2025 test14 productsHome & Cleaning
Which Tarps Brand Wins?
We compared 14 tarps options head to head. CAMPMAC Super HD came out on top. See the measured results, the runner-up, the budget pick, and a link to the full test video.
Winner
CAMPMAC Super HD
Price shown in test: $50
Check price on Amazon
Affiliate link. We may earn a commission at no extra cost to you.
Runner-up
CAMPMAC HD
Price shown in test: $50
Check price on Amazon
Affiliate link. We may earn a commission at no extra cost to you.
Budget pick
Rugged Rhino
Price shown in test: $26 for two tarps, or $13 each
Check price on Amazon
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 | Claimed thickness | Weight | Country of origin | Early condition | Condition near 1 year | Hay and water protection after 1 year | UV resistance rating (1 to X scale, 1 is best) | Water protection rating (1 to X scale, 1 is best) | UV meter reading, new (microwatts per sq cm, 0 is best) | UV meter reading, after 1 year UV exposure | Waterproof after 1 year UV exposure | Grommet strength, new (lbs of force) | Tear resistance, UV exposed area after 1 year (lbs of force) | Puncture resistance, new (g of force) | Puncture resistance, UV exposed area after 1 year (g of force) | Overall average finish (1st to 14th place ranking averaged across all tests) | Tear resistance, new tarp (lbs of force) | UV meter reading, new | UV meter reading, after 1 year UV exposure (microwatts per sq cm) | Early condition (about 4 months) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1CAMPMAC Super HD$50 | not stated as a mil rating; claims waterproof, UV resistant, dust resistant, tear resistant, all weather, wear proof | 6,710 g, by far the heaviest of all 14 tarps | China | still in very good condition with no visible damage from UV or wind | holding up very well from the wind as well as the UV exposure | did the best job of all the brands, hay looks as good as the day it was covered | 1, best possible rating, tied with CAMPMAC HD and Zuperia | 1, best possible rating; five other unnamed brands scored 1.5 | 0 | 0, perfect score both new and after a year | pass, holding water | 326.4, first place by a wide margin, described as running circles around the competition | 29.8, first place | 580, second place | 705, first place, became even harder after a year of UV exposure | 1.4, first place overall | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 2CAMPMAC HD$22 | 12 mil (claimed), metal grommets every 20 in | 2,008 g | China | looks pretty good from a distance, but up close the vinyl coating appears to be breaking down | looking great on the wind exposed side; the sun exposed side is beginning to experience cracks in the vinyl coating | held up really well in sunlight, laminated coating appears to block water and sunlight, did a terrific job protecting the hay | 1, best possible rating | not tested | 0 | 0, perfect score | pass, holding water just as well as Rugged Rhino and King-A-Ma-Jigs | 89.9, described as the grommet giving up early despite terrific wind and UV durability | 28.8, second place | 360, second place | 275, third place | 2.6, second place overall | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 3Patiobay$24 | 14 mil (claimed), brass grommets, rip and tear proof, reinforced edges, UV resistant | 2,190 g, heaviest of the first 12 tarps introduced | China | holding up nicely to wind, UV exposure has caused some damage to the vinyl coating | holding up well from wind, but direct sunlight caused even more damage than the Amazon Basics; coating rubbing away very easily | laminate coating damaged by sunlight but not as bad as Harbor Freight Extreme; wind exposed side looks about as good as new; hay looks really good with no water damage | not tested | not tested | 0, started off perfect | 1, performed almost as well after a year | pass, aced this test | approximately 250 (stated as just under 250 lbs, about four times the Amazon Basics eyelet strength); finished second place overall in that test at 249.8 lbs | 7.8 | 535, third place | 355, second place | 2.9, third place overall | 74.9, second place | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 4Rugged Rhino$26 for two tarps, or $13 each | 5 mil (claimed), waterproof with extreme protection in all weather | 1,196 g, heaviest yet at the point it was introduced | China | definitely holding up the best so far; sun and wind exposed sides both still in good condition | definitely doing the best so far, looks almost as good as new on both sun and wind exposed sides | done a fantastic job protecting the hay, looks almost as good as the day it was covered, no visible water damage | 1.5 | not tested | 0 | 0, one of five brands that completely blocked sunlight both new and after a year | pass, the first brand to demonstrate complete waterproofing after a year of UV exposure | 99.9, described as not bad for a budget tarp | 16.1, third place | 270 | 195 | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 5King-A-Ma-Jigs Pro Series$20 | 10 mil (claimed), all weather, tear and fade resistant, double laminated, grommets every 18 in | 1,956 g | China | holding up quite a bit better than the Harbor Freight Extreme, no visible damage from sun or wind | still holding up better than the Harbor Freight Extreme, but feeling a little more gritty as the vinyl coating is at the early stages of breaking down | did a great job protecting the hay, looks almost as fresh as the day it was rolled | not tested | not tested | 0 | 0, earned a perfect score both new and used | pass, only the second brand to hold water | 199.8, took the lead over Harbor Freight Extreme, third place overall in that leaderboard | 1.1 | 245 | 90 | not tested | 90.6, first place | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 6Amazon Basics$23 | not stated as a mil rating; claims designed for camping, waterproof design, durable ripstop fabric, reinforced corners and edges | 1,038 g | China | beginning to show some damage on the sun exposed side, wind exposed side still looks pretty good | feels nice and smooth on the wind exposed side, but the sun exposed side is feeling pretty gritty as the vinyl coating breaks down | sun exposed side held up better than most, wind exposed side held up really well, performed just as well as the CAMPMAC HD at protecting the hay | not tested | not tested | 0 | 0, also earned perfect scores both new and used | pass for the section without a tear; a tear elsewhere in the tarp is implied since it is described as holding water only where untorn | just under 60, exact figure not stated, described as very lightweight with eyelets that do not offer much strength | 10.8 | 235 | 185 | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 7Cartman$26 for two tarps, or $13 each | 8 mil (claimed), waterproof, rip and tear resistant, UV resistant, strong grommets | 1,094 g, heaviest yet at the point it was introduced | China | holding up to the wind just fine, sun exposed side beginning to break down in some areas | performed about the same as the Harbor Freight Light Duty for sun exposure; held up really well to wind but has a hole from rubbing against hay stubble | described mid-video as looking the best so far with very little hay rot (before later brands were shown); final waterproof-after-1-year test result was a fail | not tested | not tested | 1 | 5 | fail, also leaking pretty badly | 52.9, about 10 lbs behind the Harbor Freight Light Duty | 13.2, moved into the lead at the time it was tested | 195 | 150 | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 8Harbor Freight Extreme$18 | 12 mil (claimed), 14 by 14 tightly woven strands per square inch, superior tensile strength and tear resistance | 2,130 g, by far the heaviest of the first 12 tarps introduced | China | wind exposed side holding up well; sun exposed coating breaking down a lot worse than the Harbor Freight Light Duty | holding up very well to wind, but sun exposure causing a tremendous amount of damage to the coating | the light duty Harbor Freight actually held up better on UV than the Extreme; the Extreme's laminated coating is completely destroyed although the wind exposed side is still in very good condition; light duty protected the hay better in some areas than the Extreme | not tested | not tested | 0, started off very strong | 17, let through quite a bit of radiation after aging | fail, also leaking pretty badly | 193.9, briefly took the lead before being overtaken by King-A-Ma-Jigs | 10.4, third place | 590, first place | 75, dropped sharply after aging | not tested | 70.6, third place | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 9Zuperia$45 | not stated as a mil rating; claims waterproof, repellent, breathable, ideal for covering anything outdoors | 4,192 g | China | looks faded, but no visible structural damage from wind or UV exposure | other than some additional fading, still looks good on both sides | faded but held up well to UV exposure; described as looking very porous and likely not blocking water; did not hold back water and caused quite a bit of hay damage | 1, best possible rating, tied with CAMPMAC HD and CAMPMAC Super HD | not tested | not tested | not tested | fail, leaking water pretty badly | 142, the only tarp made of a cloth-like material, about 108 lbs less than Patiobay | 6.3 | 200 | 105 | not tested | not tested | no exact reading given; described as a porous material that allows sunlight through when new | 14 | not tested |
| 10Grizzly$16 | 5 mil (claimed), true 8 by 8 weave, waterproof, mildew proof, washable | 796 g | Vietnam | not looking so tough, sun exposed side beginning to crack and fade | still not looking too tough, breaking down pretty badly from UV exposure; wind exposed side held up fairly well but appears to be breaking down | allowed a lot of water and sunlight damage to the hay, described as in pretty bad shape | not tested | not tested | 22, worst new-tarp UV blocking of all 14 | 34, worst aged UV blocking of all 14 | fail, leaking pretty badly, just like the VEVOR | 67.8, described as third place at that point in testing | 2.2 | 250 | 65 | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 11Harbor Freight Light Duty$8 | 4 mil (claimed); rust resistant grommets, rot and tear resistant, claims to be waterproof | 1,048 g | China | not tested | a few tears, beginning to break down from UV exposure; wind exposed side held up fairly well; a few tiny holes | allowed water to penetrate the hay in several areas, some minor hay rot | not tested | not tested | 1 | 3, described as still really good | fail, water is passing right through | 63.9 | 7.3 | 210 | 65 | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | still looking pretty good |
| 12Foremost Dry Top$9 | 7 mil (claimed); rust resistant aluminum grommets approximately every 3 ft; quality rated between good and best | 878 g | Vietnam | not tested | continued to hold up well from wind, but UV exposure caused severe cracking in the vinyl coating as well as some holes | allowed a lot more water exposure and a lot more hay rot compared to the Harbor Freight Light Duty | not tested | not tested | 4 | 17 | fail, leaking a lot worse than the Harbor Freight Light Duty | 81.2, higher initial eyelet strength than the Harbor Freight Light Duty | 2.2 | 160 | 30 | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | did not age well |
| 13VEVOR$12 | 5 mil (claimed), advertised as 10 by 12 ft, claims UV protection and strong waterproofing, marketed as tough tools for half the price | 754 g, very light | China | sun exposed side did not age well and is beginning to break down; wind exposed side is totally shredded | less than 6 months old but looks several years old on both sides; a massive hole has formed and the vinyl coating is badly damaged | letting a lot of water through; at the point it was covered, described as having caused the most hay rot of the brands shown so far | not tested | not tested | 3 | 12 | fail, leaking pretty badly | 43.9 | 3.8, half the strength of the Harbor Freight Light Duty | 145 | 20 | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 14Foremost Cut$13 | not stated as a mil rating; claims rip resistant woven fabric, good quality | 702 g | Vietnam | in even worse condition than the VEVOR; wind exposed side completely shredded | in by far the worst shape of all 14 tarps, described as probably worse than not having a tarp at all since it holds moisture underneath; experienced more wind damage than any other tarp and was completely shredded; sun exposed side also badly damaged | obviously allowed a lot of UV and water exposure, outer layer of hay beginning to rot | not tested | not tested | 3 | 16 | not tested | 47.6 | 0.1, worst of all 14 | 255 | 50 | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
How it was tested
- 1 year outdoor exposure: tarps secured over hay bales with one side facing south into direct sunlight and the other facing prevailing wind, checked periodically over roughly a year for visible sun and wind damage
- hay condition and water protection assessment after roughly 1 year of outdoor exposure
- subjective 1 to X UV resistance rating and 1 to X water protection rating assigned to some brands after the 1 year exposure (only some brands given explicit numeric ratings)
- grommet or eyelet strength test measured in pounds of force, on brand new tarps
- tear resistance test measured in pounds of force, on the UV exposed area of the tarps after 1 year of aging
- tear resistance test measured in pounds of force, on brand new tarps (only top 3 results given individually)
- UV meter test measuring UV penetration in microwatts per square centimeter, on brand new tarps and on the UV exposed area after 1 year
- waterproofing test, on brand new tarps (all passed) and on the UV exposed area after 1 year
- puncture resistance test using a pick, measured in grams of force, on brand new tarps and on the UV exposed area after 1 year
- overall ranking: raw scores from all tests converted into a 1st to 14th place ranking and averaged per brand
“It's definitely by far the best tarp and it should last for many years”
Data notes and caveats
Unusually clean transcript for a 14 product showdown, with repeated leaderboard recap sentences that let almost every number be cross checked. Only the top 3 (CAMPMAC Super HD, CAMPMAC HD, Patiobay) received an explicit numeric overall average finish, plus Rugged Rhino explicitly framed as the budget pick; the products array orders the remaining 10 brands by the extraction worker's reading of their aggregate performance across the individual sub tests, which is not a ranking the video itself states, so treat positions 5 through 14 as approximate. The wind resistance rating and the water protection 1.5 rating for five brands were given only in aggregate ('over half the tarps', 'five other brands') without naming which brands, so those numeric ratings were not assigned to any specific product per the verbatim or omit rule.