01Home

Run every day. Deepest process data, widest density range.

EPP EPS Beaded EPE EPE MPPE

Specialty beads

Higher temperature, higher resilience, or specific chemistry.

EPO EVA E-PA E-PET EPEBA ETPU ETPEE EPLA

Performance & solutions

Compare properties, or start from a process requirement.

Property by property By process demand Modification

All thirteen side by side: density, temperature, typical use.

Open lineup →

Property comparison

Compare 13 foam materials across 11 core properties in one view, with real values or a normalized ranking.

Material Selection Assistant

Match your part requirements and operating conditions to quickly shortlist qualified candidate materials and streamline communication.

3D Appearance Previewer

Upload a product model to match surface patterns in real time, then generate and download a finished rendering with one click.

Company profile

Who we are and what we run.

Equipment, tooling, and the quality system behind them.

Programs our parts already ship into.

Send a part or drawing. We reply with workable routes.

Inquiry

Foam materials comparison

Thirteen foams,
eleven properties, your call.

This page puts all 13 materials side by side. Pick the materials and properties you care about and see the differences at a glance; each material's full property table is on its product page.

→Property vs. density chart →What each material is for →Processing window →Modification: flame, weather, ESD

Property	EPP20–66 kg/m³	EPS15–60 kg/m³	EPO16–33 kg/m³	Beaded EPE20–74 kg/m³	EVA30–50 kg/m³	EPE20–45 kg/m³	MPPE100–285 kg/m³	E-PA150–600 kg/m³	E-PET150–300 kg/m³	EPEBA100–350 kg/m³	ETPU180–300 kg/m³	ETPEE100–150 kg/m³	EPLA25–40 kg/m³
Light weightdensity, kg/m³	20–666–9.2/10	15–606.2–10/10	16–337.9–9.8/10	20–745.7–9.2/10	30–506.7–8.1/10	20–457–9.2/10	100–2852–4.9/10	150–6000–3.8/10	150–3001.9–3.8/10	100–3501.5–4.9/10	180–3001.9–3.3/10	100–1503.8–4.9/10	25–407.3–8.6/10
Load bearingcompression @10%, kPa	50–3251.5–4.6/10	60–4301.8–5.1/10	90–1602.5–3.4/10	44.8–241.31.3–4.1/10	20–300–0.7/10	22–880.2–2.4/10	1100–50006.6–9.1/10	2200–87007.7–10/10	1000–38006.4–8.6/10	50–8001.5–6.1/10	40–801.1–2.3/10	30–600.7–1.8/10	160–2003.4–3.8/10
Heat resistancelong-term service, °C	1006.3/10	753.1/10	803.8/10	803.8/10	651.9/10	803.8/10	1056.9/10	1208.8/10	1107.5/10	803.8/10	803.8/10	1208.8/10	500/10
Thermal insulationconductivity, W/(m·K)	0.036–0.0427.9–9.2/10	0.032–0.0379–10/10	0.037–0.0398.5–9/10	0.0346–0.04337.6–9.5/10	0.048.3/10	0.039–0.0447.5–8.5/10	0.035–0.056.3–9.4/10	0.045–0.080–7.3/10	0.038–0.0594.4–8.8/10	0.04–0.0457.3–8.3/10	0.045–0.0555.2–7.3/10	0.042–0.0486.7–7.9/10	0.0359.4/10
Reboundenergy return, %	303.8/10	5–150–1.5/10	25–403.1–5.4/10	506.9/10	374.9/10	30–353.8–4.6/10	20–352.3–4.6/10	30–453.8–6.2/10	20–352.3–4.6/10	7010/10	578/10	557.7/10	5–150–1.5/10
Cold resistanceminimum service, °C	−402.5/10	−503.8/10	−503.8/10	−706.3/10	−402.5/10	−605/10	−807.5/10	−402.5/10	−402.5/10	−402.5/10	−301.3/10	−402.5/10	−200/10
Softnesshardness, Asker-C	Asker-C 45–752.9–6.4/10Semi-rigid — cushions under load, not under a finger	Asker-C 70–950.5–3.5/10Hard and brittle, almost no elastic deformation	Asker-C 55–703.5–5.2/10Semi-rigid, harder — stiff without being brittle	Asker-C 25–555.2–8.8/10Medium-soft — flexible and scratch-safe but supportive	Asker-C 15–258.8–10/10The softest here — Asker-C 15–25, conforms readily under load	Asker-C 25–407–8.8/10Soft — thin extruded sheet, gives under a finger	Asker-C 88–970.2–1.3/10Rigid, engineering-plastic class	Asker-C 92–990–0.8/10The most rigid — 8.7 MPa compression strength	Asker-C 90–980.1–1.1/10Rigid, structural core class	Asker-C 387.3/10Very soft, Asker-C 38, close to ETPU	Asker-C 35–525.6–7.6/10Very soft, running-midsole feel	Asker-C 426.8/10Soft, slightly firmer than EPEBA	Asker-C 65–802.3–4/10Hard and brittle, same mechanism as EPS
Flame retardancecertified rating	UL 94 V-0 / GB 84108/10GB 8410 ≤70–90 mm/min; UL 94 V-0 FR grade available across the full density range	none0/10	none0/10	FMVSS 3025/10FMVSS 302 passed at every density	none0/10	FMVSS 3025/10FMVSS 302 passed at 35–55 mm/min; flame-retardant grade on request	UL 94 V-010/10UL 94 V-0 intrinsic, halogen-free	none0/10	UL 94 V-0 (11 mm)7/10Standard grade UL 94 V-2 (5 mm); high-FR grade V-0 (11 mm)	none0/10	none0/10	none0/10	none0/10
Chemical resistancegrade	66/10Polyolefin base: good with acid, alkali, alcohols; not aromatics or chlorinated solvents	4/133/10Only 4 of 13 tested media resisted	11/138/1011 of 13 tested media resisted; DBP partial, MEK not resisted	66/10Polyolefin base: good with acid, alkali, alcohols; not aromatics or chlorinated solvents	33/10Resists weak acid and alkali; ester groups weak against strong oxidisers and aromatics	66/10Polyolefin base: good with acid, alkali, alcohols and most oils; not aromatics or chlorinated solvents	77/10Resists acid, alkali and most polar solvents; not aromatics or chlorinated solvents	1010/10Resists fuel, engine oil and lubricants — stated for engine-bay use	88/10Resists oil, acid, alkali and solvents	44/10Moderate with oil; amide segments absorb moisture, weak against strong acid	55/10Good with oil; not strong acid/alkali or hot water (urethane hydrolysis)	55/10Moderate with oil; ester bonds hydrolyse in strong acid/alkali and hot water	22/10Ester bonds hydrolyse readily — the flip side of being compostable
Weather resistancegrade	44/10PP tertiary hydrogen triggers photo-oxidation; chalks outdoors within months without additives	22/10Benzene rings absorb UV strongly — yellows, chalks and cracks; among the worst outdoors	44/10PS content inherits benzene-ring UV sensitivity	88/10Saturated linear backbone, no tertiary hydrogen — best weathering among polyolefins	44/10Ester groups hydrolyse under UV and damp heat; worse at higher VA content	88/10Saturated linear backbone like Beaded EPE; thin sheet needs a stabiliser for long outdoor use	22/10PPO UV yellowing is a known weakness — do not assume engineering plastics weather well	44/10Amide bonds hydrolyse and absorb moisture — outdoors is nylon's weak point	66/10Aromatic polyester, moderate — better than PS but still photo-degrades and hydrolyses	22/10Amide segments hydrolyse plus polyether segments oxidise — two weaknesses stacked	22/10Depends on type: aromatic (MDI) yellows badly, aliphatic (HDI/IPDI) weathers well but costs more. Scored low by default	44/10Aromatic ester hard segments with oxidation-prone polyether soft segments	22/10Ester bonds hydrolyse readily — it is designed to degrade
Environmentalgrade	66/10Thermoplastic, re-pelletisable, no cross-linking	55/10Thermoplastic and recyclable; mature collection but often limited by contamination	66/10Thermoplastic, re-pelletisable, no cross-linking	66/10Thermoplastic, re-pelletisable, no cross-linking	22/10Cross-linked — cannot be melt-reprocessed, hard to recycle	66/10Thermoplastic, non-crosslinked, re-pelletisable (#4 LDPE)	55/10Thermoplastic and recyclable; narrow engineering-plastic recycling channels	55/10Thermoplastic and recyclable; narrow engineering-plastic recycling channels	88/10BIO grade 25% biomass content; RNW grade uses recycled resin	77/10Thermoplastic and recyclable; bio-based content 26–28% (castor-derived)	55/10Thermoplastic and recyclable	55/10Thermoplastic and recyclable	1010/10Disintegrates in about 4 weeks of industrial composting; certified compostable to EN 13432; no hydrocarbon blowing agent; bio-based

Full property tables, grade by grade

01EPP 02EPS 03EPO 04Beaded EPE 05EVA 06EPE 07MPPE 08E-PA 09E-PET 10EPEBA 11ETPU 12ETPEE 13EPLA

Read one pair all the way through

→EPP vs EPS — recovery against cost, on eleven properties →EVA vs EPP — soft conforming contact against structural load →EPP vs ETPU — rebound, density and what the extra polymer costs →EPP vs Beaded EPE — rigidity against soft surface care →EPP vs EPO — where the PS/PE blend wins on value →All thirteen materials, ranked on every property →EPE vs Beaded EPE — the same polyethylene, cut or molded →Cut vs molded foam — which forming process the part needs

Narrowed it down?
Send us the part.

Send an inquiry→ Back to materials