By Nancy Redd
Nancy Redd is a writer who covers health and grooming. She has tested dozens of hair dryers, toothbrushes, and pairs of period underwear.
After ripping apart, as well as menstruating on, hundreds of tampons, we can tell you, first, that many of these cotton wads are identical or nearly so, and second, that small details—such as the shape of an applicator or the composition of the wrapper—make some tampons much more pleasant to use than others. Among applicator tampons, we like Tampax Pearl and Tampax Pure (an organic choice) best. O.B. Pro Comfort and O.B. Organic tampons are our favorite applicator-free options.
Everything we recommend
Our pick
The Pearl tampon’s foolproof, non-compact plastic applicator, long braided string, and sturdy, reusable wrapper pleased our testers.
This organic version of the Pearl tampons has the same highly rated plastic applicator and wrapper.
Buying Options
Our pick
Easy to unwrap and insert, the Pro Comfort tampons shed fewer fibers than most applicator-free (aka “digital”) tampons, testers found.
Buying Options
As easy to unwrap and insert as Pro Comfort tampons, the O.B. Organic version is less expensive than most of its organic applicator-free competitors.
We aren’t sure of everything that’s in most tampons, including some that we recommend. Really. That’s because tampon makers aren’t required to disclose this information. Still, there’s no significant evidence to suggest that tampons you can buy in the US contain anything known to be harmful (except in rare cases of allergies) or that organic tampons, which are made with organic rather than conventional cotton, are better for your health.
A note of disclosure: The author of this guide has a past professional relationship with a tampon company.
Our pick
The Pearl tampon’s foolproof, non-compact plastic applicator, long braided string, and sturdy, reusable wrapper pleased our testers.
This organic version of the Pearl tampons has the same highly rated plastic applicator and wrapper.
Buying Options
Testers who tried all absorbencies of both Tampax Pearl and its near-identical organic version, Tampax Pure, preferred these applicator tampons to all the other brands they used. They praised the standard-size applicators, the relatively long and thick braided strings, and the uniquely sturdy, easy-to-open wrappers that made disposal of used tampons a breeze.
Cost per tampon (regular absorbency)1
Tampax Pearl: 19¢, pack of 50
Tampax Pure: 46¢, pack of 72
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENTOur pick
Easy to unwrap and insert, the Pro Comfort tampons shed fewer fibers than most applicator-free (aka “digital”) tampons, testers found.
Buying Options
As easy to unwrap and insert as Pro Comfort tampons, the O.B. Organic version is less expensive than most of its organic applicator-free competitors.
While one tester referred to the O.B. Pro Comfort as “the Porsche of tampons,” what really makes this applicator-free tampon stand out is its ease of unwrapping and its competitive pricing. Testers liked the fully organic version just as much. The O.B. tampons we like best cost on average 25 percent less than other leading applicator-free tampons.
Cost per tampon (regular absorbency)
O.B. Pro Comfort: 44¢, pack of 40
O.B. Organic: 67¢, pack of 24
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENTWho this is for
You probably already know whether you like tampons. But even if you’ve been buying the same tampons for years, you may learn that there are options that you like a bit better, that can save you money, or both. (And if you’re looking for the ultimate budget- and eco-friendly option, you may want to consider a menstrual cup or disc.)
Our research and testing didn’t reveal any notable differences in tampon safety and efficacy (except in the case of sea sponges, which experts advise avoiding entirely). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies tampons as Class II medical devices. All tampons sold in the U.S. are required to have earned FDA 510(k) clearance, demonstrating safety and efficacy. (All our picks are FDA-cleared.) Since vaginas come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, tampon comfort and effectiveness can be highly subjective. If your current tampon style is comfortable to wear and doesn’t leak, there’s no reason not to keep using it. In contrast, if you struggle with leakage or otherwise find your current tampons uncomfortable or subpar, we hope the information in this guide will help you find something that works better.
If you’re springing for organic-cotton tampons because you’re worried about exposure to harmful ingredients, that isn’t necessary. There’s not much evidence that nonorganic, or “conventional,” tampons are any worse for you than organic ones. (There’s even some evidence suggesting the opposite.) That said, we have recommendations for organic tampons if that’s your preference. (Spoiler alert: Our conventional, applicator-free pick is also made with organic cotton.)
Since the early 1980s, the FDA has required tampon manufacturers to put warnings about toxic shock syndrome (TSS) on their boxes, reminding people not to leave tampons in for an extended period of time (eight hours tends to be the maximum). Because tampons are not sterile and can grow bacteria and mold after a certain period of time, tampon boxes must also include expiration dates, which you should check. Symptoms of TSS include a sudden fever, vomiting, diarrhea, muscle aches, a sunburn-like rash, headaches, and seizures. To reduce risk, avoid leaving a tampon in for longer than eight hours.
Of course, many people use tampons along with menstrual pads, which have long been overall the more popular choice. Period underwear designed to handle your flow and menstrual cups and discs that come in a variety of sizes and shapes provide more options for managing your flow.
Following the 2019 reclassification of menstrual products—such as pads, tampons, menstrual cups, and period underwear—as qualified medical expenses, you can now use health care flexible spending account (FSA) or health savings account (HSA) funds to buy them.
Why you should trust us
For this guide, we talked to two representatives from tampon manufacturers: Anne Hochwalt, formerly a researcher at Procter & Gamble; and Terry Balluck, who at the time of our interview was a spokesperson for Kimberly-Clark. We also spoke to Deborah Kotz, a former spokesperson for the Food and Drug Administration; Sharra Vostral, a professor of communications at Northwestern University and author of Under Wraps: A History of Menstrual Hygiene Technology; and Philip M. Tierno Jr., a professor and researcher at the NYU School of Medicine who was one of the first to raise concerns about the correlation between toxic shock syndrome and tampon use back in the 1970s and ’80s.
During our research, we read a lot of papers on the risk of toxic shock syndrome, as well as on the various materials found in tampons. We also read a lot of documents from environmental groups—and threw most of them out because they lacked scientific merit. We trawled message boards, watched video reviews of tampons on YouTube, read Amazon customer reviews, and asked our friends and colleagues what their favorites were.
A note of disclosure: The author of this review, Nancy Redd, was a paid part-time consultant for Kotex from 2009 to 2012, a role she took on after authoring the book Body Drama: Real Girls, Real Bodies, Real Issues, Real Answers. In that role, Nancy wrote educational materials, attended events, and made media appearances on behalf of the company.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENTHow we picked
![A selection of tampons, shown unwrapped and next to their aplicators.](https://cdn.thewirecutter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/tampons-2020-lowres-98772.jpg?auto=webp&quality=60&width=570)
A tampon should be two things: comfortable and functional. It should be easy to insert and remove, it should absorb the amount of menstrual fluid its label says it will, and it should keep that fluid contained.
Since tampons are disposable, and the average person who menstruates will go through a lot of them (people using tampons regularly may use more than 10,000 tampons in their lifetimes2), cost is also a factor. Conventional tampons average out to around 18¢ per tampon, while organic brands tend to cost closer to 35¢ each, with some lines coming in around 70¢ per tampon.
Tampons are a “Class II medical device” subject to Food and Drug Administration regulations, particularly regarding how much blood they should be able to absorb according to their size. (In this guide we use the term “blood” colloquially to refer to the stuff that the tampon is absorbing; in reality, tampons absorb menstrual fluid, which is made up of blood, vaginal secretions, cervical mucus, and tissue from the endometrium.) Those tampon sizes—light, regular, super, super plus, and ultra—are all defined by specific absorbency according to FDA rules. The absorbency levels are standard across brands.
You can find two main types of tampons: those with applicators and those without. Applicator-free, or “digital,” tampons—those that you use your finger to insert—are much more compact than those with applicators. It follows that they are also easier to store, take up less room in a pocket or bag, and produce less waste.
Tampons with applicators typically rely on plastic or cardboard and come in a variety of designs, all of which are intended to make insertion of the cotton wad easier and more comfortable. They’re bigger, though, and they tend to be more expensive than applicator-free tampons.
The number of conventional tampon brands has remained about the same since we first published this guide in 2016, with most boxes on the shelves offered by Kotex, O.B., Playtex, and Tampax. Organic tampons have exploded in popularity over the past few years, however, with dozens of independent startups and many of the top names in conventional tampons launching their own organic lines, too. Although there’s no evidence to suggest organic tampons are safer than their conventional counterparts, preference for an organic tampon is personal. As such, we chose to test both organic and non-organic tampons.
Some manufacturers advertise a “sport,” also known as “active” or “fitness,” version of their tampons. In every test we conducted, the sport tampons were the same as their non-sport counterparts, with a slightly different applicator. Sport versions also tend to be a little more expensive. Save your money—buy the regular version.
The same advice goes for compact applicators, which are marketed as space saving; these are plastic applicators you must first expand to their full size before using them. Our testers (and Wirecutter readers) said that the slightly smaller carrying size wasn’t worth the work and failure rate caused by the extra step of expansion.
We decided not to review scented tampons, as people might find various scents irritating. If your period is accompanied by strong, unpleasant odors, consult a doctor to make sure nothing else is going on.
To determine our testing pool, we read hundreds of customer reviews and forum comments. We then narrowed the list, favoring lines that were well reviewed, less expensive on a per-tampon basis, and widely available at a variety of US retailers.
We ultimately ordered (and bled on) hundreds of tampons from 18 different brands representing all five FDA-specified absorbencies.
How we tested
![An assortment of over 50 boxes of tampons tested for this review of the best tampons.](https://cdn.thewirecutter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/tampons-2019-lowres-9924.jpg?auto=webp&quality=60&width=570)
After confirming that the tampons we considered all absorbed the amounts of liquid they were rated to hold, we focused our testing on real-world attributes, including the ease of unwrapping and insertion plus comfort during wear.
We tested tampons from 18 different brands at each absorbency they came in, from light to ultra (not all brands included options at all absorbencies). We divided our 11 testers into three test groups: people who preferred non-applicator (digital) tampons, people who preferred applicator tampons and primarily used light or regular ones during their cycles, and people who preferred applicator tampons and regularly used super, super plus, or ultra tampons during their cycles. We sent each tester three samples of each tampon of the type they usually used, between 45 and 66 in all per tester. To minimize potential brand biases, we sent testers samples whose identities we had (mostly) eliminated, with only the sanitary packaging (which we’ll call “wrappers” throughout) in place.
First, testers noted whether each tampon was easy to unwrap and comfortable to insert. Our applicator-tampon testers overwhelmingly preferred traditional plastic applicators to “compact” applicators, citing a high percentage of “failed” tampons as a result of the extra step necessary to expand compact applicators (which can be rendered useless and often end up as a bloody mess when the user opens the applicator too much or not enough). Several testers also reported a fear of labia snagging and other discomfort with cardboard applicators.
Second, we asked testers to evaluate comfort during wear. We found that this wasn’t a distinguishing point among brands, as nearly every tester reported general satisfaction in this regard with all the tampons they tried.
Finally, we posed a simple question to our testers: Would you buy this tampon? Testers cited several flaws that were not dealbreakers, such as applicator-free tampon wrappers that were occasionally difficult to open or produced an extra piece of plastic waste (versus separating cleanly in two parts), or compact applicators that didn’t plunge correctly.
In a non-scientific test, we also examined fiber shedding by unwrapping a sample of each tampon type and wiping it on a black cloth, eliminating any contenders that exhibited excessive shedding after repeated trials.
Tampons come in lots of shapes (bell-shaped, winged, tube-shaped), which don’t substantially affect how quickly they absorb liquid or how well they hold it. We examined each tampon we tested, both when wet (holding water) and when allowed to expand dry (airing out for a few days). Because every vagina, and every menstrual flow, is different, some people might find that certain tampon designs are more comfortable than others. Vagina shapes vary, which means that for some people a bell shape will work best while for others a wing design might be more effective.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENTOur pick: Tampax Pearl
![Five boxes of Tampax pearl tampons in varying absorbency levels.](https://cdn.thewirecutter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/tampons-2020-lowres-9869.jpg?auto=webp&quality=60&width=570)
Our pick
The Pearl tampon’s foolproof, non-compact plastic applicator, long braided string, and sturdy, reusable wrapper pleased our testers.
Tampax Pearl is the only conventional applicator tampon that all of our testers liked regardless of their flows, with testers praising its long, braided string and its sturdy, easy-to-use plastic applicator. The Pearl tampon’s heavy-duty plastic wrapper didn’t open up in our pockets or purses, and it made disposing of the used tampon much easier. Heavy-flow testers praised the ultra-absorbency Pearl tampons for being able to contain what one tester referred to as their “volcano flow.” In our fiber-shedding test, these tampons showed minimal shedding. Tampax Pearl is also the only line we tested that comes in all five FDA-recognized absorbencies (light to ultra). This tampon is more expensive than some conventional applicator options, but we found its superior applicator and wrapper worth investing a few cents more in. You can find Pearl tampons in almost every store that sells tampons.
Many people are concerned about tampon ingredients, and the fact that companies are not currently required to disclose them. Some states require more-transparent labeling. When we asked Tampax for an ingredients list for Pearl tampons in 2020, a company representative told us to check Smart Label (a trade-association site) and said that Tampax was, at the time, “actively working on implementing...labeling requirements, including collaborating with industry to develop consistent disclosure best practices to provide consistent, clear ingredient information to consumers.” The Tampax Pearl ingredients listed on Smart Label: cotton and/or rayon (absorbent core), polyethylene and polypropylene (thin fabric veil around absorbent core), polypropylene (LeakGuard braid), cotton (string), polyester (thread), paraffin (string), titanium dioxide (thread), glycerin, ethoxylated fatty acid esters and PEG-100 stearate (coating).
Flaws but not dealbreakers
Tampax Pearl is a few cents per tampon more expensive than many of its competitors, but testers indicated they’d buy it over other choices.
Our pick: Tampax Pure
![Two boxes of Tampax Pure organic tampons.](https://cdn.thewirecutter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/tampons-2020-lowres-9853.jpg?auto=webp&quality=60&width=570)
Our pick
This organic version of the Pearl tampons has the same highly rated plastic applicator and wrapper.
Buying Options
If you prefer an organic applicator tampon, try Tampax Pearl’s fraternal twin, Tampax Pure. As with its conventional counterpart, the Pure version’s substantial string, full-size applicator, and sturdy wrapper set it apart from the competition. Its core is made of certified organic cotton, though the packaging and applicator may be no different from those of the Pearl tampon.
The Pure version also performed well on our fiber-shedding test. It is priced on a par with other organic applicator tampons, and like Tampax Pearl, it’s widely available in stores and online.
We asked Tampax for an ingredients list for Pure tampons and received the same response that we got for Pearl (“check Smart Label”). The Pure ingredients listed there are: cotton (absorbent core), polypropylene (LeakGuard braid), polyester (thread), glycerin (coating), paraffin (string), and titanium dioxide (thread).
Flaws but not dealbreakers
Unlike Tampax Pearl, which comes in all absorbencies, Tampax Pure comes in only regular and super. These tampons typically cost about twice as much as the conventional version.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENTOur pick: O.B. Pro Comfort
![Two boxes of O.B. Pro Comfort tampons.](https://cdn.thewirecutter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/tampons-2020-lowres-9840.jpg?auto=webp&quality=60&width=570)
Our pick
Easy to unwrap and insert, the Pro Comfort tampons shed fewer fibers than most applicator-free (aka “digital”) tampons, testers found.
Buying Options
O.B. Pro Comfort tampons were testers’ favorite of all seven digital options, organic or conventional. The O.B. Pro Comfort design has a sturdy, long string, and testers found the tampon easy to unwrap. Although O.B. Pro Comfort is not marketed as an organic tampon, the cotton that forms the bulk of the wad, the veil that covers that absorbent core, and the string are in fact all organic (the thread used to sew the string to the tampon, however, is not).
O.B. Pro Comfort tampons cost a bit more than the next-closest conventional competition (O.B. Originals), which shed more and our testers liked much less but are just as widely available. (O.B. is the only brand that sells conventional non-applicator tampons at most major US retailers.)
O.B. told us its Pro Comfort tampons contained the following: organic cotton (absorbent core and the veil around that absorbent core), organic cotton and water-repellent wax (string), cotton (thread), polypropylene-based film (wrapper).
Flaws but not dealbreakers
O.B. Pro Comfort tampons come in only regular and super absorbencies.
Because the packaging is so similar, it is easy to confuse our pick with O.B. Original tampons, which in our test shed more fibers than the Pro Comfort version did. (Our testers also found the Original version’s wrappers much more difficult to open.)
Our pick: O.B. Organic
![Two boxes of O.B organic tampons, with tampons in front of the boxes.](https://cdn.thewirecutter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/tampons-2020-lowres-9829.jpg?auto=webp&quality=60&width=570)
Our pick
As easy to unwrap and insert as Pro Comfort tampons, the O.B. Organic version is less expensive than most of its organic applicator-free competitors.
O.B. Organic applicator-free tampons are virtually the same, and nearly as nice to use, as O.B. Pro Comfort tampons, but they cost substantially more. The key difference is that they’re made entirely of organic materials (while the conventional O.B. tampons are mostly organic).
Compared with other organic digital tampons we considered, the O.B. Organic tampons are generally less expensive, plus more widely available.
Like the O.B. Pro Comfort version, the O.B. Organic tampons performed well on our fiber-shedding test. Whereas most organic applicator-free tampons we tried produced only a moderate amount of fuzz, others got pretty cotton-ball-like at the bottom and left behind some chunks of fiber on the string and on our hands. We found O.B. Organic tampons to be the least sheddy among organic digital competitors (they tied with tampons from Rael for this distinction).
O.B. told us its Organic tampons contained the following: organic cotton (absorbent material, string, thread), polypropylene-based film (wrapper).
Flaws but not dealbreakers
Like O.B. Pro Comfort tampons, O.B. Organic tampons come in only regular and super absorbencies.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENTWhat is in tampons?
Until recently, tampon manufacturers were not required to disclose exactly what is in their tampons or in what quantities. New York in 2021 became the first state to mandate that all menstrual product makers disclose all of their ingredients, and many other states have started to follow suit. A handful of bills have also proposed that the US Congress require tampon manufacturers to disclose the chemicals and processes they use in manufacturing sanitary products.
Every tampon we tested came with a list of materials noting what the absorbent core was made of (usually rayon or cotton) and what the string consisted of (generally polyester, polypropylene, cotton, or a combination of these materials), as well as, if applicable, the materials in any “fabric overlay”—or “veil”—around the absorbent core, which is meant to prevent fiber shedding (this veil is usually made of polyethylene, polypropylene, or a combination of the two). But these ingredients lists aren’t exhaustive, and they don’t detail how much of any material a tampon is made of (nor whether a tampon might contain any trace elements as a result of manufacturing processes). Applicators generally are listed as being made of a plant-based plastic, plastic, or cardboard, with any dyes listed as “pigments” of undisclosed sources. When we asked the companies that made the tampons we tested to provide complete lists of what went into their products, many reiterated what’s stated on their tampons’ boxes. Tampax pointed us to the trade-association-run repository Smart Label from the US-based Consumer Brands Association and Food & Consumer Products of Canada. (The ingredients listed there are the same as those noted on Tampax boxes.) Solimo, an Amazon brand, forwarded us a screenshot of the side of its tampon box. Other companies chose not to respond at all.
In a July 2024 paper, researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, and their colleagues reported having found metals including lead in every one of the 24 different tampons they tested. Across name brand, store brand, organic, conventional, with applicator, and applicator-free tampons the team tested, “we found really consistent results,” said study coauthor Jenni Shearston, a postdoctoral researcher at UC Berkeley, who added that the findings do not suggest that people should stop using tampons. Cotton is known to accumulate metals and other substances from soil and water, and more research is needed to determine whether the metals detected can leave tampons and enter the body.
It’s hard to find anybody who works on tampons or tampon-related research who isn’t firmly in one of two very opposite camps. Organizations that back holistic and “natural” products, such as the nonprofit Women’s Voices for the Earth, tend to talk about conventional tampons as if they were poison capsules, while researchers at tampon-manufacturing companies maintain that their products are perfectly safe. “All tampon materials and finished products are assessed for safety using the broadly recognized risk-assessment principles established by the US National Academy of Sciences and World Health Organization,” Anne Hochwalt, then a researcher at Procter & Gamble, told us in an interview.
And before you spend your money on organic tampons, keep in mind that a “100% organic” label addresses only how the cotton is grown and sourced (according to USDA standards, if you’re buying such tampons in the US). However, even organic cotton can negatively impact the environment.
Organic tampons are not necessarily processed any differently than tampons made from synthetic materials, and they are not any “safer” from a personal health perspective. Tampon ingredients that tend to give people pause include rayon and dioxins.
Rayon: Many tampons are made from a mix of cotton and rayon. Manufacturers use rayon—a material formed from wood pulp in a chemical process—because it’s more absorbent than cotton and is not a crop, which means that the companies aren’t totally reliant on a plant that might have a bad year and suddenly become more expensive. Some people worry that synthetic fibers increase the risk of toxic shock syndrome because they were implicated in the TSS boom in the late 1970s, but tampon makers no longer use those particular fibers. According to the FDA, the presence of rayon in a tampon does not appear to increase the risk of TSS. The Tampax Pearl ingredient list says that Pearl tampons may include rayon, while Tampax Pure and both of our O.B. picks are free of rayon.
Dioxins: Tampons undergo bleaching during the manufacturing process. This step makes them white in color and also helps remove waxes and anything else that might impede absorption. The FDA now requires tampons to be bleached using what’s called “elemental chlorine-free” processes. That means that the process uses no elemental chlorine gas but might include chlorine dioxide. Although chlorine dioxide is toxic in large doses, it’s safe for bleaching things like tampons and flour, and for disinfecting municipal drinking water.
People worry about bleaching with elemental chlorine because the process can produce dioxins and “dioxin-like compounds.” Dioxins are highly toxic in some doses, and the World Health Organization calls dioxins environmental pollutants. But tampon makers no longer bleach their products with elemental chlorine. The FDA, meanwhile, asks tampon manufacturers to regularly monitor the level of dioxins in their products; the FDA also says that those levels, found in both organic and non-organic tampons, are low enough that they’re not worth worrying about. Plus, dioxins are all around in low levels: Meat, dairy, fish, and shellfish all contain dioxins. In one paper that examined the level of dioxins in both tampons and diapers, the authors conclude that “exposures to dioxins from tampons are approximately 13,000–240,000 times less than dietary exposures.” In other words, don’t worry about it.
Some of the tampons in our test group bear a “chlorine-free” label, which means that the manufacturer doesn’t use chlorine to bleach those tampons (some companies use peroxide instead). Such tampons perform just as well as others, but since the result of bleaching isn’t something you should worry about, a “chlorine-free” designation shouldn’t be a factor in which tampon you pick.
And nothing we read raised health concerns about the materials in the applicators. You can choose between plastic and cardboard based on other parameters without having to think about safety; your choice should come down to comfort and how you feel about the garbage you produce. Although Tampax claims that its cardboard applicators are biodegradable and flushable, many plumbers disagree. Plastic applicators are not biodegradable or recyclable.
What to look forward to
We’re testing “spiral”-shape tampons from Sequel.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENTThe competition
All the tampons we tested worked fine when we filled them with the amount of liquid they were rated to hold. So if you’re overwhelmed by the tampon selection at the store, keep in mind that any of these should be fine for you as long as you don’t push your luck in how much you expect them to absorb. Note that when we refer to a brand as not being a standout, it doesn’t mean that those tampons performed poorly; rather, they just did their job. Our picks are the tampons that testers said exceeded expectations.
The conventional, non-applicator O.B. Original sometimes stuck to the cellophane during unwrapping, and we found it more prone to shedding than our digital picks. However, this is the only non-applicator brand to come in ultra absorbency, which many people—including our “volcano flow” tester—appreciate. (In 2010, O.B. temporarily discontinued its ultra Original tampons and then reintroduced them following customer uproar.)
Cora, an organic brand, is the only company that sells non-applicator light tampons, but it wasn’t a standout in any other way. However, in our tests its uniquely tiny light digital version was beloved by people who had this level of flow.
Panel testers disliked U by Kotex Click, our previous top pick, because of its compact applicator, which had a tendency to fail.
The Honey Pot Organic Bio-Plastic Applicator Tampons performed fine in our tests, but are more expensive than our picks.
Other conventional tampon brands that we tried in our blind panel test pool included Solimo (Amazon’s brand), Tampax Cardboard, U by Kotex Security, Playtex Simply Gentle Glide, and Playtex Sport. None stood out from the field; compared with Tampax Pearl, these tampons had inferior applicators or wrappers.
Tampax Pocket Pearl, Tampax Radiant, Tampax Pocket Radiant, and Tampax Pearl Active all seemed to contain the same tampon as Tampax Pearl, the brand’s mainstay option, within a slightly different applicator, so we chose not to include them in our panel test.
Playtex Sport Compact and Playtex Stella (currently unavailable) seemed to have the same tampon as Playtex Sport within slightly different plastic applicators, so we did not include these in the testing pool.
U by Kotex Fitness and U by Kotex Sleek seemed to be the same tampon as U by Kotex Click. The Fitness applicator is compact, and the Sleek applicator is full-size, but both cost an average of over 30¢ per tampon, making them much more expensive than the conventional competition. We decided not to add these to the panel test.
We had some of the testers who tried digital tampons test reusable tampon applicators from Dame (£25, or about $32) and Thinx (currently unavailable). Although we recognize that some people who prefer not to (or are unable to) insert digital tampons without an applicator may find these waste-reducing options useful, we found them clumsy to use overall. Thinx’s reusable applicator, in particular, had a soft silicone holder that didn’t always stay in place during insertion. The Dame holder and plunger felt comparatively sturdy but still wasn’t foolproof in our experience.
If you’re particularly concerned about environmental impact, you might be tempted to replace tampons with “sea sponges” that you can wash and reuse multiple times. According to obstetrician-gynecologist Jen Gunter, these are unsafe. If you’d like to avoid disposables, you might try a menstrual cup, a reusable pad, or period underwear instead.
This article was edited by Tracy Vence and Kalee Thompson.
Footnotes
Calculation is based on the manufacturer-suggested retail price (MSRP) in September 2023.
Jump back.On average, menstruating people have approximately 474 cycles, lasting around six days each. Multiplying that number by 24 hours, and then dividing by six hours between tampon changes (as a conservative estimate), the calculation shows that a person with periods might use more than 11,000 tampons in total.
Jump back.
Sources
Anne Hochwalt, researcher at Procter & Gamble, interview
Philip M. Tierno Jr., professor and researcher at the NYU School of Medicine, interview
Terry Balluck, spokesperson for Kimberly-Clark, interview
Deborah Kotz, spokesperson for FDA Media Relations, interview
Sharra Vostral, author of Under Wraps: A History of Menstrual Hygiene Technology, interview
Menstrual Tampons and Pads: Information for Premarket Notification Submissions - Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff, U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Michael J. DeVito and Arnold Schecter, Exposure assessment to dioxins from the use of tampons and diapers, Environmental Health Perspectives, January 1, 2002
Dioxins and their effects on human health, World Health Organization, October 4, 2016
Rana A. Hajjeh, Arthur L. Reingold, Alexis Weil, Kathleen Shutt, Anne Schuchat, and Bradley A. Perkins, Toxic Shock Syndrome in the United States: Surveillance Update, 1979–1996, Emerging Infectious Diseases, December 11, 1999
Aaron S. DeVries, Lindsey Lesher, Patrick M. Schlievert, Tyson Rogers, Lourdes G. Villaume, Richard Danila, and Ruth Lynfield, Staphylococcal Toxic Shock Syndrome 2000–2006: Epidemiology, Clinical Features, and Molecular Characteristics, PLoS ONE, August 10, 2011
Philip M. Tierno Jr. and Bruce A. Hanna, Propensity of Tampons and Barrier Contraceptives to Amplify Staphylococcus aureus Toxic Shock Syndrome Toxin-I, Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology, July 21, 1994
Meet your guide
Nancy Redd is a senior staff writer covering health and grooming at Wirecutter. She is a GLAAD Award–nominated on-air host and a New York Times best-selling author. Her latest nonfiction book, The Real Body Manual, is a visual health and wellness guide for young adults of all genders. Her other books include Bedtime Bonnet and Pregnancy, OMG!
Further reading
The Cora Menstrual Cup Eliminated My Monthly Period Stress. It Also Helped Me Save More Than $500 (So Far).
by Sarah Gannett
After 10 years of my using a menstrual cup, the part of my brain that was always monitoring how many tampons or pads I had on hand has been set free.
The Best Menstrual Cups and Discs
by Rose Eveleth
After trying more than 40 different menstrual cups and discs, we’ve found the best options for different bodies and preferences.
What We Think of Thinx’s Period Sex Blanket
by Shannon Palus
Thinx now sells a $370 period sex blanket. But you don’t need to buy anything to have period sex. And if you're worried about stains, you have other options.
We Had 44 Period and Incontinence Products Tested for Forever Chemicals. Many Were Contaminated.
by Nancy Redd
Some of the menstrual products marketed as PFAS-free turned out to be likely contaminated with those substances.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT