PadelTrue

The quick take

Babolat Viper Soft Juan Lebrón 3.1

The maker's published specifications, each with its source below. Your own trial decides the fit.

Weight355 to 375 g (12.5 to 13.2 oz)
ShapeDiamond
Balance270 mm (10.6 in)
CoreMedium, Black EVA
FaceSoft Carbon
Thickness38 mm (1.5 in)
Compare racket specifications →

See this model’s specifications and buying options.

Change delivery country · other shops

A shop is shown when it publishes a delivery option for your country. Confirm the conditions at the shop. The country never changes a rating.

    Buying your first racket?

    Compare beginner options before choosing.

    Before you choose: Published specifications describe the model. Try the actual racket with your usual grips and fitted weights before choosing.

    Is Babolat Viper Soft Juan Lebrón 3.1 a match for your game?

    Compare this published build and the alternatives below with the parts of your current racket you want to keep.

    Weight
    355 to 375 g (12.5 to 13.2 oz)
    Shape
    Diamond

    Specifications and sources.

    Based on 4 of 5 published model inputs, not a play test.

    Two nearby profiles, with a difference worth checking

    How these alternatives are selected

    Nearest calculated profiles with at least four published inputs and a documented specification difference. Shop payments and stock do not affect this order. Overlapping weight ranges do not guarantee a lighter individual racket; face materials alone do not establish feel.

    Find other exact models by brand and year →

    Specifications and sources

    Published specifications, not our play-test findings. Each value links to its source.

    Reference price published at babolat.com: $330 · 11 November 2026. It is not the price of the shop in the buy button.

    SpecPublished valueEvidence
    ShapeDiamondIts diamond shape babolat.com
    Weight355 to 375 g (12.5 to 13.2 oz)365 g +/- 10g / 12.88 oz babolat.com
    Balance270 mm (10.6 in)
    Shown, not scored. Brands measure balance differently, so a bare figure is not comparable.
    270 mm babolat.com
    CoreMedium, Black EVAmedium-hardness EVA rubber babolat.com
    FaceSoft CarbonSURFACE: Soft Carbon babolat.com
    FrameCarbonFRAME: Carbon babolat.com
    Thickness38 mm (1.5 in)38 mm / 1.5 in babolat.com
    Textured faceYesRaised patterns on the racquet surface babolat.com
    Price$330330 USD (schema.org offer) babolat.com

    Collection note: No year is stated; the page only shows a 'New' tag. Level is null because the page gives no playing level. 'Player Typology: Technical Striker' describes a playing style, and the description says 'Ideal for competitive players' and 'take their game to the highest level', which are not level labels. Weight min and max are calculated from 365 g +/- 10g. Balance is given only as 270 mm, with no word for it. There is no Touch or Feel spec line. The core firmness comes from the Benefits text ('medium-hardness EVA rubber'), and 'medium-hardness' could also be read as medium-hard. The word 'Soft' in the model name refers to the Soft Carbon surface, not the core.

    How our estimates work

    These ratings are calculations from published specifications, not measured playing results or our play tests.

    Power68
    Control26
    Handling50
    Forgiveness24
    Comfort40

    Not published for this racket: balance. Each missing input counts as the neutral midpoint, so treat these ratings as less certain than for a racket with all five.

    • Power 68 = shape (diamond) 45/45 + balance (not published) 17.5/35 + weight (365g) 10/20 = 72.5 points, placed on the 10 to 90 scale
    • Control 26 = shape (diamond) 0/60 + balance (not published) 20/40 = 20 points, placed on the 10 to 90 scale
    • Handling 50 = balance (not published) 25/50 + weight (365g) 25/50 = 50 points, placed on the 10 to 90 scale
    • Forgiveness 24 = shape (diamond) 0/45 + firmness (medium) 17.5/35 + face material (carbon) 0/20 = 17.5 points, placed on the 10 to 90 scale
    • Comfort 40 = firmness (medium) 20/40 + face material (carbon) 0/25 + balance (not published) 10/20 + weight (365g) 7.5/15 = 37.5 points, placed on the 10 to 90 scale

    Full methodology and evidence.

    Added to the index on 1 November 2026, read from Babolat’s own page that day. All new models, newest first →

    Shops sell this model as their 2027 racket (seen as “Babolat Viper Soft Juan Lebron 3.1 2027” in the SPORTLET - Sport di racchetta product feed, 1 November 2026). Babolat’s own page prints no model year, so the year is the shops’ label, not the maker’s.

    How Babolat compares as a brand: Babolat vs Head · Babolat vs Bullpadel

    Closest rackets by calculated profile

    Questions about the Babolat Viper Soft Juan Lebrón 3.1

    Is the Babolat Viper Soft Juan Lebrón 3.1 a power or a control racket?

    On its published specification the Babolat Viper Soft Juan Lebrón 3.1 is an all-round racket. It rates 68 for power and 26 for control on the PadelTrue model, mainly because of its diamond shape.

    Is the Babolat Viper Soft Juan Lebrón 3.1 good for beginners?

    It rates 24 out of 100 for forgiveness. That is a demanding build. Rackets like this reward clean technique and are usually a poor first racket.

    Is the Babolat Viper Soft Juan Lebrón 3.1 arm-friendly?

    It rates 40 out of 100 for comfort, a rating built from core firmness, face material, balance and weight, describing feel and physical demand. That is mid-range. This describes the build, it is not medical advice.

    How much does the Babolat Viper Soft Juan Lebrón 3.1 cost?

    $330 on babolat.com when checked on 11 November 2026.

    How much does the Babolat Viper Soft Juan Lebrón 3.1 weigh?

    The published weight is 355 to 375 g (12.5 to 13.2 oz).

    How this site makes money, and how it does not. PadelTrue may earn a commission when you buy through a retailer link on this site. A commission never changes a rating. Every rating comes from the manufacturer's published specification through the formula printed on the methodology page, and every specification links to where it was published. Found a wrong figure? Send the source and it gets corrected.