Oto Adult Diapers Premium Review

 *For more information on how I do reviews see Diaper Test Methodology

 

Summary

The Oto Adult Diapers Premium are a cloth-backed Indonesian diaper with a hybrid fastener design produced by PT Arkstarindo Artha Makmur. Like other Indonesian diapers tested so far, this diaper features two disconnected landing zones. Unlike most cloth-backed diapers, the landing zones are a plastic material and the fasteners are adhesive tapes rather than hook & loop fasteners (hence the “hybrid” qualifier). The company that produces these also appears to produce a number of absorbent/non-absorbent sanitary products. They also produce another, presumably plastic-backed version of these, simply referred to as Oto Adult Diapers Open. Interestingly these have some Japanese looking branding and the SAP (super absorbent polymer) appears to be labelled “product of Japan”, though the diaper itself is made in Indonesia. These diapers are also uniquely notable for containing information about recommended urine concentrations in the landing zone designs.

These diapers are relatively thin and struggle to absorb a full wetting without leaks. However, they are also highly breathable, comfortable and reasonably durable. For some that trade-off might be worthwhile, but you’re only going to get at most one wetting from these before leaking and they would best be used with a booster pad for extra absorbency. They run at an exceptionally low unit cost, so the booster pad economics make a lot more sense if you decide to go with these.

Key Features:

• Cloth-like backsheet
• Dual plastic landing zone 
• Standing inner leak guards
  
• Repositionable fasteners

Pros:

• Highly breathable/comfortable
• Snug fitting with decent fasteners
• Very low unit cost

Cons:

• Low absorbency
• Poor protection against surface dampness

 

Product Details

For the purpose of this post I will be reviewing and referring to the medium-sized Oto Adult Diapers Premium. However, other available sizes are listed below:

Packaging

Brand: Oto
Manufacturer: PT. Rejeki Putra Putri Eliman
Origin: Indonesia
Units Per Bag: 8
Cost Per Unit: $
Dimensions (L x W x H): 17 cm (6.7") x 17 cm (6.7") x 23 cm (9.1")
Weight: 0.8 kg (1.8 lbs)
Available Sizes: S,M,L,XL
Advertised Absorbency: High

1.1 Oto Adult Diapers Premium Packaging

Diaper

Backsheet: Cloth-like (non-woven)
Wetness Indicator: Yes (bluish-green double line dashes/text, fades when wet)
Standing Inner Leak Guards: Yes
Leg Gathers: Yes
Product Style: Tab-Style Brief
Refastenable Tabs: Yes
Number of Tapes: 2
Repositionable Tabs: Yes
Outer Color: White (yellow/orange patterned landing zone + blue fan/diaper icons down middle)
Inner Color: White
Front Waistband: No
Rear Waistband: No
Folded Thickness: 2.33 cm (0.92")
Folded Length: 24 cm (9.5")
Dry Weight: 100 g (3.5 oz)
Fragrance: No
Diaper Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 75.5 cm (29.7") x 61 cm (24") x 30 cm (11.8") x 59 cm (23.2")
Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Rectangular, Rectangular
Padding Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 63 cm (24.8") x 26 cm (10.2") x 18 cm (7.1") x 36 cm (14.2")
Padding Wing Dimensions (fPW x fPH x bPW x bPH): 4 cm (1.6") x 12 cm (4.7") x 9 cm (3.5") x 16 cm (6.3")
Padding Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Semicircle, Semicircle
Total Padding Area: 1518 cm² (235 in²)
Tape Spacing (t1 x t2): 7 cm (2.8") x 13.5 cm (5.3")
Tape (W x L): 2.5 cm (1") x 4 cm (1.6")

1.2 Oto Adult Diapers Premium

Laboratory Absorbency Tests

Total Absorption Volume (after press out): 670 ml (23.6 oz)
Total Absorption Volume (before press out): 675 ml (23.8 oz)
Time to Absorb Wettings (first to last): (63 s, 89 s, 93 s)
Wet Folded Thickness: 3.5 cm (1.4")
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 83%
Total Padding to Absorbency Ratio: 0.44 ml / cm² (0.10 oz / in²)
Press Out Volume: 5 ml (0.18 oz)

Surface Dampness Rating: 3

The Oto Premium performed poorly when tested for surface dampness. There was substantial dampness from the very first wetting during the lab paper towel test. This was validated during the real world testing where I found just a single wetting was enough to produce significant surface dampness and the surface dampness tended to linger rather than being locked away in the padding eventually.

2.1 Wet vs Dry Diaper After Capacity Test

2.2 Used vs Unused Padding After Capacity Test

"Real World" Absorbency Tests

Posture Tests

Standing-Sitting

Total Absorbed Volume: 700 ml (24.7 oz)
Total Wettings: (1 standing, 1 sitting)
Leaked After Sitting: No
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 85%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.46 ml / cm² (0.10 oz / in²)

Standing-Sitting Rating: 4
The Oto Premium diaper performed reasonably when tested while standing and sitting. The first wetting while standing was fully absorbed without any signs of leaks. Initially there was a fair amount of pooling with all the moisture ending up around the mid padding and the front and rear remained dry. Upon sitting there wasn’t an obvious leak, though there may have been a tiny leak. It was hard to tell whether it actually leaked and there was clearly still lots of dry padding left so I continued the test from there. On the second wetting moisture pushed up the front of the diaper and toward the sides but the leak guards managed to contain it within the front padding and I didn’t notice any obvious leaks through the sides. However, there was significant pooling below the crotch and a moderate leak through the left rear leg gather. The padding felt quite damp and squishy at this point. At the end of the test the front padding was completely saturated but there was still a bit of dry rear padding. I suspect this diaper will manage up to one wetting without leaking during daily wear but I wouldn’t push it past that.

Lying Down

Total Absorbed Volume: 610 ml (21.5 oz)
Total Wettings: 1
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 72%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.40 ml / cm² (0.09 oz / in²)

Lying Down Rating: 3

The Oto Premium diaper failed earlier than expected when tested while lying down. It leaked on the first wetting, albeit a very small leak for the amount absorbed. Initially there was considerable pooling at and below the crotch, which took at least a minute to fully absorb. I suspect the small leak through the rear leg gathers happened at that point. There was still significant dry padding at the front and even a little dry padding at the rear after the leak, so the theoretical capacity for this diaper was certainly higher. After the wetting, the padding continued to feel damp, yet the breathability somewhat mitigated that. It was a large wetting and small leak so this diaper certainly should be able to manage most single wettings while lying down without leaks, but it would be best used with a booster pad for heavier wetters and is unlikely to exceed a single wetting before leaks occur.

2.3 Pattern of Used vs Unused Padding Test Stand/Sit (right) Lying Down (left)

Daily Wear and Bedwetting

This Oto Adult Diapers Premium review is somewhat limited due to the smaller package quantity available, but I still feel I was still able to get a good sense of performance. When tested for bedwetting I found these diapers susceptible to leaks and possibly even some perspiration through the cloth-like backsheet when wet. Generally I don’t think they will be that useful for bedwetting unless worn with a booster and/or additional protection like a diaper cover (plastic pants). In daily wear they may hold up a bit better, though I still feel like perspiration through the backsheet and minor pressout leaks could be a problem. I didn’t have them leak on me while standing, but they could leak more easily if wet while seated, perhaps even on the first wetting. When dry, these diapers are incredibly breathable and comfortable to the point I barely noticed them, which is rare for a diaper with this level of padding coverage. I also found them to be quite durable and easy to conceal under clothing. Although they have a pretty wide area of padding coverage, they didn’t feel bulky at all. However, the downside is that, when wet, they were quite susceptible to surface dampness and pressout moisture. During testing I found they would continue to feel wet well after a wetting. In testing, I was never able to manage more than a single wetting in the Oto Premium before it would start to leak. There seems to be a hard absorbency limit in the range of 500~600 ml (16.9~20.3 oz). Like other Indonesian diapers these come at an impressively low unit price; in fact these were the cheapest diapers of any I’ve tested so far (slightly below even the Popoku diapers or Pampers 8 youth diapers for comparison).

Suitability for Bowel Incontinence: 7

The Oto Premium is reasonably well suited for bowel incontinence. It has an extensive area of rear padding and decent standing inner leak guards. The downside of course is that it’s cloth-backed and doesn’t have waistbands so it can be a bit susceptible to releasing odors. Moreover, its susceptibility to surface dampness could also contribute to odors and discomfort. I’ll say it’s a bit above average but not quite a top performer in this regard.

 

Wear & Tear Tests

Fitting

The Oto Premium features an interesting “hybrid” design with a cloth-like backsheet and two disconnected landing zones at either side of the wings. This double landing zone is similar to other Indonesian diapers like the Confidence Classic Night or Popoku. The tapes on this diaper are of a decent quality and should be easy to refasten/reposition anywhere on the landing zone after first application. The sizing is about average for a medium and I found it fit me comfortably even with my sizing being on the lower end of the suggested waist range.

3.1 Oto Adult Diapers Premium Fastener

Ease-of-Use Rating: 10

The Oto Premium diaper seems to be designed for easy care-giver usage. It has longer dual landing zones than the Confidence Classic Night or Popoku, giving it a greater range of fastening options. Even being at the lower end of the recommended waist range I still had plenty of room at the edges for fastening. The landing zone is patterned in a way that serves a dual purpose in that its different colorations correlate with urine saturation and instruct the user on what to watch for. This ranges from “Not Dehydrated” to “Extremely Dehydrated”. These diapers have a relatively large range of available sizing from small (minimum waist size 25”) to extra large (maximum waist size 62”). The adhesive fasteners are easy to detach and can easily be repositioned if you get an incorrect fit the first time. These don’t have waistbands, but I found it quite easy to get a snug fit. They also have a wetness indicator and extensive package information to assist in a caregiver environment. Absorbency is somewhat limited, but I couldn’t find any real fault in terms of ease-of-use for this diaper and thus the top score.

3.2 Oto Adult Diapers Premium Fit

Comfort

Comfort Rating (dry): 10

The Oto Premium diaper scores top marks when it comes to dry comfort. This diaper is incredibly breathable and I hardly noticed it during wear. The material makeup is also soft and there will be little-to-no resistance from the topsheet or backsheet during wear. The tape/landing zone combination holds up strongly and I didn’t have any issues with tapes loosening or sagging during wear. It was quite easy to achieve and maintain a snug/comfortable fit with this diaper. Meanwhile, the padding, while not the most durable, proved quite resistant to clumping or tearing and I didn’t notice any decrease in comfort due to padding state after extended wear.

Comfort Rating (wet): 7

The Oto Premium diaper was modestly comfortable when wet. From a breathability perspective it remained top-notch and that went some way to mitigating the surface dampness issues. However, this diaper is highly susceptible to surface dampness and pressout. When the padding is wet the surface dampness never really goes away though it can disperse somewhat if there’s remaining dry padding. Aside from that it generally doesn’t sag when wet and the tapes hold up well. Nor does the padding clump up when wet. So it’s really just the surface dampness issues that keep this diaper from ranking higher in this regard.

3.3 Oto Adult Diaper Premium Topsheet and Backsheet

Durability

Dry Padding Deterioration Proportion: 9.5% (topsheet), 12% (backsheet)
Shake Deterioration Test: 6 shakes to deterioration

Durability Rating (dry): 7
The Oto Premium was reasonably durable in its dry state. During the dry durability test I only noticed peripheral padding deterioration with the core padding remaining full intact. The padding is relatively thin and light so it doesn’t have a lot of weight against it but I don’t consider that a factor for this test. This diaper should hold up reasonably well during active wear. I didn’t have any issues with sagging or the tapes coming loose after more extended wear. That said, the padding came a little detached from the backsheet even if it didn't clump or tear and this was still far from a top performance for dry durability so I rank it a little above average.

Durability Rating (wet): 6

I rank the Oto Premium slightly lower for wet durability compared with dry durability. It did relatively well on the wet shake test, but I’ve found that is often the case for thinner diapers that absorb less. I didn’t notice a considerable difference in padding deterioration with the core padding holding up and only some deterioration along the edges, where it matters less. The tapes also had no issue holding up the weight of the wet diaper and didn’t slip at all, any sagging was minor. My primary additional concern for these when wet was that I found them slightly susceptible to perspiration through the backsheet.

3.4 Oto Adult Diapers Premium Dry Test Deterioration

Discretion Tests

Profile

Front Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 3 cm (1.2"), 4 cm (1.6")
Back Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 4.5 cm (1.8"), 5 cm (2")
Side Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 6 cm (2.4"), 3 cm (1.2")

Profile Discretion Rating: 7

The Oto Premium isn’t the most discreet diaper on the market but the profile is a little more discreet than it may initially appear. I found the padding to be relatively thin and flexible in this diaper so it pretty easily compresses and would be difficult to notice if worn under regular underwear or meshpants. The fit is pretty snug naturally and doesn’t easily give to sagging, so I rate this diaper relatively high in terms of profile discretion in spite of signs of rear bulkiness.

4.1 Oto Adult Diapers Premium Jeans Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)

4.2 Oto Adult Diapers Premium Sweats Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)

 

Noise

Noise Rating: 9

In terms of noise discretion the Oto Premium diaper ranks fairly well. If not for the plastic landing zones on the front it would be indistinguishable from regular underwear. The plastic landing zones will produce a slight crinkling when standing-sitting and walking. I didn’t find it particularly noticeable but it clearly wasn’t as quiet as the most discreet diapers on the market so I can’t quite rank it at the top.

4.3 Oto Adult Diapers Premium Noise Profile

Odor Reduction

Odor Reduction Rating: 5

I can’t say I found odors particularly noticeable from the Oto Premium diaper, but my testing was relatively limited and it has some aspects that make it particularly susceptible to odors. The breathable design, while good for comfort, also detracts from odor containment and this diaper notably lacks waistbands. The other big issue is the weak performance against surface dampness. The inability to contain surface dampness will make this diaper more prone to odor formation.

Goodnites Boys XXL Protective Underwear Review

 *For more information on how I do reviews see Diaper Test Methodology

 

Summary

This review covers another remarkable iteration of the Goodnites line of products, which recently released an XXL version sized for those in the 120-165 lbs (54-75 kg) range. This marks the third major iteration of the product over the past several years. In 2021 the product range increased from 3 sizes to 4 with the introduction of the Goodnites XL. Later, in 2023 Goodnites made further tweaks to the XL to improve the leak guards and create a better fit (I’ve referred to it as the Quicksorb version). Finally, this past April they released a new size XXL and the sizes range has grown to include: XS, S/M, L, XL and XXL. This is far more extensive than any competitor product and now covers youths from 28 lbs (12.7 kg) all the way up to 165 lbs (75 kg), fully bridging the gap between youth and adult products. If you’ve ever experienced bedwetting you’re almost certain to have come across these, and, while these are geared toward the youth market, the upper end of the range will almost certainly fit smaller adults. In a previous review, I covered the Goodnites XL and found it to be reasonably absorbent for a protective underwear, but a little short for what would be needed for someone of my size (I was at the top of the suggested range in that product ~140 lbs). It looks like that size has been relabeled and now rather than a suggested weight range of 95-140 lbs+ (43-64 kg+) has a suggested range of 95-120 lbs (43-54 kg). However, as far as I can tell, the dimensions haven’t changed and the findings from the previous review should still be relevant.

Goodnites are a gendered product with different zones of absorbency per gender. For this review I’ll be covering the boys version, which I previously found to be a little more absorbent than the girls version. These are a protective underwear product that can be pulled on/off like regular underwear, but contain a rectangular absorbent pad down the middle. With previous versions of Goodnites I’ve found the rise to be relatively low and I chalk that up partly to their needing discretion, though at the cost of some comfort. The Goodnites XXL have a notably higher rise compared with other versions and should work better for taller individuals. This underwear has also been notable for its variety of backsheet designs and typically features two designs per size, though interestingly the XXL size only has a single design per side; I suppose it's a factor that becomes less relevant for those in this larger size range. Sizing aside, I generally found this to be the same product as the smaller Goodnites. It has many of the same advantages including its comfortable, durable and discreet design. But also some of the same faults, including narrow mid/rear padding and susceptibility to pressout moisture (particularly upon sitting). I do feel the absorbency puts this product to a state where it could generally manage a single wetting without leaking within the size range, at least based on my own experience. However, I wouldn’t completely trust it and recommend using it with a booster pad and diaper cover, particularly if you can’t change out of it before sitting down in the morning. It could also be very effective in daily wear for those with light/moderate incontinence. In any case, it’s great to see a large company moving so quickly with these product iterations and I suspect this won’t be the last of them.

Key Features:

• Cloth-like backsheet
• Blue patterns on backsheet
• Standing inner leak guards 
• Blue Backsheet Design
• Dual waistbands
• Gender-zone protection

Pros:

• Comfortable and breathable
• Highly flexible/durable
• Widely available in stores with regular sales
• May be less embarrassing to buy compared with adult products

Cons:

• Thin mid/rear padding, susceptible to pressout leaks
• Low absorbency

Product Details

For the purpose of this post I will be reviewing and referring to the XXL-sized Goodnites Boys Protective Underwear. However, other available sizes are listed below:

Packaging

Brand: Goodnites
Manufacturer: Kimberly-Clark Corp
Origin: USA
Units Per Bag: 8 (24 box or 54 - box of 3 bags)
Cost Per Unit: $
Dimensions (L x W x H) 8: 14 cm (5.5") x 11 cm (4.3") x 33 cm (13")
Dimensions (L x W x H) 12: 16 cm (6.3") x 12 cm (4.7") x 33 cm (13")
Dimensions (L x W x H) 24: 34 cm (13.4") x 27 cm (10.6") x 17 cm (6.7")
Dimensions (L x W x H) 18: 25 cm (9.4") x 11 cm (4.3") x 33 cm (13")
Dimensions (L x W x H) 54: 36.5 cm (14.4") x 25 cm (9.8") x 34 cm (13.4")
Weight 8: 0.55 kg (1.2 lbs)
Weight 12: 0.78 kg (1.7 lbs)
Weight 24: 1.93 kg (4.3 lbs)
Weight 18: 1.23 kg (2.7 lbs)
Weight 54: 4.2 kg (9.3 lbs)
Available Sizes: XS,S/M,L,XL,XXL
Advertised Absorbency: 3 Water Bottles (24 oz / 710 ml)

1.1 Goodnites Boys XXL 8 Count Packaging

1.2 Goodnites Boys XXL 12 Count Packaging

1.3 Goodnites Boys XXL 24 Count Packaging

1.4 Goodnites Boys XXL 18 Count Packaging

1.5 Goodnites Boys XXL 54 Count Packaging

Diaper

Backsheet: Cloth-like (non-woven)
Wetness Indicator: No
Standing Inner Leak Guards: Yes
Leg Gathers: Yes
Product Style: Protective Underwear
Refastenable Tabs: No
Number of Tapes: N/A
Repositionable Tabs: No
Outer Color: Light blue (textured with fake seams)
Inner Color: White (blue sides & leak guards)
Front Waistband: Yes
Rear Waistband: Yes
Folded Thickness: 1.7 cm (0.66")
Folded Length: 32 cm (12.6")
Dry Weight: 70 g (2.5 oz)
Fragrance: No
Diaper Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 68 cm (26.8") x 32 cm (12.6") x 18 cm (7.1") x 35 cm (13")
Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Connected, Connected
Padding Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 55 cm (21.7") x 12 cm (4.7") x 8 cm (3.2") x 10 cm (3.9")
Padding Wing Dimensions (fPW x fPH x bPW x bPH): 2 cm (0.79") x 12 cm (4.7") x 1 cm (0.4") x 12 cm (4.7")
Padding Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Semicircle, Semicircle
Total Padding Area: 512 cm² (79.4 in²)

1.6 Goodnites Boys XXL Protective Underwear

Laboratory Absorbency Tests

Total Absorption Volume (after press out): 475 ml (16.8 oz)
Total Absorption Volume (before press out): 480 ml (16.9 oz)
Time to Absorb Wettings (first to last): (39 s, 35 s)
Wet Folded Thickness: 3.5 cm (1.4")
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 89%
Total Padding to Absorbency Ratio: 0.74 ml / cm² (0.17 oz / in²)
Press Out Volume: 5 ml (0.18 oz)

Surface Dampness Rating: 5

The upscaling of the Goodnites sizing to XXL didn’t have any obvious impact on its performance with respect to surface dampness. It performed relatively well for its absorbency in the laboratory paper towel test, with no obvious dampness after a single wetting but a modest amount present on the second. The front material seems to have some particular resistance to surface dampness, but the middle and rear padding are quite prone to dampness and pressout.

2.1 Wet vs Dry Diaper After Capacity Test

2.2 Used vs Unused Padding After Capacity Test

"Real World" Absorbency Tests

Posture Tests

Standing-Sitting

Total Absorbed Volume: 405 ml (14.3 oz)
Total Wettings: (1 standing)
Leaked After Sitting: Yes
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 78%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.79 ml / cm² (0.18 oz / in²)

Standing-Sitting Rating: 2

When tested while standing and sitting the Goodnites XXL performance was pretty similar to previously tested Goodnites products. In all cases absorbency was far less than lying down, largely due to pressout when seated. When wet while standing there was initially some pooling around the crotch with some pushing up toward the lower front leak guards and much pooling in the less absorbent mid-padding. I felt like it was close to escaping the leak guards but managed to stay within them. There wasn’t any hint of a leak. There was still a decent amount of dry padding at the front of the protective underwear and even a bit at the rear, but the mid-section padding was completely saturated. Upon sitting shortly afterward there wasn’t an immediate leak, but eventually modest leaks developed through the rear leg gathers with pressout, so I called the test at that. So although the Goodnites XXL is generally more absorbent than other versions, its padding isn’t constructed in a way that will prevent pressout leaks from sitting (the weakest padding is in the area most susceptible to pressout when seated). You’d want to use this underwear with a booster pad for daily wear or, alternatively, it could be used for moderate leaks or maybe mild bowel incontinence but shouldn’t be used for full wettings.

 

Lying Down

Total Absorbed Volume: 755 ml (26.6 oz)
Total Wettings: 2
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 100%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 1.47 ml / cm² (0.34 oz / in²)

Lying Down Rating: 4

The Goodnites Boys XXL performed relatively well when tested while lying down, absorbing more than any other Goodnites product tested so far. The first wetting was fully absorbed without leaks, though the rear padding did feel pretty saturated afterward. Initially there was notable pooling with a significant amount of moisture making it toward the less absorbent mid and rear padding. This had me concerned that there could be leaks, but surprisingly it was all absorbed. The front of the protective underwear also retained a bit of dry padding toward the top, suggesting slightly more absorbency potential. I took an intermediate measure of the amount absorbed and it came out to 500 ml (16.9 oz), so it should be able to manage a larger wetting without lying down. The second wetting was clearly going to leak but I gave it a test anyway to see how the end capacity would compare against previously tested Goodnites versions. As expected there was significant initial pooling with moisture moving both up the front and toward the rear. There was a significant leak under the rear leg gathers and a modest leak as moisture pushed past the front leak guards/escaped below the wings on the sides. Clearly this protective underwear will only manage a single wetting while lying down and shouldn’t be pushed beyond that, but it will provide slightly more absorption than the previously tested XL and that could prove the difference in making it reliable enough for some to use it for managing bedwetting, where the Goodnites XL came out just a little short.

2.3 Pattern of Used vs Unused Padding Test Stand/Sit (right) Lying Down (left)

Daily Wear and Bedwetting

The Goodnites XXL was a considerable step up from the Goodnites XL in terms of sizing and a modest step up in terms of absorbency. At its core, this is the same youth protective underwear and its unit weight is only about 10g (0.35 oz) more than the comparable Goodnites XL, so it was never going to perform as well as a high absorbency adult diaper. Nevertheless, I found the fit on this underwear to be just about perfect and very comparable or only slightly smaller than the Depend Real Fit S/M sizing. With the ultra-stretchy sides on these, I’m almost certain they could be feasible for some people above the 165 lbs (75 kg) maximum suggested weight range. These have the same nice features you get in the smaller sizes, including dual waist bands and generous leak guards. The front padding on this protective underwear runs all the way to the top of the underwear and very effectively wraps the male anatomy. I tested these for real world bedwetting and, for nights where I only wet once, they could generally manage a full wetting without leaks, but I never had full confidence in them and doubled up on protection to protect my sheets. I’d generally recommend combining them with a booster pad and diaper cover if you want to be confident they won’t leak, particularly if you’re a heavy wetter. I also found that, more often than not, the upper front padding would remain dry, so the absorbency would fall short of its theoretical level. Though the high rising front padding will work better for certain sleeping angles, so it’s not without benefits. I noticed this tendency for dry front padding a lot more than in the lower rising Goodnites XL. Ironically this padding position could make the product better for daytime wear, where it may be comparable to the function of the Depend Real Fit, but with better leak barriers and more overall absorption. However, I can’t recommend these for daytime wear because I very consistently got leaks through to mid/rear leak guards if sitting when wet, even when the underwear was well below capacity. The adjacent section of padding has very little effectiveness in retaining moisture and is probably the biggest outstanding issue that, if solved, would make Goodnites a well-rounded solution for day or night. For nightly wear this pressout is less of an issue because you’re unlikely to generate enough pressure when lying down to cause pressout moisture to escape the leak guards (pressure tends to be more evenly distributed). This underwear was also incredibly durable and I found I could wear it just like regular underwear to walk, run or do other activities without worrying about deterioration and being fairly confident of its discretion. So if the level of absorbency works, it could be a good choice for more active individuals and warm weather wear.

Suitability for Bowel Incontinence: 4

Goodnites are designed for bedwetting as a primary function and aren’t particularly well suited toward bowel incontinence. This applies to the XXL just like it did to the XL. They could still work for light/moderate bowel incontinence because they have some features that are helpful for it. These include standing inner leak guards and strong leg gathers. However, these being a protective underwear, they’re not going to be well suited for smooth changes. The breathability could also introduce odors. The narrow mid/rear padding and potential shifting could also be an issue. There are certainly better products on the market to deal with this condition, but I have thought these could be a good first line of defense for those with infrequent, unpredictable and disruptive bowel episodes.

 

Wear & Tear Tests

Fitting

The Goodnites Boys XXL is a protective underwear product with flexible closed sides and rectangular absorbent padding running down the middle. The fit is similar to regular underwear and it has a highly elastic design. These are effectively a scaled up version of the Goodnites XL Quicksorb, with a total length of 68 cm (26.8) in the XXL vs 60 cm (23.6) in XL (a 12% increase in length) and 55 cm (21.7) vs 48 cm (18.9) (a 13.6% increase in length). The total brief area of 1,864 cm² (289 in²) comes out to be nearly identical to the S/M Depend Real-Fit Maximum at 1,891 cm² (293 in²) but with significantly more padding coverage. This underwear has a gender specific design with its most absorbent padding taking 29 cm (11.4”) up the front of the underwear, stopping just short of the waistband. The padding stops a bit short at the rear, but still extends further back relative to the Depend Real-Fit. This underwear also features the light blue standing inner leak guards of Goodnites Quicksorb XL version. The rise up the waist on this underwear is notably higher than the Goodnites XL and I actually found it had a slight rise above my pant level where the XL version typically stayed below it. However, in spite of its increased length, the middle-width in this underwear is nearly identical to the Goodnites XL and even comparable to the much smaller Pull-Ups 5T-6T. I sit right near the middle of the recommended weight range for these and found the fit nearly perfect if not slightly large. If you found the XL version even a bit large then these will be too large for you.

3.1 Goodnites Boys XXL Fastener

Ease-of-Use Rating: 8

I rank the Goodnites Boys XXL the same as the Goodnites Boys XL in terms of ease-of-use, if anything the further expansion of the Goodnites sizing range makes it easier than ever to find a proper fit. With this addition, Goodnites now features 5 different sizes for weights as small as 28 lbs (12.7 kg) to as large as 165 lbs (75 kg). Once again, the way you use these is pretty simple. Pull them up to change into them and pull them down when they’re wet. These have a highly flexible design so there’s no need to make adjustments and they will snugly fit the wearer’s body so long as you’re within the recommended weight range, which for the XXL is quite generous at 120 - 165 lbs (54 - 75 kg). They also have a convenient label at the back to distinguish the front from the back. Of course this underwear type design won’t be ideal for caregivers and this protective underwear lacks a wetness indicator, so the padding swelling would be the only way to notice when it's wet. That said, Goodnites are marketed first and foremost toward youth bedwetting and consequently the deficiencies might be expected if using it more generally for incontinence. I found they have general deficiencies in terms of pressout moisture when worn daily due to the weaker mid-section padding. If you’re using these for bedwetting and the absorbency is within your needs then these are about as easy a product as you could ask for.

3.2 Goodnites Boys XXL Protective Underwear Fit

 

Comfort

Comfort Rating (dry): 9

I’m sticking with the dry comfort rating I gave to the Goodnites XL Quicksorb when it comes to the XXL version. These products are effectively identical when it comes to structure and materials. For me personally, I’d say these were even slightly more comfortable, with the more generous sizing and waist rise whereas the rise on the XL felt a little lower than my ideal. These have a form-fitting design with extensive elasticity and highly breathable material construction. Like the Goodnites XL, the main deficiency in terms of comfort is the relatively narrow mid-section padding. Due to the narrowness of the mid section it can be prone to shifting and ending up in awkward and potentially uncomfortable positions. Even so, the padding is highly resilient and doesn’t easily clump or tear. Aside from that, the front padding on these has a noticeable thickness, yet it’s also incredibly soft. I noticed the thickness of this protective underwear a little more than with the XL, but I wouldn’t say it had a negative impact on my perception of comfort. Overall, this will generally be about as comfortable as regular underwear when dry.

Comfort Rating (wet): 6

The Goodnites Boys XXL has conflicting attributes when it comes to wet comfort. The front padding is generally moisture resistant and won’t feel too different when wet or dry. However, the mid and rear padding have notable surface dampness issues and are quite susceptible to pressout moisture. So depending on which part takes the bulk of the wetting, it will feel either damp or dry. I noticed this more in the Goodnites XXL than the Goodnites XL. I’m not sure why, but I suspect it might be due to the slightly different distribution of padding, with the most absorbent padding sitting relatively higher on average. I also found that the Goodnites XXL could sag a little more than the Goodnites XL, but that’s likely more due to the looser fit for me personally and not something inherently different with this size. Aside from that narrow stretch of mid-to-rear padding, this underwear continues to remain highly breathable when wet and the padding remains well intact. So this protective underwear is hardly the best in terms of wet comfort, but it’s still far from the worst.

3.3 Goodnites Boys XXL Topsheet and Backsheet

Durability

Dry Padding Deterioration Proportion: 7.9% (topsheet), 8.3% (backsheet)
Shake Deterioration Test: 3 shakes to deterioration

Durability Rating (dry): 9

The Goodnites Boys XXL has a highly durable design and is one of the products I’d feel most comfortable exercising in. This is due to the highly elastic structure and relatively well-bound padding. I hardly noticed any padding deterioration in these after walking and running. Even the minor deterioration noted was only due to a bit of peripheral padding collapse and not impactful on the core. These have a prominent seam on both sides where the two wings are connected, but I never noticed any weakening during testing. However, I wouldn’t recommend pulling at the seam because too much of a pull could start to pull them apart. Aside from that, I never had much issue with sagging while dry in this protective underwear, but the sides can stretch slightly with extended wear. Overall, these are well suited for active wear so long as the absorbency is sufficient.

Durability Rating (wet): 8

The Goodnites Boys XXL is pretty much identical to the Goodnites Boys XL when it comes to wet durability and again not far off the dry durability. I didn’t notice any significant clumping or tearing of the core padding when wet, though the middle padding isn’t too wide to begin with so any amount of deterioration can have some impact. The sides on these also can become a bit overstretched with wear; this can be more notable when wet and may lead to a slight sag, though there have been material improvements to this vs the pre-Quicksorb generations.

3.4 Goodnites Boys XXL Dry Test Deterioration

Discretion Tests

Profile

Front Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 2 cm (0.8"), 2.5 cm (1")
Back Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 0.5 cm (0.2"), 0 cm (0")
Side Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 1 cm (0.4"), 2 cm (0.8")

Profile Discretion Rating: 10

The Goodnites Boys XXL is generally similar to the XL in terms of profile, but I felt like I noticed the padding thickness a little more and the rise above the waist was present, whereas XL didn’t show any rise above the waistline. I consider this to be a bit of a borderline 10 score, at least relative to the XL, but it will still have a much more discreet profile than most adult diapers. Also, I fit the middle of the weight range for this underwear whereas I was right at the top for the XL so this may be more representative of the score. If anything, it’s comparable with the Depend Real Fit with regards to profile discretion.

4.1 Goodnites Boys XXL Jeans Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)

4.2 Goodnites Boys XXL Sweats Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)

 

Noise

Noise Rating: 10

The Goodnites Boys XXL gets top marks for noise discretion. I never noticed any noise from this protective underwear whether seated, walking or even running. The soft, flexible material and cloth-like backsheet seem highly resistant to making noise. Even under lighter clothing it’s unlikely anyone will notice any sound from you wearing these.

4.3 Goodnites Boys XXL Noise Profile

Odor Reduction

Odor Reduction Rating: 5

The material construct of the Goodnites Boys XXL isn’t any different from any of the smaller Goodnites products and consequently it has the same susceptibility to odors. This is partly due to the breathable design, which makes it harder to contain odors. But again, the biggest issue seems to be the mid/rear padding, which is highly susceptible to surface dampness and pressout that can result in odor formation. They aren’t the worst in this regard, but it’s an area that could use improvement as far as discretion scoring goes.

Want to give the Goodnites Boys XXL a try?

Help us continue to produce quality reviews by making a purchase through our Goodnites Boys XXL affiliate link. With every purchase this blog will earn a small amount of commission at no extra cost to the purchaser.