Whoop, forgot to write a post here yesterday like I'd meant to, sorry bout that! Fake edit, let's just ignore how badly I need to sweep the floors in my workspace.
So I'm not quite your shoe size, at a US 10, but I do regularly wear Converse low-tops, and own a nice snug pair of 995's, so I'll see if I can offer some helpful anecdotal evidence.
First off a comparison of the labels in the shoes in question, the Converse:
And the Corcoran:
As you can see, the Corcoran label only gives me US size and, I assume, centimeter sizes. With the US 10 being a 17 cm, I'm not certain that a single size up is going to give you a full 10 cm more length?
More anecdotally, I can confirm, the Converse fit much longer than the Corcoran. They have about the same exterior size, but I would say the boots have much less internal space. That said, it doesn't show too well in most pictures but the 995's actually have a super wide toe space (They were originally designed for paratroopers, makes sense I suppose.), so you should actually have a little bit of wiggle room for width of foot and comfort. As for how the size comparison runs?
I would say, the Converse definitely fits a bit looser, not a surprise being a low-cut shoe:
But not considerably so, I would feel comfortable matching sizes according to the US size of your Converse, myself, but like so many things on the internet your mileage may vary.