Modal v Bamboo

a data backed fabric comparison

Modal v Bamboo

When it comes to premium men’s underwear, comfort, durability and value matter. 

Modal vs Bamboo - a data backed fabric comparison

How strong the fabric is before it rips (Tensile Strength (cN/tex))

Modal Bamboo Comparison
35 cN/tex
Higher durability, resists stretching
21 cN/tex
Weaker, prone to wear
Modal is 66% stronger than bamboo.


How long it stretches before it snaps (Elongation (%))

Modal Bamboo Comparison
13%
Good elasticity, resists breaking
17%
More stretchable, but weaker structure
Bamboo is 31% more stretchable but weaker.

 

How hard the fabric is to rip (Tear Strength (gf))

Modal Bamboo Comparison
1900 gf (warp), 1800 gf (weft)
High resistance to tearing
1400 gf (warp), 1350 gf (weft)
Less resistant to tearing
Modal has 35% better tear resistance.


How well air flows through the fabric (breathability) (Air Permeability (mm/sec))

Modal Bamboo Comparison
600 mm/sec
More breathable
500 mm/sec Moderate breathability
Modal is 20% more breathable.

 

How well the fabric absorbs and drys sweat (OMCC rate)

Modal Bamboo Comparison
0.75 OMMC
Higher moisture-wicking ability
0.50 OMMC
Absorbs but slower wicking
Modal wicks sweat 50% more efficiently.

 

How fast the fabric lets sweat evaporate (Water Vapor Permeability (g/m²/day))

Modal Bamboo Comparison
1450 g/m²/day
Dries faster, better for humid conditions
1350 g/m²/day Moderate vapor transmission
Modal has 7.4% better breathability.

 

When it comes to premium men's underwear, Modal outperforms Bamboo in key areas like strength, durability, and breathability. Backed by data, Modal is 66% stronger, 35% more tear-resistant, and 50% better at moisture-wicking than Bamboo. It also offers 20% better breathability and dries 7.4% faster, making it the superior choice for long-lasting comfort and performance.

All data sourced from Latif, W. et al. (2018) ‘Study of mechanical and comfort properties of modal with cotton and regenerated fibers blended woven fabrics’, Journal of Natural Fibers, 16(6), pp. 836–845.