Universal Padding Fit Kit vs Umpire's Inside Chest Protector: which is safer?

Easton Universal Padding Fit Kit is our pick: better on PFAS and on the overall hazard picture.

Our pick

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

MacGregor Umpire's Inside Chest Protector

MacGregor

Umpire's Inside Chest Protector

PFAS grade

Good 65/100

Overall grade

Poor 39/100

Verdict

Skip

Hazard flags

⚑ 5

Material

foam padding, cotton/poly blend outer shell

Confidence

72%

PossibleFormaldehyde resins in fabric finishing

ReportedFoam degradation and particle shedding

PossibleAzo dyes in outer shell coloring

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 Formaldehyde resins in fabric finishing, Foam degradation and particle shedding, Azo dyes in outer shell coloring and Antimony in polyester component on the MacGregor and not on the Easton.
  • The Easton is foam padding, elastic straps where the MacGregor is foam padding, cotton/poly blend outer shell, 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: 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