Bent Metal Metta Bindings Review

The Bent Metal Metta bindings felt like easy-going, smooth-riding bindings that did a good job of taking the harshness out of rough snow and landings.

They weren’t the most locked-in or poppy bindings I’ve ridden, and the ankle strap didn’t fit quite as nicely over my boot as I would have liked, but they were light, simple to use and had a nice smooth feel underfoot.

In this review I will take a look at the Metta as all-mountain snowboard bindings.

As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the Metta a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and see how they compare with other women's all-mountain-freeride bindings.

Overall Rating

Bindings: Bent Metal Binding Works (BMBW) Metta

Price: $239 (USD recommended retail)

Style: All-Mountain/All-Mountain-Freeride

Flex Rating: Medium (5/10)

Flex Feel: Medium (5/10)

Rating Score: 82.8/100

Compared to other Women's All-Mountain Bindings

Overview of the Metta’s Specs

Check out the tables for the Metta’s specs and available sizes.

Specs

Who are the Metta Most Suited To?

The Metta were best suited to riders looking for a smooth, light, easy-to-use binding that had a more forgiving medium flex and good shock absorption.

They weren’t the bindings I’d go for if I wanted the most locked-in, powerful, precise feel. They didn’t drive the board quite as well as my control bindings and I felt a little less connected when pressing, popping and carving hard.

But for cruising around the resort, riding variable snow, making quick turns at slower speeds and keeping things comfortable and damp, they did a good job.

I’d say they were best matched to boards in that softer-medium to medium flex range — something around 4/10 to 6/10 in flex. They made most sense for casual all-mountain riding, playful cruising and riders who value smoothness and ease of use over maximum response and power.

Test/review details for the Metta

O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Metta are capable of.

Demo Info

Binding: Bent Metal Metta, M

Date: March 2, 2025

Mounting

Mounting the Metta was nice and straightforward. There wasn’t anything quirky or annoying that stood out during setup. Everything went on easily and there were no surprises.

Boot fit was snug overall. In the heel cup, my boot fit well with no wiggle room, which was good. Through the rest of the binding, it was also a tight fit with no real extra room.

That snug fit helped the boot sit securely, but the ankle strap was one area that didn’t feel quite as refined. It was a little chunky and didn’t conform to the boot as naturally as I would have liked. It wasn’t a deal breaker, but it did affect comfort and support a bit.

Flex

The Metta felt medium overall — around a 5/10.

They felt softer than my control bindings, but not overly soft. The flex felt pretty even throughout the binding, rather than having a noticeably stiffer highback or baseplate.

That medium flex gave them a pretty easy-going feel. They weren’t super powerful or ultra-responsive, but they weren’t floppy either. They had enough support to ride the mountain comfortably, while still feeling forgiving and easy to move around in.

For riders who don’t want something too aggressive, that flex could work well. But if you’re looking for a binding that really drives a board hard through carves or gives a super locked-in feel, the Metta might feel a little underpowered.

Responsiveness

At slower speeds, I liked the Metta. They had good agility edge-to-edge and I was able to change edges quickly without much effort. Shorter turns felt easy and I could push some power into turns without the bindings feeling too demanding.

They weren’t sluggish or dead feeling. In fact, slow-speed maneuverability was one of their stronger areas.

On carves, they were decent too. They held an edge well and didn’t feel like they wanted to wash out easily. But compared to my control bindings, they didn’t feel quite as locked in. I could carve fine on them, but I didn’t get that same precise, connected feeling through the board.

One thing I did like was how smooth they felt at speed. They weren’t the most powerful bindings for aggressive carving, but they helped make the ride feel calmer and more damp when conditions got a little rough.

So, overall, they were better for smooth, controlled cruising and moderate carving than they were for really driving hard and deep into high-speed carves.

Board Feel/Butterability

Board feel was decent, but not top tier. I didn’t feel quite as much control over the board as I did with my control bindings. That came through when pressing, popping and just generally trying to feel the board underneath me.

For nose and tail presses, they were slightly harder than with my control bindings. Not dramatically harder or anything though.

Pop/Ollie Power

Pop and ollie power was also around average. Which most bindings are, in all fairness. They were slightly harder to initiate an ollie with compared to my control bindings, and I felt like maybe I got just a touch less pop out of the board, but it wasn’t super obvious.

Part of that may have come from the smoother, more damp feel of the bindings. They absorbed shock and chatter really well, but that may have also taken away a little bit of energy when loading up the board for an ollie.

Shock Absorption

Shock absorption was one of the Metta’s best qualities. They did a really good job of smoothing out chatter and vibration. I felt very little harshness coming through the board, and the ride felt nice and damp in variable snow.

Compared to my control bindings, the Metta absorbed shock better. That was noticeable when riding through rougher snow and especially when landing ollies or jumps.

That smoothness was probably the thing I liked most about them. They made variable conditions feel easier to deal with and took a lot of the sting out of the ride.

For riders who prioritize comfort, dampness and smoother landings, the Metta did well.

Comfort

Overall comfort was good.  They were mostly comfortable and there was no calf bite from the highback, which was a big positive.

The main issue was the ankle strap. It was a bit wider/chunkier and caused a slight pressure point over the top of my foot. It wasn’t unbearable or anything, but it was noticeable, and it made them feel less comfortable than they might have been if not for that.

I also didn’t feel like the ankle strap molded to the boot as well as some others. That affected both comfort and support a little. If the ankle strap fit better and that slight pressure point wasn’t there, I feel like they could have been one of the more comfortable bindings out there.

Ankle Support

Ankle support was decent, but again, not quite as good as I would have liked. My ankles felt decently supported and I didn’t feel loose in the bindings or anything like that, but I can’t help but wonder how good the support could have felt, if the ankle straps had of conformed better to my boots.

It was fine overall, but could have been better.

Entry/Exit

The Metta were simple to get in and out of, and I didn’t have any issues there. The ratchets felt good – nice and smooth and easy to crank down and easy to release.

Score Breakdown and Final Verdict

Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.

The Bent Metal Metta felt smooth, light and easy to ride.

They weren’t the most exciting bindings I’ve tested and didn’t stand out for pop, board feel or locked-in response. I felt a little less connected to the board than I did with my control bindings, and the ankle strap could have been more comfortable and a little more supportive.

But they did have some strong points. They were light underfoot, easy at slow speeds, good on carves, simple to get in and out of and really good at absorbing shock and chatter.

That smooth, damp feel was the biggest takeaway for me. They made rougher/variable conditions feel easier and gave a nice cushioned ride, especially on landings.

Overall, I’d say the Metta were best for riders who wanted a forgiving medium-flex binding that was smooth, easy and comfortable enough for casual all-mountain riding - particularly if shock absorption was a priority. They weren’t ideal for riders who wanted maximum board feel, pop or precision, but for relaxed resort riding and variable conditions, they did a solid job.