FabricIQ
Reading the label…
01Verdict
Safe to wear, but rough on the environment.
Best for Safe to wear; production isn't clean — donate when done.
Material C · 65Health A · 100Eco · 50Label · high
Why this material grade?
This product scored 65/100 on the material-quality rubric (durability, comfort, breathability, warmth, moisture-wicking, care-ease), based on its composition of 100% Cotton. Sustainability is scored separately as the Eco Rating.
C (55-69): Average material composition — typical blend, reasonable for everyday wear.
Everyday quality
This fabric does the job for daily wear. Not premium, not bad — it's the middle of the road. At least it's easy to care for.
Budget pick
$17Below-typical fabric quality, but cheaper than the category median.
$0.26 per quality point Category median: $27 · grade B
Fabric value only — compares material quality to price vs other underwear. Construction, fit, and brand aren't measured.
02Breakdown
Composition
100% Cotton
All-natural fiber
Added Apr 1, 2026 · Data last updated Apr 1, 2026
Sustainability is scored separately — see the Eco Rating below.
🌱
Cotton biodegrades in 1-5 months. When you're done with this, it returns to the earth — not the ocean.
03Network
Cost per wear
rough estimate30¢/wear · 56 expected wears
Strong cost-per-wear
How we got there
Base for Underwear: 80 expected wears.
× 0.70 for Cotton (low-durability fiber, durability 60).
= 56 expected wears. $17 ÷ 56 ≈ 30¢/wear.
Missing GSM — this is a category-level estimate, not garment-specific. Expect ±30% variance.
Real life is messier than a formula: how often you wash, how you wash, whether you wear it inside-out, dry on low — all of it shifts the number. This is the ceiling under reasonable care.
Care Guide
Decode symbolsWash
warm (40°C)
Bleach
Oxygen only
Dry
tumble medium
Best For
👕Everyday Casual
ExcellentExcellent comfort (80) and easy care (75) for daily wear
👔Formal/Office
GoodGood durability (60) and comfort (80) for office wear
😴Sleepwear
GoodGood comfort (80) and breathability (85) for sleeping
🩲Underwear
GoodGood breathability (85) and comfort (80) for undergarments
Better Alternatives
Higher-rated underwear products — each card shows how much better this alt scores vs your current product.
04Tradeoffs
Health Impact
Microplastic shedding · skin-contact synthetic load · likely chemical treatments
A100/100
Low health impact — predominantly natural fibers with no major treatment flags.
Microplastics LOW
Minimal
Skin contact LOW
0% synthetic
Chemicals LOW
No flags
What this score doesn't measure
- ×Fiber grade. Staple length, micronaire, strength. "100% cotton" could be short-staple upland or long-staple Pima — same label, very different fabric.
- ×Yarn processing. Singles count, ply (single vs two-ply), spinning method (open-end vs ring-spun vs compact), mercerization. Invisible from any label.
- ×Knit / weave structure. Single jersey vs interlock, knit tightness. A loose knit pills; a tight knit lasts.
- ×Fabric weight (GSM). One construction signal among several — and high GSM can come from loose cheap yarn just as easily as from fine tight yarn. We have it for blank manufacturers, rarely for retail.
- ×Pre-shrink processing. Sanforized cotton shrinks ~1%; non-sanforized can shrink up to 10%. Not visible from the composition tag.
- ×Construction quality. Stitch density (SPI), seam types, collar geometry, manufacturing tolerances (AQL). These often matter more than the fiber itself.
- ×Specific chemical loads. Health Impact flags "likely PFAS / possible formaldehyde" from composition × category — we don't lab-test individual SKUs.
We rate the fabric, not the garment. Composition is the floor of what you're guaranteed to be getting — most shoppers don't have that.
05Action
