Chuck Taylor All Star Cx Exp2 4.5 Men A07199C vs Men's Li-Ning Titan GTX: 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.

Our pick

Converse Chuck Taylor All Star Cx Exp2 4.5 Men A07199C

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

Men's Li-Ning Titan GTX

Li-Ning

Men's Li-Ning Titan GTX

PFAS grade

Bad 20/100

Overall grade

Bad 0/100

Verdict

Skip

Hazard flags

⚑ 4

Material

Synthetic textile with GTX waterproof membrane

Confidence

35%

PossibleTeflon-type coating fume risk (non-PFAS aspect)

PossibleAzo dyes

PossibleAntimony trioxide in polyester

Where these two actually differ

  • We flag Azo dyes in canvas and Formaldehyde resin finishing on canvas on the Converse and not on the Li-Ning.
  • We flag PTFE fume risk (non-PFAS aspect), Azo dyes, Antimony trioxide in polyester and Microfiber shedding from degraded coating on the Li-Ning and not on the Converse.
  • The Converse is Canvas upper, rubber sole where the Li-Ning is Synthetic textile with GTX waterproof membrane, 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 Li-Ning grade, at 35% confidence against 72%, because it discloses less.

Both products run through the same public rubric: 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