Ball Lab – Srixon Z-Star XV Review
Golf Balls

Ball Lab – Srixon Z-Star XV Review

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

Ball Lab – Srixon Z-Star XV 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. Today, we’re taking a look at the 2021 Srixon Z-Star XV. 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.

a photo of Srixon Z-Star XV Golf balls

With two models reviewed previously (and two others fully measured), Srixon is proving to be hit or miss in our Ball Lab tests. It’s fair to say the Q-Star Tour failed to live up to expectations while the prior-generation of Z-Star proved to be more in line with what golfers expect from Srixon. As we continue to measure Srixon golf balls, we’ve noticed some patterns across multiple models (detailed within).

Suffice it to say that while many of you love Srixon, we’re not entirely without some concerns.

About the Srixon Z-Star XV

The Srixon Z-Star XV is a four-piece golf with a urethane cover. It’s the firmer of Srixon’s two Tour offerings and, with the release of the new models, the compression gap between the two has grown.

The Srixon Z-Star XV is the company’s “X” ball in the Tour category. While Srixon describes it as low spin off the driver, it’s typically the higher spinning of the Srixon Z-series on full shots. Z-Star covers are likely the thinnest in golf and should provide enough spin around the greens to satisfy most golfers.

The XV is about 15 points firmer than the standard model so it should prove a bit faster, most appreciably off the driver.

Srixon makes the Z-Star XV at its factories in Indonesia and Japan. Our samples of the prior-gen ball referenced in the review were all made in Indonesia while our samples of the new model were all made in Japan.

Srixon Z-Star XV—Compression

On our gauge, the 2021 Srixon Z-Star XV measures 96 compression on average. That’s exactly the same value we measured for the previous generation. Other balls with similar compression values include the Snell MTB-X, Callaway Chrome Soft X and the Titleist Pro V1x.

Srixon Z-Star XV—Diameter and Weight

None of the balls in our Srixon Z-Star sample exceeded the USGA weight limit of 1.62 ounces.

We did flag 17 percent of the sample as not round. Perhaps notable, perhaps coincidentally, that’s exactly the same number of 2019 Z-Star XVs that failed to meet our standard of roundness. For 34 of the 36 balls tested, the diameter at the pole exceeded the average seam diameter. While we can’t be certain, one potential cause is over-polishing of the seam. Regardless of the causes, the wider pole measurement is something we’ve found with several Srixon models.

Srixon Z-Star XV—Inspection

Centeredness and Concentricity

As we’ve come to expect from four-piece balls, not every one of the cores in our Srixon Z-Star XV sample was perfectly centered. However, none was so far off-center as to have likely performance implications. Likewise, while there were a few minor concentricity issues with the outer layers, we didn’t find anything that rose to the level of significant defect.

the core of a 2021 Srixon Z-Star XV 7th generation golf ball

Core Consistency

Across the sample, we noted two different core mixtures. Boxes 1 and 2 had an abundance of visible regrind material that was not present in the third box. Looking at the gauge data below, you’ll note that the third box was generally heavier, compression was a bit less consistent from one ball to the next and there was greater variation across the three points measured on each ball. We’re far from certain that these differences are directly related to the core mixture but that’s the one visible difference between boxes.

a chart depicting measured data for the Srixon Z-Star XV golf ball

Cover

We noted no significant (or even minor) cover defects in any of our Srixon Z-Star XV sample.

Srixon Z-Star XV—Consistency

In this section, we detail the consistency of the Srixon Z-Star XV. 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.

Nothing particularly stands out about the weight, diameter and compression consistency of the Srixon Z-Star XV golf ball. For all of the metrics we track, it falls solidly within the average range.

Weight Consistency

  • As noted, balls in the third box were a bit heavier on average.
  • As a whole, the weight consistency of the Srixon Z-Star XV still falls within the average range.

Diameter Consistency

  • Diameter across the sample as a whole falls within the average range.
  • As noted, the ball tends to measure a bit wider at the pole with the differences between some pole and seam measurements exceeding what we define as round.

Compression Consistency

  • Total compression consistency falls within the average range but, as with the Q-Star Tour, there is some nuance.
  • There was an average compression-point spread of approximately 9.5 across the entire sample. That pushed the Z-Star XV into the higher end of our average range.
  • The compression delta (the compression range across the three points measured on each ball) was only Fair with one ball exceeding what we allow by a fairly significant margin (the same ball failed to meet our roundness standard). This is also something we find at a higher than average rate with Srixon balls.

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.

Srixon Z-Star XV—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.

While we wouldn’t describe the Z-Star XV as a bad ball, the data we collected from the samples we purchased suggest it’s not without its quirks.

The Good

  • The Srixon Z-Star XV is Average across the board for our key consistency metrics.

The Bad

  • Compression consistency within a single ball can be a bit of a mixed bag.
  • Measures consistently wider at the pole, leading to a healthy percentage of balls that are out of round.

Final Grade

The Srixon Z-Star XV gets an overall score of 70.

Although that’s perhaps not what fans of the brand were hoping to see, it still falls within our Average range.

For those who liked our previous metric, the “True Price” of the Srixon Z-Star XV is $51.54. That’s an increase of 20 percent over retail.

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

Phil Mickelson Grant Horvat Phil Mickelson Grant Horvat
News
Dec 5, 2024
Phil Mickelson Is Getting Into The YouTube Golf Space
Buyer's Guides
Dec 5, 2024
Best Stocking Stuffers For Golfers
Stewart Q Follow electric carts Stewart Q Follow electric carts
Buyer's Guides
Dec 5, 2024
Best Golf Bags for Walkers
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.

      Nathan

      2 years ago

      I play the Diamond and XV and my handicap is at its lowest playing the Srixon ball. Combined with lessons and out dated equipment, you’d think I’d trend backwards. Gladly the elusive secret of putting in the work, is the biggest differentiator to playing good or bad golf. Id argue, the equipment offering today is good enough to improve your game, if you desire. Unpopular opinion.

      Reply

      Randy

      4 years ago

      Any chance of getting the 2021 Srixon Z-Star tested before the big Father’s Day Sale (if they do it again)?

      Reply

      Lucas

      4 years ago

      Been using the XV (silver box) not sure if there is a difference between the white box and silver tbh…
      i found the ball flight to be really good even on bad shots like fades off the tee. Ball seemed to not want to turn as much. Very solid feel at impact. Could tell a noticeable difference of feel and sound and knew right away if I hit a good shot or hit off the heel, or bottoms edge. The biggest advantage was the putting though. This ball rolls insanely well. Very firm feel to the putt. Like hitting a heavier ball. I made like 5-6 putts over ten feet which isn’t common for me on average. And the ones i missed were left for tap ins Bc the ball feels so solid and almost a little dense or heavy the control on putts was more predictable and seemed to slow down faster than other cheaper balls I’ve used. Def a fan.

      Reply

      Walter

      4 years ago

      I talked with a Srixon rep(via email) and here is what he says;

      Our tour pros use the same ball that is available to the public. The XV is our high compression tour ball and what you see them using out on the course is taken directly from our warehouse. We stand by the quality of our products and all information is taken seriously by our research and development team and quality control for their studies and evaluation.

      Maybe their tour pros that use the XV might want to switch to the ZStar which appears to be a better ball from what Tony’s report shows.

      Reply

      John F.

      4 years ago

      Seeing that the Maxfli Tour 2019 did so well in the ball analysis, it only seems logical to test the 2021 version now that it is in public distribution. As a Dicks Sporting Goods house brand at such a reasonable price, it’s pretty amazing that it is such high quality. If Dick’s can do it, what’s with the other (excl Titleist) brands?

      Reply

      Mike

      4 years ago

      Well folks, that’s why you pay more money for Pro V1’s than anything else. I’d like to think part of that added cost is for the quality control. But seriously, the higher you go up on the handicap scale, the less this matters. I laugh when I see guys who can barely break a hundred insisting they’ll only play Pro V1’s. But thank the Lord for them, I’ve been playing their lost perfect condition balls for years now!

      Reply

      Webster

      4 years ago

      I enjoy these tests but they fail to address how much these ‘defects’ actually effect the performance. What is the actual performance difference btw the dead-on spec ball in the box and the worst outlier? I’m guessing that unless you are an Iron Byron it’s negligible.

      Reply

      JD Williams

      4 years ago

      I was literally getting ready to ask the same thing. These slight variations probably add up to less than 1% than good impact.

      Reply

      Ryan

      4 years ago

      Had the same question as well. Going back to the 2019 Ball test, the 2019 XV ranked in the “very good” category which was second from the top and put it in approximately the top 10 of all balls tested. Yet the 2019 XV ball lab score puts it in the 10 worst balls of anything tested so the correlation between defects and playability concerns seems pretty low for these balls at least. While I like reading the ball lab articles, it makes me wonder if we’re blowing these defects out of proportion to their impact on playability.

      Reply

      Harry P

      4 years ago

      Ball lab, as a test to support shot area results in the performance test, is nice to know but as a stand alone is not that helpful in choosing balls that may perform well for me.. Titleist is great and everything else is ok is not really that helpful.. Why is it taking so long for MFS to have a robot hit balls and measure the results as you did in 2019?

      Reply

      Walter

      4 years ago

      Tony, will you be testing the new Kirkland version 2 ball? Thanks.

      Reply

      Lou

      4 years ago

      I have learned that most balls of the 4 or 5 piece variety have more issues. Stick with 2 or 3 piece balls.. How the ball performs is the most important measurement in golf. That’s the part MGS is missing.. MGS needs to explain why? It’s been 2 years since they’ve had this data..

      Reply

      Abdullah Valli

      4 years ago

      Please add performance metric vs the quality control vs the price,for a more overall outcome,so we can decide on trade offs and find the est ball for each player
      All a breakdown with swing speeds and temperature

      how the balls performed in the cold vs hotter climates

      Reply

      JW

      4 years ago

      Again an excellent job! Thx. Let’s push quality forward. Great to see how far you guys have gone to analyse the differences between balls. Helps a lot in making the rights choices. (Test and reviews already payed off in my equipment choices, and has improved my game and the enjoyment in it.)

      Reply

      Kelin

      4 years ago

      Correct me if I am wrong here, but if the ball were to test poorly in any category, wouldn’t roundness be that? From what I have learned from MGS is that I would far prefer a small percentage of balls (20% whatever it was) of balls not round over off centre balls? Seems like the ball tested great in all other categories, if not perfect. If I am looking at this as a player who games this ball, I am not overly concerned about these results, maybe a bit from the putting performance with the round issues. Let me know if I am off here!

      Reply

      Whitey

      4 years ago

      I’m blaming my next bad score, in fact all my scores, they’re all bad, on my ball, because it wasn’t round, or the core was off center. When I play Prov1x I always shoot par, or better!

      Reply

      Brandon

      4 years ago

      Well, this ball just won the Masters. Good enough for me to play when I find em in the woods.

      Reply

      Walter

      4 years ago

      I wonder if he gets special balls or selected balls. I can’t imagine these tour pros who play this ball(and there are a lot of them) are getting a box of balls with this many bad ones inside. Of course like most things in golf the manufacturers aren’t going to tell you that. Then on the other hand maybe these defects don’t cause much if any problems with their performance, but I find that hard to believe.

      Maybe Tony needs to approach these manufacturers when he finds serious faults in their balls and ask for an explanation as to why he found so many bad balls. Will he get a satisfactory answer from them, good question.
      Keep up the great work Tony.

      Reply

      chrisK

      4 years ago

      I think you bring up an excellent point Walter, but it’s nothing that will be acknowledged by any insiders. I got in a fairly lengthy youtube conversation with a guy a while back that claimed he ran one of the equipment trucks at PGA events, and he said we all had access to the same stuff, that there was no magic sauce for the pros. I questioned if he knew exactly where he stood getting his parts in the supply chain vs us average humans, but he was convinced otherwise. But i’m like you, i’m very skeptical.

      RcRichardson

      4 years ago

      Well done. Everything I needed to know. Keep up the great work!

      Reply

      Gordo

      4 years ago

      I truly love Tony’s all data approach. The problem is that all we are really doing here is measuring the balls Quality Control. Yes it is good that we know who has the best quality control. However how does each metric relate to playability? Does it make a difference to me whether the balls are 100 compression every time or whether they vary between 96 and 104 compression? Truth is from these tests we don’t know. We can only surmise. The metrics need to be tied to some form of useable data to make these tests valuable to me, i.e. distance, spin rate, increase offline ,variance on a putts roll etc.

      Reply

      Whitey

      4 years ago

      Exactly. Tell us how the “average” golfer hits them. Not how it’s .005 off round. Improving ones swing will pay way more dividends than having the “right” equipment. You guys are way too far down the rabbit hole when it comes to equipment. I expect many rush out and buy the latest most wanted, looking to shave 5-10 strokes off their game, when a lesson would be far more beneficial.

      Reply

      Mike

      4 years ago

      That’s been my point since they started doing these tests. Oneball appears better than that one because it’s .0001 less off-center. But what does that mean on the course, especially to amateurs. I’m sure every driver the OEM’s make is not 100% exact to their loft, there are slight tolerances in everything. Take the results of the tests as they are, statistical differences. Then go out and try balls and see which one works best for you.

      David

      4 years ago

      I’d love to see how Clear Golf balls do in this test.

      Reply

      Walter

      4 years ago

      Wow, is about it. Not impressed, the ZStar is so much better. I can’t believe the number of tour players using this ball. They can’t be using the same off the shelf boxes as we buy. Tony do you think the tour players using these XVs get special ones? I’ll stick with the ZStar.

      Reply

      Steve C

      4 years ago

      What is your measured tolerance for roundness before you define it as out of round? I assume no ball is 100% round – correct? Also I know the XV is a 4-piece ball but I squinted and could only see three layers in the photo. Is the mantle layer the same color as the cover? Thanks.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      4 years ago

      I would imagine absolutely perfectly round balls are few and far between. We have what I believe is a generous standard of roundness.

      There are several ways you can consider roundness. We settled on the difference between our pole measurement and the average of our two seam measurements.

      As I was developing Ball Lab I spoke with several manufacturers about roundness. Of the ones that would give me their allowance, we chose the most generous number and then added a little bit of wiggle room.

      To put this in full context, the live database now contains 2,016 individual golf balls. Of those, only 43 (2..13%) have been flagged as not round.

      Reply

      dski93

      4 years ago

      cover is really thin. If you zoom way in the cover is bright white and the mantel is slightly off white. gotta be like ~1-2mm thick

      Reply

      Andy

      4 years ago

      Seriously, you need to compare Srixons made in Japan vs. Indonesia. We have seen how bad the Q-Star is (Indonesia) and now Z-Star made in Japan is also not good, I guess Srixon is a no go from now on.
      Thank you for the great work you put in!

      Reply

      Ron

      4 years ago

      Wow, another “not so good” issue with Srixon. You would think that after the Q-Star Tour Indonesian made issues, Srixon would have stepped up their quality control just a notch.

      Still seeing quite a lot of tour pros playing their balls though, Hideki being the most known on the men’s tour. Plenty on the LPGA tour though. I guess their Asian market is so big, due to “star power” loyalty, that the decline in the West, if any, might not be of enough “interest” to the Sumitomo Rubber Industry.

      Reply

      scott

      3 years ago

      They play the ball because first they get paid to do so, second they get paid to do so.

      Reply

      Matt

      4 years ago

      Would love to see some of Titleist’s lower end balls (Tour Soft, Tour Speed, etc.) tested here as they’ve clearly shown themselves as the kings of quality control and consistency. Does that apply to all their balls or simply their tour models?

      Reply

      Ryan

      4 years ago

      … just look at how high Pinnacle tested for a $22/15 ball pack. Pretty good!

      Reply

      Jimmy

      4 years ago

      It’s a very simple construction. Much easier to make. These four- and five-layer balls have way more things that can go wrong in production.

      Cody Reeder

      4 years ago

      Dang!!! I may not be getting anymore of these.. I guess the 21 prov1x will be my ball.

      Reply

      WYBob

      4 years ago

      Thanks for starting to evaluate the new 2021 premium balls. In reading your article one question came to mind regarding the diameter consistency and overall quality- could that be a result of the way the urethane is applied to the cover (i.e TPU vs, cast urethane)? And, do TPU covers require a different type of polishing/finishing? It appears that cast urethane balls have an advantage in your Quality Comparison Tool. Just an observation…

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      4 years ago

      It’s possible, but I think it’s likely to do with the manufacturer or factory more so than the process itself. Titleist for examples tends to be consistent across the board and its injected product (Tour Speed) falls within the average range for diameter. Callaway and Bridgestone both use an injection molding process and neither has any real issues with diameter consistency.

      I do think the issue is likely related to the polishing step as both of our seam measurements were often smaller than the pole.

      Reply

      Alex

      4 years ago

      Interesting Stuff. I think the new score system is an improvement. While the LAB provides great info, I think there is still a step missing to provide context to the golfer. For example, how do these findings translate to the course. I would be interested to see 3 of the “not round” balls hit with an iron on the robot, and compared to 3 of the round balls. If the shot area is 4 times larger, than I can clearly see how the lack of quality would affect my game. If the shot area is 10% larger, than maybe I am ok in sacrificing the small lack of quality for a good price. Same goes for off-center cores, etc.

      Also really hoping to see a repeat of the 2019 test. I just really enjoying see the spin comparisons across brands, etc.

      Keep up the good work!

      Reply

      Brandon Johnson

      4 years ago

      Wow, quite the poor rating for a premium golf ball. As a user of this ball, what would you recommend making the switch to?

      Reply

      DK

      4 years ago

      Good questions IMO. Ive played a lot. Of premium balls and play either Srixon ZXV or Titleist Pro V1x left dash.. I have to say I find the Srixon ball very good in windy conditions.

      Reply

      Ewald Beukes

      4 years ago

      Agree with this as a great question. I also play the 2021 XV and besides the quality issue of having the seam become exposed during the round I am really enjoying the ball. Getting soft feel and spin around the greens and lower flight with the irons which I didnt expect. I am a decent player (low single figure) and dont “notice” dispersion issues. The robot test would tell us how “evident” the issue is. Would be very interested in seeing this from MGS

      Jinmy

      4 years ago

      They should definitely try this for the out-of-round balls. I suspect that Srixon has found that a high seam disturbs ball flight more than the ball being slightly smaller at the seams than the opposite dimension. They don’t have symmetry problems so this is unlikely to matter in flight.

      The one place it WILL matter is putting. If you line up the logo when you putt, the ball should actually roll straighter for you. Having the seam 45 degrees off axis on a putt could cause the ball to not roll quite straight on a straight putt. Moral of the story is I wouldn’t hesitate to play this ball but I’d make sure to line up the seam on putts (which I do anyway).

      They can’t test flight of off-center cores because they cut up the balls to see which ones are off-center.

      Reply

    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.

    Phil Mickelson Grant Horvat Phil Mickelson Grant Horvat
    News
    Dec 5, 2024
    Phil Mickelson Is Getting Into The YouTube Golf Space
    Buyer's Guides
    Dec 5, 2024
    Best Stocking Stuffers For Golfers
    Stewart Q Follow electric carts Stewart Q Follow electric carts
    Buyer's Guides
    Dec 5, 2024
    Best Golf Bags for Walkers
    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.