Chuck Taylor All Star Cx Exp2 4.5 Men A07199C vs Men's Fast-Trac NITRO 3 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

Puma Men's Fast-Trac NITRO 3 GTX

Puma

Men's Fast-Trac NITRO 3 GTX

PFAS grade

Bad 20/100

Overall grade

Bad 0/100

Verdict

Skip

Hazard flags

⚑ 4

Material

Synthetic textile with GTX waterproof membrane

Confidence

42%

LikelyPFAS in waterproof membrane and water-repellent coating coatings

PossibleAzo dyes in synthetic fabric upper

PossibleFormaldehyde resins in fabric finishing

Where these two actually differ

  • We flag Azo dyes in canvas and Formaldehyde resin finishing on canvas on the Converse and not on the Puma.
  • We flag PFAS in waterproof membrane and DWR coatings, Azo dyes in synthetic fabric upper, Formaldehyde resins in fabric finishing and Adhesive and glue off-gassing on the Puma and not on the Converse.
  • The Converse is Canvas upper, rubber sole where the Puma 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 Puma grade, at 42% 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