We independently review everything we recommend. When you buy through our links, we may earn a commission. Learn more›
Nancy Redd is a writer who covers health and grooming. She has tested dozens of hair dryers, toothbrushes, and pairs of period underwear. 25grams Shredded Tissue
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.
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.
May be out of stock
Easy to unwrap and insert, the Pro Comfort tampons shed fewer fibers than most applicator-free (aka “digital”) tampons, testers found.
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 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.
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.
May be out of stock
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: 21¢, pack of 50 Tampax Pure: 32¢, pack of 72
Easy to unwrap and insert, the Pro Comfort tampons shed fewer fibers than most applicator-free (aka “digital”) tampons, testers found.
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: 50¢, pack of 40 O.B. Organic: 64¢, pack of 24
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.)
Our research and testing didn’t reveal any notable differences in tampon safety and efficacy (except in the case of sea sponges, which we highly advise you avoid putting inside your vagina). 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.)
Of course, many people use tampons along with menstrual pads, which have long been overall the more popular choice. (Fun fact: Only Germans and Austrians have a higher tampon-use rate than Americans; people in much of the rest of the world rely even more exclusively on pads.) 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.
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.
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.
In every test we conducted, “sport” tampons were the same as their non-sport counterparts, with a slightly different applicator.
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.
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.
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: polyethylene with pigments for color (applicator), cotton and/or rayon (absorbent core), polyethylene and polypropylene (thin fabric veil around absorbent core), polypropylene (LeakGuard braid), cotton (string), polyester (thread), polyethylene (wrapper).
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.
This organic version of the Pearl tampons has the same highly rated plastic applicator and wrapper.
May be out of stock
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: polyethylene (applicator), organic cotton (absorbent core), organic cotton (thin fabric veil around absorbent core), polypropylene (LeakGuard braid), cotton (string), polyester (thread), polyethylene (wrapper).
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.
Easy to unwrap and insert, the Pro Comfort tampons shed fewer fibers than most applicator-free (aka “digital”) tampons, testers found.
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).
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.)
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).
Like O.B. Pro Comfort tampons, O.B. Organic tampons come in only regular and super absorbencies.
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.
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. (The only things that should go down a toilet, they say, are the three Ps: pee, poop, and toilet paper.) Plastic applicators are not biodegradable or recyclable.
The vagina is full of bacteria. Most of the time, the bacteria live peacefully and don’t cause problems. On rare occasions, people with vaginas have a natural population of a bacteria strain that results in toxic shock syndrome (TSS) when it grows unchecked: either Staphylococcus aureus (known colloquially as staph), or even more rarely, Streptococcus pyogenes (colloquially known as strep).
TSS can result from things other than tampons, including menstrual cups. But the materials used in certain tampons made in the late 1970s and early 1980s (such as polyester foam and cross-linked carboxymethylcellulose) provided a particularly suitable environment for the bacteria that can cause TSS, and most people know about TSS because of the spike in tampon-related cases around that time.
Between 1980 and 1983, the Center for Disease Control (as it was called at the time) recorded more than 2,200 cases of TSS, with over 100 resulting deaths and many other people experiencing serious complications. When the CDC dug further, it found that the vast majority of the cases were in people who were menstruating. Upon even deeper investigation, the CDC found that people who used a tampon were far more likely to come down with TSS than people who didn’t. One tampon in particular, Rely, was strongly linked to many TSS cases. In September 1980, Rely’s manufacturer removed those tampons from the market.
Researchers who study S. aureus (staph) think that the synthetic materials used in Rely, the aforementioned foam and cellulose, created perfect conditions for the bacteria to grow. (Those materials are no longer present in tampons.) And since Rely was one of a handful of “super-absorbent” tampons, designed to be left in for longer than your average tampon, it gave the bacteria plenty of time to multiply.
Since then, the CDC has been watching for cases of TSS. Between 1979 and 1996, it noted 5,296 recorded cases. Researchers who looked at the rate of TSS between 2000 and 2006 reported in 2011 that the rate of TSS remained low and relatively stable.
Since the early 1980s, the FDA has required tampon manufacturers to put warnings about 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.
Over time, people who do have what’s called a “toxigenic strain” of staph or strep will develop antibodies to protect themselves from unchecked infections. Philip Tierno, a professor of microbiology and pathology at the NYU School of Medicine and an expert on TSS, told us in an interview that at the age of 15, a person who menstruates has about a 60 percent chance of having natural antibodies to protect them. That percentage goes up over the years: At 20, they have a 75 percent chance of being protected; at 30, they have a 90 percent chance of having those safety antibodies. It’s never a sure thing, but Tierno told us that younger people should be more careful with their tampon use than older people, who might already be protected even if they have the rare toxigenic strain living in their vaginas.
Overall, the evidence to support organic over non-organic tampons isn’t conclusive.
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.
One study we found says that organic-cotton tampons decrease the risk of TSS dramatically, but another study found the opposite to be true. Overall, the evidence to support organic over non-organic tampons isn’t conclusive. So if you’re buying an organic-cotton variant purely out of fear of TSS or worries about other chemicals in tampons, save your money.
We’ll test “spiral”-shape tampons from Sequel once they’re widely available (which, according to a company spokesperson, should be this year).
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.
We also tested organic tampons from Oi, Rael, and Organyc and found that none were standouts worth paying more for compared with O.B. Organic. Rael’s non-applicator tampon was, however, one of the least sheddy (tied with O.B. Organic).
The Honest Company’s tampons (currently unavailable) came in only super and super plus absorbencies and were more expensive than our picks. We chose not to test them.
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 Active Pearl 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 considered the “natural”—but not organic—Just (by Tampax), as well as Brandless cardboard applicator tampons, but chose not to panel-test either. The Just tampons were more expensive than most of the conventional competition at the time of our research, and Brandless shut down.
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.
After trying more than 40 different menstrual cups and discs, we’ve found the best options for different bodies and preferences.
Period underwear is more reliable—and better looking—than ever. The best pairs for you depend on your period and preferences. We recommend several styles.
Of the eight reusable pads I tried, the Aisle Super Pad wears and washes better than the competition and has never leaked or otherwise let me down.
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.
Some of the menstrual products marketed as PFAS-free turned out to be likely contaminated with those substances.
Calculation is based on the manufacturer-suggested retail price (MSRP) in September 2023.
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.
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
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!
The FSA deadline is coming up and we've got you covered with these FSA-eligible Wirecutter picks.
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.
After trying more than 40 different menstrual cups and discs, we’ve found the best options for different bodies and preferences.
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.
Rainbow Foil Tissue Paper Wirecutter is the product recommendation service from The New York Times. Our journalists combine independent research with (occasionally) over-the-top testing so you can make quick and confident buying decisions. Whether it’s finding great products or discovering helpful advice, we’ll help you get it right (the first time).