Which Plastic Trim Restorer Brand Wins?
We compared 9 plastic trim restorer options head to head. Cerakote came out on top. See the measured results, the runner-up, the budget pick, and a link to the full test video.
Cerakote
Price shown in test: $19.99 for just 10 ceramic wipes, the most expensive product tested (no per-ounce figure given since it's a wipe, not a liquid)
Affiliate link. We may earn a commission at no extra cost to you.
The measured results
Every number below is read straight from the test. Scroll sideways to see all measurements. Products are listed in the order they finished.
| Product | Origin | Initial 24-hour appearance | 5-day outdoor UV exposure test | Dust/dirt attraction test | Initial hydrophobic/water-beading test | Strip wash durability | Bug and tar remover + strip wash durability | Industrial degreaser durability | Numeric UV-meter test (point decrease from baseline) | Real-world application | Numeric UV-meter test | Intended use | Application |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1Cerakote Trim Coat (ceramic wipes)$19.99 for just 10 ceramic wipes, the most expensive product tested (no per-ounce figure given since it's a wipe, not a liquid) | made in USA | compared to Adam's, definitely done the best job at restoring the plastic trim to a high-gloss, like-new finish; the coating is smooth and not at all sticky or greasy | done by far the best of all the products tested | the hard, smooth ceramic coating has done an excellent job preventing dust accumulation | doing a great job | excellent hydrophobic qualities | water still beading very well | looks completely unharmed; still doing just as good as when it was first applied | 200 point decrease, the best of all products tested | applied to the badly UV-faded front bumper of the narrator's own 1996 Dodge Ram 2500 (20+ years of exposure) after thorough pressure-washing/scrubbing prep; described as looking amazing and significantly improving the truck's overall appearance | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 2Chemical Guys Tire and Trim Gel97 cents per ounce or $15.52 for 16 oz | made in California, USA | gave the faded bumper a much fresher look versus 303 (a big difference), though slightly patchy in one area | held up far better than Meguiar's, Turtle Wax, and 303, though not quite as glossy after 5 days | did a good job, not much dust accumulation | did a better job than 303; both Chemical Guys and Mother's did very well | very close with Mother's, but Chemical Guys definitely doing a better job | now doing a slightly better job than Mother's | looked pretty used up early on, but performing a little better than Mother's overall; both did very well in this test | not tested | not tested | not given a specific point-decrease figure in the transcript (only Cerakote 200, Mother's 140, Adam's 90, and Meguiar's/Turtle Wax tied at 85 are stated by number) | not tested | not tested |
| 3Mother's Back to Black Trim and Plastic Restorer$1 per ounce or $9.99 for 10 oz | made in USA | looked really good, with a more consistent, glossy, smooth finish than Chemical Guys | done a good job, though like Chemical Guys there are some patchy areas | about the same as Chemical Guys, very little dust accumulation | did a very good job, alongside Chemical Guys | very close with Chemical Guys, but Chemical Guys edged it out | Chemical Guys now slightly ahead of Mother's | looked about the same as Carfidant at this stage; both Chemical Guys and Mother's did very well overall | not tested | not tested | 140 point decrease, second-best of all products tested (behind only Cerakote's 200) | not tested | not tested |
| 4Carfidant Ultimate Plastic and Trim Restorer$2.02 per ounce or $16.99 for just 8.4 oz | made in USA | compared to Mother's, didn't do as well restoring the trim's appearance | definitely did not do as well as Chemical Guys and Mother's Back to Black | doesn't have very much shine, so it looks dustier than it actually is (a visual-appearance caveat, not necessarily true higher dust accumulation) | didn't provide a very glossy finish, but did a great job with water beading | water beading slightly better than Mother's at this stage | still beading more than it's sheeting, holding up reasonably | looked pretty much the same as Mother's at this stage; later noted as still looking better than Adam's | not tested | not tested | not given a specific point-decrease figure in the transcript | not tested | not tested |
| 5Adam's New Black Trim Restorer$3.18 per ounce or $12.70 for just 4 oz | made in USA | did a better job than Carfidant on appearance, but the plastic surface seemed greasy or sticky | the intense heat and sunlight definitely cooked off the Adam's across a large part of the treated area | definitely more dust accumulation compared to most of the other products, though about the same as 303 | clearly worse than Cerakote in a direct side-by-side | water just isn't beading up very well | pretty much used up | looks just as used up as the rest of the brands | not tested | not tested | 90 point decrease, third-best of all products tested | not tested | not tested |
| 6303 Aerospace Protectant95 cents per ounce or $15.52 for 16 oz | made in USA | definitely did not do as well as Turtle Wax | looked a little more faded than Meguiar's and Turtle Wax, about the same as the unprotected trim | more dust accumulation compared to Turtle Wax | hydrophobic qualities definitely better with Turtle Wax compared to 303 | not doing as well as Turtle Wax or Meguiar's | grouped among the weaker performers; Turtle Wax still outperforming Meguiar's and 303 | looked pretty used up alongside Chemical Guys | not tested | not tested | not given a specific point-decrease figure in the transcript | not tested | not tested |
| 7Turtle Wax Trim Restorer70 cents per ounce or $6.97 for 10 oz | made in USA | paired directly with Meguiar's; neither product restored the plastic trim to a like-new appearance even after two coats | didn't hold up much better than Meguiar's, both looked about the same | did a better job than Meguiar's, less dust accumulation | water beading up better than Meguiar's | still beading better than Meguiar's | still outperforming Meguiar's and 303 | really wiped out, same as Meguiar's | not tested | not tested | 85 point decrease, tied with Meguiar's for the worst (lowest) score of the field | not tested | not tested |
| 8Meguiar's Ultimate Black Plastic Restorer62 cents per ounce or $7.49 for 12 oz, the least expensive product tested | made in USA | even after two coats, did not restore the plastic trim to a like-new appearance | doesn't look much better than the uncoated plastic after 5 days of direct sunlight | collected quite a bit of dust | beading up compared to untreated, but weaker than Turtle Wax | water beading, but Turtle Wax still doing better | grouped among the weaker performers (worn down along with 303) | really wiped out | not tested | not tested | 85 point decrease, tied with Turtle Wax for the worst (lowest) score of the field | not tested | not tested |
| 9AT-205 Re-Seal (rubber seal/gasket stop-leak product, tested off-label as a trim restorer) | made in USA | hasn't done very well; looks about the same as the untreated area next to it | not tested | more dust accumulation than several of the other products, and worse than the untreated plastic | did not do a very good job | water not beading up effectively | same, water not beading up effectively | definitely used up | not tested | not tested | not tested/given a number in the transcript | designed to stop leaks in engine, transmission, power steering, differential, and hydraulic systems by restoring worn/dried-out rubber seals and gaskets; not designed as a plastic trim restorer | tested off-label at repeated viewer request; two coats applied 5 minutes apart |
How it was tested
- initial 24-hour appearance/restoration comparison (paired product-vs-product visual assessment on a 2003 Chevrolet Suburban's faded black trim, after bug/tar remover, strip wash, and pressure washing prep)
- 5-day outdoor UV exposure test (direct sunlight, no rain) on treated glass panels, visual fade comparison against uncoated control
- numeric UV-meter test: UV sensor reading through a glass jar coated with each product, point decrease from an approximately 3,400-unit direct-sunlight baseline measured per product
- dust/dirt attraction test (vehicle driven a couple of miles down a gravel road, plus an air blower to stir up dust)
- initial hydrophobic/water-beading test after rinsing off dust
- strip wash detergent durability test
- bug and tar remover plus strip wash durability test
- industrial degreaser durability test
- real-world application test: the winning product (Cerakote) applied to a 20-plus-year-old, heavily UV-faded bumper on the narrator's own 1996 Dodge Ram 2500
“Cerakote has definitely done by far the best of all the products we've tested.”
Data notes and caveats
Cerakote is the clear, repeatedly-declared winner across every sub-test. No single runner-up is named: the narrator gives two separate closing recommendations for different scenarios - Chemical Guys for newer vehicles washed/detailed often, and Mother's Back to Black as also doing 'very well' but slower to apply - so runnerUp is left null and both alternates are preserved in their own product notes rather than forcing one into second place. No budget pick is named; Meguiar's is the cheapest product but is never framed as a value recommendation and was one of the two weakest performers. The products[] order beyond the declared winner (Cerakote) is this worker's DERIVED aggregation from the many pairwise qualitative comparisons and the numeric UV-meter scores, since the video gives no single explicit full 1-through-9 ranking; treat that ordering as computed, not a verbatim narrator ranking. chapterMap is false because the meta chapter '303 Aerospace Protectant: $15.52' spans 131s-606s (about 8 minutes), clearly bundling in the initial-appearance test, the 5-day UV test, and the dust/hydrophobic/durability tests for ALL nine products, not just 303's introduction. Data quality is otherwise high: brand names are consistent and unambiguous throughout (aside from the AT-205/ATD-205 caption variant, easily resolved), and dense verifiable price and UV-meter numeric data is given for most products; one flagged inconsistency is 303's stated 95-cents-per-ounce figure, which doesn't match the 97-cents-per-ounce implied by its own stated $15.52-for-16-oz price (the same total price Chemical Guys correctly states as 97 cents/oz).