Work Gloves 2026 Test: Which Brand Wins?

(heaviest of all brands)

lightest of all brands

of force - very stiff

tied with Palmer for 2nd-least-stiff

tied for 2nd-least-stiff

same as Magid

fairly stiff

one of the stiffest gloves at the time

not given a clear number; the transcript sentence introducing DeWalt's comfort/stiffness ('The Dwalt seems more comfortable than necess.') is garbled and cuts off mid-word, so no figure is recorded here

a little stiffer than DeWalt

the least stiff (most flexible) glove in the video, won this category outright

very stiff, 'the stiffest gloves yet' at the point tested (later exceeded by Kinco's 7.7 lb)

the stiffest glove in the entire video

tied with Palmer and Toolant for 2nd-least-stiff

quite a bit stiffer than Superior Glove

index finger (2-layer) 8.95 lb, other fingers (1-layer) 6.9 lb - 1st place by a wide margin, described as running 'circles around the competition'

described as about average

(index/primary finger); back of the finger just over 2 lb

index finger 3.39 lb; back of the glove (thinner) 1.22 lb

two-layer fingertip 3.36 lb; single-layer fingers 1.44 lb; back of hand 0.32 lb - weakest back-of-hand protection of any brand

described as about average; no separate index/other-finger breakdown given for this brand

described as offering 'very little protection'

same as Magid

two-layer fingertip 2.115 lb; single-layer fingers 1.86 lb; back of hand 1.71 lb

gave up sooner than most

fingertips gave up at just over 2 lb; two separate 'single layer' figures are then given (1.44 lb and 1.53 lb) without a clear distinction between which layer or finger each refers to - both are preserved here rather than picking one

double-layer fingertip, 3.39 lb - 3rd place in the closing puncture recap

on the weak side

2nd place in the closing puncture recap

weak despite marketed impact and puncture resistance claims

double-layer fingertip 3.13 lb; single-layer 1.9 lb

about the same as HexArmor

2nd place at the point it was tested

weakest grip of any brand

described as performing well

took the lead at the point it was tested (credited to its 'nitro grip' texture); finished 2nd in the closing grip recap

described as about average

moved into 2nd place behind Magid at the time; finished 3rd in the closing grip recap

a little better than average

described as not offering a lot of grip

won the grip test outright, described as adding 'the most grip yet... to move into the lead over the Magid'

more grip than most other brands

described as a poor combination given how stiff the glove is

the weakest grip result along with Carhartt's tier

a little better than average

described as not offering much grip

2nd place behind HexArmor at the point it was tested

tied with Wells Lamont

among the weakest

among the weakest, tied with Magid

tied with WZQH

among the weakest, tied with HandyLandy

took the lead at the point it was tested; finished 2nd in the closing cut-resistance recap behind Kinco

longer than average

tied with Mechanix

tied with West Chester

won this category outright, the best of any brand

weak

better than average

readings 18.41 mm and 18.11 mm, 1.64 mm total damage

readings 18.42 mm and 18.23 mm, 1.51 mm total damage - 3rd place in the closing recap

readings 18.22 mm and 18.01 mm, 1.93 mm total damage

readings 18.21 mm and 17.67 mm; no total-damage figure explicitly stated, only described as 'even more damage' than Palmer

readings 18.07 mm and 17.77 mm; no total-damage figure explicitly stated

readings 17.5 mm and 17.45 mm, 3.21 mm total damage - the worst (most damage) of any brand, despite being marketed for impact resistance

readings 18.16 mm and 17.93 mm, just over 2 mm total damage

readings 17.8 mm and 17.0 mm (flat), 3.36 mm total damage - the worst of any brand despite marketed back-of-hand protection

readings 18.35 mm and 18.66 mm, 1.15 mm total damage - 2nd place in the closing recap behind G&F

readings 18.35 mm and 18.14 mm, described only as 'better than average' with no exact total damage figure spoken

readings 18.26 mm and 18.15 mm, 1.75 mm total damage

readings 18.43 mm and 18.2 mm, 1.51 mm total damage (this figure happens to match WZQH's separately stated 1.51 mm closing-recap result; both are preserved as independently spoken rather than treated as the same data point)

readings 18.38 mm and 17.72 mm, 'just over 2 mm' total damage, described as struggling to protect the dowel despite above-average thickness

readings 18.21 mm and 18.13 mm, described only as 'better than Carhartt' with no exact total figure spoken

readings 18.0 mm and 18.42 mm, 1.74 mm total damage

readings 18.18 mm and 17.84 mm, 2.13 mm total damage