2026 test17 productsWorkwear & Safety Gear
Which Work Gloves Brand Wins?
A head-to-head test of 17 work gloves options with the measured results for each. See how they ranked and watch the full test video. Shoppers cross-shopping cut resistant gloves, leather work gloves, drivers gloves and mechanic gloves land here for the head to head that settles it.
Budget pick
G&F
Price shown in test: $14 for five pairs ($2.80 per pair) - the cheapest brand in the video
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 | Weight | Finger-bend stiffness | Grip (force to slide a 10 lb steel weight) | Cut resistance (electric knife) | Wear/abrasion resistance (180-grit sandpaper passes, finger thickness 6.63 mm) | Impact protection (wooden dowel damage) | Puncture resistance | Grip | Cut resistance | Wear/abrasion resistance (finger thickness 4.49 mm) | Impact protection | Wear/abrasion resistance | Wear/abrasion resistance (finger thickness 1.91 mm) | Wear/abrasion resistance (finger thickness 1.54 mm, thinnest of all brands) | Wear/abrasion resistance (finger thickness 2.73 mm) | Wear/abrasion resistance (finger thickness 2.78 mm) | Wear/abrasion resistance (finger thickness 2.76 mm, mostly liner) | Wear/abrasion resistance (finger thickness 2.09 mm, relatively thin) | Wear/abrasion resistance (finger thickness 3.77 mm) | Wear/abrasion resistance (finger thickness 2.07 mm) | Wear/abrasion resistance (finger thickness 1.98 mm) | Wear/abrasion resistance (finger thickness 1.75 mm, thin) | Wear/abrasion resistance (finger thickness 9.8 mm, thickest of any brand due to insulation) | Wear/abrasion resistance (finger thickness 2.24 mm) | Wear/abrasion resistance (finger thickness 2.69 mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1G&F$14 for five pairs ($2.80 per pair) - the cheapest brand in the video | 276 g (heaviest of all brands) | 5.9 lb of force - very stiff | 5.1 lb | 4.3 seconds, despite not being marketed as cut resistant | 61 passes - 1st place, best of any brand | readings 18.93 mm and 18.64 mm, 0.59 mm total damage - 1st place, best of any brand | 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' | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 2Toolant$20 | 180 g | 1.8 lb - tied with Palmer for 2nd-least-stiff | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 2.57 lb, described as about average | 4.0 lb, about the same as HexArmor | 5.62 seconds - 2nd place behind HexArmor at the point it was tested | 26 passes - 3rd place | readings 18.41 mm and 18.11 mm, 1.64 mm total damage | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 3WZQH$10 | 186 g | 3.1 lb | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 2.6 lb (index/primary finger); back of the finger just over 2 lb | 4.9 lb - 2nd place at the point it was tested | 0.8 seconds, tied with Wells Lamont | not tested | readings 18.42 mm and 18.23 mm, 1.51 mm total damage - 3rd place in the closing recap | 23 passes, roughly twice HandyLandy's 1.54 mm thickness though the WZQH's own exact thickness figure is never spoken | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 4Palmer$46 for twelve pairs ($3.83 per pair) | 92 g | 1.8 lb - tied for 2nd-least-stiff | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | index finger 3.39 lb; back of the glove (thinner) 1.22 lb | 3.9 lb | 0.5 seconds - among the weakest | not tested | readings 18.22 mm and 18.01 mm, 1.93 mm total damage | not tested | 15 passes | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 5HandyLandy$10 (same price as WZQH) | 74 g - lightest of all brands | 1.9 lb | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 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 | 3.1 lb - weakest grip of any brand | 0.35 seconds - among the weakest, tied with Magid | not tested | readings 18.21 mm and 17.67 mm; no total-damage figure explicitly stated, only described as 'even more damage' than Palmer | not tested | not tested | 12 passes - weakest wear result | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 6Wells Lamont$11 | 130 g | 2.3 lb | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | just over 3 lb, described as about average; no separate index/other-finger breakdown given for this brand | 4.4 lb, described as performing well | 0.8 seconds, tied with WZQH | not tested | readings 18.07 mm and 17.77 mm; no total-damage figure explicitly stated | not tested | not tested | not tested | 14 passes | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 7Magid$12 | 180 g | 2.2 lb | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 1.83 lb, described as offering 'very little protection' | 6.7 lb - took the lead at the point it was tested (credited to its 'nitro grip' texture); finished 2nd in the closing grip recap | 0.35 seconds - among the weakest, tied with HandyLandy | not tested | 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 | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 22 passes | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 8HexArmor$18 | 132 g | 2.2 lb, same as Magid | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 1.83 lb, same as Magid | 4.0 lb, described as about average | 9.1 seconds - took the lead at the point it was tested; finished 2nd in the closing cut-resistance recap behind Kinco | not tested | readings 18.16 mm and 17.93 mm, just over 2 mm total damage | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 12 passes | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 9NoCry$19 | 126 g | 3.1 lb - fairly stiff | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | two-layer fingertip 2.115 lb; single-layer fingers 1.86 lb; back of hand 1.71 lb | 6.3 lb - moved into 2nd place behind Magid at the time; finished 3rd in the closing grip recap | 1.43 seconds | not tested | 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 | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 32 passes - 2nd place, better than expected for a thin glove | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 10Cestus$22 | 244 g | 3.3 lb - one of the stiffest gloves at the time | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 2.16 lb, gave up sooner than most | 4.7 lb, a little better than average | 2.77 seconds, longer than average | not tested | readings 18.35 mm and 18.66 mm, 1.15 mm total damage - 2nd place in the closing recap behind G&F | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 24 passes | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 11DeWalt$23 | 156 g | 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 | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 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 | 3.7 lb, described as not offering a lot of grip | 2 seconds | not tested | readings 18.35 mm and 18.14 mm, described only as 'better than average' with no exact total damage figure spoken | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 21 passes, described as pretty durable despite thin material | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 12West Chester$24 | 164 g | 3.1 lb, a little stiffer than DeWalt | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | double-layer fingertip, 3.39 lb - 3rd place in the closing puncture recap | 7.7 lb - won the grip test outright, described as adding 'the most grip yet... to move into the lead over the Magid' | 1.7 seconds, tied with Mechanix | not tested | readings 18.26 mm and 18.15 mm, 1.75 mm total damage | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 7 passes - one of the weakest durability results of the video | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 13Mechanix$25 | 96 g | 1.3 lb - the least stiff (most flexible) glove in the video, won this category outright | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 1.73 lb, on the weak side | 6.1 lb, more grip than most other brands | 1.7 seconds, tied with West Chester | not tested | 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) | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 10 passes | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 14Carhartt$28 | 122 g | 6.1 lb - very stiff, 'the stiffest gloves yet' at the point tested (later exceeded by Kinco's 7.7 lb) | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 3.64 lb - 2nd place in the closing puncture recap | 3.7 lb, described as a poor combination given how stiff the glove is | 2 seconds | not tested | 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 | 22 passes; exact thickness not given a number, only described as 'quite a bit thicker' than West Chester and Mechanix | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 15Kinco$29 | 184 g | 7.7 lb - the stiffest glove in the entire video | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 3.36 lb | 3.6 lb - the weakest grip result along with Carhartt's tier | 9.4 seconds - won this category outright, the best of any brand | not tested | readings 18.21 mm and 18.13 mm, described only as 'better than Carhartt' with no exact total figure spoken | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 20 passes | not tested | not tested |
| 16Superior Glove$30 | 224 g | 1.8 lb, tied with Palmer and Toolant for 2nd-least-stiff | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 1.84 lb, weak despite marketed impact and puncture resistance claims | 4.7 lb, a little better than average | 1.2 seconds, weak | not tested | readings 18.0 mm and 18.42 mm, 1.74 mm total damage | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 6 passes - the weakest durability result of any brand in the video | not tested |
| 17Ironclad$32 - the most expensive brand in the video | 120 g | 3.3 lb, quite a bit stiffer than Superior Glove | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | double-layer fingertip 3.13 lb; single-layer 1.9 lb | 3.8 lb, described as not offering much grip | 3.44 seconds, better than average | not tested | readings 18.18 mm and 17.84 mm, 2.13 mm total damage | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 19 passes, lasted quite a bit longer than Superior Glove |
How it was tested
- finger-bend stiffness (force in lb to bend a glove finger on a push-pull meter)
- grip (force in lb to slide a 10 lb steel weight off the gloved palm)
- cut resistance (seconds for a powered blade tester to cut through the glove's finger)
- wear/abrasion resistance (number of 180-grit sandpaper passes to wear through the finger, with finger thickness in mm noted per brand)
- impact protection (indentation depth in mm on a wooden dowel struck through the glove via a coil-spring impact tester)
- puncture resistance (force in lb to pierce the fingertip and, where noted, the back of the glove)
- subjective comfort assessment
Data notes and caveats
17-brand work-glove showdown ending in three separately-framed top picks rather than one forced winner, matching the video's own closing structure: G&F has the best raw scorecard ('A's in just about every category') and is the cheapest brand tested, explicitly framed as the value pick; Toolant earns the second-best scorecard (4 A's, 3 B's) and is called more comfortable and flexible than G&F, framed as the best all-around performer for those willing to spend around $20; WZQH scores lowest of the three (only 4 of 7 A grades) but is nonetheless the narrator's stated personal favorite 'for overall value and performance' at $10. Winner is left null to preserve all three picks rather than collapse them into one. This video has unusually heavy brand-name caption drift even by this channel's standard: G&F becomes 'GNF' throughout; Toolant cycles through 'Tulip,' 'Tulent,' 'Tullet,' 'Tulin,' 'Batulent,' and 'Tula'; Magid becomes 'Magic' then 'Maget'; Mechanix becomes 'mechanics'/'mechanis'; Kinco alternates 'Kinko'/'Kingo'; Carhartt becomes 'Carheart' and once 'Macar'; all were resolved against the video description's product list plus consistent testing order and, where needed, exact-number cross-referencing (e.g. the 'Macar... 3.64 lb' recap line matches Carhartt's own earlier-stated 3.64 lb puncture result). DeWalt's segment has the most unresolved caption damage in the video: an incomplete comfort sentence and two conflicting 'single layer' puncture figures (1.44 lb and 1.53 lb) that could not be cleanly reconciled.