Side-by-side mattress testing · 144+ comparisons published
Quick Specs Comparison
Key Advantages
Why Choose Tuft & Needle Original
- Exceptional value for quality
- T&N Adaptive foam is responsive and cooling
- Simple, no-frills approach
Why Choose Lull Original
- Simple, effective design
- Affordable price point
- Good motion isolation
Lab Verdict
Tuft & Needle Original ran measurably cooler in our 60-minute body-heat test (3°F surface rise vs. 3.6°F on the Lull Original). Motion isolation was roughly equivalent; either is safe for a partnered sleeper. Pressure mapping put both beds well under the 32 mmHg capillary-closure threshold for side sleepers. Perimeter compression was nearly identical — neither bed is the obvious pick on edge support alone. Responsiveness was comparable; repositioning effort should feel similar on either.
| Metric | Tuft & Needle Original | Lull Original | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cooling (60-min Δ°F) | 3°F | 3.6°F | Tuft & Needle Original |
| Motion isolation (g) | 0.11g | 0.11g | Tie |
| Edge sinkage | 2.1" | 2.3" | Tuft & Needle Original |
| Shoulder pressure (mmHg) | 32 mmHg | 33 mmHg | Tuft & Needle Original |
| Response time (s) | 1.2s | 1.3s | Tuft & Needle Original |
| Off-gassing | 2 days | 2 days | Tie |
Median of 3 trials, 68°F climate-controlled lab. KW/BT / NL/KW · scoring vv2.1.

