Comparison Tool

Pick a category, tick up to 4 products and compare price, score, use and specs side by side. Products are each brand's reference models, taken from their official sites.

This comparison tool puts the product pages tested by the MMA Official team side by side. Pick two to four pieces of gear, the tool lines up their specs row by row, and you see right away what sets them apart: overall rating, observed price, material, recommended use, strengths, limits and test verdict.

It covers the categories where we have a full test: MMA gloves, sparring headgear, mouthguards, groin guards, heavy bags, mats, rash guards, shorts, cages and beginner kits. A product only shows up here after going through the protocol described in our methodology.

How to read the comparison

Each row of the table is a criterion we measure the same way on every product in a category. Here is what each one covers.

  • Overall rating: the weighted summary of the category criteria. It cannot be compared across categories, since a glove and a mat are not judged on the same points.
  • Price: the public price observed at the time of the test. It moves, so treat it as a ballpark figure, not a fixed reference.
  • Material: the composition stated by the brand, checked by hand when possible. Full-grain leather, synthetic leather and vinyl do not age the same way.
  • Use: the discipline the product is actually suited to. A competition-approved glove is not always right for sparring, and the reverse is true too.
  • Pros and cons: what we found in use, not what the sales sheet promises.
  • Verdict: who the product is a good buy for, and who it is not.

Comparing products from different categories

It is possible, but it makes little sense. Rating criteria differ from one gear family to another, so the scores do not line up. The category filter is there to avoid that trap: first pick the family you care about, then the models you want to settle between.

Independent testing

No brand pays to appear in this comparison tool and none reviews our conclusions before publication. When a product disappoints, we say so. The full protocol, funding sources and test team are public on the methodology page.