Playground Surface Comparison
Compare NO‑infill playground turf with poured‑in‑place rubber, engineered wood fibre, and sand/pea gravel to understand cost, safety, maintenance, and long‑term performance.
NO‑infill playground turf offers the best balance of safety, cleanliness, lifespan, and maintenance — making it ideal for schools, daycares, and backyard play zones.
Playground Surface Comparison Table
| Surface Type | Cost | Maintenance | Safety & Fall Protection | Lifespan |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NO‑Infill Playground Turf | $$$ | Very Low | High (safety pad provides fall rating) | 20–30 years |
| Poured‑in‑Place Rubber | $$$$ | Low–Medium | High (consistent) | 10–15 years |
| Engineered Wood Fibre (EWF) | $ | High | Variable (requires constant top‑ups) | 2–4 years before major replenishment |
| Sand / Pea Gravel | $ | High | Low–Medium | 1–3 years before replenishment |
NO‑Infill Playground Turf (Your Product)
Your NO‑infill system is a major differentiator in the playground market. Unlike traditional turf systems that rely on rubber or silica infill, your turf is engineered to perform without any loose materials.
- Zero infill required — no rubber, no silica, no mess.
- Cleaner play areas — nothing sticks to clothing or hands.
- Lower maintenance — no infill top‑ups or grooming.
- Enhanced safety — no loose particles or ingestion risks.
- Longer lifespan — 20–30 years of performance.
- Consistent fall protection — safety pad provides the impact rating.
Poured‑in‑Place Rubber
Rubber surfacing is durable and safe but significantly more expensive. It can crack, fade, and harden over time, requiring patch repairs.
- High upfront cost
- Low maintenance but expensive repairs
- Good fall protection
- 10–15 year lifespan
Engineered Wood Fibre (EWF)
EWF is the most common budget option for schools and parks but requires constant maintenance.
- Low upfront cost
- High ongoing maintenance (raking, topping up)
- Fall protection decreases as material shifts
- Messy — tracks indoors
Sand / Pea Gravel
Sand and gravel are inexpensive but offer the lowest safety and accessibility performance.
- Very low cost
- High maintenance
- Poor accessibility for mobility devices
- Low–medium safety performance