Compare the best trekking poles and hiking poles, ranked on published specs (weight per pair, packed length, max length, and price) instead of opinions. Sort any column, filter by material or fold style, and re-weight the score to match how you hike, whether you want the lightest carbon poles for fast miles or a durable aluminum pair on a budget. Material, lock type, and adjustable range are shown for context.
Trekking poles save your knees on descents, steady you on crossings, and double as tent poles for a lot of ultralight shelters. Rank your pack, shelter, and lighting on the same published-spec method, then pick a pole that is light enough for all-day miles and long enough to fit you.
Trekking Poles | Gear Matrix
| Product | GearScore (Default) | Material | Weight | Packed | Max length | Price | Fold | Buy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 94 | Carbon | 8.7 oz | 36 cm | 120 cm | $170 | Fixed | ||
| 80 | Carbon | 9.8 oz | 60 cm | 130 cm | $195 | Telescoping | ||
| 78 | Carbon | 12.0 oz | 40 cm | 125 cm | $240 | Folding | ||
4 | 77 | Carbon | 12.4 oz | 38 cm | 130 cm | $245 | Folding | |
5 | 67 | Carbon | 12.9 oz | 58 cm | 120 cm | $189 | Telescoping | |
6 | 60 | Carbon | 16.0 oz | 40 cm | 130 cm | $250 | Folding | |
7 | 59 | Carbon | 16.6 oz | 37 cm | 120 cm | $190 | Folding | |
8 | 55 | Carbon | 17.2 oz | 40 cm | 120 cm | $230 | Folding | |
9 | 48 | Carbon | 17.1 oz | 61 cm | 130 cm | $230 | Telescoping | |
10 | 47 | Aluminum | 19.1 oz | 37 cm | 120 cm | $56 | Folding | |
11 | 47 | Carbon | 16.0 oz | 76 cm | 132 cm | $65 | Telescoping | |
12 | 46 | Aluminum | 17.3 oz | 63 cm | 140 cm | $170 | Telescoping | |
13 | 44 | Aluminum | 17.6 oz | 66 cm | 125 cm | $160 | Telescoping | |
14 | 42 | Aluminum | 18.0 oz | 66 cm | 135 cm | $110 | Telescoping | |
15 | 40 | Aluminum | 18.0 oz | 74 cm | 140 cm | $120 | Telescoping | |
16 | 39 | Aluminum | 19.0 oz | 62 cm | 140 cm | $120 | Telescoping | |
17 | 38 | Aluminum | 19.2 oz | 64 cm | 140 cm | $119 | Telescoping | |
18 | 34 | Aluminum | 20.8 oz | 53 cm | 137 cm | $30 | Telescoping |
The Buy column links to retailers we may earn a commission from, at no extra cost to you. It never affects rankings.
Scatter plot
Plot any spec against any other to see the tradeoffs. Point color is the GearScore; size and shape are yours to assign. Hover any point for the details.
How to read this ranking
This is the full trekking-pole database, every model scored the same way on manufacturer-published specs. The scoring rewards a pole that is light and packs small while still extending tall enough to fit you, since a pole you swing all day should not cost you grams or reach you do not need. Hiking poles and trekking poles are the same thing, so this list covers both.
The score leads with a max-length gate, treated as good-enough: reach a usable hiking height and the pole is set, because a longer maximum than you need does not help. From there it leans on weight per pair, the number your arms feel every mile, with packed length alongside so a pole that is light but will not collapse small does not win by grams. Price is a lever the presets can turn on. Material, fold style, and lock type are shown for context but not scored.
Use the presets to jump to a use case (backpacking, ultralight, carbon fiber, folding, collapsible, or budget), or open the algorithm panel and re-weight the factors yourself. Sort any column, filter by material or fold style, and the ranking updates live. When you have a shortlist, open a product page for the full spec sheet and a plain-language read of its score.
Common questions
How does Gearnalysis rank trekking poles?
GearScore blends published specs into a single 0 to 100 number: a max-length check so a pole extends tall enough to fit you, then weight per pair, packed length, and price. A pole first has to reach a usable height, then it competes on the numbers you carry and swing all day. Material, fold style, and lock type are shown for context but not scored, and you can re-weight any factor.
What is "max length" and why does it gate the score?
Max length is how tall the pole extends. It is treated as good-enough: reach a usable hiking height and the pole is set, because a longer maximum than you need does not help most hikers. That gate keeps a short travel pole from topping the list purely because it is light, without over-rewarding an extra-long pole nobody sets to full.
How much should trekking poles weigh?
Light carbon poles run about 250 to 400 grams a pair; aluminum poles run roughly 450 to 550. Lighter is easier on your arms over a long day, which is why the ranking leads with weight once a pole is long enough to fit you. The lightest poles are usually fixed-length or minimalist carbon, so weigh the grams against durability and adjustability.
Carbon or aluminum trekking poles?
Carbon is lighter and stiffer and dominates the ultralight end; aluminum is heavier but tougher and bends rather than snapping if it binds in rock. For most hikers who are gentle on gear, carbon is worth the premium; if you travel rough talus or lean on your poles hard, aluminum is the safer pick. Filter by material to see only one.
What happens when a spec is not published?
It shows as "n/s" and the pole is scored only on the specs it does publish. A blank field is never treated as a zero and never counted as a strength, so missing data can only lower a score, never inflate it.
Bang for Your Buck
Dollars per point of GearScore. The lower the number, the more quality you get for your money. Each bar carries both metrics at once: a solid bar for the highlighted one over a faded ghost of the other. Sorted to the best value first, and always scored by the algorithm you've set above.
GearScore Algorithm
A GearScore ranks products on objective, published specs only, never opinions. It starts on a pre-tuned default; make it yours below, or pick a "Best for" preset up top.
Customize your algorithm
Answer a few quick questions, or grab the sliders yourself. Nothing changes the ranking until you apply it. Then everything re-sorts.