Ball Lab: Callaway Chrome Soft X LS Review
Golf Balls

Ball Lab: Callaway Chrome Soft X LS Review

Support our Mission. We independently test each product we recommend. When you buy through our links, we may earn a commission.

Ball Lab: Callaway Chrome Soft X LS Review

MyGolfSpy Ball Lab is where we quantify the quality and consistency of the golf balls on the market to help you find the best ball for your money. 

A photo of Callaway Chrome Soft X LS golf balls

About the Callaway Chrome Soft X LS

Of the now three balls in the Callaway Chrome Soft lineup, the high-compression Chrome Soft X LS is expected to be the fastest, highest launching and lowest spinning of the three.

Those properties make it the most compelling for me. It also provides us with a fresh opportunity to gain insight into how Callaway’s ongoing ball plant improvements are manifested in the finished product.

Like the standard Chrome Soft X, the CSX LS is a four-piece, dual mantle design with 332 dimples. The geometry of those dimples has been tweaked a bit to optimize performance.

The Chrome Soft X LS is manufactured at Callaway’s ball plant in Chicopee, Mass.

Callaway Chrome Soft X LS—Compression

On our gauge, the Callaway Chrome Soft X LS measures 100 compression. That’s notable for a few reasons.

First, it makes for a ball that falls on the extreme end of the compression range. It’s the second firmest ball in our database and solidly within our X-Firm range. That’s not a bad thing. Compression and speed are tightly correlated so if the goal is to compete with balls like the TaylorMade TP5x and the Titleist Pro V1x Left Dash, higher compression is kind of a necessity, although, as we’ve noted previously, TaylorMade has softened the TP5x this time around.

The bottom line is that, for a healthy number of golfers, the Chrome Soft X LS should prove to be the longest ball in the Callaway lineup.

Callaway told us the target compression for CSX LS is identical to the Chrome Soft X. However, we’ve got it between five to 10 points higher from one ball to the next. Again, that’s not a negative but prospective buyers need to understand that we’re a long way away (25 compression points to be precise) from the standard Chrome Soft.

By no reasonable measure is the Chrome Soft X a soft golf ball. The Callaway Chrome Soft X LS is firmer still.

Callaway Chrome Soft X LS—Diameter and Weight

While not as pervasive as it is with other brands, Callaway occasionally struggles with golf ball weight. That was mildly the case here with a single Chrome Soft X LS exceeding the USGA’s maximum weight standard.

We typically don’t see roundness issues with Callaway’s Tour-level balls. This held true with the Chrome Soft X LS as none of the balls in the sample came close to failing our roundness check. All of the balls in our sample were round.

Callaway Chrome Soft X LS—Inspection

Centeredness and Concentricity

Given the history (one could say Chrome Soft was the impetus for Ball Lab), it’s fair to say this section is where a good bit of the rubber meets the road for Callaway. Let’s cut to the chase.

None of the balls in our sample presented with significantly off-center cores or other layer defects.

It’s worth mentioning that Callaway has shifted from dual-core construction to a dual-mantle in its latest designs. While Callaway would likely put its own spin on the decision, companies who continue to use dual-core designs in their four-piece designs maintain it offers the best performance, while dual-mantle designs are a bit easier to produce more consistently.

We did find multiple instances of layer incursions (the outer mantle penetrating into the inner mantle) and, while some of them were worse than others, ultimately we weren’t convinced they’d cause performance issues. None were flagged as bad, though several were noted for being noticeably less than perfect.

a photo of the core of the Callaway Chrome Soft X LS golf ball

Core Consistency

All of the cores in our Chrome Soft X LS sample were generally consistent. We didn’t find any large chunks of debris nor did we find any of the swirly core (improper mixing) that was common in prior generations of Callaway golf balls.

Several balls in Box 2 had small flakes of material that looked a bit like glitter but the material wasn’t pervasive and the data from the gauges didn’t suggest any significant issues as a result.

Cover

We noted a defect on a single cover: a small raised area that may have occurred as the ball was exiting the mold. While noticeable, it was still relatively minor so the ball was not flagged.

The takeaway should be that, while we did note multiple imperfections which is true for most of the balls we test, during the visual inspection, we didn’t find a single disqualifying defect across our sample.

Callaway Chrome Soft X LS—Consistency

In this section, we detail the consistency of the Callaway Chrome Soft X LS. Our consistency metrics provide a measure of how similar the balls in our sample were to one another relative to all of the models we’ve tested to date.

While we did find some inconsistencies within our Callaway Chrome Soft X LS sample, the data collected on our gauges suggest that Callaway continues to trend in the right direction.

a chart showing the manufacturing consistency of the Callaway Chrome Soft X LS golf ball

Weight Consistency

  • The weight inconsistency is reasonably apparent in the chart.
  • Box 1 was heavier, on average, while Box 2 was lighter. Box 3 was reasonably balanced. However, one of the balls exceeded the USGA’s maximum weight.

Diameter Consistency

  • Diameter consistency for the Callaway Chrome Soft X LS falls on the low end of our average range.
  • Several balls in the sample run a little on the large side.

Compression Consistency

  • Compression consistency across the Callaway Chrome Soft X LS sample was average.
  • The compression delta across the sample was 8.5 compression points—above average for the database and the best of any Callaway ball measured to date.
  • The average compression delta across the three points measured on each ball also falls within the average range. None of the balls showed more than a 3.5-point variation across the three points measured.

True Price

True Price is how we quantify the quality of a golf ball. It's a projection of what you'd have to spend to ensure you get 12 good balls.

The True Price will always be equal to or greater than the retail price. The greater the difference between the retail price and the True Price, the more you should be concerned about the quality of the ball.

Callaway Chrome Soft X LS—Summary

To learn more about our test process, how we define “bad” balls and our True Price metric, check out our About MyGolfSpy Ball Lab page.

The Good

  • Average compression and diameter consistency across the sample
  • The visual inspection found no obviously bad balls.

The Bad

  • Weight consistency still lags a bit behind the leaders.

Final Grade

The Callaway Chrome Soft X LS gets an overall grade of 72.

Our gauge data suggests that while Callaway still has some work to do, the overall quality and consistency of its Chrome Soft line is improving.

The “True Price” of the Callaway Chrome Soft X LS  is $49.32. That’s an increase of just three percent over retail.

An overview of the equipment we use can be found here. To learn more about our test process, how we define “bad” balls and our True Price metric, check out our About MyGolfSpy Ball Lab page.

Support Unbiased Testing.

DID YOU KNOW: If only 1% of MyGolfSpy readers donated $25, we would be able to become completely independent in 12-months. With every donation, you create change.

Would you be willing to help by giving a donation? Every dollar will help. Make a donation to support our independent and expert golf equipment research. A PayPal account is not required in order to donate.

Donate to MGS


Amount

Frequency

For You

For You

Golf Shafts
Apr 14, 2024
Testers Wanted: Autoflex Dream 7 Driver Shaft
News
Apr 14, 2024
A Rare Masters ‘L’: Day Asked To Remove Sweater
Drivers
Apr 13, 2024
Testers Wanted: Callaway Ai Smoke Drivers
Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony is the Editor of MyGolfSpy where his job is to bring fresh and innovative content to the site. In addition to his editorial responsibilities, he was instrumental in developing MyGolfSpy's data-driven testing methodologies and continues to sift through our data to find the insights that can help improve your game. Tony believes that golfers deserve to know what's real and what's not, and that means MyGolfSpy's equipment coverage must extend beyond the so-called facts as dictated by the same companies that created them. Most of all Tony believes in performance over hype and #PowerToThePlayer.

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey





    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

      James Shepard

      3 years ago

      I’ve played the Chrome Soft xls for awhile and find them as long or longer as any ball I’ve played. The surprising thing is they are softer feeling than all the other high compression balls.

      Reply

      Tim

      3 years ago

      I think providing scores is great but how you achieve those scores needs work.

      “Our consistency metrics provide a measure of how similar the balls in our sample were to one another relative to all of the models we’ve tested to date.”

      Why would you compare a CS LS to a totally different company with different manufacturing processes and different layers? I am not sure its a fair comparision…..obviously making a 4pc ball is harder than a 3 pc ball so the comparisons between the two scores are not “apples to apples”. I am not sure this model is truly reflective of the quality of any ball……if one company has real shitty balls…..and you compare another ball to it, of course it will look better than it is…. maybe group the balls a little better for better comparisons../ Like :best “4 pc ball”. or something a little more specific.

      Reply

      Jacques

      3 years ago

      Your work is excellent. I wonder: can we get those with glitter to flutter and sparkle off the tee? I would like a box for the Fourth of July.

      Reply

      Dave Wie

      3 years ago

      Hey Tony love the ball lab reviews. When reading this article it stood out to me that the only major thing you could identify was a weight difference in the balls. Thus you gave it a 3% higher true cost price (this is understandable). What I don’t comprehend is how that would correlate to a score of 72? Lets use the TP5 as a ball to compare to. 89% percent of the balls were good but received a score of 80. Could you please explain the formula you use the give a score to the ball based on % balls that were deemed bad. When reading other comments it seems many of us are confused on this.

      Reply

      Tim

      3 years ago

      This was my thoughts too. I as well am confused by the scoring now

      Reply

      Ed

      3 years ago

      It also takes into the consistency of all the measurements which is still lower than others. And gonna also guess that while balls aren’t flagged as bad in that they won’t affect performance, they still factor into the score how many have slight noticable defects like the mantle layers melting a bit into each other.

      That said I also figured the score would end up being high 70s, low 80s, but we’re not there to see if it warrants lower scores in comparison. Still it’s not a terrible score, there wasn’t as much cause for alarm as other Ball Labs I’ve read and I wouldn’t be troubled making this my ball of choice.

      Reply

      Harry P

      3 years ago

      While the ball labs are interesting, how is a range ball scoring as high or higher than several balls played on tour helpful? Most wanted is always helpful but ball lab not so much if I want to play anything other than Pro V.

      Reply

      Ed

      3 years ago

      Ball Lab is more a measure of how consistent the plants are at producing the same ball over and over again to ensure get the same performance over and over again. The higher score of the range ball doesn’t mean it’ll perform better than a Tour ball, just that the manufacturer that makes them is more consistent than the one that produces said tour ball. The tour ball will of course still be better performing.

      Ultimately you can play any ball you want and I doubt many of us notice a lack of performance ball to ball, and they may be great for you a majority of the time. Ball Labs can at least tell us which models to be wary of.

      Reply

      MarkM

      3 years ago

      Hi Tony, thanks for another ball test. 100 compression is pretty significant – I’m surprised.

      I have a question regarding the ball weight consitency issues. When you play a ball that has these weight differences, what effects are you going to see on the golf course? Thanks

      Reply

      Dan

      3 years ago

      Yes, I’m wondering the same. What do these quality issues show up on the course, and in what ways? Which is the worst type of defect, and which are more benign? Etc.

      Thanks for all the work you guys do!

      Reply

      Andrew

      3 years ago

      If the two balls are the same size, the heavier ball will travel further (within reason).

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      3 years ago

      Exactly this. A small ball is a longer ball, which is why we see some brands really pushing the size limit. A heavier ball will also generally be a longer ball, though we don’t see nearly as much variation in weight.

      Robert

      3 years ago

      Hi Paulo, Thanks for your reply, but you are wrong! They are bought at multiple retail locations, to vary the sample. Tony and MGS have mentioned this several times.

      Reply

      Walter

      3 years ago

      I wonder if Phil is playing these inconsistent balls or if he gets pretested/screened balls

      Reply

      James

      3 years ago

      I would think that all tour players are using balls that go through extra QC to ensure every single ball is rules-conforming.

      Reply

      Larry Proffer

      3 years ago

      I don’t play Callaway balls however given information provided in article I can’t see how this ball is rated 72 and the Titleist is 93. It would be that this ball is at least 99% equal to the ProV-1. The scaling process system you have devised needs a serious rethink IMHO. That said I wish MGS all the best and I’m glad you’re provigg D I got a much needed service to golfers and the industry.

      Reply

      Lefty110golf

      3 years ago

      I agree with you, Larry.. Based on 1 bad ball, I was expecting a score of 90 ish.. Seems as if Callaway is cleaning up its act on ball manufacturing. Still sticking with my Pro V1x, at least until the next ball test.

      Reply

      Walter

      3 years ago

      Did you actually read the whole report or just glance at it?

      Reply

      Ron

      3 years ago

      Spot on Walter, they probably didn’t get the “weight consistency”…. not a minor issue either.

      Mjinwi

      3 years ago

      Good write-up gentleman. I’ve played a few rounds with the LS this spring/early summer and it’s definitely a firm ball. But seems to perform as advertised. (Anecdotally speaking that is) still not going to replace the prov1x for me, but its an interesting ball and a good direction for callaway to go in.
      One edit. the ball summary graphic lists the score as 73/100. But the first line of the writing summary reads score of 72
      Thanks guys keep up the good work

      Reply

      Richard

      3 years ago

      Higher compression generally means higher spin and lower launch. From your 2015 article about soft golf balls – “Low compression 2-piece balls will generally have low spin rate and high launch angle compared to harder compression balls…” With these being Extra Firm balls, this would seem to bely the claim by Callaway that these are low spin, high launch balls.

      My personal experience with these balls (104mph driver swing) is that they are medium-launch, medium-to-high-spin. They are about 5-10 yards shorter off the driver and 5 yards shorter off the irons than my normal ball, the Bridgestone Tour B-RX.

      Also, these reviews seem to be more Golf Ball “Manufacturing” reviews, as opposed to Golf Ball “Performance” reviews. While the manufacturing review is helpful, it would also be great to see some spin, launch, ball speed, etc. data. I think most people buy golf balls based on their performance. That said, the manufacturing review is helpful in that it shows which balls are more consistently manufactured..

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      3 years ago

      There isn’t a true correlation between compression and launch and spin characteristics. Soft balls will typically be high launch and low spin because 1) it’s what most “soft” players need and 2) for mid to high swing speed players, high launch and low spin is the only means to compensate for distance lost to the low compression speed penalty.

      In the high compression space, you don’t have to worry about appeasing the feel player or offsetting speed lost to low compression so you can design to any launch spin specification.

      The LS is a high launch, low spin ball. The Mizuno RB series is low launch, with high spin. AVX (80 compression) low launch, low spin.

      Low compression often limits design options in a way higher compression doesn’t.

      Reply

      Richard

      3 years ago

      From that same 2015 article posted on your site:

      “Test results show that there is minimal difference in the slope of the Coefficient of Restitution between the low compression balls and high compression balls at varying test speeds, indicating no reduction in performance at high test velocity (corresponding to high clubhead speed) and low test velocity (corresponding to low clubhead speed). This indicates the low compression balls will not have slower ball velocity at higher swing speeds and are not for “low swing speed players”.”

      Regarding whether the LS is high launch, low spin, I did not see any data in the article to support that claim, as you don’t include launch and spin numbers in these reviews., so I guess I will have to take your word for it. I will say that I have not experienced that high launch, low spin when I’ve hit them.

      Andrew

      3 years ago

      If two balls are identical and one is firmer, the firmer ball will launch lower and have more spin. Spin is created by the friction on the cover when the soft cover is compressed into the firmer mantle.

      Since this ball spins less and is firmer than the Chromesoft X, we know the balls have differences other than the firmness.

      One way to make a firmer ball spin less is to make the first mantle layer softer, but increase the compression on the subsequent layers. This will reduce spin slightly on short and mid irons as the cover is pinching up a softer surface. But as the compression starts interacting with the lower layers, the spin will be very similar (on lower lofted clubs). You might also lose a little short game spin depending on how soft you make the first mantle layer, but this is probably minimal.

      The second option is to make the cover firmer. Take two identical balls and give one a firmer cover and it will spin less. When two tour balls feel very different off the putter, chances are one has a firmer cover because you don’t interact with much other than the cover when putting.

      Of course you can combine the two things as well, which is probably what Callaway is doing. A slightly firmer cover (but not too firm unless you want to harm short game spin) and then one or both mantles being slightly softer, but the core being firmer.

      Reply

      Gordo

      3 years ago

      I agree with you Richard. There have been numerous comments in various ball lab reviews that say the same thing you just did. The Ball lab is a manufacturing review, not a performance review. Hopefully, MGS will integrate the results of Ball Lab with how the variances in manufacturing affect the performance of the tested ball. That would be an awesome guide for determining which ball to buy for your game.

      Reply

      Scott

      3 years ago

      Hi Tony, love the ball labs. With this one in particular, how are the samples received? Are they purchased via a retailer or online, or are they sent from Callaway directly. This question goes for all manufacturers….as it would seem to compromise the lab if these manufacturers were to send you a “small batch” sample with a different level of quality versus retail options. Thank you!

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      3 years ago

      Everything for ball lab is purchased at retail.. We typically source from multiple retailers over a period of a couple of months.

      Reply

      markyourballs

      3 years ago

      Scott,

      I believe MGS buys dozens from different vendors (online or in stores) so as to avoid the “small batch” problem and mimic the customer buying experience.

      Reply

      Paulo

      3 years ago

      Hi Scott. Thanks for your interest. I think Callaway provide free samples for testing.

      Reply

      Luis R

      3 years ago

      Paulo, balls received from the initial release provided by manufacturers are NOT used for Ball Lab. Ball Lab balls are purchased at retail locations from diverse sources to avoid receiving the “good” balls and bias the tests.

    Leave A Reply

    required
    required
    required (your email address will not be published)

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

    Golf Shafts
    Apr 14, 2024
    Testers Wanted: Autoflex Dream 7 Driver Shaft
    News
    Apr 14, 2024
    A Rare Masters ‘L’: Day Asked To Remove Sweater
    Drivers
    Apr 13, 2024
    Testers Wanted: Callaway Ai Smoke Drivers
    ENTER to WIN 3 DOZEN

    Titleist ProV1 Golf Balls

    Titleist ProV1 Golf Balls
    By signing up you agree to receive communications from MyGolfSpy and select partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy You may opt out of email messages/withdraw consent at any time.