Men's GEL-VENTURE 11 WATERPROOF vs Chuck Taylor All Star Cx Exp2 4.5 Men A07199C: which is safer?
Converse Chuck Taylor All Star Cx Exp2 4.5 Men A07199C is our pick, better on PFAS and on the overall hazard picture.
ASICS
Men's GEL-VENTURE 11 WATERPROOF
PFAS grade
Bad 20/100
Overall grade
Bad 16/100
Verdict
Skip
Hazard flags
⚑ 1
Material
Textile upper with unspecified waterproof coating/water-repellent coating treatment
Confidence
45%
PossibleCoating degradation and leachates from water-repellent coating
Our pick
Converse
Chuck Taylor All Star Cx Exp2 4.5 Men A07199C
PFAS grade
Good 65/100
Overall grade
Good 57/100
Verdict
Skip
Hazard flags
⚑ 2
Material
Canvas upper, rubber sole
Confidence
72%
PossibleAzo dyes in canvas
PossibleFormaldehyde resin finishing on canvas
Where these two actually differ
- We flag Coating degradation and leachates from DWR on the ASICS and not on the Converse.
- We flag Azo dyes in canvas and Formaldehyde resin finishing on canvas on the Converse and not on the ASICS.
- The ASICS is Textile upper with unspecified waterproof coating/DWR treatment where the Converse is Canvas upper, rubber sole, which is most of the difference in these two grades.
- The gap is 45 points, wide enough that this is not a close call, and the Converse is the one to buy.
- We are less certain about the ASICS grade, at 45% confidence against 72%, because it discloses less.
Both products run through the same public rubric, which covers materials, coatings, brand disclosure, lab findings, and recalls, plus a beyond-PFAS hazard analysis. Grades are model-based estimates, not lab tests. How grades work →
More running & athletic shoes, see the full ranking