Universal Padding Fit Kit vs Shock Absorbing Base: which is safer?

Macgregor Shock Absorbing Base is our pick: better on PFAS and on the overall hazard picture.

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

Our pick

Macgregor Shock Absorbing Base

MacGregor

Shock Absorbing Base

PFAS grade

Good 65/100

Overall grade

Good 53/100

Verdict

Skip

Hazard flags

⚑ 3

Material

foam or elastomer cushioning in shoe base

Confidence

45%

PossibleFoam degradation and off-gassing

PossibleAdhesive and binder leachables

PossibleFormaldehyde resins in binders

Why this grade

Where these two actually differ

  • 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 MacGregor.
  • We flag Foam degradation and off-gassing, Adhesive and binder leachables and Formaldehyde resins in binders on the MacGregor and not on the Easton.
  • The Easton is foam padding, elastic straps where the MacGregor is foam or elastomer cushioning in shoe base, 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.
  • We are less certain about the MacGregor 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