High Performance Cushion No Show Tab vs Men's Dry Cell Moisture Wicking Socks: which is safer?
These two grade almost identically. Pick on price and preference; neither has a PFAS edge.
Feetures
High Performance Cushion No Show Tab
PFAS grade
Good 65/100
Overall grade
analysis pending
Verdict
pending
Hazard flags
none flagged
Material
Acrylic blend sock with no disclosed treatments
Confidence
72%
Puma
Men's Dry Cell Moisture Wicking Socks
PFAS grade
Good 65/100
Overall grade
Good 53/100
Verdict
Skip
Hazard flags
⚑ 3
Material
polyester and elastane blend, moisture-wicking synthetic fibers
Confidence
72%
PossibleAzo dyes in polyester
PossibleElastane (spandex) degradation under heat or UV
PossibleUndisclosed moisture-wicking finish (likely PFAS-based)
Where these two actually differ
- We flag Azo dyes in polyester, Elastane (spandex) degradation under heat or UV and Undisclosed moisture-wicking finish (likely PFAS-based) on the Puma and not on the Feetures.
- The Feetures is Acrylic blend sock with no disclosed treatments where the Puma is polyester and elastane blend, moisture-wicking synthetic fibers, which is most of the difference in these two grades.
- These two are level, close enough that price and fit should decide it rather than our grade.
Both products run through the same public rubric: materials, coatings, brand disclosure, lab findings, and recalls, plus a beyond-PFAS hazard analysis. Grades are model-based estimates, not lab tests. How grades work →
More sports performance undergarments: see the full ranking