PFAS in Waterproof Sports Gear, Which Brands Grade Best and Worst

Based on available materials and public disclosure data, the Adidas Men's Workout Essentials Base Woven Shorts and the Reebok Men's Athlete Speed Shorts come out ahead of the field in our review, each landing a model-based estimate of Good, 65 out of 100. That is not a claim of zero PFAS or a guarantee of lab-verified purity. It simply means that, of the waterproof and water-resistant sports shorts we reviewed, these two carry the lowest estimated concern based on the materials, finishes, and disclosures we could find.

At the other end of the spectrum, a cluster of amphibian and hybrid boardshorts from Quiksilver, Under Armour, and Reebok's metallic running line score Bad, 20 out of 100, our lowest estimate tier. In the middle sit three Patagonia shorts models rated Poor, 45 out of 100, a reminder that a sustainability-forward brand reputation does not automatically translate into a low PFAS estimate once you look at the water-repellent finishes actually used on specific products. Below we break down every product in this comparison, what the brands claim, what we could verify, and which items we'd steer toward or away from if we were shopping today. For a broader shortlist, see our best PFAS-conscious clothing picks or run any product through the PFAS Authority finder tool yourself.

Summary comparison table

Product	PFAS grade (model estimate)	Verdict
Adidas Men's Workout Essentials Base Woven Shorts	Good, 65/100	Lower concern estimate, best in this comparison
Reebok Men's Athlete Speed Shorts	Good, 65/100	Lower concern estimate, tied for best
Patagonia Men's Outdoor Everyday Shorts	Poor, 45/100	Mid-tier concern, weaker than brand reputation suggests
Patagonia Men's Trailfarer Shorts	Poor, 45/100	Mid-tier concern, likely DWR-treated
Patagonia Men's Home Waters Hybrid Shorts	Poor, 45/100	Mid-tier concern, hybrid water shorts
Quiksilver Men's Union Print Amphibian 20" Hybrid Shorts	Bad, 20/100	High concern estimate, avoid if minimizing PFAS
Quiksilver Men's Union Heather Amphibian 20" Boardshorts	Bad, 20/100	High concern estimate
Under Armour Men's Shorebreak 2 in 1 Amphib Shorts	Bad, 20/100	High concern estimate, lowest tier
Reebok Women's Lux Metallic 2-In-1 Running Shorts	Bad, 20/100	High concern estimate despite Reebok's other line scoring well
Quiksilver Men's Union Heather Amphibian Hybrid Shorts	Bad, 20/100	High concern estimate
Adidas Skateboarding Water Shorts	Bad, 20/100	High concern estimate, contrasts with Adidas's better-scoring line
Quiksilver Men's Waterman Strands Regular-Fit Shorts	Bad, 20/100	High concern estimate
Quiksilver Men's Taxer Amphibian Hybrid Shorts	Bad, 20/100	High concern estimate
Quiksilver Men's Transit 19 Hybrid Shorts	Bad, 20/100	High concern estimate

How we're grading, and what these grades actually mean

Every grade referenced here is a model-based estimate built from publicly available materials lists, brand disclosures, and known industry finish patterns, not a lab test performed on the specific unit you'd buy. A "Good" score of 65/100 means lower estimated concern relative to peers, not an assurance that a garment is free of PFAS. A "Poor" or "Bad" score means our model found more indicators of likely PFAS-based water repellent or membrane treatments, based on materials and data available at the time of review. Where a brand makes a PFAS-free claim, we note it as brand-stated unless we found independent, third-party lab verification, which none of the products below currently have on record in our database.

The two best-graded products

Adidas Men's Workout Essentials Base Woven Shorts

Materials, A woven polyester blend built for training rather than water immersion, without the heavy amphibian-style water-repellent membrane found in swim-crossover shorts.

Brand claims, Adidas markets this line around moisture management and everyday training performance rather than waterproofing, and does not make an explicit PFAS-free claim for this specific product in materials we reviewed.

Pros, Simpler construction with fewer water-repellent treatments layered in, which likely explains the comparatively lower estimated concern score. Widely available and reasonably priced for a training short.

Cons, A 65/100 is "Good" relative to this category, not a clean bill of health. It is still a model estimate, and Adidas's own Skateboarding Water Shorts score dramatically worse, showing that grades vary sharply even within one brand's catalog.

Reebok Men's Athlete Speed Shorts

Materials, Lightweight athletic shorts using standard performance fabric rather than a dedicated amphibian or 2-in-1 waterproof shell.

Brand claims, Reebok positions these as everyday training shorts, with no explicit waterproofing or PFAS-free marketing claim identified in our source review.

Pros, Matches Adidas's top score in this comparison, and the simpler build again appears to be a factor in the lower estimated concern.

Cons, Reebok's own Women's Lux Metallic 2-In-1 Running Shorts score Bad, 20/100, reinforcing that a brand name alone tells you very little. Product line and specific finish matter far more than logo.

The mid-tier, Patagonia's Poor-graded shorts

Patagonia has built a reputation on environmental transparency, which makes its Poor, 45/100 estimates across three shorts models worth a closer look rather than a pass.

Patagonia Men's Outdoor Everyday Shorts

Materials, A recycled polyester blend with a durable water-repellent (DWR) finish typical of Patagonia's everyday outdoor line.

Brand claims, Patagonia has publicly stated a company-wide goal to move away from PFAS-based DWR finishes in coming seasons, but this is a forward-looking commitment, not a verified claim about the specific units currently on shelves.

Pros, Recycled fabric content and a brand with public PFAS-reduction commitments on record.

Cons, Based on available materials and data, the DWR finish likely still relies on fluorinated chemistry as of this review, which is reflected in the Poor score.

Patagonia Men's Trailfarer Shorts

Materials, A hiking-oriented short with a water-resistant finish intended for trail and light water crossings.

Brand claims, Marketed around durability and quick-dry performance, without a specific PFAS-free label on this model in our review.

Pros, Versatile for hiking and casual water exposure.

Cons, Same estimated concern tier as the rest of Patagonia's shorts lineup reviewed here, suggesting the DWR chemistry is likely shared across the range.

Patagonia Men's Home Waters Hybrid Shorts

Materials, A hybrid swim-to-street short, the category of product most likely to carry a water-repellent treatment given its intended use in and around water.

Brand claims, Positioned for fishing and water sports, with quick-dry claims but no independently verified PFAS-free certification identified.

Pros, Purpose-built for water use, which for some buyers is worth the tradeoff.

Cons, Hybrid water shorts as a category tend to score worse across brands because the water-repellent finish is functionally central to the product, and this one is no exception at Poor, 45/100.

The lowest-graded products, Bad, 20/100

Nine of the fourteen products in this comparison land in our Bad tier. Most share a common thread, they are "amphibian" or "2-in-1" hybrid shorts explicitly designed to transition from swimming to land wear, a use case that has historically leaned on fluorinated water-repellent and quick-dry finishes.

Quiksilver's amphibian and hybrid lineup

Quiksilver dominates the bottom of this table, with six separate models scoring Bad, 20/100, the Union Print Amphibian 20" Hybrid Shorts, the Union Heather Amphibian 20" Boardshorts, the Union Heather Amphibian Hybrid Shorts, the Waterman Strands Regular-Fit Shorts, the Taxer Amphibian Hybrid Shorts, and the Transit 19 Hybrid Shorts.

Materials, Each uses a quick-dry, water-resistant woven or stretch fabric, consistent with amphibian and hybrid boardshort construction across the surf industry.

Brand claims, Quiksilver markets these around quick-dry performance and boardshort-to-street versatility. We found no independently verified PFAS-free certification for any of these six models in the sources reviewed.

Pros, Genuinely functional for surf, paddleboarding, and casual swim-to-shore wear, which is the job these shorts are designed to do.

Cons, Consistent Bad estimates across the entire lineup suggest a shared finish chemistry brand-wide, based on available materials and data. Anyone prioritizing lower PFAS concern should treat this brand's amphibian category as a whole with caution rather than assuming any single model is an outlier.

Under Armour Men's Shorebreak 2 in 1 Amphib Shorts

Materials, A 2-in-1 built-in liner short designed for swim and land transition, similar in concept to Quiksilver's amphibian line.

Brand claims, Under Armour promotes quick-dry and stretch performance, without an explicit PFAS-free claim identified for this product.

Pros, Functional 2-in-1 design that skips a separate swim brief.

Cons, Scores Bad, 20/100 in our model, consistent with other amphibian-style hybrids in this comparison.

Reebok Women's Lux Metallic 2-In-1 Running Shorts

Materials, A running short with a metallic finish and built-in liner. Metallic and specialty finishes on activewear are one of the material patterns our model treats as a possible PFAS indicator, alongside water-repellent and stain-resistant claims.

Brand claims, Marketed for running performance and style, with no PFAS-free claim identified in our review.

Pros, Distinct from Reebok's better-scoring training shorts, offering a fashion-forward metallic look.

Cons, Bad, 20/100, a sharp contrast to Reebok's own Athlete Speed Shorts, again illustrating that grade varies by product line, not brand alone.

Adidas Skateboarding Water Shorts

Materials, A dedicated water short built for skate-adjacent water activities, with a water-repellent finish.

Brand claims, Adidas markets the water-resistance as a functional feature, without an explicit PFAS-free claim identified for this model.

Pros, Purpose-built water resistance for a niche use case.

Cons, Bad, 20/100, the steepest internal contrast in this whole comparison given Adidas's own Workout Essentials shorts score Good, 65/100.

What to avoid

Amphibian and 2-in-1 hybrid shorts as a category. Nine of the fourteen products here fall into this design category, and all nine scored Bad, 20/100 in our model. If a product description emphasizes "quick-dry," "amphibian," or "swim-to-street," treat that as a signal to check the grade before buying.
Assuming brand reputation predicts grade. Patagonia's environmental messaging did not prevent Poor scores on three shorts models. Adidas and Reebok each have one Good-scoring product and one Bad-scoring product in this same comparison. Check the specific product, not just the logo.
Unverified "PFAS-free" marketing language. None of the products in this comparison carry an independently verified, third-party lab-confirmed PFAS-free certification in the sources we reviewed. Brand statements about moving away from PFAS are forward-looking commitments, not proof about the item on the shelf today.
Metallic, stain-resistant, or heavily "performance-treated" finishes on otherwise ordinary shorts, which our model flags as a pattern associated with elevated estimated concern, as seen with the Reebok Lux Metallic shorts.

If you're shopping outside shorts specifically, similar brand-inconsistency patterns show up across other waterproof categories. See our guides to waterproof boots and swimwear for related comparisons, and the waterproof camera and lens protection cases roundup if you're gearing up for a full water-sports kit.

Our pick

Based on available materials and public disclosure data, the Adidas Men's Workout Essentials Base Woven Shorts and Reebok Men's Athlete Speed Shorts are the strongest options in this comparison, each earning a model-based estimate of Good, 65/100. That is our pick for buyers who want a lower estimated concern option among the products we've reviewed, not a declaration that either short is PFAS-free or lab-verified safe. If your use case genuinely requires an amphibian-style hybrid short for swimming to shore, understand going in that every model of that type reviewed here, across Quiksilver, Under Armour, and Reebok's 2-in-1 line, scored Bad, 20/100, and weigh that estimated tradeoff against the functional benefit before buying. For a wider view across categories, the best clothing picks page and the PFAS Authority finder let you compare specific products before you check out.

Frequently asked questions

Does a Good grade mean a product is PFAS-free?

No. A Good grade, such as the 65/100 estimate for the Adidas and Reebok shorts above, is a model-based estimate built from materials data and public disclosure, not a laboratory test result. It means lower estimated concern relative to the other products we reviewed, not a confirmed absence of PFAS. We have not seen third-party lab verification for any product in this comparison.

Why do some shorts from the same brand score so differently?

Grades track the specific product's construction and finish, not the brand as a whole. Adidas's Workout Essentials shorts scored Good, 65/100, while its Skateboarding Water Shorts scored Bad, 20/100. The same split shows up at Reebok. Water-repellent and amphibian-style hybrid shorts tend to score worse because their core function often relies on finishes historically built with fluorinated chemistry, regardless of which brand makes them.

Is there a proven health risk from wearing lower-graded waterproof shorts?

Research has associated certain PFAS chemicals with health concerns in various studies, but association is not the same as causation, and wearing a garment is a different exposure pathway than ingestion or occupational contact. Our grades reflect estimated PFAS presence based on materials and disclosure, not a clinical assessment of personal health risk from any specific product.