Under Armour · Waterproof Sports & Performance Undergarments
Under Armour Men's Tech
Skip until brand discloses water-repellent coating treatment chemistry.
Under Armour Tech fabric uses unspecified moisture-wicking and durability treatments typical of performance apparel. Brand provides no public disclosure about PFAS in treatments.
Still want this one anyway? Check the price on Amazon. We’d swap it.
Material
polyester blend with moisture-wicking treatment
Brand disclosure
Brand is silent on PFAS
Lab data
No public lab test
Why this grade
Waterproof / stain-resistant treatment
water-repellent coating treatments have historically used PFAS.
Category baseline
clothing is a category where PFAS exposure is more common.
No PFAS disclosure
No public statement about PFAS in this product.
The full breakdown
What it's made of and why it matters
Under Armour Tech is a polyester-dominant blend (typically polyester/spandex or polyester/nylon) treated with a water-repellent coating (water-repellent coating) finish and moisture-wicking chemistry. The water-repellent coating is the primary safety concern because brands rarely disclose whether it contains PFAS (fluorochemicals) or PFAS-free alternatives like wax-based or silicone systems. The polyester base itself carries minimal established risk for formaldehyde or heavy-metal dyes in this price tier, but the functional treatments are opaque.
The brand's record and disclosure
Under Armour has not publicly committed to PFAS-free water-repellent coating chemistry or published supplier testing data for moisture-wicking treatments. The brand has faced no major recalls or documented health complaints tied to formaldehyde or azo dyes in apparel. However, their silence on water-repellent coating chemistry is notable: competitors like Patagonia and Arc'teryx have begun disclosing fluorine-free alternatives, making Under Armour's non-disclosure a relative weakness in transparency.
How it compares in its category
Performance athletic wear from major brands (Nike, Adidas, Lululemon) typically uses similar polyester blends with proprietary moisture-wicking treatments, and most decline to specify water-repellent coating chemistry. Under Armour's lack of public commitment to PFAS-free systems puts it in the middle of the pack, not leading, not trailing. Specialty outdoor brands (Patagonia, REI Co-op) have begun requiring PFAS-free water-repellent coating, setting a higher standard that Under Armour has not matched.
If you buy it
Wash in cool water and avoid heat-drying, which can stress coatings and potentially release volatile compounds. Replace after 2-3 years or if moisture-wicking noticeably declines, as coating degradation is the typical end-of-life trigger. Do not tumble-dry or iron; lay flat to dry. If moisture-wicking treatment or water-repellent coating becomes a priority concern for your household, contact Under Armour directly to request disclosure of water-repellent coating chemistry before purchase.
Beyond PFAS: other things we checked
Established hazard classes for this product type, assessed from public information. These never change the PFAS grade; a Likely flag caps the Verdict at “Buy with care.”
PFAS in water-repellent coating (water-repellent coating) coating
Moisture-wicking polyester garments commonly use fluorochemical water-repellent coating finishes unless otherwise stated. Under Armour has not disclosed treatment chemistry, making PFAS presence unconfirmed but plausible. This is the primary concern for this product.
Formaldehyde in polyester resin or dye-fixation
No formaldehyde incidents reported for Under Armour apparel in this category. Modern polyester production typically avoids high formaldehyde use, and under-$100 athletic wear generally meets basic safety standards for residual formaldehyde.
Azo dyes (heavy metals in synthetic colorants)
No documented cases of restricted azo dyes or heavy-metal pigment contamination in Under Armour Tech products. Standard athletic wear in this price range is unlikely to use banned azo groups, though dye testing is not publicly available.
Antimony (catalyst residue in polyester)
Polyester production uses antimony trioxide as a catalyst; modern manufacturing captures residues, and garment-level contamination is rare. No specific incidents reported for Under Armour polyester products.
Volatile organic compound (VOC) off-gassing from coating
water-repellent coating and moisture-wicking treatments may release low levels of VOCs during initial use or if exposed to heat. Proper ventilation during first washes and avoiding high heat will minimize exposure.
What we don’t know
This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 45% confidence. It is not a lab result.
No independent PFAS lab test is on record for this exact product. A lab test could move the score in either direction.
The brand has not made a specific, verifiable PFAS-free statement, so part of this score reflects that missing disclosure rather than a confirmed material.
Formulations and coatings change between production runs. Always check the current label before buying.
Safer alternatives in Waterproof Sports & Performance Undergarments
Reebok
Women's Air Tech Performance Brief Panties 6-Pack
nylon, spandex, cotton blend
Lower concern, no known PFAS triggers identified in basic apparel.
⚠Risky category by default
Reebok
Women's Seamless Hipster
nylon/elastane blend, seamless knit
Lower concern. Basic seamless intimate wear, no water-resistant coatings.
⚠Risky category by default
Reebok
Men's Featherweight Performance Boxer Briefs
polyester and elastane blend
Lower PFAS concern; untreated synthetic fibers typical for boxer briefs.
⚠Risky category by default
More waterproof sports & performance undergarments grades
How we score: every product runs through the same public 0–100 rubric based on materials, coatings, brand disclosure, lab findings, and recalls. See the full methodology → Spotted a mistake? Report an error.