Women's Quarter Crew Socks (6 Pairs) vs Men's Underwear & Socks Under Armour 3 6" Performance Boxerjock Boxer Briefs: which is safer?
PUMA Women's Quarter Crew Socks (6 Pairs) is our pick: better on PFAS and on the overall hazard picture.
Our pick
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
Under Armour
Men's Underwear & Socks Under Armour 3 6" Performance Boxerjock Boxer Briefs
PFAS grade
Good 65/100
Overall grade
Poor 43/100
Verdict
Skip
Hazard flags
⚑ 4
Material
polyester, spandex blend, no reported treatment
Confidence
72%
PossibleAntimony in polyester
PossibleAzo dyes and color fastness
ReportedMicroplastic shedding
Where these two actually differ
- We flag Azo dyes and Formaldehyde resins (finishing agents) on the Puma and not on the Under Armour.
- We flag Antimony in polyester, Azo dyes and color fastness and Spandex degradation and sweat interaction on the Under Armour and not on the Puma.
- Both carry a flag for Microplastic shedding, so neither choice avoids it.
- The Puma is Cotton/polyester blend socks, no waterproofing where the Under Armour is polyester, spandex blend, no reported treatment, 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