Power Pad vs Universal Padding Fit Kit: which is safer?
Easton Universal Padding Fit Kit is our pick: better on PFAS and on the overall hazard picture.
Easton
Power Pad
PFAS grade
Bad 20/100
Overall grade
Bad 8/100
Verdict
Skip
Hazard flags
⚑ 3
Material
nylon/polyester blend with moisture-wicking treatment
Confidence
45%
PossibleFluorinated water-repellent finish (PFAS class)
PossibleAntimony in polyester
PossibleMicrofiber shedding during washing
Our pick
Easton
Universal Padding Fit Kit
PFAS grade
Good 65/100
Overall grade
Poor 43/100
Verdict
Skip
Hazard flags
⚑ 4
Material
foam padding, elastic straps
Confidence
72%
PossiblePolyurethane foam off-gassing (VOCs)
PossibleAdhesive leachables
PossibleElastic synthetic fiber irritation
Where these two actually differ
- We flag Fluorinated water-repellent finish (PFAS class), Antimony in polyester and Microfiber shedding during washing on the Easton and not on the Easton.
- We flag Polyurethane foam off-gassing (VOCs), Adhesive leachables, Elastic synthetic fiber irritation and Foam fragmentation and inhalation on the Easton and not on the Easton.
- The Easton is nylon/polyester blend with moisture-wicking treatment where the Easton is foam padding, elastic straps, 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 45% 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 sports equipment padding: see the full ranking