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
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
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