Here is how these two sleeping pads compare on the numbers. The Ultra 3R leans on low weight while the Quasar 3D answers with warmth, so the pick comes down to which you value.
| Exped Ultra 3R | NEMO Quasar 3D | |
|---|---|---|
| GearScore | 77✓ | 71 |
| Warmth (R-value) | 3.2 R | 3.3 R✓ |
| Weight | 16.5 oz✓ | 25.0 oz |
| Warmth-to-weight | 0.68 R/100g✓ | 0.47 R/100g |
| Packed size | 2.16 L | 2.07 L✓ |
| Thickness | 3.0 in | 3.5 in✓ |
| Durability | 12 /100 | 30 /100✓ |
| Price | $170 | $160✓ |
| Features | 0 | 3Pump sack included, Two-way valve, Repair kit included✓ |
| Type | Inflatable | Inflatable |
| Shape | Rectangular | Rectangular |
Highlighted cells mark the better spec: Ultra 3R in blue, Quasar 3D 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 Ultra 3R against the NEMO Quasar 3D is a study in priorities. The Ultra 3R wins on low weight and warmth-to-weight, and the Quasar 3D pushes back on warmth and packability.
The Ultra 3R is 9 oz lighter and stronger on warmth-to-weight. The Quasar 3D is warmer (R 3.3 vs R 3.2), a touch more packable, and thicker for more cushion. On the default GearScore the Ultra 3R leads 77 to 71.
Pick the Ultra 3R if you care most about low weight and warmth-to-weight, which makes it the better call for counting grams on long miles. Pick the Quasar 3D if warmth and packability matter more to you, or you are focused on colder nights and shoulder-season trips.
The Exped Ultra 3R. It is 9 oz lighter than the Quasar 3D.
The NEMO Quasar 3D. It is warmer (R 3.3 vs R 3.2) than the Ultra 3R.
The Exped Ultra 3R, 77 to 71 on the default algorithm. You can re-weight the factors to match your trip.
It depends on your priorities. Go with the Ultra 3R for low weight, or the Quasar 3D for warmth. The spec table above shows exactly where each wins.