Pro Style Shock Absorbing Pad vs Universal Padding Fit Kit: which is safer?

Easton Pro Style Shock Absorbing Pad is our pick, better on PFAS and on the overall hazard picture.

Our pick

Easton Pro Style Shock Absorbing Pad

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)

Why this grade
Easton Universal Padding Fit Kit

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

Why this grade

Where these two actually differ

  • 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.
  • 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 Foam padding, likely EVA or polyurethane where the Easton is foam padding, elastic straps, which is most of the difference in these two grades.
  • These two are level, close enough that price and fit should decide it rather than our grade.

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