Foam mattresses recently performed only satisfactorily at Stiftung Warentest. Now alternatives with innerspring came under the microscope – for one and two people. The results were partly good. On the other hand, there were safety deficiencies in children’s mattresses.
Foam mattresses are particularly common in Germany. With good reason: some inexpensive models made of cold foam have repeatedly given good results at Stiftung Warentest in the past. But the last comparison in the spring ended somewhat disappointing: the stricter test criteria of the product testers only gave satisfactory results.
Now the mattress experts have also applied their new test program to innerspring mattresses. Seven models had to prove themselves both in a narrow version with a width of 90 centimeters and as a 140-centimeter double mattress for two people. And the foam alternatives actually did a little better: In addition to satisfactory results, there were also some good models – both in the narrow and in the wide version.
Basically, the question of foam or feathers is one of personal preferences. Mattresses with a spring core are more breathable and therefore good for sleepers with a tendency to sweat. Those who tend to freeze at night, on the other hand, could get too cold on feathers. In addition, spring mattresses are robust and durable, while foam can sag faster. Since the springs are mostly made of steel, the mattresses also weigh significantly more, which makes turning and turning difficult.
Some innerspring mattresses are “good”
The Emma Dynamic model was particularly convincing in the test. It performed best both in the narrow version with 90 centimeters and as a two-person mattress with 140 centimeters. The small Emma costs around 250 euros, the big one 450 euros. The Breckle Smart Sleep 6000 KS TFK came in second place for narrow mattresses for 400 euros. Among the wide models, the Badenia Trendline BT 1000 Classic was second best (420 euros). The cheapest mattress in the comparison of Mattresses Concord at 199 or 269 euros was also just good in both versions.
With the wide mattresses, the test takes into account whether two people can sleep comfortably on them. In most models, the partner’s movements on the other half of the bed were barely noticeable and there was no curling effect either. If two very differently built people sleep together, however, it may be that one mattress is not optimal for both.
By the way, innerspring fans can safely ignore one sales argument: the number of springs – in the models tested, the testers counted between 199 and 628 springs per square meter – is not a quality feature according to the product test. The mattresses with fewer springs sometimes offered better lying properties than those with more springs.
Safety deficiencies in children’s mattresses
In a separate test, Stiftung Warentest also examined children’s mattresses. Spring cores are not used in children because of their low weight; the children’s models examined were made of foam, synthetic fleece and coconut. 10 out of 14 children’s mattresses achieved good and satisfactory marks – four, however, failed with “poor”. The reason: Part of the zipper could be pulled off on all four, so that there is a risk of choking and suffocation for small children.
You can find all test results for innerspring, foam and children’s mattresses for a fee at
Jane Stock is a technology author, who has written for 24 Hours World. She writes about the latest in technology news and trends, and is always on the lookout for new and innovative ways to improve his audience’s experience.
