Nike Air Zoom Structure 18 Review


Color: Hyper Cobalt/Black/Hyper Punch-Black-Hyper Jade

Nike's marketing pitch: A stability shoe designed to control pronation.

Surfaces tested on: Road, ambient temperatures of 19° C/66° F

Upper: Dual layer 'Flymesh', Flywire cord based lacing, inner sleeve.

Midsole: Triple density compression molded EVA, forefoot Zoom Air bag.

Outsole: Recycled rubber in heel, blown forefoot rubber.

Weight: 323 gms/ 11.4 Oz for a half pair of US11/UK10/EUR45, D Width. Unchanged vs. last year.

Widths available: D-standard (reviewed), Narrow (B), 2E(Wide) and 4E (Extra Wide) in select color choices. US only.

US Retail: $ 120

While the Zoom Structure 18's ride is greatly improved over last year's edition, the upper fit could be much better. The shoe upper looks amazing, but as they say, beauty is only skin deep.
adidas Supernova Sequence 7 Boost, Brooks Adrenaline GTS 14/15, Saucony Guide 7/8, Asics GT-2000 2 / 3
Stable ride, quality of transition, arch support
Barefoot use uncomfortable, no reflectivity, less than ideal mid-foot fit, runs warm

Pronation control shoes have come a long way.

We’ve talked about this before, in another time and place.

Not very long ago, the running shoe world was a much simpler place to be in. You either bought a foamy chunk of a stability shoe, with an in-your-face medial post accentuated in contrasting grey and a hard ride to match. Or you picked up a ‘cushioning’ shoe, accompanied by a proprietary impact absorbing platform which the brand chose to spend its marketing dollars on. And we’re not talking about the Eighties or even Nineties; this is as recent as a decade ago, before the rise and fall of minimalist footwear.

Things have moved forward at breakneck speed, as if keeping up with the dog-year pace of evolution in the tech industry. Running shoes started getting categorized into broader classifications, confusing buyers and posing a wordplay challenge for brands. Blunt edged descriptions came into existence, with a set of words like guidance, support, stability and motion control being used to described a range of products which could earlier be slotted under a single category with nary a thought.

Functionally speaking, only a thin line separated these synonyms. And occasionally, most of these were used to describe one shoe, with marketing emphasis on a single characteristic. Example? The Nike Zoom Structure 17 (and 16) was one such model. Nike chose to use the word stability in the same breath as Structure 17, likely an attempt to anchor it with the familiar image of historical versions. But past two Structure models were anything but, their contrasting combination of soft and hard midsole foams inducing acute footstrike control – and ironically sacrificing stability.

That’s the deal with Nike, which has always evoked a love-hate relationship with their advancements, or shall we say, tectonic shift in product design. At times, you are blown away by the sheer brilliance of innovations like Flyknit. And during some years, Nike seems to take a few steps forward, and then an equal number of steps backwards towards correction. How else could you explain the shoe which is Zoom Structure 18, a brand new model far removed from its recent-as-last-year namesake?

We could be wrong, but it seems that the design of Structure 16 and 17 was encouraged by the stellar success of Nike Lunarglide. The latter was a new step in the sense that it promised to deliver pronation control, but within the boundaries of neutral cushioning. Given its universal acceptance and retail success that followed, the Structure 16 (same midsole as 17) obviously seemed like a stab to magnify Lunarglide’s midsole language. At the same time, Nike seemed to have missed the point that a similar shoe already existed in form of the slightly more expensive LunarEclipse. A product which at a slight premium, did a better job than the erstwhile Structure in every way possible.


The Structure gets a complete design refresh, and changes significantly compared to last year’s version.

That context set, we see the Structure 18 as a positive step to remedy that dilution in positioning. A step which takes the new Structure back to a time when the name conjured images of a firm and stable ride, and when there existed a functional connect with advertisement and on-ground performance. From a ride perspective, the new model is a throwback to some of the earlier models, and significantly distanced from last year’s version. While they were at it, the upper design also moves a few paces forward from an aesthetic standpoint.

What’s new in the Zoom Structure 18? The short answer is – everything. Much in the vein of this year’s refreshed Pegasus and the Elite, Nike’s evolutionary juggernaut has steamrolled ahead, causing drastic newness to sprout in every fiber of the shoe.  We’ll be frank in saying that not all of that impressed us; there’s a mix of great and could-have-been-much-better areas. Good tidings should always come first, so let’s kick-off with the improvement, which in this case happens to be the new midsole.


With Structure 18, Nike moves reverts back to a tri-density foam arrangement.

Nike Structure dumps its dual density midsole set-up for the first time in three years, and moves to a triple density set-up. The idea of using three different foam densities together in a stability shoe isn’t a new one; current shoes like the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 14 and Beast 14 feature that. And even the Structure 15 and earlier versions depended on three foam pieces to deliver the stability promise. However, in Zoom Structure 18’s case, there’s a signature Nike spin on an existing concept.


The hard medial post is interlocked with the relatively softer midsole foam.

The Structure retains the dual density arrangement of midsole foam pieces stacked together at a sharp angle, but tosses in a medial post of unfamiliar design. When viewed from the medial (inner) side, it looks like a wall, somewhat resembling a dam with its sluice gates. But like a bookend, this (pink) component extends under the outsole, its base turning inwards at 90 degrees.

To put it in other words, if this were a separate piece and if you happened to be staring down its length, the corner would appear to be vaguely L shaped. This is extremely hard EVA, and on this rests the second density (black color) of midsole foam. These two foams are joined together in an interlocked manner, the medial post exposing rectangular blocks of softer foam through its windows.


Here’s taking a closer look at the three foam set-up. White (lateral side) is the softest, followed by black, which is firmer. The pink wedge is hardest of them all.

We’d like to point out that the density of lateral foam (white) is firmer than Structure 17, while hardness of the medially placed (black) foam is more or less unchanged. The Structure 18 midsole is compression molded, as compared to the injection molded midsole of Structure 17.

This process gives the foam a tightly packed feel, and a cleaner joining line between white and black colored foams. In Structure 17, colors bled over one another, making the bottom look a bit messy. The Structure 18 looks much better at the foam joint lines, with clear visual demarcation between densities.


The new outsole design has a smaller number of larger rubber pieces. Count of six, to be exact, from Structure 17’s fourteen.


Nike uses recycled rubber (see black specks mixed with red) in the outsole, which we found to be extremely hard wearing. This is the same as seen on the Pegasus 31.

Outsole design takes on the look and layout of Pegasus 31 and Zoom Elite, accomplishing coverage with a far lesser number of rubber pieces. Compare this – the Structure 17 had 14 individual bits of rubber stuck to the underside, and on the same area the Structure 18 uses a mere 6. This called for a radical re-arrangement of shapes, with larger and unbroken pieces being the new norm. Nike also chose to play around with materials, replacing the hard rubber clad Structure 17 forefoot with softer blown rubber.

The midfoot and heel section also sees a swap out of the BRS 1000 rubber, instead opting for recycled (Nike Regrind) rubber. This is the same rubber used on the Pegasus 31, and after using that shoe for four months, we can say that rear-foot outsole durability will be least of your issues. We’ll address forefoot durability in a bit.

The end result of all this? The Zoom Structure 18 is much stabler than before, and delivers a great balance between cushioning, motion control and overall stability. The 17 had a very pronounced lateral bias while rear-foot striking due to much softer lateral foam with deep compression grooves. This had the heel tipping dangerously outwards – something which ran contrary to its stability tag.

Though Structure 18 still maintains a lateral bias, it does so in moderation. The lateral foam is firmer than 17, a softness which lies somewhere between the new Pegasus 31 and Elite 7. As the medial layer of (black) foam feels unchanged in density vs. last year, the increased firmness of lateral foam brings greater consistency in compression during weight loading.

This brings a welcome aspect of stability to foot movement, and allows a far more gentle roll-in. The novel medial post set-up also differentiates the Structure’s ride from traditional dual or tri-density stability shoes. If you look at the design, you’ll observe that the pink coloured EVA only extends upto around 80% of the inside midsole wall. So when the foot loads over that area, the foam in contact is the softer (black) density. This prevents the super hard, dam shaped component from poking into your arch.

Overall cushioning loses the softness of Structure 17 and takes a turn towards increased firmness. Obvious reason is the mentioned change in midsole density and construction, but we are yet to consider the outsole design, which contributes to the firm ride. The Structure 17 felt way softer not only because of midsole materials, but also due to generous articulation of outsole rubber. Smaller pieces mounted on individual foam bases meant that they compressed and flexed better. The heel crash pad and forefoot area are good examples of that change.


One side of the heel crash pad is now integrated with rest of the outsole. This reduces its range of motion during heel strikes, making the ride firmer.


Nike Zoom Air bag in the forefoot.


On the forefoot strobel, you can see the faint outline of the Zoom bag beneath.

Crash pad of the Structure 17 used to be this two piece design with a T-shaped flex groove. This made landings much softer, and likely contributed to increasing outward lean with each landing. Structure 18’s forefoot might have softer rubber, but is firmer and stiffer. The midsole foam in between is harder, and the outsole loses a flex groove too. This section has a large Zoom Air bag – you can see the faint outline in the image above.

This adds stiffness, but dials in a small amount of responsiveness which is more noticeable if you’re a forefoot striker. The Zoom Air bag, one less groove and firm midsole makes the Structure 18 forefoot much stiffer than the outgoing version. And if you wanted to know how a Zoom Air bag looks like in cross section, our Pegasus 31 review is a good place to go.

Not that this (harder midsole) is a shortcoming of the Structure 18; as a matter of fact, we see the renewed firmness as a desirable fitment, lining up with the shoe’s functional goal. If you’re upgrading from a 17, you will notice this change, and we wanted to let you the reasons behind it. Just laying out factual information as is solereview tradition, that’s all. A firm midsole also helps in faster runs – as mentioned, the Structure’s midsole density is between the Elite and Pegasus, which makes it suitable for fast paced training if you’re up for it.


There’s reduced outsole articulation in Structure 18. A pair of strips run parallel along the lateral side, placed to enhance quality of transition.

Overall transition is better and smoother, as the sole design marries foam consistencies with revised rubber layout. There’s also the ‘Guide Rail’ section which starts laterally from heel to toe, identical to what’s on the Pegasus 31. These twin strips of rubber run parallel with a narrow groove separating them. As this runs near unbroken, save for a single groove across, it helps maximise full ground contact.

Grip isn’t better or worse off than Zoom Structure 17, either in wet or dry conditions, based on our experience of testing the shoe under both scenarios. But the change in forefoot rubber makes it more prone to wearing off than 17, with surface texture of lugs fading away after a few runs. That leaves the shoe with a durable midfoot and heel area, and average wear resistance in the front.


The under-arch midsole curve sees a small height increase vs. Structure 17. The black (softer) foam caps the hard medial wedge, so this blunts the sensation of underfoot poke.

Under arch support sees an increase from a midsole perspective. The highest point of the curve is increased by around 2 mm, and at the same time midsole foam in contact with arch is thicker too. The pink colored wedge stops just short of the edge, and does not come in direct contact with the foot arch. Its hardness is insulated by the softer foam, which comes between the arch and interlocked insert. This heightens the sensation of arch support, while keeping the unwanted ‘pointy’ sensation at bay.


Insole is same as Structure 17, but the text on top has changed. It’s just a name game.


Underside is a hard base/cup, with reinforced forefoot and heel zones.


Arch area has an exposed section of softer foam to avoid blisters. But the design is not perfect, as we had an issue with the insole design when wearing the shoe barefoot.

Insoles used are the same, regardless of the name change. Structure 17’s sockliner had ‘Fitsole 2’ printed on top, and that print is replaced with a huge ‘Running’ text running down the heel length, with subtexts of ‘stable ride’ and ‘Responsive’ just below. But these two insoles are identical except for the name. Like last year, the three layered insole has a hard casing on bottom, with a soft compound between it and the top cloth. The arch flare is softer than the rest, preventing any chafing in that area.


When seen from the front, the insole has a prominent flare or upward scoop towards the arch side – same as Structure 17.


The Structure 18 comes with a new last number (MR-10), but it was hard to tell the difference.

There’s a prominent contour on the footbed, but so was the case on last year’s. The Structure 18 appears to use a newer last (MR10) if the underside mold marking is anything to go, but we did not see any difference in the insole shape or construction.

All of the above was the good part. Which brings us to part two of the review, where we take a detailed look at the brand new upper and then let you know what we think of it.


Nike’s new upper material design. Has two layers of flat fabric knitted together, one over other.

The Structure 18 features a brand new upper design, and in the process debuts a new fabric too. We first got a good virtual look at this in August, when we chanced upon an inadvertently placed Vomero 10 video promo on the internet. After we posted screenshots of that, it disappeared from the source site. In that clip, Nike called the new fabric ‘Flymesh’, though they have refrained from using that term to describe the Structure 18 on their website. But for our convenience, we’ll call the upper fabric Flymesh.

It’s quite a looker, the Structure 18 upper. The Flymesh construction affords it the luxury of not having any overlays (except for the Swoosh logos). It is a single piece component covering the entire expanse of the upper, and joined only by a solitary heel seam. The design is an evolution of the mesh used in shoes such as the Lunarglide, where a single piece of mesh could be tightly knit in one area and perforated in another. Brands have started calling this an engineered mesh, a material mass commercialized by Nike in the footwear industry.

The difference this time is that instead of using a mono-color fabric, Flymesh features a dual coloured texture with a mix of blue and black in the reviewed colorway. It also contains two separate layers of fabric, but joined together by thousands of small knitted tacks, which appear as blue dots on the upper. The dots aren’t placed consistently, only used where the two layers need to be packed well together, whereas in other areas they aren’t there at all. Lower midfoot and heel for example, don’t have the meshes attached at all, and you can actually see them as two independent layers.


Has shades of Flyknit Lunar 2, with faux patterns and dual tone texture. But this mesh is not elastic, and if there’s any stretch, it comes from perforations. The black portion on tip houses an internal toe bumper underneath.

Material used is much coarser, bringing the Structure 18’s aesthetic overtones closer to Nike Flyknit Lunar 2, but minus the stretch properties. There are these ‘faux’ patterns on forefoot and heel area, which visually mimic overlays. These denser areas provide greater structural support in areas where it’s needed.


The eyestay edges are laminate-fused, preventing fraying.

Eyelet panel is reinforced by a backing, and its edges have some kind of filmic lamination, which prevents fraying when laces rub against them. The lacing is quite narrow, with a small area remaining between opposing eyelets once fully laced up. These go over the tongue, the top of which is made of Flymesh and a soft mesh lining which is also used in the collar.


Flymesh transforms on the heel to a more familiar, single layer design (Eg: Lunarglide 5). Contrast colored panels peek through the perfed holes.


This is the collar. Not padded much, but plush nevertheless.


This mesh has been in Nike’s material library for a very long time. The first we saw of this was on the 2008 Nike Vomero 3.

Nothing much to report from the heel area. Standard, internal stiffener which gives the area its shape, and collar lining has been changed to a plusher type. This is the same mesh used in the Vomero 9 and Pegasus 31, and an old material workhorse. When we reviewed the Vomero 3 around six years ago, Nike used the same collar lining, and has been seen in many models since. It feels soft to the touch, with a tried and tested record of no chafing. The Flymesh thins out around the heel curve , its perforated design showing through the contrast colored mesh underneath.


A quick side by side comparison of lateral and medial upper. Click this image to see a higher resolution picture.


Flywire cords are guided through angular Flymesh slits near the top.


The Flymesh actually separates into two in the lower half. The Flywire cords then pass between them.

Structure 18 uses Flywire cords in an attempt to provide a secondary element of midfoot cinching. The design is asymmetrical, with five Flywire cords on arch side and three on the lateral face. This bears resemblance to the Structure 17 construction, where an internal strapping system wrapped the medial midfoot while outer side was plain jane lacing. The Flywire cords are guided by slits in upper midfoot, and they extend downwards sandwiched between two layers of Flymesh.


Structure 18 has an internal sleeve, in the way of Structure 17, Pegasus 31 and Lunarglide 6.


The sleeve starts slightly removed from the midsole edge, for better midfoot wrap.

Like its 2013 avatar and some recent launches, Structure 18 comes equipped with a full internal sleeve. Our Lunarglide 6 teardown shows you the exact way in which this construction is achieved, with the sleeve starting slightly inward from the midsole edge for a snugger wrap. Except for the seams locking the tongue in, there are no other seams, making the interior smooth.

But for all the novelty, upper fit isn’t what it should be and borders on disappointing given the notable progress in the Structure 18 sole design. Sure, there are other positives to speak of. Like the shoe being much more greener, the new knit upper reducing production waste. Or the fact that it should end up being cheaper to produce, in a scenario where increasing costs aren’t doing the Portland based brand any favors. And the fact that the shoe looks absolutely gorgeous. But all of these factors have little to do with end user experience, which in other words, doesn’t necessarily translate into a great fitting upper.


Midfoot fit lacks the secured, locked down feel of Structure 17.

To begin with, midfoot lockdown feels unsecured. We’ve have never been a fan of cord based Flywire, which pales in comparison to the original Vectran Fiber based version (2010 Lunaracer) or even the dynamic support strap when it comes to efficacy of foot wrap. We didn’t have great things to say about the Structure 17’s ride, but that shoe’s midfoot fit was great, owing to use of internal straps. The Structure 18’s cord based support fails to match that superior feeling of wrap.

For our reviews, we rate stability based on more than half a dozen different factors, and one of them is upper fit. This is the reason why some of our numeric ratings don’t seem to make conventional sense; for example, how could a ‘neutral’ shoe score higher on stability than a ‘support’ shoe? Depends on a case to case basis, but the reason behind the difference could very well be the quality of upper fit.

All the midsole and outsole features on a stability shoe count for nought if they aren’t married to an upper with optimum fit. The Structure 18 feels far less supportive inside than the 17 or some of other pronation control shoes in the market. Our observation particularly refers to the midfoot, where there’s greater foot play than what was experienced in Structure 17. This, in our opinion, slightly diminishes midsole’s effectiveness, especially when the shoe is designed to control pronation based on a rearfoot strike pattern.


The tongue feels like it’s got almost no padding. Lacing pressure is felt once cinched.

The lacing pressure on Structure 18 feels extremely inconsistent, feeling tight at the top and then working its way down in decreasing intensity. The tongue is super thin for a shoe in this category. There’s hardly any padding inside, and the narrow lacing serves to only accentuate the issue. And if you go a little tight on the laces, the tongue tends to bunch up too. Not that the 17 had a great deal of tongue padding; the difference was wider lacing and use of spacer mesh, which came with its own in-built sponginess.

And in what is definitely an embarrassment for an inner sleeve, the upper portion of tongue sees some slide, shifting laterally during runs.

The frontend is a bit relaxed too, made possible by lack of overlays and change in lacing position which begins a bit distanced from the forefoot. While many people will appreciate a comfort forefoot fit, we would have preferred something snugger (sideways) to go with the tri-density midsole. Fortunately, getting multiple widths is an option in the United States, with the regular Structure 18 coming in four widths, ranging from narrow to extra wide. If you liked the snug feel of the Structure 17, then buying a B (narrow) width in S-18 might do it for you. Sizing is true with a thumb’s width separating the tip of the shoe and your toe.

That said, you’d be surprised to know that buying widths in the regular ($120) Structure 18 is a privilege afforded only to the US market. We spent some time on the internet visiting different Nike websites across the world, and discovered the lack of choices once you step out of mainland United States. Here’s a quick summary of the situation in a few countries. We chose these locations based on the web traffic we got last month – these four countries, together with United states are top five locations where we get readers from. Solereview also gets traffic from 185 more countries, and our guess is that they will fare equally or worse compared to the following examples.

(Note: These conclusions are drawn based purely on internet research, so if your experience is any different, please feel free to call it out in the comments section.)

United Kingdom – Widths not available in regular priced Structure 18. Citizens of her Majesty’s monarchy gets four widths only when they pay 35 extra Quids (+ three weeks of wait) for Nike ID.

AustraliaFact 1: Last year, 19 Million US runners participated in and finished a road race. Fact 2: That happens to be nearly the entire population of Australia Fact 3: Only one standard width in Structure 18 for all of them, no Nike ID. And the Structure 18 is priced at US $175. Ouch.

India – The country of incredible cuisine gets the extremely short end of everything when it comes to running shoes. No Nike e-store, ID or widths. Horrors of horrors, not even half sizes, it’s either 8 or 9 . No Saucony, Brooks, Mizuno, New Balance either. Add to that a 40-70% markup over US retail prices, with the Structure 18 selling at $160. And if you think their day was bad enough, they have to deal with things like this too.

Canada – The Nike Canada website does not have online shopping. Instead, it takes you to runningroom’s website, a third party retailer. No prizes for guessing, widths aren’t available, nor ID. And if you’re brave enough order them from US, expect to pay GST and customs. How much? Around CA$ 40 on Zoom Structure 18. Hard to see the silver lining here.


If you wear the Structure 18 without socks, chances are that the hard edges will bite you.

A few other things we didn’t like. You can’t wear the shoe barefoot. The upper lining is comfortable, no problems with that. The trouble is with the sockliner and its hard edges. Your bare skin feels the poke coming from the insole, killing the chances of going sock-free. The other area is complete absence of low light visibility elements on Structure 18, not even a tiny bit.

Considering that reflectivity is unavailable even on ID, it would appear that the only other option is to buy the Flash version, where you have to pay $15 extra and be stuck with a boring black color and a shoe too warm to run in summers. Much like tail-lights on a car, reflectivity isn’t a premium feature, it is a functional necessity. Most of other (brand) $120 shoes have it, and so should Nike. They should first focus on making runners happy, and Wall Street later.


The tighter knit structure and stacking of two meshes together makes the upper a warm place to be in.

The Structure 18 upper runs much warmer. It became very evident that the two layered Flymesh blocks the flow of air, and wearing this shoe is going to be bit of a bother when summer lights up the streets. The contrast in breathability between Structure 17 and 18 was remarkable; the forefoot of Structure 17 felt amazingly ventilated when switching from a pair of 18’s.

But we see the funnel like fit as the Structure 18’s true weakness, as we strongly believe a supportive upper has to complement a stable platform – which the Structure 18 has. The fit can be remedied to some extent by choosing another width, but then, that option is limited only to the United States.

To bring things to a close, the new Structure 18 has a vastly improved ride which delivers on what it promises to do. Yet, the less than ideal upper fit of the upper makes you feel that it could have been much better. This is much more noticeable if you’re transitioning from the Structure 17 – as a standalone shoe, it is likely that you will not see the Structure’s fit in a bad light.

And how does something like a Lunarglide 6 compare to Structure 18, two very different shoes they may be? Since Nike also positions LG6 as a support shoe, some clarification is in order. The Lunarglide 6’s cushioning is softer because of a Lunarlon foam core inside its midsole. The upper is snugger vs. the Structure due to lacing extending into the forefoot, and narrow heel counter molding. Overall the shoe weighs 10% lighter, but the trade-off is outsole durability, which is superior on the Structure 18.

The release of Zoom Structure 18 also completes Nike’s Zoom pack this year – the other models being the Pegasus 31, Elite 7, and the Zoom Streak 5. The year 2015 will kick off with the Vomero 10, which appears to use an upper identical to Structure 18, with an all new sole unit.

(Disclaimer: Solereview paid full US retail price for the shoe reviewed)

Your purchase through any of the promoted retailers in this review supports solereview’s work. We make a small commission every time you do, and this helps funds our review costs.


Note: We have discontinued the practice of numerically scoring individual footwear attributes. Instead, we use the same rating methodology and arrive at a single numeric score. Some of the elements from the numerical rating have been included in the sensory scoring format.

And here’s the scoring range: Great (dark green) – 90%- 100%, Good (light green) – 75%- 89%, Average (amber) – 60%- 74%, Poor (red) – lower than 59%

  • Rohit Mateti

    yesssss. Thanks!

    • You’re welcome. Sorry to have made you wait, and hope this review was worth the trouble.

      • Rohit Mateti

        It totally was, and I appreciate your observation about the upper. I had tried the shoe on a couple weeks back, but didn’t notice it as much. I’m heading to the store right this minute to check it out again. Hopefully they have a choice of colourways this time. (Last time they only had grey!)

        BTW, you’re bang on about Nike in India. Structure 18 is selling for ~$163 at the moment with no online store, ID or widths. But then again, the Adidas Boost 2 is going for….wait for it….$293!!! Grrr! (The GT 2000 2 is $125 however.)

        And yes, we do lose some of our runners during marathons!

        Thanks again!

        • Considering India’s median household income, the Adidas Boost 2 might as well be made of gold to justify that price!

          • Rohit Mateti

            You can say that again!

            So I went to the store and bought myself a pair…I just love that “New Shoe Smell”!

            You’re right about Flywire – the tightness is quite uneven, descending from ankle to forefoot. Similar thing with the Free 5.0s.

            I’m usually a UK 10, but the Structure was quite tight upfront (my big toe was jutting out the Flymesh), and so I went with a UK 11. It’s giving me almost a thumb’s gap up front. (10.5UK would’ve been perfect, but alas…) The consequence of this higher size is that my ankle is sliding ever so slightly in the collar. It’s not terrible, but it’s getting me worried about when I take these bad boys out for a long run as the heel does extend a fair bit up the ankle, though not uncomfortably. Perhaps the rabbit loop trick in the topmost eyelet should fix it?

            Gotta say the ride is quite firm. Should be very interesting as I’ve never really ridden firm. Even my Frees are actually quite spongy.

            The medial piece is super nice (and is going to take a bit of getting used to for me) and the transition is smooth, I don’t expect blisters to be an issue.

            While I’m loving my new kicks, I’m also super scared about the sizing. Hope I’ve made the right choice!!

          • Congratulations, that was quick! Is your collar loose with all the eyelets used up? There’s a lower lacing hole near tongue tip.

          • Rohit Mateti

            Stocks don’t last here. I actually had the store rep save me a box like a week ago! It’s not that we have a lot of runners here, just limited stock/colourways.

            The collar isn’t too loose, just that my ankle is sliding ever so slightly. It’s probably nothing. I’m using every eyelet now by making a squirrel loop (basically making a sorta Flywire loop on both sides with the laces) and it’s a bit more snug, but still got some slide. Only a run will tell if it’s OK or not. Your opinion on the upper is spot-on. The sole is great and a better fitting upper would’ve made this a legend. But something’s off, fit-wise. Makes me really appreciate my Frees.

          • Rohit Mateti

            OK I think I’ve figured it out. Problem with a one piece engineered mesh is that the fit may not be perfect, and it certainly isn’t around the forefoot, where the laces begin. You can actually see and feel the extra fabric. So I loosened the laces up and tightened them up once again starting right from the beginning. Then once I reached the top, I made squirrel loops as in the pic below. (or checkout the lacing video on Runner’s World at ). Got it nice and snug and it feels a lot better now. Maybe this will help others facing similar issues.

          • Thanks for sharing the pictures, helpful indeed!

  • Shubhrat Misurya

    thank you so much for the review !!! will go ahead and buy it , this evening !!!

    • Glad to hear that, and you’re welcome!

  • Karen Ruiz

    Thank you so much for the review, I’ve been waiting to see how much you guys liked it since it was released! The last Structures I ran in were the 15s, but I am currently running in Asics GT 2000 2. Would you say it would be worth it to have the Structure 18s be my next shoe?

    • You’re welcome. The Structure 18 feels somewhere between the S-15 and GT-2000 in cushioning, but with more similarity to 15 than the Asics.

      The GT-2000 2 is much more cushioned, specially its insole, which is way softer. So if you’re looking for shoe which rides firmer/stabler with higher arch support and a slightly warmer upper, then that’s Structure 18 for you.

  • Shubhrat Misurya

    Can you please compare it against lunar glide 6 ?

    • Thanks for the suggestion, we’ve included a mini-summary towards the end.

  • matt

    great review as always, still undecided on what to go for as not yet found anywhere close to me that have the lunarglide 6 in store to try. its a bit of a pain to order online all the time if you dont like the fit, so my search continues. i do like these except for the fact that nike continue to do such a mix of colours. i would much prefer if they ditched the white from the base, but just my opinion,lol

    its really hard to find a trainer for a more of a flat arch, but one that still looks nice : (

    • Thank you for the comment. It seems that the only ‘sane’ colorway is the one on Structure 18 Flash, or Nike ID if that service is available in your area.

      • matt

        Thanks for the reply both of you. I just wish the white but was all black haha

        Will look at the saucony. Just want a lighter trainer that is good for everyday use and that gives me some support

    • Sam

      I’m smitten with the Saucony Hurricane 16 for my flat feet. Having run most recently in the Asics DS Trainer 17, Nike Structure 16, and Saucony Guide 7, I must say the Hurricane really takes the cake for comfort and stability. Granted it’s a little more expensive and a heavier shoe, but there is simply nothing else that has allowed me to run as pain free and for that it is worth every penny.

  • BC Oi

    One more awesome review! On the so called Flymesh, so it differs from Flyknit in breathability and being not stretchy, is that right? Cause was a bit confused between Flyknit and the lookalike Flymesh..

    • Yes, that is correct. Non elastic and warmer.

  • Bryan

    Im currently wearing saucony ride 7s, and am wanting to try the structure 18s because they seem so bad ass. I run college cross and am not sure what to do..

    • Try them on, and see what you think of the shoe. If they fit you well and the ride feels ok, the Structure should also do well as a XC training shoe.

  • lothar

    I always forget about the Structure! But if they’ve made it like the LunarGlide, I’ll skip. The pronation control philosophy of the Lunar Glide causes me to have severe plantar fascia pain.

    • matt

      im looking to get rid of the plantar fascia i occasionally get on my right foot. any recommendations?

      • lothar

        After a recent bout of plantar fasciitis, my PT made me go back to traditional stability shoes w/ a decent drop. I went was going to pick up some Asics GT 2000’s but went with the more plush and pricey Kayano 20s instead b/c I basically found them on closeout for the same price as the GT 2000. The latest Adidas Supernova Sequence is another I’ve been running in. It’s a tad firmer than the Kayano. I’d been running in Hoka Bondi 2’s when my PF really started bothering me this summer.

        • matt

          thanks, was going to look at the kayano 20s. have to normally skip adidas as they are to narrow for my feet

          • lothar

            If you look at some of the online running stores you can find the 20’s for $80-90. I grabbed 4 pairs after I was sure they fit me correctly.

          • Just make sure you rotate the pairs instead of sequential usage.

          • lothar

            I’ve only been using one pair so far because my PT is trying to ease me into an orthotic and the one she has me using right now is flimsy and temporary so it’s a hassle to remove. But once I get a permanent, I will rotate.

          • matt

            live in the uk, and cheapest i have seen the 20’s for in a colour i like is £95 so pretty expensive ; (

          • lothar

            Lol, I ignore color for a deal. Mine are the crazy green color.

          • matt

            haha, well they are for everyday use as well

          • ArtVandelay

            Never heard this..why rotate?

          • More prone to Polyurethane hydrolysis if unused; shoe adhesives and upper overlays.

  • Nick

    Which shoe would you suggest me? The Lunarglide 6, the Strucure 18 or the Pegasus 31? I want to have both cushioning and stability when running.

    • Nick

      I also own the Lunarglide 5s which don’t fit me now and I can say that these were a a pretty nice pair !

      • Why won’t they fit you?

        • Nick

          My feet grew in size. I’m 15 years old. Also thanks for your advise. I went to a a Nike authorized store and bought them.

          • Got it, and have great runs in your new shoe!

    • Given the set of requirements, we’d choose the Lunarglide 6.

  • Henry

    i agree with most of the points made here in the review.. great stuff as always solereview! the upper was pretty frustrating to me as well as it failed to conform to my foot properly at first. I solved the problem by going down a size and going narrow.. granted I have a narrow foot, but it changed everything. The flywire works so much better because it is actually hugging my foot now.. overall the upper feels so much better now. Nike made the toebox noticeably wider with the Structure 18 which was somewhat unusual. To get the best fitting structure I highly recommend getting into a store and trying them out. I feel as though the sizing changed everything for me as I love the Nike Structure 18 now.. one of my favorite supportive shoes now!

    • Happy to hear you found out a way to make the shoe work. Great tip which should help other runners too.

  • Al

    Could you please displaying your candy bar score that scoring stability, fit, and others? It help alot

    • We’ve stopped that practice as we get too many questions (on the site, email, social) on how that works – which was putting pressure on resource bandwidth and affecting review schedules.

      Instead, we now just pull out a single, overall number from the same scorecard and display it on top. We still run that in the background for our own reference.

      See this for more:

      Will bring it back again once solereview has more hands on deck.

      • Al

        can’t wait for it. thanks

  • John

    Could you please review the New Balance 880v4. Thanks.

    • Sure, in due time. Thanks for the suggestion!

  • ArtVandelay

    I’m a big runner…6″6″ 250 looking for a lot more cushioning to go with stabiliy. From the review it sounds like the structures are not that. Any ideas that make a size 16?

    • In that case, the Adidas Supernova Sequence 7 Boost is worth having a peek at. Our review up later this month.

  • Lionel Putz, Esq.

    Another terrific review. I am incredibly impressed by this website. Please keep up the great work.

    All the hand wringing about which shoes is better for any particular person always surprises me. After 30 years of running, I’ve learned there is no perfect shoe. If there is, Nike will discontinue it. Instead, I rotate three or four different models specifically to help my body avoid soreness and injuries from wearing a single model. You’re going to wear racing flats anyway, so get used to it. Train on grass and trails. Variety is critical.

    That said, I am 6’2″ with wide hips and an ability to destroy the inside heel on any shoe through significant overpronation. So, I have always erred toward Nike motion control shoes, like the stiff Structures with a plastic medial post. I don’t like them. I thought they were “good” for me.

    When the first Air Structure Triax came out, I was in heaven. I hoped Nike would alway make a lightweigt trainer with a plastic medial post. Of course, the Structure and the Traix weirdly merged, the plastic post is long gone, and shoes are 3 or 4 oz. lighter. However, I can’t say I miss any of it.

    Now days, midsole materials are so good, my heels never turn inward. I wear the Structure, Lunarglide, and New Balance 870s without much complaint. Buy last year’s model on sale, and enjoy.

    • Appreciate the kind words!

      Concur with your thoughts about the elusive search for running shoe perfection. Even after wearing dozens of different shoes as full time shoe reviewers, there’s always something which is left wanting. With rotation, one can experience different aspects of a shoe which particularly enjoyable and suited to individual needs.

      Plastic footbridges were useful during the time of die-cut, quick to compress EVA soles. Polyurethane was the next step. That foam didn’t go flat, but had the tendency to crumble into dried bread like bits. In came compression molded EVA, and advanced variants which were much more stable chemically – and to your point, resistant to body movement.

      A bit of digression on foam materials:

      3D printing should make inroads into mass footwear manufacturing in a few years. That technology should be able to precisely insert different densities into a single midsole without the need for conventional pressing or injection methods.

      Not that 3D plastic printing is new to running shoe brands. Flexible footwear parts (z-corp) have been used extensively in rapid prototyping/sampling stage for a while now. We’ve seen fully printed (and somewhat wearable) shoes as early as 2006 – 07

  • Jon Run

    What a great review. The shoe has been out for over a month, and I’m surprised at how there are near to no reviews yet, so having a thorough one makes it worth the wait.

    However, I am actually already an owner of the Structure 18. Having not changed my running shoe for a few years, this is a huge development for me compared to my previous structure shoe, Nike Air Max Moto 8.

    I got these in Germany, Nike ID. I tried them in store. I found they ran a little wide, I asked in the store if they had any shoe, any shoe what so ever, that ran in narrow, they didn’t. I chose to not take the risk and ordered a regular on NikeID. But for sure there ought to be a way to help customers out with sizing in stores.

    I have actually been injured the past 3 months, so I have yet to run in them, but walking in them (due to their cushioning) has actually helped with my own going recovery. So I’m hopeful that the impact absorption will also aid in running and future injury prevention.

    Also walking around in them has helped the shoe to take on the form of my foot, so the issue with the regular/narrow width isn’t such a concern, especially once just tweaking the flywire and laces accordingly. I actually found that although the heel was a little loose, that the flywire ran tight. Elevating that pressure from the flywire, and instead fastening laces tighter in the top eyelet helped to balance out the issues, where the heel moved less and reduced mid foot tightness.

    One thing I miss, is Nike+ integration, I understand why, but as someone that’s not a fan of running with a phone and the inaccuracy logging runs via gps alone, I enjoyed having the calibrated chip in shoe. I now have a lace pocket that I’ll try out once i get recovered.

    The shoe feels comfortable, looks great and I can’t wait to get some mileage in them.

    • Thank you for the detailed feedback.

      Wow, the Nike Air Max Moto 8. Great shoe, that brings up old memories. Amazing how Nike has completely changed direction within a span of few years, hardly get to see Air Max based models anymore. With the exception of Air Max 2014, which is more of a fashion sneaker than a running shoe.

      Glad to hear you’re working the Structure 18 to your advantage. As some of our other readers have mentioned in earlier comments, a few tweaks can make significant improvements to the fit.

      As far as the Nike+ removal is concerned, guess that’s the price of tech evolution. But it is actually not hard to retrofit an older cavity if you’re open to playing around with some DIY tools.

  • walkingcontradiction

    Thanks for your detailed reviews! Afraid I’ve got another “which one should I..?” question.

    I’ll make every effort to try out the shoes, but solicit some of your well informed advice.
    So I’m a 20-40 mi/wk runner with flat feet that are both wide through the midfoot and also somewhat high volume. In the past I was loyal to the Asics Gel Evolution (through the 4s) and then switched to the Zoom Structures between 12-15. Which.. mostly did what they needed to.

    Recently I had a lot of success running in the Zoom Elite 6s, which I picked because I was trying to find a better mix of stability/lightweight/flexibility in a new shoe. (Some of the stability shoes I was trying started to feel super clunky – Adrenaline, GT 1000, etc. Still seems to be the case with most stability shoes) They ran slightly snug width-wise, but didn’t really bother me much as long as I laced the shoes appropriately.

    Been thinking about going back to a more traditional stability shoe, and the new 18s seem to be creeping back towards being Nike’s clear-cut stability shoe. On the other hand, my success with the Elite 6s make me wonder if I need that much support anymore (surely, years of working on my running mechanics have got to be worth something?)

    Between the Lunarglide 6, Elite 7, and Structure 18, which do you think offers that sweet spot for weight/support/flexibility? Would look at other brands, but everyone else’s shoes seem to be perhaps.. purer stability shoes, which all feel clunky and unnatural to me. Any thoughts?

    • walkingcontradiction

      that was meant to be an emphatic exclamation mark after the thank you, not a confusing question mark. thanks!

    • Given your foot anatomy (flat, large waist and overall high volume), the Structure 18 might just do the trick. You’re right in assuming Nike’s change of direction with regards to the Structure – it is now a ‘purer’ stability shoe.

      Will discount both the Lunarglide and Elite because they fit rather snugly. The fit lacunae we mentioned in our Structure 18 review might actually turn out to be an advantage for you.

  • Ken

    Hey, as a Sprinter/Track & Fielder with flat feet (overpronation), would you recommend the Structure 18 or the LunarGlide 6? I feel like the lighter weight of the LunarGlide 6 could help out in a sprint, but I’m not quite sure if the support of the Structure 18 could be more useful?

    • Ken

      Also, would you look at the Pegasus at all? I’m guessing LunarGlider 6 is better for overpronation…

      • Replied to your comment on the Pegasus 31 review page.

  • urriah

    this is a weird scoring you got here…

    can i assume that its the same as…. 7.9 in the old scale??

  • UKinfluence

    Great review! Got these for my birthday and agree they do run warm. I also, as an overpronator, found the Structure 18 to be extremely firm, much more than I was expecting. It’s good for controlling the roll but for me is too hard to run any further than a couple of miles.

  • Stan

    Great review, I have read through it a couple times now and
    I do own a pair of Structure 18’s.

    I actually took them out for their first run a couple of
    days ago for a short 3 miles after walking around in them for the first couple
    of days that I owned them.

    I have never owned a pair of Structures before and I am
    currently am running in the New Balance 860v4 and that is all I have to compare

    So far I feel that the Structure 18 has a softer and more
    cushioned ride which is really good for me. I bought the Structure in a 13 4E
    and my New Balance 860v4 is a 2E and the Structure fits and feels great.

    I must agree in your review that the tongue is thin but that
    being said I do like the fact that it is sewn/attached, it seems to give a
    better fit and I haven’t noticed any slipping or movement of the tongue. I have replaced my laces with lace locks and
    that helps with the unevenness and pressure on lacing.

    The Structure 18 does have a nice ride and the cushion that
    I look for. I am a bigger runner and not
    only need the support but the cushion also.
    I have run a half marathon, a couple 10 milers and numerous 5Ks and sometimes
    my feet and ankles can take a beating.

    I look forward for your review on the upcoming New Balance
    860v5 and how it stacks up. I have liked
    my v4’s but the ride and cushion of the Structure gives me a good ride. I will put many more miles on the Structure
    18 but with only have a week or two with them right now they have won me over.

    Keep up the great work on the reviews.


    • Appreciate the detailed note, Stan. Happy to hear that you’re doing well in the new Structures. We’ll make a note of comparing the 860V5 vs. the Structure when we review the New Balance next month.

  • This is fantastic review of the Structure 18s! I have been running a few years now and found Nike’s Structure series to be the shoes for me. The bugger is, as you well know, that each new version is a complete leap of faith and always totally different. I love how someone said in the comments that no perfect running shoe exists, and if it does then Nike discontinues it. So true! I started off with Structure 15 and have just ordered the Structure 18 having gone through all generations since then. I had two pairs of Structure 17s (I go through about 2-3 pairs a year) and weirdly found the first ones to be ah-ma-zing, but for some reason the second wasn’t as great.. Odd. My main issue seems to be that my big toes always end up causing holes to form on the upper and it seems there is no reinforcement in the 18s, at least not in the same way as in the 17s… Anyway, fingers crossed the 18s will work for me. Thanks again for a super detailed review!

    • Thanks for the comment! So true about the leap of faith thing, more so for Nike than any other brand.

      There’s an internal stiffener which serves as a toe bumper, so hopefully these should work for you.

  • Pe Yups

    I still use my Structure 17 with the Spenco semi-rigid insole (took out nike’s to make room). Lo and behold it gives me a better balance inside out. I’m considering Nike’s 18th iteration but I need to be convinced of its structural built. One does not need to change anything with the shoe given the cost but then again the customer is always given the right and leeway to experiment which is best for him/her. I will have to digest the findings written herein before making a decision. Great reviews on motion control and stability shoes so far… heavily depending on these since the Philippines does not have the return policy that the US buyers enjoy.

    • One thing’s pretty certain – the Structure 18 is more stable than the 17. The upper is a bit loose though, compared to the form-fitting Structure 17.

      Why don’t you give them a try at your local Nike store (along with your insoles), and you can overlay that experience with our review.

  • aashav23

    please let me know which shoes would be best for me as i have calf pain in my leg both the sides.. in budget around 120$ and it should be only nike!

    • Calf pain can occur for reasons other than shoes. What surface do you run on, and is physical conditioning part of your training?

      Moderator note: please do not post your question multiple times, this does not help. We have deleted your question from the Beast 14 comment section.

  • aashav23

    i m very sorry sir for posting it 2 times.. sir i run on treadmill in gym and even do gyming but with the basic locally available shoes .. and not high end good shoes.. please let me know the reason of my pain i would be very very thankful , to be very specific it is tibialis shine splints and not calf.. and so i want to update to a better shoe and i would be utterly glad if you let me know the other aspects of the pain sir and even the ways to overcome it!
    Thanking you in anticipation!

    • A good way to begin is to buy a stable pair of shoes (since you mentioned that the quality of your shoes aren’t great) and then build in physical conditioning along with running on flat/even surfaces. The Structure 18 will do just fine.

      As far as your pain is concerned, it is best you see a physio or sports medicine professional.Our advice is always general in nature, and there are no qualified medical staff on the solereview team.

      • aashav23

        thanks alot!

  • aaron

    I slightly overpronate and was wondering if this shoe would be better than the adidas supernova sequence boost 7?

    • Both are good shoes – the Structure 18 has slightly better arch support and firmness compared to Sequence 7, so you need to decide what works for you.

  • dc7710

    Is it usual to have your calves tight after runs with these shoes

    • That is purely subjective. Depends on what shoes you’ve been used to, surface type and physical conditioning.

      • CKeesing

        My calves were tight too. I had Zoom Structure 15 for the last 2 years. I wore 18 yesterday for the first time. I wore 15 again today and fells more comfortable. Is this normal??? I read that new shoes should feel more comfortable than your old ones.

        • More often than not, if your calves are tight, it needs physical conditioning rather than a change of footwear.

    • Robby Rupp

      That’s just from running, you clearly don’t run enough.

  • Hailey_5k

    I was thinking about getting the Nike Air Structure 18 or the Mizuno Wave Inspire 11. Which shoe would be best for a distance runner?

    • Our personal choice is the Structure 18, smoother than Inspire 11.

  • Tom C

    Wow I didn’t even realize everything that went into a shoe before I bought these structure 18’s. I wore them around the store and they felt incredible. Figured I’d look up a review and make sure the store experience wasn’t a facade and these would actually work for my flat feet/pronation. After reading this I think I got a good pair, and I have much more appreciation for what all went into making it.

    Great read. Fantastic work and insight. I’ll won’t go anywhere else to read up before my next purchase

    • Glad to hear you like them, and thanks for visiting us! See you around!

  • MJ

    I purchased a pair of these in the same size and narrow width as my Brooks Adrenalines and got bad blisters/calluses on the tips of my second and third toes. Do you think the narrow width just runs small and I should try a larger size or just stick to other shoes?
    Thank you for the great reviews!

    • Narrow width will make the toe area pointy – and the fit differs across brands (Brooks, Nike, adidas, Asics), so make sure you try them on first!

      Give the regular width Structure 18 a go at your local running store and see how they fit you. Carry your Brooks with you and compare upper room by putting both the shoes on and off multiple times.

  • Azrul Anuar

    Hye before this i run using mizuno wave inspire 9. Im doing FM without single injury. But i would like to have this nike structure 18 because it look cool. Is it same kind of shoes with wave inspire 9? Because i really need new pairs if shoes right now. Which one u prefer stick with wave inspire products or this new structure 18?

    • Hi Azrul, haven’t reviewed the Inspire 9, so don’t know how that compares to Structure 18. If you have had no issues running 26.2’s with Inspires, we would advice you to stick to what has worked for you so far.

    • MK hamza

      I have used both of them.
      I bought nike structure 18 as nicely design causal footwear, but now its my favourite running shoes. I used Boost 1, wave 17, and inspire 9, but non of these have been more comfortable,supportive and smooth as the structure 18.

  • Bas

    Hi there, first of all thanks for this extensive review. Really helpful!

    I running for half a year now, mostly on track (training for short distances 100 – 400 meters). As my premier shoes i use my lunarglides 6. Some parts of the training (20%) I use spikes. So far I felt great on the Lunarglides (and still). However, since two weeks I feel a pain in my foot which seems to be plantar fasciitis. I am a mild overpronator and maybe the Lunarglides dont support my arch not enough after all (despite I dont have flat feet). Would the Structure 18’s support the arch more than Lunarglides, or differently put, do structure 18’s prevent overpronation more than lunarglides 6? And what would be (light weight) anti pronation alternatives?
    Thanks for your response and keep up the good work!

    • Thanks for the comment!

      Yes, the Structure 18 supports the arch better than LG6. Another lightweight alternative from Nike would be the Zoom Fly. The shoe is not perfect, but worth a fit trial. Here’s our review:

      Also, what kind of conditioning exercises do you weave into your training? If you’re running track, your PF/Achilles/Calves/Shins should be strengthened/stretched regularly to be able to take the rigors of sprinting.

  • Tim

    Hi, I have always been a massive fan of the Nike Structure. I have extremely flat feet and they have always seemed to work well for my feet. I generally run around 8-10km 2-3 times per week. I just bought us the new 18 having most recently had the 16 and have found that the 18 makes my arch now cramp when running. I’m really disappointed. Does anyone have any ideas how to correct this?

    • Do you have a wide midfoot? It is likely that the midsole curve is pressing into your arch area, and causing discomfort. If that is the case, an aftermarket insole with a denser (but not thicker than stock insole) can help.

  • Triggerlips

    Overpronator- flatish feet and bunion on little toe, you could say i have real trouble finding shoes i like. Adrenalines hurt my little toe, and theupper wears through in that spot after a couple of months. Tried the nike structure 17 which were comfortable but felt like being on a ship in a storm.

    The Structure 18 is a great improvement over the Structure 17 which were useless when there was any camber on the road. The 18 is so much better. Love the upper, so comfortable , just done a 20 miler and never felt any pressure anywhere, except maybe a tiny bit around the laces, whih need to be done up just right or can lead to pressure. The Stability was great and there is plenty of arch support, heel fits snuggly, and they a very smooth ride. Love them , and its very rarely i say that about a running shoe. Only other shoe i have been this happy with are the Brooks asr 10, i bought four pairs of them, and will do the same with the structure 18, because the 19 will no doubt change everthing again

    • Great to hear that the 18’s are working out so well for you. Yes, good idea to stock up later this year, not sure what the 19 will bring, agree.

  • Andrew

    How warm is the upper actually? Do you think you guys could take a picture from inside the shoe showing how much light goes through the mesh?
    Keep up the great reviews!

    • The use of ‘warm’ is relative, with open mesh based shoes as a reference, like the S-17. The shoe is as warm as a Pegasus or Lunarglide 6’s. Nothing to worry about.

      Actually the reason why we did not take interior pictures is because there was very little light coming in!

      • Andrew

        Oh I see! Great thank you!
        Do you guys have any recommendations for some really breathable stability shoes?

        • Here are some other shoes in order of ventilation: Mizuno Wave Inspire 11, Saucony Guide 8, Asics GT 2000 3, adidas Supernova Sequence 7 Boost, Brooks Adrenaline GTS 14 and 15.

  • Ken

    Nice article! Is the 18 durable enough for the heavier runner?

    • Yes, it is. Plenty of durable rubber underneath. If you give us examples of shoes which have held up well for you in the past, perhaps we can offer a relative opinion.

  • Matt

    Much stiffer and not as soft as my Asics GTs. But a lot faster. Wish there was the ridge in the heel… Slip a little.

  • cri

    The left shoe fit like a glove but the right caused me so much pain in my arch after a run that i have to put an ice pack on it. I am not impressed with this and fear the pair i bought my be defective. I am looking to sell them and buy a more flexible pair of shoes

    • The pain could be due to a defective pair, or the hard midsole edge pressing into your foot. You should return and exchange the pair you have – if the pain persists, stop using the Structure 18.

    • guestyguest

      Just commented something v similar. Are you lacing them right up to the top eyelet too?

  • Guestyguest

    Amazing review, so thorough and contributed to me going for these in the end. First nice running shoes I’ve ever bought. Annoyingly I’m getting pain in my arches when I run in them, much more so in the right foot than the left though. Like a dull ache, notice it on hills most.

    Is this a sign these shoes aren’t right for me? I’m lacing them up right to the top eyelet, so could be too tight maybe?

    • In these things can’t be 100% sure, but it is likely that the curve of the hard medial post is pressing into your arch upon weight loading. Don’t believe the cause is the upper.

      Is your right foot different in length from the left? If so, by how much?

      • guestyguest

        If that’s the case would that mean these aren’t quite right for me? What’s a good alternative? thanks for the reply!

        My left and my right foot are pretty much the same length…

        • Where is the exact area of the arch where you get the dull ache? Is it the lower area, a bit on the outside?

          • guestyguest

            I’d say middle right underneath, towards the edge of the foot.

          • There’s a high chance that your foot is loading on the medial post. We see two options:

            a) Swap the insole with a thicker (in the arch area) aftermarket one and see if it works. Happy results not guaranteed.

            b) Return the S-18 and get the Lunarglide 6.

          • guestyguest

            Hey! Thanks for the advice, I went back and swapped the S-18 for the Lunarglide 6 after also having a gait analysis (that I didn’t have first time). So much better running in these! 🙂

          • Great to hear that!

  • Jay

    Would you be able to compare these shoes to the Saucony Guide 8?

    • In what areas? Would help if you’re more specific.

      • Jay

        Well really I’m looking for a comfortable riding shoe to log my base miles in over the summer. Some other shoes on my list were the Supernova Sequence 7, and the GT-2000 3. I’m not sure about the Structure too much anymore because of how the 17 rode. It made some recovery runs somewhat painful due to the stiff cushioning. I know that you said that the Guide was stiff, but I’ve heard that the cushioning was soft nonetheless. So is it soft with a stiff ride like the GT-2000 3, or stiff in both aspects?

        • The Guide has a two layered cushioning feel. Just below the foot it feels slightly soft, followed by a thicker sheet of firmer midsole foam.

          The GT-2000 3 has a cushioning feel which is deeper set, and is softer than the Guide as a whole.

          In order of firm to soft, in our opinion:

          1) Structure 18
          2) Guide 7/8
          3) Structure 17
          4) GT 2000 3
          5) Supernova Sequence Boost.

          You asked a similar question four months ago – did you end up buying the Guide 7?

          • Jay

            Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it. I’m considering the Supernova Sequence Boost but it has the lowest stack height compared to all other shoes. I’m worried that it would affect the cushioning of the shoe – 4mm compared to the GT 2000 3 is quite a lot.

            Also, I did not buy the Guide 7, but I did try the Mizuno Inspire 10 and the Brooks Ravenna 5. I also did spend some time trying the Saucony Hurricane 17 at the store. But I am looking for a cheaper option because the shoe should take me only through the summer and that’s it.

          • Jay

            Should also mention that I am a midfoot-forefoot runner, though I have trouble doing so in the Inspires due to the 12-13mm drop. Much easier to on the Ravenna with 8mm, however. That’s why I tend to not like the Inspires too much. I feel like I’m being cheated because the cushion isn’t much.

          • Got it.

          • Stack heights are never that simple. Choice of material can make that measure irrelevant. In the end, you have to go with what feels best based on your ride preferences.

            The new Ravenna 6 (haven’t reviewed the R-5) is softly cushioned, and might be another option to consider. The toe box ridge on that shoe is something to keep an eye out for.

  • Kelly

    Hi firstly I found your review very thorough and helpful. I’ve swapped to these shoes from an asics kayano and have to say they have been good. I do agree with the comments re lack of firm fit with the upper but I have very narrow ankles and always have to loop the lace through the top two eyelets and thread the opposite lace through to get them tight enough no matter what shoe I’ve tried. I am a midfoot striker who lands on the outside of the midfoot and rolls inwards (pronates??). I was worried about changing due to the cushioning in the forefoot but haven’t had any problems. My last deviation from the kayano was a Mizuno wave inspire which was lovely and light but had very little cushioning in the forefoot. As I’m beginning to increase the length of my runs to train for a marathon do you have any other suggestions of a shoe that would suit a runner who strikes like me?

    • Thank for the comment, Kelly.

      We’d look at the Saucony Hurricane ISO and adidas Supernova Sequence 7 Boost, both of which have adequate forefoot cushioning and plant.

      That said, the Structure 18 does also have a Zoom Air bag upfront which makes it responsively cushioned, so why do you want to switch? (except for the fit issue, which you mentioned happens in most shoes)

      • Kelly

        The cushioning isn’t a problem with these shoes, I am now having problems with plantar faciitis and I’m wondering if it’s because of the stability element of these shoes. I read your review of the asics kayano 21 (my last pair was a 20) and I’m wondering if I should revert back to these. I’ve only run about 250km in the nikes.

        • Difficult to say whether the shoe is causing the PF, but generally shoes which flex in the forefoot (and not in the midfoot) suit PF prone runners, or those recovering from PF. The Structure does have a stiff forefoot, but at the same time, the midfoot is fairly rigid too.

          We’re sure you’ve already done so, but always better to take advice from a medical professional when it comes to injuries.

  • Ellen


    Thanks for the review. I’m trying to decide between this shoe and the Brooks Adrenaline ASR 11. I’ll be running around the local parks, but that will be a good mixture of paved track and grass. I live in Scotland, so it’ll probably rain quite a lot. What do you think? I know this is more suited to roads and the Brooks is more suited to trail, but I’ll be doing a mix of roads and grassy terrain.

    • In that case, why don’t you buy the Structure 18’s ‘Flash’ version? Water resistant upper will help in rains.

  • gp

    GREAT review. Had knee issues for years before discovering the asics gt-2000. I’ve run this pair down and now need something new. Debating between the gt-2000 2 or these structure 18’s. Any advice? Would it be a smoother transition going from gt-2000 to 2000 2’s? I normally always prefer nike but am a bit hesitant to switch from the asics that worked so well…

    • Thanks for the comment. We’re a bit old fashioned and all, and believe in the saying that ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. In that context the GT 2000 2 (or 3) will be a better choice.

      The Structure 18 is a good shoe, but very different from the GT.

  • james

    i am by no means a big runner, but i run about 5 miles a week on the treadmill. I know I pronate and went out and bought these at a nike running store in CT. Was pretty disappointed. The flywire system seemed overly tight in the upper and very loose in the mid foot area. I returned for lunarglide 6 and am much happier. I noticed the lunarglide fit very well in my mid foot but is snugger on my heel, but they felt a lot more responsive, lighter and secure on my foot.

    • Yes, the fit is goofy on the Structure – we have a similar read on the upper as yours.

  • Guest(0)

    I enjoyed these for about 200 miles, but then my calves started to have problems. Now they’re around 500 miles and I need to replace them. The firmness really turned me off by the end, even though the ride was responsive. I think part of the problem may be that the support foam/crash foam did not extend past the arch. So while my arch was staying in place, my forefoot was continuing to roll inwards on the black foam. This contributed to calf and shin pain. They were too clunky for tempos or workouts. I tried the LG 6 beforehand and while I thought it was adequately soft, it wasn’t supportive or responsive enough. It was fine for slower runs but it wasn’t snappy enough for tempos or long aerobic workouts.

    So i’m looking now for a very soft foamed shoe that will last 500 miles but supportive enough that I won’t have leg pain. I’m guessing that I won’t find a shoe with those attributes that will also be responsive enough to go fast. I’m 130 pounds and do anywhere from 20-60 miles a week. So right now I’m looking at the Lunareclipse 4/5, adidas Supernova Sequence 7 Boost, Hoka One One Clifton and Brooks Ravenna 6. I know that the Clifton is a neutral shoe, but I’ve heard great things about them and wanted to know if they could work for my situation.

    Can you help me pick one?

    • We’d say the Sequence 7 Boost, and the Saucony Hurricane ISO. The Clifton is great, but it isn’t very supportive, at least to the extent of what other alternatives feel like.

  • Large Runner

    I’ve been running in Saucony Omni 12, and been pretty happy so far. I’m a larger runner, 6’1 225, mild over-pronation. I’m considering the Structure 18, LG6, or Lunar Elite 5, I’m prepping for my first half, and regularly run 4-8 miles, 2-3 times a week. I’ve tried Kayeno 15’s in the past and they were good, but looking specifically at the 3 nikes above, mostly because they will be no cost (price is right).
    What input do you have to the 3 shoes compared to eachother for someone in my shoes/

    • Large runner

      To add, mild to slightly high arches

    • We haven’t tested the Omni 12, so can’t say how it compares with four models you mentioned.

      The Structure 18 is firmer with pronounced medial side support, while the LG6 is closer to a neutral shoe but with a stable ride. If you liked the Kayano 15, we’d think that you’ll like the Lunarglide.

      And did you mean Zoom Elite 6? That’s a firm riding shoe, some cushioning in the front, not so much in the rear.

      • Guest

        Sorry I meant the lunar eclipse 5. I haven’t found many reviews on them yet

        • Got it. The LE5 is very similar to the Eclipse 4 (same midsole/outsole), and we’ve got a review for the LE4 which details out the ride.

          Basically, a softly cushioned shoe with functional emphasis on controlling inward roll with stacked midsole design and aftermarket type insole – that is the Lunareclipse. Softer than the Structure and Lunarglide.

  • Ashley

    First of all, what a great site. Such useful information from you AND the commenters — this back-and-forth, discussion-like dynamic is really quite helpful to people (like me) looking for guidance.

    I’m a slightly overweight female, moderate-to-severe over-pronator, who does a lot of walking (paved surfaces, sometimes treadmill) and weight training. I just started using an elliptical, which my body seems to agree with (no pain anywhere). My long-standing “issues” (besides the over-pronation) include shin splints, heel pain (when standing too long) and lower-back pain (from standing too long but from also from a list of other things that seems to grow longer as I get older). The heel pain can get pretty bad. I do find that the shin splints and lower-back pain get worse on the treadmill, which is why I’ve started to lay off that and rely more and more on the elliptical.

    In the past, I’ve always been a Nike girl. The first time I ever went to an actual running store to get some expert advice on my over-pronation and shin splints, they put me in a pair of Nikes — I think it was a pair of Triax. This was over 20 years ago, mind you, so I’m fuzzy on the name specifics. Anyhow, I’ve always just traded in for the next model whenever I needed a new pair. I’m wondering: is there a better shoe for me out there, especially now that I’m experiencing this lower back pain? So here I am, and I’m curious if you think I should continue with the Structure line with the Structure 18, or perhaps am I better off in the LunarGlide 6 or LunarEclipse 5?

    I would appreciate any guidance you can give me. Thanks so much!

    • Ashley, thank you for the nice comment. There is a selfish motive in replying to all the comments on solereview – this truly helps our reviews become better, as we get to know what people look for in a shoe.

      Makes sense to adopt lower impact activities on the account of the issues you’ve mentioned. Usually stretching and other conditioning/strengthening exercises targeted at specific muscle groups help in some way.

      20 years, that was a long time ago! There were only three Women’s Nike shoes ending with Triax released in 1995. Namely the Air Max Triax, the Structure Triax and the Skylon Triax – all were $85 – how times have changed! Given the fact that you went to a running store, must have been the Structure. But much water has flown under the bridge, and except for the name, the new Structure 18 has nothing in common with its ancient self.

      Out of the three shoes you’ve called out, the Nike Lunarglide 6 seems the most appropriate choice. Not too firm nor too soft and pretty stable too.

      Hope this helps.

      • Ashley

        Thank you for your reply — much appreciated. I’m going to check out the LG6’s over the weekend.

        Side note: I felt a little funny asking for your help since there are so many people on here that are, you know, actual runners and serious athletes… but good sneaks really do make a difference in *my* life, too — so I gave it a shot. Glad I did! 🙂

        • You’re welcome! Trust us, everyone needs a second opinion, even us.

          Even after spending time not only running and reviewing (100+ shoes), but having worked within the footwear industry, we are absolutely clueless about a shoe till the time we actually do some miles on it.

          Thank you for visiting solereview and writing in!

  • Mark

    Really good reviews, comparisons and info. I am in Australia and we have so few options at such high price points. I enjoy reading the reviews though and think they are so comprehensive. Fortunately I travel and buy when I am in the US. I run with ASICS GT-2000 2s wide – 4 to 6 miles 2-3 times a week. I have a flat foot with narrow heal and wide front foot. Do you think these shoes would be good as a more casual back up running shoe (eg for running on vacation). I am looking for a pair of better looking shoes that I can use when playing with my son, cheering from the sideline and walking around town that can also be used for a run now and then. The Lunarglide 6 also seems a good option. I also have a foot leveller full length orthotic thanks to super flat feet.

    • The Structure 18 is firmer than both the GT-2000 2 and Lunarglide, so it would seem that the Nike Lunarglide 6 will work better as a back-up shoe for the occasional run and walking around town.

      The LG6 has a narrow heel but snug forefoot, so you need to try them on first and see how they fit. You can cinch the shoe without lacing through the Flywire cords; that should open up some room in the front.

      Carry your Orthotic with you when trying the Lunarglide so that you can see whether it is compatible (in size) with the shoe (or not).

      • Mark

        Thanks for the advice! I was also thinking about the Pegasus 31 as an all rounder. Are they snug at the front? I would go for a wide fitting. Is there a different brand that could have some more room up front and narrow heal? I might be using the free shipping both ways option on this trip.

        • The Pegasus has a very shallow toe box (less height), but it does well on forefoot width – not too narrow.

          Like we said before, will be better to take a call once you’ve put your orthotics in and see how the resulting fit is.

  • Kevin Ueland

    I recently switched to the Structure 18 after running almost exclusively in the Saucony Hurricane (since the 13). My only other foray into a different shoe was the Ravenna 4 — which I found to be less durable that the Hurricanes (350 miles versus 500+).
    The Structures feel moderately uncomfortable for the first 1.5 miles or so, but then seem to loosen up. Is there a breaking in period that I should expect? The shoes seem a little tight on oustside just forward of the ankle bone.

    • We did not to break in on the Structure 18, but that might depend from person to person.

      The upper runs tighter in the upper+rear part (near the tongue end), so a few lacing adjustments should ease off the pressure. For example, skipping running the laces through the Flywire Loops+some slack on the tightening pressure.

      • Kevin Ueland

        Just an update – I am now a month into wearing the Structure 18, and initial concerns have faded. Took about a 10 days, but now they are comfortable and feeling pretty good. Agree with Arlo’s comment taht they feel better at faster speeds. Not sure whether I am going to go Structure for the next pair, or maybe the Hurricane 16 or Guide 7? Is Guide 7 and the 18 similar in terms of pronation control?

        • Thank you for sharing your insights, Kevin. The Guide 7 (and 8) is a mild stability shoe, whereas the Structure 18 is a firmer and supportive (especially on the arch side) shoe.

          When it comes to motion control, the Guide 7/8 is one rung lower than the S-18.

          • Kevin Ueland

            Thanks. Is the Hurricane the Saucony shoe that is most comparable to the Structure 18?

          • In firmness of ride and overall purpose, yes. The feeling of under-arch support? A little lower than the S-18.

    • Arlo

      I’m about 50 miles in with my 18s. These are my first Nikes, and they definitely are taking some work to break in and find a good fit. Much more so than previous Mizuno and Brooks I’ve used. And yeah, they feel a bit weird walking or slow jogging, but getting up to speed, they seem to “fade away” as a good shoe should.

      I’ll use these till they get soft, but it’s probably my last pair of Nikes. Just too much work to get a proper fit.

  • Thank you for the kind words. Was the basketball site kicksology? That was a great resource but they ran of cash after operating for four years – hoping we don’t!

    Structure 3,4 and 5 were released in ’98, ’99 and ’00 respectively, so it’s incredible you held on to them for so long! Also pleased to hear that you’ve found the S-18 to your liking.

    The Structure Triax 4/5 had a long (very long) medial post, and there a few shoes today which match that construction. But relatively speaking, the Saucony Hurricane ISO and Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15 are shoes you can try (if not already done so)

    The Brooks Beast 14 is the last word today when it comes to combining truck like stability while still managing to feel cushioned. It is suited for heavy runners, owing to its build.

    Nike Flash/Shield versions have always been water ‘resistant’ instead of waterproof, which means that the upper just delays the absorption of water, not prevent it. Those shoes are good for after rain runs or during light drizzles. Anything more than that, and you’ll find water squishing inside in no time.

    The best alternatives still remain the ‘Gore-tex’ versions, which uses a ‘waterproof’ membrane instead of ‘water resistant’ type.

    • Furnace17

      Yes, it was Kicksology! Do you know anyone who does basketball shoes your way/Kicksology way? I will try the three shoes you mentioned. Have you tried the Flash/Shield yourself? I was really disappointed how how little delay there was in the absorption of water compared to the non-Flash. In your opinion, is the Structure 18 ok for a heel striker, or is it made more for a mid-foot striker? Thanks again!

      • No, don’t know of any site which does detailed reviews. We have our own plans of getting into basketball shoe reviews (and other sports), but have to wait till budget/resource limitations are overcome.

        Yes, we reviewed the Shield version of an older Lunarglide a few years ago. Don’t have review experience with the newest Flash models though.

        The Structure 18 is equally suitable for forefoot and heel strikers.

  • gio mour

    First of all congrats for your excellent job.i recently start jogging with a pair of old Adidas that I bought in 07.but I think it’s time to change them!i do 6-10 km 3 times per week.with a tempo of 8,5-10 km per hour.I have medium to low arch and I tend run with the heel thing that I am tryin change.i weight 212 lbs and 6,03 feet.i also am experiencing some pain in the knee and the doctor told me that I have Chondromalacia patellae but not something very serious.i try the lunar glide 6 at a store and the Pegasus 31.the lg6 didn’t fit great in the arch area.the Pegasus was ok.i wanted to buy buy the Pegasus but some friend told me it’s better to take the structure 18.and since its a little difficult for me to find it and try it I want you as an expert to help me.(sorry for my English and for the long post).

    • We’d say, go with what feels the most comfortable and well fitting. After trying three (LG, Pegasus and Structure), if the Pegasus feels the best, then you should buy it.

      Don’t worry about the arch type vs. shoes and the entire deal. Things are never as simple as that.

      • gio mour

        the thing is that the structure its difficult to find it and try it where i live that’s the problem.the arch is higher in the structure than the lg?and also the pegasus should be ok with my knee issue?

        • There is more under Arch support and overall stability in the S-18 (midsole is firmer) than the Pegasus, that is correct.

          Can never say for sure whether the Pegasus 31 and your knees will get along, you need to run at least a few days in them to find out.

  • Emily

    I am currently trying to choose between the Nike Air Zoom Structure 18 and the Asics Kayano 21’s. Does anyone have any comments on which shoe they prefer better?

    • Emily, that depends on what you’re exactly looking for in a shoe. The Structure 18 and Kayano are very different, so do you have a past model which you’ve liked and reference?

      • Emily

        The only shoe I had ever been fitted for that I really liked were the Nike LunarEclipse+ 3

        • In that case, why not give the Nike LunarGlide 6 a try?

  • Furnace17

    Thanks again for your great review and advice on this thread so far. I am happy to report that the Structure 18’s broke in well. I’m now realizing that I should probably have gotten a 2E width in 10.5 instead of D width in 11. But these are still really comfortable. I’d say it took about 20 miles on blacktop to really have them broken in.

    I have a few follow up questions:

    a) Why did Nike move away from having an air bag in the heel?
    b) Now that there is no longer an air bag, and just EVA, how long should I expect the cushioning to last? I am a heavy heel striker at 215 lbs.
    c) What are Pylon and Cushlon? Just marketing names for the same old EVA?


    • Great to hear that the Structure 18 is working out well for you. Thanks for the feedback. As for your questions:

      a) If we have to guess, then Nike’s adoption of a stacked dual density midsole design has something to do with removing the heel Zoom bag. The Zoom disappeared along with the old medial post midsole design in Structure 16.

      b) Depends on a lot of things, but generally speaking these should see you through for 500+ miles

      c) Phylon and Cushlon are Nike names for EVA foam. Phylon is firmer, Cushlon is soft.

      • Furnace17

        I see what you mean. Isn’t this a step backwards in technology, by going back to EVA? Wasn’t the whole point of Air and Zoom Air to provide better impact protection and more response? Even with stacked dual density midsoles controlling the footstrike and roll of the foot, I don’t see why a thin Zoom Air bag couldn’t be inside somewhere enhancing the cushioning of both sides. What a disappointment.

        • Whether we like it or not, brands will push worth with changes in their models, leaving the familiar behind. That is one of the reasons why buying new running shoes is such a complex affair.

          • Furnace17

            If I really liked the old style of heal strike, hard medial post, motion control shoe like Structure 14 and before, what would be my best bet today? Thanks!

          • The Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15 and Saucony Guide 8 come to mind.

          • Furnace17

            Thank you, I will give those a try later on. I will be rotating my Structure 18’s with Lunareclipse 3’s.

  • Szabolcs Benke


    looking for a pair of shoes with high stability features. I’m a fairly heavy
    runner (96 kg / 183 cm) with moderate over pronation. Ever since I’m
    running I had problems with shin splints and knee issues (loose tendons).

    I’ve tried the LG4, which I had to replace after 120 km, as I wore them out – the
    shoes were rolling inwards, the foam itself collapsed. My next pair was the
    GT3000s. I think those shoes were the best for me so far. There was no visible
    inward roll even after 400 km, although I started to develop knee pain during
    longer runs as the shoes got older.

    After that I’ve switched to the GT2000-IIs, which I didn’t like at all. They
    felt much less stable as the GT3000s, and they are already worn after less than
    300km. (The right pair visibly rolls inward if I put it on a flat surface. My
    GF also mentioned that I’ve been rolling them inwards hard when I was running
    in front of her).

    My next pair were the Kayano 20s, which generally do feel more stable than the 2000s
    but I’m still having knee issues and I don’t like the loose feel of the Kayano’s
    heel. Plus I’m afraid that the same size form the Kayanos as the GT2000-II turned
    out to be a bit too big. They feel generally too lose.

    Well, I’d like to have something more stable and durable as the Asics. Could
    the Structure 18’s be that? If not, where should I be looking at?


    • We’d have a better answer for you if we had reviewed the GT 3000, but we haven’t. We’ll have to base our reply on the degree of stability, then.

      In that context, the Nike Structure 18 is a good candidate, followed by shoes (in order of stability) such as the Mizuno Wave Inspire 11, Saucony Hurricane ISO, Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15, Saucony Guide 8, and the adidas Supernova Sequence 7 Boost.

      Out of these, the Mizuno and Hurriance might feel a bit roomy, so you’ll need to take a call on that. We did not bring up the Brooks Beast 14 because it seemed like a bit of an overkill, but if you want to stop any kind of foot roll, that shoe is the one to do it. Its standard D width fits narrow, so that’s something which might help too.

  • Tung Pham

    Just stumbled across your site and it’s amazing. The reviews are so comprehensive! I just spend over an hour trying to figure out what shoe to buy. I started running regularly a few years ago and the first shoe I was properly fitted for was the Structure 15 (shield version even). Those were great so I was a bit underwhelmed when I blindly replaced them with the 17’s. In particular, I find the 17’s a little stiffer and the forefoot cushioning not as good. I have close to 300 miles on those so I want to get a new pair to mix it up and am not sure if I should stick with the Structure line and try the 18’s (which seem like an improvement), give the Lunarglide 6’s a try, especially given your head to heard comparison with the 17’s, or try a new brand altogether.

    • The Structure 16 and 17 were very different from the 14 and 15 – Nike switched the midsole design drastically on those. The Structure 18 is also very firm, so if you’re looking for more padding, makes more sense to go for the Lunarglide 6.

      In other brands, you can fit try the Asics GT 2000 3, the adidas Sequence 7 Boost (our pick), Brooks Ravenna 6/Adrenaline GTS 15, Saucony Guide 8.

  • Brandon

    After 40 runs (+-250 km’s) in my Structure 18’s, I lifted up the sockliner and found this. Is it anything to worry about? You can actually see the harder black foam through the gap.

    • Nope, there is nothing to worry about. This does not compromise the structural integrity of the shoe.

  • Richard

    I’ve been running with Saucony Guide 7s and read up on the Nike Structure 18 pronate support (I pronate quite a bit). I don’t have any complaints with Guide 7s (shoes are worn and its time to replace). Will the Structure 18 provide me a better run? Thanks

    • The Structure 18 is firmer than the Guide and might or might not be a better shoe for you – depends on how your feet take to them. In your place, we’d stick to the Guide, why fix something which isn’t broken?

  • MarkySharky316

    Great review, so informative!
    I’m currently running in LunarEclipse4 but I was wondering if the Structure 18 is a good alternative instead of upgrading to LunarEclipse 5?
    I have a neutral left foot and slightly over-pronation on my right. I do around 20+ miles a month and all on road.

    • Hi there!

      How about waiting for the Nike Zoom Odyssey? That is the replacement for the LE5, and looks much better. We think it releases this month, and we’ll have a review 1st week August.

      • MarkySharky316

        I’m looking at the LE4 and Structure 18 in sales so looking to save some money at the moment!

        • Then it would be better to stick to LE4. The LE5 just has an updated upper, really, so no major change. The Structure 18 is nice, but firmer than the LE so not sure whether you’ll take to it.

          • MarkySharky316

            Thank you very much for the advice. Will keep an eye out for the review of the new shoe you mentioned.

  • Anni

    Hello there,
    I’ve just found your site and I have to tell you that it is truly AMAZING! This review is far the best that can be found on this model!!
    Believe it or not I’m running in a Nike Zoom Structure Triax 11… It is the best choice I ever made but I really need to switch now, I can’t postpone it any longer. The shoes are quite in a good condition but I’ve read that the materials can deteriorate over the years – is that true? Moreover I suppose technology has changed a lot – what I love about those shoes is the fantastic cushioning and the heel support.
    I also tried Asics GT2000 a couple of years ago but it was quite a mistake – I had to switch back to the old Structure Triax 11. When putting on it is comfortable but feels hard on the surface and does not provide good cushioning at the heels. After a couple of long-run uses I developed pain in the inner part of the leg.
    I have serious flat foot and I overpronate – I use built-in insoles in all my shoes (including running) otherwise I’m in pain. I have sensitive ankle, knees and heels and need strong hold and support (I tend to twist and strain my ankle quite easily). I run about 40-60 kms/month (on road and field) and I am about 55 kgs.
    Do you think the Structure 18 would be the best choice for me? Is it very different from the Triax 11? Or do you have a better suggestion?
    I’d really appreciate your help,

    • Hello Anni,

      While the Structure 11 and 18 share the same name, both couldn’t be more different. The Structure 18’s heel will feel extremely hard in comparison, and chances are you won’t like them.

      Yes, materials degrade over time and use, and while it is not a problem if you’re not facing any discomfort, transition to a new shoe might take some time because of your body getting accustomed to the older model.

      We have a feeling that Nike’s new Zoom Odyssey (August 4th launch) might do it for you, but we’ll have a much clearer idea once we review them next month.

      • Anni

        Many thanks for your quick reply, I really appreciate it. I’ll definitely give it a try and will see the new Zoom Odyssey. One more question: with the information given which Asics model would you recommend? I read several of your tests but I have to admit that I am a bit lost in this subject. When taking into consideration problematic joints and flat feet, etc. which feature is more important: super cushioned sole or stability?

        • We have limited experience with reviewing Asics ‘support’ models (Kayano/GT), so don’t have a fool proof recommendation for a Structure 18 equivalent.

          As far as the choice of shoes is concerned, a balance of cushioning+support more often that not, does the trick.

  • Yvan

    Hi ,
    I’m a track athlete and my main event is high jump. I recently started getting problems in my knees due to my pronation due to my flat foot.Of course, I do alot of bouding and running through out my practices, and I wanted to know if the Structure 18’s or the Vomero 10’s would be a best fit for me ?
    I see the arch support is great here, but I saw that the cushion is better on the Vomero 10 in your reviews..

    • Hello Yvan,

      Wouldn’t the Structure 18 and Vomero be too much of a shoe for bounding workouts? We’d go for something lighter, cushioned minimal with a snugger forefoot, like the Nike LunarTempo or the Lunaracer 3. Of course, these shoes don’t have the under-arch support feel of the S-18 and V-10.

      If you really want a shoe with a heavier build, and with good forefoot cushioning for those boundings, then the Nike Zoom Elite 8 and Structure 18 are worth looking into.

  • Thanasus

    First of all very good reviews.Keep going like this.
    I am a wrestler athlete but I walk(once a week) 1 hour and run sprints or 50 minutes run without stop(sorry about my bad English )once two weeks.
    In my country we have discount and I can find vomero 9 (77 euros) ,vomero 8 (cheaper),structure 18 (72) ,structure 17 (cheaper) ,Pegasus 30,lularglide 6 (70).All other good shoes ASICS Adidas puma are more expensive
    I can give 80 euros
    I want a shoe for my practice (run and walk).A shoe that will stay alive 1-2years.I am 75 kg and my feet are a little little little bit sensitive.What is the best choose

    • Hello Thanasus,

      Out of the models you mentioned here, the Nike Pegasus 30 is the best pick. Very comfortable and durable too.

  • Thanasus

    *I want them comfortable.When I run,I want to not feel pain.And after the run I want to feel a lot of pain.

  • This feedback is great, thank you!

  • Anni

    Hello Furnace17,
    Many thanks for your review! This sounds very promising!
    Eventually I tried the Zoom Structure 18 in a running store but solereview was right – it was not for me at all.
    Since I had to make some kind of choice I opted for the Asics Gel-Kayano’s latest model, which is quite a good decision so far. However, it has not solved my problem with my left Achilles, which is extremely sensitive for high intensity training. (this might not be connected to the shoes though). This Asics model is really well cushioned and also well-structured but I would love to try the Osyssey to be able to compare.
    Thanks again!

  • Jake

    Hi, I was hoping you could steer me towards (or away from) the Structure 18. I am a lightweight runner who gets in about 15 miles per week, 2 miles per run. I have narrow feet (but have always bought D) with high arches. My stride hits the outside of my feet and rolls inward. Because I have an unusual gait and skinny ankles, I like a shoe with lateral stability (i.e., not wobbly).

    I had the Structure 17 and LOVED the snug, sock-like fit because of my narrow foot. I wanted to try something more stable, so my next (and current) shoe was the New Balance 860 v4. It’s OK, but feels a bit clunky. It’s also wider than I’d like.

    So my question: Can you point me to some options that cater to narrow feet, high arches and that limit side-to-side rolling?

    • Based purely on the shoes solereview has tested, your options would be the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 15, Saucony Hurricane and the adidas Supernova Sequence Boost.

  • susan

    I’m a mid-distance runner that logs between 25-35 miles per week. I’ve been fitted for stability shoes and worn the Brooks Ravenna, Adidas adiboost, Saucony Hurricaine, and the Mizuno Wave Inspire. I prefer more cushioning and struggle with plantar fascitis, so the Adidas and Saucony have been my repeat favorites. I’d love to try a nike shoe. Would you think the lunarglide, odyssey or structure would be the best choice. I’m willing to branch out even if they aren’t a favorite for distance and use them for shorter training or indoor runs.

    • Hello Susan,

      We’d say the Nike Lunarglide or the Zoom Odyssey. The LG6 and LG7 fit differently (LG7 has a roomier upper), so worth trying both versions if available. We don’t recommend the Structure because those do not have a great deal of cushioning.

  • You posted two comments, but with slightly different content (the second one has been deleted). Can you please edit the one here, and include the gist of the other comment?

    • San

      Sorry, I thought the first one did not get posted as I had some connectivity issues and hence the second post. My Zoom Structure 16 is pretty worn out and I am looking to replace it with a half marathon coming up in December. I’m just a little unsure about which shoe to go buy. Should I do a straight swap to the latest Zoom Structure or try something lighter like the LunarTempo or go for a workhorse like Pegasus (had a good fit with that too)?

  • Kathy

    I’ve been wearing Nike Structure for years. I’ve looked everywhere for Structure 16 in my size, but no luck – looks like I’m going to have to move on. My problem with the 17 was the new upper material made the toe box too tight for me. Are the newer models the same? If so, any suggestions.

    • Hello Kathy,

      If you prefer a Nike model with a roomy upper and the medial side support, it is worth considering the Zoom Odyssey.

  • The Nike Zoom Structure 18/19 will feel a lot firmer coming from the 16, so try the new Nike Zoom Odyssey. It has the a longer version of Structure 18/19’s medial post, but has plenty of cushioning in a lightweight package. Otherwise the Pegasus is a safe shoe, there should be no issues with that choice. We prefer the Pegasus 31 to the 32, personally.

  • John Luttrell

    Thanks for the review, I have very flat feet and over pronate quite a bit would you recommend the Structure over the Brooks adrenaline gts 14?

    • We’d side with the GTS 14, but also suggest that you try the Nike Zoom Odyssey over the Structure.

  • Mike McHugh

    I’m a 56 year old runner, 135 lbs, 40-50m/week and I overpronate. I’ve been runniing in the various iterations of Structure from the beginning and have never had a problem until 18. Between racing, training and interval work I rotate 3 pairs of shoes per week so it has taken me a while to pin the blame for my recent spate of shin splints to the 18’s. It cropped up in alternating legs over the last few months making me lose multiple weeks to resting for healing. I only got it to stop by experimenting with different shoes out of the rotation. I’m fine now that the 18’s were proved to be the culprit. Can I expect the same from 19? Anyone have recommendations for an alternate?

    • Which other models did you experiment with? The Structure 19 is much like the 18, so would be better to pass. Instead, you could try the Nike Zoom Odyssey; it does not have the raised arch profile of the Structure 18/19.

  • Shrey Sanghavi

    What do you suggest would be the best replacement insole for Structure 18 ?

    • Shrey, have no idea at all! Haven’t tested insole compatibility.

  • Mr Mike

    I have extreme flat feet. I can’t run more than 100 meters due to pain but I keep training. So your advice would be very helpful.

    My mid foot is pretty wide so when I try Structure 18, the middle past disturbs my arch. Is this normal and will the feeling go away?

    I normally wear 42 size. For my previous running shoes its 43. But for Structure 18, only size 44 can fit me because of my wide feet. Is it okay to buy that big?

    Do you have any recommendations? I’ve check out Pegasus 31, S18, Vomero 9 in store but I can’t really feel if they are bad until I wear for a week or so.

    • You could give the Hoka Constant and Nike Zoom Odyssey a try. And we don’t advice buying a shoe larger than what you actually need. Going one size up might solve one problem (midfoot space), but end up creating another.

  • JY Choo

    Hi, this is coming from a beginner runner, I run usually about 10km a week, which is guided by my training program. I went with the Puma Ignite at first, thinking it was so good, thanks to the awesome marketing that Puma made for it. But then after half a year I realize its not that suitable for me as I have flat feet and underpronate, so I came on this website to search for stability or support shoes, which have like some type of arch support. I have collected results based on ratings on this website and recommendations from my running friends and coaches. I looked on a few choices: Nike Lunarglide 7, Nike Zoom Odyssey, Nike Structure 18, New Balance 1500 V1 and the Saucony Kinvara 6. Can you like help me to narrow down the choices? I want a light shoe but with arch support so I can do fast paced training also. I’m 172 cm, about 56 kg. My average pace for 1km is about 4 minutes. And the training plan I’m on is Couch to 5K. Hope this is enough details for you to be able to decide something for me. Sorry for bad English, cheers !! (awesome website btw)

    • Hello JY,

      If you’re doing 4 min kilometres, then the New Balance 1500 is the right shoe for you. The Lunarglide, Odyssey and Structure are too bulky, the Kinvara isn’t fast.

      • JY Choo

        Thanks for replying ! But I just went to the Nike store in my local area and tried out the Structure 18, Zoom Odyssey and Lunarglide 7, the lunarglide felt the best for me for arch support, and was really comfortable in the forefoot area, but the heel was a bit stiff, but I really liked the overall feel. The structure and zoom’s arch support placement threw me off a bit, as it wasn’t placed as nice as the lunarglide’s one. As for the New Balance 1500, I haven’t tried it out yet, as I couldn’t find a store for that. Should I go with the New Balance ? Or invest in the Lunarglide 7 ? Thanks a lot again.

        • If the Lunarglide feels good, then go for it. The LG7 is a good shoe. Suggested NB because it feels faster than the options you mentioned.

          • JY Choo

            I see, thanks for your recommendations and time, thanks a lot !