Chuck Taylor All Star Cx Exp2 4.5 Men A07199C vs Men's Expanse Low Waterproof 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

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 Expanse Low Waterproof Shoes

Under Armour

Men's Expanse Low Waterproof Shoes

PFAS grade

Bad 20/100

Overall grade

Bad 0/100

Verdict

Skip

Hazard flags

⚑ 3

Material

Synthetic upper with unspecified waterproof coating

Confidence

35%

PossibleAntimony in polyester

PossibleCoating degradation and microplastics

LikelyPFAS in waterproof coating (non-aqueous exposure)

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 Antimony in polyester, Coating degradation and microplastics and PFAS in waterproof coating (non-aqueous exposure) on the Under Armour and not on the Converse.
  • The Converse is Canvas upper, rubber sole where the Under Armour is Synthetic upper with unspecified waterproof coating, 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 35% 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