Two sleeping pads worth lining up side by side. Both are solid; the right one depends on the specs you care about most.
| Exped FlexMat 1.5R | ALPS Mountaineering Foldable Foam Mat | |
|---|---|---|
| GearScore | 79✓ | 69 |
| Warmth (R-value) | 1.7 R | n/s |
| Weight | 11.5 oz | 10.0 oz✓ |
| Warmth-to-weight | 0.52 R/100g | n/s |
| Packed size | 6.60 L✓ | 7.08 L |
| Thickness | 0.7 in | 0.8 in✓ |
| Durability | 100 /100 | 100 /100 |
| Price | $44.95 | $39.99✓ |
| Features | 0 | 2Closed-cell foam, Egg-crate / hexangular molded pattern✓ |
| Type | Closed-cell foam | Closed-cell foam |
| Shape | Rectangular | Rectangular |
Highlighted cells mark the better spec: FlexMat 1.5R in blue, Foldable Foam Mat in amber. A blank spec is never counted as a win. GearScore is the rating for the Overall use-case (0 to 100). Pick another above to re-score. Prices are current MSRP.
The Exped FlexMat 1.5R and ALPS Mountaineering Foldable Foam Mat take different routes to the same job. The FlexMat 1.5R wins on packability, and the Foldable Foam Mat pushes back on low weight and cushion.
The FlexMat 1.5R is more packable (6.6 L vs 7.1 L). The Foldable Foam Mat is 2 oz lighter, thicker for more cushion, and $5 cheaper. On the default GearScore the FlexMat 1.5R leads 79 to 69.
Pick the FlexMat 1.5R if you care most about packability, which makes it the better call for saving space in your pack. Pick the Foldable Foam Mat if low weight and cushion matter more to you, or you are focused on counting grams on long miles.
The ALPS Mountaineering Foldable Foam Mat. It is 2 oz lighter than the FlexMat 1.5R.
The Exped FlexMat 1.5R. It is more packable (6.6 L vs 7.1 L) than the Foldable Foam Mat.
The Exped FlexMat 1.5R, 79 to 69 on the default algorithm. You can re-weight the factors to match your trip.
It depends on your priorities. Go with the FlexMat 1.5R for packability, or the Foldable Foam Mat for low weight. The spec table above shows exactly where each wins.