PFAS in Rain Pants, Which Brands Grade Best and Worst

Based on available materials and public disclosure data reviewed for this guide, every rain pant currently in our database falls into either a "Poor" or "Bad" PFAS grade, meaning no product in this category should be described as lower concern in an absolute sense. Among the fourteen products reviewed, the three Patagonia rain pants (the Patagonia Men's Granite Crest Rain Pants, the Patagonia Women's Torrentshell 3L Pants, and the Patagonia Men's Torrentshell 3L Rain Pants) scored highest at 45 out of 100, earning a "Poor" grade rather than the "Bad" grade assigned to the other eleven pants in this review.

That is a relative distinction, not an endorsement. A "Poor" grade of 45/100 is still a below-average outcome, and this guide does not call any of these pants safe or PFAS-free. What it does say is that, of the rain pants with verified listings in our database, the Patagonia line carries a comparatively lower estimated PFAS burden than the Arc'teryx, Columbia, and The North Face pants reviewed here, all of which scored 20/100 and landed in the "Bad" category. Use the PFAS Finder to search other rain gear, and see our broader best clothing picks for lower-concern alternatives outside this specific product set.

Summary comparison table

Product	PFAS grade (model estimate)	Verdict
Patagonia Men's Granite Crest Rain Pants	Poor, 45/100	Highest score in this group, still not lower concern in absolute terms
Patagonia Women's Torrentshell 3L Pants	Poor, 45/100	Tied for best-of-group, brand-stated DWR changes not independently confirmed here
Patagonia Men's Torrentshell 3L Rain Pants	Poor, 45/100	Tied for best-of-group, same caveats apply
Arc'teryx Beta Pant Men's	Bad, 20/100	Below-average estimate, GORE-TEX construction flagged as a concern
Arc'teryx Men's Incendo Pants	Bad, 20/100	Below-average estimate, lightweight shell offers no material advantage
Arc'teryx Gamma SL Pant Men's	Bad, 20/100	Below-average estimate across the full Gamma line
Arc'teryx Men's Gamma Pants	Bad, 20/100	Same softshell family, same estimated concern level
Arc'teryx Men's Gamma SL Pants	Bad, 20/100	Duplicate listing in our database, same grade as other Gamma SL pants
Arc'teryx Sabre Relaxed Pant Men's	Bad, 20/100	Heavier ski-oriented shell, still below-average estimate
Columbia Men's Rebel Roamer II Nylon Pants	Bad, 20/100	Below-average estimate, Omni-Tech coating flagged
Columbia Men's Rebel Roamer II Pant	Bad, 20/100	Same concern profile as the nylon variant
Columbia Bugaboo V Waterproof Men's Pants	Bad, 20/100	Insulated winter pant, below-average estimate
The North Face Men's Antora Rain Pants	Bad, 20/100	DryVent shell, below-average estimate
The North Face Women's Antora Rain Pants	Bad, 20/100	Same shell technology, same grade as the men's version

Patagonia, the highest-scoring brand in this review

All three Patagonia rain pants in our database share a "Poor" grade of 45 out of 100, based on available materials and public disclosure data. This is a model-based estimate from materials and public disclosure, not a lab test, and it should not be read as a claim that these pants are free of PFAS or otherwise lower concern in an absolute sense.

Patagonia Men's Granite Crest Rain Pants

Materials, A recycled nylon shell with a durable water repellent (DWR) finish, marketed as part of Patagonia's broader move toward recycled fabrics.

Brand claims, Patagonia has publicly stated an intent to phase out PFAS-based DWR chemistry across its product lines. This is a brand-stated goal, not a third-party verified certification for this specific product, based on the sources reviewed for this guide.

Pros, Recycled shell fabric, relatively strong environmental transparency compared to some competitors, active repair and warranty program.

Cons, Still graded "Poor," meaning the estimated PFAS burden remains elevated relative to a hypothetical lower-concern benchmark, not merely relative to worse-performing pants.

Patagonia Women's Torrentshell 3L Pants

Materials, A three-layer recycled nylon shell designed for full waterproof, breathable performance.

Brand claims, Marketed under Patagonia's environmental responsibility program with the same PFAS-reduction language applied across the Torrentshell line. Again, this is brand-stated and not independently confirmed in the data reviewed here.

Pros, Durable 3L construction, women's-specific fit, part of a line with relatively more public material disclosure than several competitors in this review.

Cons, Same 45/100 "Poor" grade as the rest of the Patagonia group, so it should not be marketed or purchased as a lower-concern alternative in absolute terms.

Patagonia Men's Torrentshell 3L Rain Pants

Materials, Comparable 3L recycled nylon shell to the women's version, with a men's-specific cut.

Brand claims, Same brand-level PFAS-reduction messaging as other Patagonia rain pants in this review.

Pros, Consistent construction quality, relatively strong repairability, aligns with the highest score in this specific product set.

Cons, Still a "Poor" grade overall. Buyers should not interpret this as a lower-concern product, only as the least-bad option among the fourteen pants reviewed here.

Arc'teryx, six products and a consistent "Bad" grade

Arc'teryx has the largest footprint in this review, with six separate rain and softshell pants, all landing at 20 out of 100. Arc'teryx has historically relied on GORE-TEX and proprietary fluorinated membranes for its waterproof-breathable performance, and the consistency of the "Bad" grade across its lineup suggests a shared underlying fabric chemistry rather than a single flawed product.

Arc'teryx Beta Pant Men's

Materials, GORE-TEX laminate shell built for alpine and mountaineering use.

Brand claims, Arc'teryx markets the Beta line on durability and weather protection performance rather than making explicit PFAS-free claims in the materials reviewed for this guide.

Pros, Strong weatherproofing reputation, mountaineering-grade construction.

Cons, Bad grade, 20/100, based on available materials and public disclosure. No PFAS-free claim was found in the sources reviewed.

Arc'teryx Men's Incendo Pants

Materials, Lightweight, packable waterproof shell aimed at trail running and fast-and-light use.

Brand claims, Marketed on weight and packability, with no independently verified PFAS-free claim identified.

Pros, Very light, compact for backpacking.

Cons, Same 20/100 estimate as the rest of the Arc'teryx lineup in this review.

Arc'teryx Gamma SL Pant Men's, Men's Gamma Pants, and Men's Gamma SL Pants

Materials, Softshell and hardshell variants across the Gamma family, generally using a woven nylon or polyester face fabric with a water-resistant finish.

Brand claims, Positioned as versatile, everyday-use technical pants. No third-party verified PFAS-free claim appears in the sources reviewed for any Gamma variant, including the Gamma SL Pant Men's, the Men's Gamma Pants, and the Men's Gamma SL Pants listing.

Pros, Versatile fit, well regarded for everyday mountain use.

Cons, All three Gamma listings share the same 20/100 estimate, reinforcing a brand-wide pattern rather than an isolated result.

Arc'teryx Sabre Relaxed Pant Men's

Materials, GORE-TEX shell built for ski and resort use with a relaxed fit.

Brand claims, Marketed on ski-specific performance features, without a PFAS-free claim found in reviewed sources.

Pros, Strong cold-weather and abrasion performance for resort skiing.

Cons, Same 20/100 "Bad" estimate as the rest of the brand's rain and shell pants.

Columbia, three products, one consistent grade

Columbia's rain and softshell pants in this review all scored 20 out of 100. Columbia has long marketed its Omni-Tech waterproofing system, and while the brand has discussed reformulation efforts in general sustainability communications, no product-specific PFAS-free certification was found in the sources reviewed for this guide.

Columbia Men's Rebel Roamer II Nylon Pants and Men's Rebel Roamer II Pant

Materials, Nylon shell fabric with a water-resistant coating, built for hiking and general outdoor use.

Brand claims, Marketed around Omni-Shield and water resistance performance rather than any specific PFAS-free assertion.

Pros, Budget-friendly compared to Arc'teryx and Patagonia, widely available.

Cons, Both the nylon variant and the standard Rebel Roamer II Pant carry the same 20/100 "Bad" estimate, with no independently verified lower-concern claim identified.

Columbia Bugaboo V Waterproof Men's Pants

Materials, Insulated waterproof shell built for cold-weather and snow use, using Columbia's Omni-Tech waterproofing membrane.

Brand claims, Marketed on insulation and waterproof performance, without a PFAS-free claim found in the reviewed materials.

Pros, Insulated for cold conditions, relatively affordable for a winter-specific shell pant.

Cons, Same 20/100 estimate as the rest of Columbia's lineup in this review.

The North Face, two products, matching grades

Both North Face pants reviewed here use the brand's DryVent waterproof-breathable technology and both scored 20 out of 100.

The North Face Men's Antora Rain Pants and Women's Antora Rain Pants

Materials, DryVent 2-layer waterproof shell fabric, designed as an entry-level rain pant for hiking and everyday wear.

Brand claims, The North Face markets DryVent on affordability and packability. No product-specific PFAS-free claim was identified in the sources reviewed for either the men's or the women's Antora pant.

Pros, Affordable, packable, widely available at outdoor retailers.

Cons, Same "Bad" grade as the rest of the non-Patagonia products in this review, based on available materials and public disclosure.

What to avoid

• Any rain pant marketed simply as "waterproof" or "weatherproof" with no disclosure of the specific DWR or membrane chemistry used, since this often signals older fluorinated technology.
• Vague sustainability language that references recycled fabric content without addressing the water-repellent coating itself, since recycled shell material and PFAS-free coatings are two separate claims.
• Assuming a premium price or a well-known outdoor brand name automatically means a lower PFAS estimate. Several higher-priced technical brands in this review scored lower than more accessibly priced options.
• Treating a "Poor" grade as a green light. A 45/100 score is the top result in this specific comparison, not a lower-concern product in absolute terms.
• Ignoring adjacent categories where PFAS is also common, including waterproof boots and swimwear, both of which frequently use similar water-repellent chemistry.

Our pick

Based on available materials and public disclosure data reviewed for this guide, the three Patagonia rain pants (Granite Crest Women's Torrentshell 3L, and Men's Torrentshell 3L) represent the comparatively lower-estimated-concern option among the fourteen products reviewed, each scoring 45 out of 100 against a "Bad" 20/100 score for every Arc'teryx, Columbia, and The North Face pant in this set. This is a relative recommendation within a weak category, not a declaration that any of these pants are PFAS-free or lower concern in an absolute sense. Shoppers who want to compare rain pants against other clothing categories can browse the full best clothing roundup, or run a specific product through the PFAS Finder before buying.

Frequently asked questions

Is any rain pant in this review actually PFAS-free?

No product reviewed here carries a third-party verified PFAS-free certification in the sources examined for this guide. Some brands, including Patagonia, have made public statements about reducing or eliminating PFAS from DWR treatments, but those are brand-stated goals, not independently confirmed lab results for the specific products listed above.

Does a higher PFAS grade mean a rain pant is safe to wear?

No. Grades in this guide are model-based estimates built from available materials and public disclosure data, not laboratory certainty. A "Poor" grade of 45/100, like the one shared by the three Patagonia pants, is only better relative to the "Bad" 20/100 pants in this specific comparison. It should not be read as a claim of lower health risk, and any association between PFAS exposure and health outcomes discussed elsewhere on this site reflects correlation in available research, not proven causation.

Why do so many different rain pant brands score similarly low?

Waterproof-breathable rain pants have historically relied on fluorinated membranes and durable water repellent coatings because these chemistries have offered strong, long-lasting water resistance. Because GORE-TEX, Omni-Tech, DryVent, and similar systems share overlapping fluorinated chemistry roots, brands across the Arc'teryx, Columbia, and The North Face lines in this review land on comparable "Bad" grades based on available materials and public disclosure, rather than any single brand being uniquely worse.