Knee Savers vs Pro Style Shock Absorbing Pad: which is safer?
Easton Pro Style Shock Absorbing Pad is our pick, better on PFAS and on the overall hazard picture.
Easton
Knee Savers
PFAS grade
Bad 20/100
Overall grade
Bad 6/100
Verdict
Skip
Hazard flags
⚑ 2
Material
Polyester/nylon with water-resistant coating
Confidence
35%
PossiblePFAS in water-resistant coating
ReportedMicrofiber shedding
Our pick
Easton
Pro Style Shock Absorbing Pad
PFAS grade
Good 65/100
Overall grade
Poor 49/100
Verdict
Skip
Hazard flags
⚑ 4
Material
Foam padding, likely EVA or polyurethane
Confidence
72%
PossibleFormaldehyde in textile finishes
PossibleAzo dyes in shell fabric
PossibleAdhesive volatiles (VOC/off-gassing)
Where these two actually differ
- We flag PFAS in water-resistant coating and Microfiber shedding on the Easton and not on the Easton.
- We flag Formaldehyde in textile finishes, Azo dyes in shell fabric, Adhesive volatiles (VOC/off-gassing) and Microplastic shedding from foam breakdown on the Easton and not on the Easton.
- The Easton is Polyester/nylon with water-resistant coating where the Easton is Foam padding, likely EVA or polyurethane, 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 Easton is the one to buy.
- We are less certain about the Easton 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 sports equipment padding, see the full ranking