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
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
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