Feature image by generalising on Flickr - CC BY SA 2.0
Earlier this month, the Chicago Marathon announced new qualifying times for the 2026 Chicago Marathon. This is the second year in a row that they’ve changed the qualifying standards. Just last year, they overhauled the qualifying standards they used for guaranteed entry.
I previously published a history of the Chicago Marathon qualifying times. The initial standards were implemented in 2014, following a disastrous first-come first-served registration in 2013. They were uniform for all ages, with a single time for men and a single time for women. In 2018, these were adjusted to include more appropriate times for masters runners.
At this point, Chicago was considered the “easy” Major to earn entry for. The lottery had decent odds, and the qualifying times were much easier than Boston. But last summer, those qualifying times were tightened significantly. At the time, they were more strict in most cases than Boston – although that didn’t last long, since Boston then revised its own qualifying times in the fall.
Now, they’ve come down again. Let’s take a look at how they’ve changed, how they compare to other races, and what kind of impact they’ll have.
How Have the Chicago Marathon Qualifying Times Changes?
First, let’s put things in perspective by comparing the three most recent sets of qualifying times for the Chicago Marathon. The two tables below show the qualifying times that were effective in 2018, 2025, and 2026.
The first table shows the history of these qualifying standards for men.
| Men’s Age Group | 2018 Standards | 2025 Standards | 2026 Standards |
| 16-29 | 3:10 | 2:55 | 2:50 |
| 30-34 | 3:15 | 2:55 | 2:50 |
| 35-39 | 3:15 | 3:00 | 2:55 |
| 40-44 | 3:25 | 3:05 | 3:00 |
| 45-49 | 3:25 | 3:15 | 3:10 |
| 50-54 | 3:40 | 3:20 | 3:15 |
| 55-59 | 3:40 | 3:30 | 3:25 |
| 60-64 | 4:00 | 3:45 | 3:40 |
| 65-69 | 4:00 | 4:00 | 3:55 |
| 70-74 | 4:30 | 4:15 | 4:15 |
| 75-79 | 4:30 | 4:30 | 4:30 |
| 80 and Over | 5:10 | 4:50 | 4:50 |
The changes from 2018 to 2025 were significant. In most cases, the qualifying times dropped 10 to 20 minutes. The 2025 qualifying times also introduced smaller age brackets. Previously, the qualifying times were broken into ten year age groups, but moving forward the times were broken into five year age groups.
The new qualifying times drop some of these age groups down an additional five minutes. For runners 16-69, the qualifying standards from 2025 were lowered by 5 minutes. Now, the toughest time – for men under 35 – is 2:50. Previously, it was 2:55.
Runners in their 70’s and 80’s did not see a change. Their qualifying times remained the same (4:15-4:50).
| Women’s Age Group | 2018 Standards | 2025 Standards | 2026 Standards |
| 16-29 | 3:40 | 3:25 | 3:20 |
| 30-34 | 3:45 | 3:25 | 3:20 |
| 35-39 | 3:45 | 3:30 | 3:25 |
| 40-44 | 3:55 | 3:35 | 3:30 |
| 45-49 | 3:55 | 3:45 | 3:40 |
| 50-54 | 4:15 | 3:50 | 3:50 |
| 55-59 | 4:15 | 4:00 | 3:55 |
| 60-64 | 4:55 | 4:15 | 4:15 |
| 65-69 | 4:55 | 4:30 | 4:30 |
| 70-74 | 5:45 | 4:45 | 4:45 |
| 75-79 | 5:45 | 5:00 | 5:00 |
| 80 and Over | 6:30 | 5:20 | 5:20 |
The next chart shows the history of the qualifying standards for women.
Again, the shift from 2018 to 2025 included additional age groups and a 10-20 minute drop in most cases. However, older women did see far more significant drops. For example, the 70-74 age group dropped all the way from 5:45 to 4:45.
And similar to the men, the new qualifying times for 2026 drop some of these age groups by an additional five minutes. However, the impacted age groups are not the same as they are for men. For women, the times were lowered for runners 16-59 – and runners 60+ saw no change in their qualifying standards.
Now, the lowest standard for women is 3:20 instead of 3:25.
How Do These Qualifying Standards Compare to Other Majors?
Chicago used to be viewed as the easy race to enter. That changed quite a bit with last year’s qualifying standards. At the time, people noted that the qualifying times were tougher than Boston – and some people were quick to say the same thing this time around.
But how do they actually compare with the other Majors?
Note that Tokyo and Sydney don’t have broad qualifying times. Although each race admits some faster runners, they are more geared towards sub-elite runners and not comparable in any way to the Chicago Marathon qualifying standards.
Chicago vs. Boston Qualifying Times
Let’s start with Boston, because those are the qualifying times people are most familiar with.
On paper, the qualifying times for the 2025 Chicago Marathon appear tougher than the qualifying times for the 2025 Boston Marathon. But entry into the 2025 Boston Marathon required a 6:51 cutoff – so the effective qualifying times were, in fact tougher. A 30 year old man needed 2:53:09 to get into Boston – and a 2:55 to get into Chicago. This is because Chicago guarantees entry to all time qualifiers without any form of cutoff.
The same thing will likely be true in 2026, but the times are not uniformly different. For men 18-59, Chicago is 5 minutes faster. For men 60-69, Chicago is ten minutes faster. For men in their 70’s, Chicago is again 5 minutes faster, and for men 80+ the times are the same.
For women, almost every age group is five minutes faster at Chicago. The exceptions are 50-54 and 80+ – where the qualifying times are equal.
The cutoff time for the 2026 Boston Marathon will likely be a little over 5 minutes, so in most cases – men 60-69 being the chief exception – it will still be at least slightly harder to get into Boston.
Chicago vs. New York Qualifying Times
What about New York? The New York City Marathon has its own set of qualifying times, and they haven’t changed since 2016.
In terms of the published standards, the Chicago and New York City qualifying times don’t map neatly in either direction. They’re similar, but in some cases Chicago is tougher and in some cases New York is.
Men 18-34 and 80+, along with women 50+, have stricter times at Chicago. For women 55+, the differences are increasingly stark.
Then, there are two age groups (men 35-39 and 75-79) where the qualifying times are the same.
The remainder of the age groups face stricter standards at New York.
However, the complicating wrinkle here is that the published qualifying times only apply to results from the New York City Marathon. Results from non-NYRR marathons are subject to a cutoff. That cutoff is typically quite steep – like 15 to 20 minutes steep.
With that in mind, women 65+ will likely have a tougher time getting into Chicago. And everyone else will have an easier time there. The cutoff would push the effective qualifying time far below the Chicago standards in most cases.
Chicago vs London Qualifying Times
London has its own qualifying process – known as Good for Age. Only UK residents can qualify for London in this manner, but let’s set that aside for a second and just consider the qualifying times.
For men 18-34, the Chicago qualifying time is slightly harder (2:50 vs 2:52), but for men 35-69 it’s the other way around and London is tougher. For runners 70+, though, the London GFA ages are much more lenient.
For women, on the other hand, every age group has a significantly more lenient GFA time at London. At the younger end, women 18-34 need a 3:20 to get into Chicago – and only 3:38 to get into London. Some of the age groups are a little closer than that (particularly women 50-59), but not many.
Like Boston and New York, London limits the size of its GFA population and enforces a cutoff time. So it’s likely men under 70 would have a tougher time at London, while older men and most women would have an easier time at London.
Incidentally, this may be a result of the different gender dynamics within British and American running. American races tend to be more balanced along gender lines than European races, and Chicago in particular has significantly more women than London. London admits the same number of men and women through Good for Age, so the competition is tougher (and the cut off / qualifying standards more harsh) on the men’s side.
Chicago vs. Berlin Qualifying Times
Berlin is the final race with its own set of qualifying times. Like New York, they’ve remained the same in the last few years – while Chicago, Boston, and London have all lowered their qualifying times.
The Berlin times are simpler. They break down into three age groups – under 44, 45-59, and 60+.
And in (almost) every case, the Berlin qualifying times are much stricter.
The men under 44 category requires a 2:45. This is only 5 minutes faster than the 18-34 time for Chicago, but that difference increases for men in their late thirties and early forties.
The 2:55 Berlin requires for men 45-59 and 3:25 for men 60+ is much faster.
On the women’s side, Berlin requires a 3:10 for women under 45 – compared to 3:20 for women 18-34 at Chicago. The Berlin time for women 45-59 is 3:30, and for women 60+ it’s 4:20.
The lone age group where Chicago’s qualifying times are tougher is for women 60-64. Chicago requires a 4:15 – five minutes faster than Berlin.
But in general, it would be fair to say that Berlin has a very tough set of qualifying standards, and they likely permit a relatively small number of people to earn guaranteed entry.
How Many Runners Will This Eliminate?
By making the qualifying times stricter, Chicago will reduce the number of runners who can potentially claim guaranteed entry into the race. The actual number of runners is going to be a lot more variable than it is for Boston, because fewer Chicago qualifiers actually apply to run the race.
But to get a sense of the magnitude of this change, we can still look at the percent of runners who would have met the old qualifying times – and the percent of runners that would meet the new ones.
As noted above, the 2025 qualifying times were similar to the 2026 Boston Marathon qualifying times – at least for younger runners. And the 2026 Chicago qualifying times are similar to the 2026 Boston Marathon qualifying times with an additional five minutes shaved off.
I’ve already done the analysis of what a five minute cutoff would do to each group in the 2026 Boston Marathon, so rather than perform a mostly duplicative analysis, I’ll just refer to those results. The data from that analysis included results from 9/1/24 to 2/16/25.
Let’s start with men 30-34. About 7.5% of runners would meet the 2:55 qualifying time – compared to only 5.3% who would meet the 2:50 qualifying time.
What about women 30-34? About 8.6% of women would meet the 3:25 qualifying time – compared to only 6.5% who would meet the 3:20 qualifying time.
That’s a substantial reduction – about 25% to 30% – in the number of qualifiers.
For a second example, let’s look at the 40-44 age group. Among men, the qualification rate would drop form 10.4% (at 3:05) to 7.7% (at 3:00). And for women, it would drop from 10.5% (at 3:35) to 8% (at 3:30).
Again, this is a substantial reduction – around 25% of the potential applicants.
What Can We Infer from This Decision?
So what does this decision tell us about what’s going on with marathons?
The simplest and most direct conclusion is that the new Chicago Marathon qualifying times, implemented in 2025, didn’t do the trick. The number of runners meeting these times at Chicago had been rising for several years, and the race doesn’t have a relief valve like a cut off time. If too many people qualify and apply, they’ll crowd out the other types of entries.
The purpose of the new qualifying times must have been to hold that number down. And if they immediately dropped the qualifying times again, the number of guaranteed entry applicants for the 2025 race must have been higher than they expected.
This could either be the result of a) faster runners, b) more runners, or c) more applicants. The rest of the data on marathons doesn’t point to (a) a significant increase in speed among runners, but it does support (b) a general increase in the number of runners. Some combination of (b) and (c) must be true.
The 2025 Chicago Marathon also saw a record number of lottery applicants (160,000), way more than the previous record of 120,000 (2023). While some of this could represent runners who otherwise would have qualified under the old qualifying times, it likely also represents an increased demand for the race itself.
I’ve seen a couple people ask if this means it’s likely that Boston will follow suit and drop their qualifying times for the second year in a row, as well. And I don’t think that’s likely.
While it surprised me that Chicago changed its qualifying times again so soon, it also makes sense. Chicago doesn’t have a relief valve, so they have to be more pro-active with their qualifying times. The consequences of ignoring the trends are too big.
With Boston, the consequence of ignoring the trends is just a higher than desired cut off time. They can still control the field size, cap the number of applicants, and maintain enough bibs for charity and other purposes. They also don’t have a lottery with 100,000+ runners waiting to fill in the gap, so it’s in Boston’s interest to err on the other side of things – keeping the qualifying times slightly softer and ensuring that they fill up the field completely.
But the factors the prompted Chicago to make this change are the same factors that would yield a 5:00+ minute buffer for the 2026 Boston Marathon. And if the Chicago Marathon took a look at the data – including their own proprietary data – and came to this decision, it’s another indication of which way the wind is blowing. So if you’re one of the people that still doubts that a 5:00 minute cutoff at Boston is possible – this should make you think again.
What are your thoughts about the new Chicago Marathon qualifying times? Were you surprised by the move?