The Best Non-Toxic Woks of 2026

We scored 15 woks for PFAS forever chemicals and other hazards, then ranked them best-graded first. The top pick is Our Place Carbon Steel Wok at 100/100. Every score below links to the full breakdown of what earned it.

How to read these scores. PFAS Authority is a scoring system, not a laboratory. We do not test products ourselves. Each grade is a model-based assessment built from published ingredient lists, materials, certifications, brand disclosures, recalls and third-party lab results where they exist. Read the full rubric to see exactly what adds and removes points.
67% of the 15 woks we scored fail our PFAS and toxin screen.
PFAS Authority, September 2026. Free to cite with a link. See the full dataset.

The best-scoring woks for PFAS risk

  1. 1
    Our Place Carbon Steel Wok

    Our Place

    Carbon Steel Wok

    carbon steel (bare metal, no coating)

    PFAS Grade100Excellent
    Overall Grade78Excellent
    ⛏️

    Iron leaching from bare metal surface

    Limited concern

    70
    ⚠️

    Rust formation from improper storage or care

    High concern

    20

    Brand PFAS statement on record, which we have not verified.

    Starting grade for this product type

  2. 2
    Calphalon Premier Stainless Steel 13" Wok

    Calphalon

    Premier Stainless Steel 13" Wok

    Stainless steel with no nonstick coating

    PFAS Grade75Excellent
    Overall Grade59Good
    ⛏️

    Metal leaching (chromium, nickel, iron)

    Limited concern

    70
    ⚠️

    Handle integrity and burn risk

    Limited concern

    70

    Stainless steel without nonstick coatings avoids common PFAS sources.

    Starting grade for this product type

  3. 3
    Le Creuset Essential Non-Stick Ceramic Wok

    Le Creuset

    Essential Non-Stick Ceramic Wok

    ceramic non-stick coating (ceramic-type)

    PFAS Grade70Good
    Overall Grade44Poor

    Ceramic coating degradation and substrate exposure

    High concern

    20
    🔩

    Aluminum substrate leaching

    Limited concern

    70
    🍂

    Coating adhesion and migration of inorganic particles

    Limited concern

    70

    Named ceramic non-stick coating, with a brand PFAS statement we have not verified.

    Starting grade for this product type

  4. 4
    Our Place Always Pro Pan Vanilla Bean

    Our Place

    Always Pro Pan Vanilla Bean

    Nonstick ceramic-hybrid coating, composition unspecified

    PFAS Grade70Good
    Overall Grade48Poor

    Coating degradation and unknown leachables

    Limited concern

    70
    🔩

    Aluminum substrate leaching

    Limited concern

    70
    🏷️

    PFAS

    Limited concern

    70
    ⚠️

    Durability and premature failure

    Moderate concern

    45

    Named ceramic non-stick coating, with a brand PFAS statement we have not verified.

    Starting grade for this product type

  5. 5
    Our Place Large Always Pan

    Our Place

    Large Always Pan

    Ceramic nonstick coating (composition unspecified)

    PFAS Grade70Good
    Overall Grade58Good
    🔩

    Ceramic coating degradation and aluminum leaching

    Limited concern

    70
    🍂

    Coating adhesion and thermal stress

    Limited concern

    70
    🍳

    Proprietary coating composition opacity

    Limited concern

    70

    Named ceramic non-stick coating, with a brand PFAS statement we have not verified.

    Starting grade for this product type

What the evidence says about PFAS in woks

Many nonstick pans are coated with PTFE, a fluoropolymer that Minnesota’s cookware ban treats as a PFAS. Minnesota has banned cookware with intentionally added PFAS since January 2025, Colorado and Maine followed in January 2026, and more states follow through 2028. The US FDA authorizes PFAS in nonstick coatings and says only negligible amounts migrate to food, while Washington’s health department warns that pans that get too hot can release PFAS into the air. A PFOA-free label does not mean a pan is PFAS-free.

  • Regulatory filingMinnesota has banned cookware with intentionally added PFAS since January 1, 2025, and its pollution control agency says Teflon, as a PFAS, is prohibited from use in cookware. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
  • Regulatory filingColorado bans the sale of cookware with intentionally added PFAS from January 1, 2026. Colorado General Assembly
  • Regulatory filingMaine’s ban on selling cookware with intentionally added PFAS took effect on January 1, 2026. Maine Legislature
  • Regulatory filingRhode Island bans covered products with intentionally added PFAS, including cookware, from January 1, 2027. Rhode Island General Assembly
  • Regulatory filingConnecticut requires labels on cookware with intentionally added PFAS from July 2026 and bans it from January 1, 2028. Connecticut DEEP
  • Regulatory filingCalifornia has required cookware makers to disclose intentionally added chemicals from the state’s designated list online since 2023 and on labels since 2024. California Legislature
  • Regulatory filingA 2025 California bill to ban PFAS in cookware, SB 682, was vetoed over concerns about the availability of affordable cooking products. California Legislature
  • Regulatory filingThe US FDA lists nonstick coatings among the authorized uses of PFAS in food contact, and says studies show negligible amounts of PFAS in these coatings migrate to food. US FDA
  • Regulatory filingThe FDA says that, of these authorized uses, only paper and paperboard grease-proofing agents may result in dietary exposure to PFAS that could be a safety concern. US FDA
  • Independent testIn the Ecology Center’s 2020 testing, 79 percent of the cooking pans and 20 percent of the baking pans were coated with PTFE. Ecology Center
  • Independent testThe Ecology Center’s 2020 cookware testing found that PFOA-free does not mean PFAS-free, and that most pans labelled PFOA-free were coated with PTFE without clearly saying so. Ecology Center
  • Regulatory filingMinnesota’s health department says a PFOA free claim may mean a product contains trace PFOA and any amount of other PFAS. Minnesota Department of Health
  • Regulatory filingColorado prohibits cookware makers from claiming a product is free of PFAS unless no individual PFAS is intentionally added. Colorado General Assembly
  • Regulatory filingWashington’s health department says PFAS can escape from pans that are too hot and get into the air in your home. Washington State Department of Health

Sources checked September 14, 2026. A brand statement is the company’s own claim, which we report but have not verified. Our grades are model-based estimates, not lab tests.

Every woks that passes, side by side

Sorted by score. A higher score means lower PFAS risk.

#WoksScoreRatingMade of
1Our Place Carbon Steel Wok100Excellentcarbon steel (bare metal, no coating)
2Calphalon Premier Stainless Steel 13" Wok75ExcellentStainless steel with no nonstick coating
3Le Creuset Essential Non-Stick Ceramic Wok70Goodceramic non-stick coating (sol-gel based)
4Our Place Always Pro Pan Vanilla Bean70GoodNonstick ceramic-hybrid coating, composition unspecified
5Our Place Large Always Pan70GoodCeramic nonstick coating (composition unspecified)

The woks we would skip

Lowest scoring in this category, worst first.

T-fal Easy Care Nonstick Wok 14.25 inch

T-fal

Easy Care Nonstick Wok 14.25 inch

Teflon-type coating nonstick coating on aluminum base

PFAS Grade5Bad
Overall Grade0Bad
♾️

Teflon-type coating thermal decomposition fume release

Moderate concern

45
🫧

Coating degradation and microparticle shedding

Limited concern

70
🔩

Aluminum leaching

Limited concern

70
♾️

Teflon-type coating adhesion and manufacturing residues

Limited concern

70

Traditional Teflon-type coating non-stick wok; higher PFAS concern than ceramic or stainless alternatives.

Teflon (PTFE) coating

T-Fal Essentials Nonstick Jumbo Wok

T-fal

Essentials Nonstick Jumbo Wok

Teflon-type coating nonstick Teflon-family coating

PFAS Grade5Bad
Overall Grade0Bad
♾️

Teflon-type coating thermal decomposition (fume inhalation)

Limited concern

70

Coating degradation and ingestion

Limited concern

70
🔩

Aluminum substrate leaching

Limited concern

70
💨

Off-gassing or odor (new product)

Limited concern

70

Skip if PFAS exposure concerns you; T-fal does not disclose Teflon-type coating-alternative or PFAS-free status.

Teflon (PTFE) coating

Le Creuset Toughened Nonstick PRO Stir- Fry Pan

Le Creuset

Toughened Nonstick PRO Stir- Fry Pan

Teflon-type coating non-stick coating, with FEP and PFA, as disclosed by Le Creuset

PFAS Grade5Bad
Overall Grade0Bad
♾️

Teflon-type coating thermal decomposition and fume release

Moderate concern

45

Non-stick coating degradation and ingestion

Limited concern

70
⚠️

FEP and PFA stability during use and disposal

Limited concern

70

Teflon-type coating non-stick coating, disclosed by the brand.

Teflon (PTFE) coating

What we check on woks

  • Confirmed PFAS, PTFE or fluoropolymer content, which is the heaviest penalty we apply.
  • Stain, water or grease resistant treatments, which usually mean fluorinated chemistry.
  • Whether the brand discloses what is in the product, or stays silent behind a “clean” claim.
  • Independent lab results and certifications where they exist.

Full point-by-point rubric on the methodology page.

The woks brands that will not say

4 of the brands here publish nothing about PFAS at all. Silence is not evidence of harm, but it is why none of them score well on disclosure.

Calphalon, Cuisinart, Le Creuset, T-fal.

Common questions about PFAS in woks

Is woks PFAS free?

Mostly not. Of the 15 woks we have scored, 67% fail our PFAS and toxin screen, which leaves 5 that pass. The highest scoring is Our Place Carbon Steel Wok at 100 out of 100. The lowest is T-fal Easy Care Nonstick Wok 14.25 inch at 5.

Which woks grades best for PFAS?

Our Place Carbon Steel Wok, at 100 out of 100, which we band as Excellent. It is carbon steel (bare metal, no coating). The runner up is Calphalon Premier Stainless Steel 13" Wok at 75.

Which woks should I avoid?

The three lowest scoring we hold are T-fal Easy Care Nonstick Wok 14.25 inch at 5, T-Fal Essentials Nonstick Jumbo Wok at 5, Le Creuset Toughened Nonstick PRO Stir- Fry Pan at 5. The problem with the first is that traditional PTFE non-stick wok; higher PFAS concern than ceramic or stainless alternatives.

Which woks brands will not say whether they use PFAS?

4 of the brands we scored in this category publish nothing about PFAS at all, including Calphalon, Cuisinart, Le Creuset, T-fal. Silence is not evidence of harm, but it is the reason those brands cannot score well on disclosure.

Do you lab test woks?

No. We score from published ingredient lists, materials, certifications, disclosures and third party lab results where they exist. Where a product has been independently tested we use that result and say so.

More kitchen and cooking categories we have graded

Same rubric, same scale. These are the categories closest to woks.

Get the graded list, free

The products we score each week, and the best-graded alternative in every category.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

We also wrote this up at length. PFAS in Woks, the Pan Where Nonstick Makes the Least Sense

Want to filter the whole category yourself? Browse all 15 woks.