Men's Athlete Speed Shorts vs Men's Shorebreak 2 in 1 Amphib Shorts: which is safer?
Reebok Men's Athlete Speed Shorts is our pick: better on PFAS and on the overall hazard picture.
Our pick
Reebok
Men's Athlete Speed Shorts
PFAS grade
Good 65/100
Overall grade
Poor 47/100
Verdict
Skip
Hazard flags
⚑ 3
Material
Polyester mesh and nylon blend, standard athletic construction
Confidence
72%
PossibleFormaldehyde resins in finishing
PossibleAntimony in polyester
ReportedMicroplastic shedding
Under Armour
Men's Shorebreak 2 in 1 Amphib Shorts
PFAS grade
Bad 20/100
Overall grade
Bad 0/100
Verdict
Skip
Hazard flags
⚑ 2
Material
Polyester blend with water-repellent coating water-repellent finish
Confidence
45%
LikelyPFAS in water-repellent coating (water-repellent) finish
PossibleMicroplastic shedding with wear and wash
Where these two actually differ
- We flag Formaldehyde resins in finishing, Antimony in polyester and Microplastic shedding on the Reebok and not on the Under Armour.
- We flag PFAS in DWR (water-repellent) finish and Microplastic shedding with wear and wash on the Under Armour and not on the Reebok.
- The Reebok is Polyester mesh and nylon blend, standard athletic construction where the Under Armour is Polyester blend with DWR water-repellent finish, 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 Reebok is the one to buy.
- We are less certain about the Under Armour 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 waterproof sports gear: see the full ranking