Chuck Taylor All Star Cx Exp2 4.5 Men A07199C vs Men's Charged Assert 10 Running Shoes: 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
Under Armour
Men's Charged Assert 10 Running Shoes
PFAS grade
Bad 20/100
Overall grade
Bad 0/100
Verdict
Skip
Hazard flags
⚑ 4
Material
synthetic mesh, EVA foam, rubber outsole, water-repellent treated upper
Confidence
42%
PossibleAzo dyes in synthetic mesh upper
PossibleAntimony in polyester components
ReportedUnspecified water-repellent coating (likely PFAS-based)
Where these two actually differ
- We flag Azo dyes in canvas and Formaldehyde resin finishing on canvas on the Converse and not on the Under Armour.
- We flag Azo dyes in synthetic mesh upper, Antimony in polyester components, Unspecified water-repellent coating (likely PFAS-based) and EVA foam off-gassing during break-in on the Under Armour and not on the Converse.
- The Converse is Canvas upper, rubber sole where the Under Armour is synthetic mesh, EVA foam, rubber outsole, water-repellent treated upper, 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 Under Armour grade, at 42% 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