by commission rate. Current reviews are specification analyses; see our method for their limits.