Women's Quarter Crew Socks (6 Pairs) vs Men's Under Armour Charged Cotton 6-inch Novelty Boxerjock 3-Pack: which is safer?
Men's Under Armour Charged Cotton 6-inch Novelty Boxerjock 3-Pack is our pick: better on PFAS and on the overall hazard picture.
Puma
Women's Quarter Crew Socks (6 Pairs)
PFAS grade
Good 65/100
Overall grade
Poor 47/100
Verdict
Skip
Hazard flags
⚑ 3
Material
Cotton/polyester blend socks, no waterproofing
Confidence
82%
PossibleAzo dyes
PossibleFormaldehyde resins (finishing agents)
ReportedMicroplastic shedding
Our pick
Under Armour
Men's Under Armour Charged Cotton 6-inch Novelty Boxerjock 3-Pack
PFAS grade
Good 65/100
Overall grade
Poor 49/100
Verdict
Skip
Hazard flags
⚑ 4
Material
Cotton blend (Charged Cotton proprietary fabric)
Confidence
72%
PossibleAzo dyes and synthetic colorants
PossibleFormaldehyde-release finishes
PossibleAntimony in polyester
Where these two actually differ
- We flag Azo dyes, Formaldehyde resins (finishing agents) and Microplastic shedding on the Puma and not on the Under Armour.
- We flag Azo dyes and synthetic colorants, Formaldehyde-release finishes, Antimony in polyester and Elastic degradation and microfiber shedding on the Under Armour and not on the Puma.
- The Puma is Cotton/polyester blend socks, no waterproofing where the Under Armour is Cotton blend (Charged Cotton proprietary fabric), 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