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 F · 4Health A · 98Eco · 1Label · high
Why this material grade?
This product scored 4/100 on the material-quality rubric (durability, comfort, breathability, warmth, moisture-wicking, care-ease), based on its composition of 92% Polyethylene, 8% Spandex. Sustainability is scored separately as the Eco Rating.
F (<40): Low-rated material composition — consider alternatives.
Low quality — skip if you can
This scores poorly across the board. It likely won't last, may not be comfortable, and has significant environmental impact. Your money goes further with better materials.
Budget pick
$80Below-typical fabric quality, but cheaper than the category median.
$20.00 per quality point Category median: $89 · grade C
Fabric value only — compares material quality to price vs other shorts. Construction, fit, and brand aren't measured.
02Breakdown
Composition
92% Polyethylene, 8% Spandex
Plastic-based — sheds microplastics in wash
Added Apr 3, 2026 · Data last updated Apr 3, 2026
Sustainability is scored separately — see the Eco Rating below.
🌍
This fabric will take 200+ years to decompose. That means a shirt you buy today will still exist in the year 2226.
🧺
Dryer heat destroys spandex/elastane over time. Your leggings and stretchy clothes will last 2x longer if you skip the dryer.
🏭
The fashion industry produces 10% of global carbon emissions — more than aviation and shipping combined.
03Network
Cost per wear
rough estimate95¢/wear · 84 expected wears
Reasonable cost-per-wear
How we got there
Base for Shorts: 120 expected wears.
× 0.70 for Spandex (low-durability fiber, durability 5).
= 84 expected wears. $80 ÷ 84 ≈ 95¢/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
cold (30°C)
Bleach
Do not bleach
Dry
line dry
Iron
Better Alternatives
Higher-rated shorts 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
A98/100
Low health impact — predominantly natural fibers with no major treatment flags.
Microplastics LOW
Very low
Skin contact LOW
8% synthetic
Chemicals LOW
No flags
Biodegradability
Not BiodegradableMaterials will persist in the environment for decades.
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
