Sunday, 27 March 2022

Forma-Care X-Plus Adult Diaper Review

*For more information on how I do reviews see Diaper Test Methodology. For a list of all product reviews see the Product Index.

 


Summary

The Forma-Care X-Plus is a premium European diaper with a distinct bright blue plastic backsheet and dual waistbands. It’s produced by the German medical supplies company unizell Medicare GmbH and comes in at the top of their range in terms of absorbency. This diaper is largely sold in the European market and, unfortunately, not widely available internationally. It features a high level of absorbency, consistently taking 2 wettings without any sign of leakage. This puts it a little below the most absorbent diapers on the market, but it comes in way above most diapers at a comparable price range.

During testing I found this diaper to be highly durable and comfortable. It will easily satisfy the needs of bedwetters and is great for wear around the house. Its thickness may make it a challenging wear when out but it has quality tapes and won’t easily come loose. The price-to-value ratio of this diaper is remarkable, with its pricing only slightly above many brands sold in North American stores like the Depend Protection with Tabs. The blue backsheet reminds me a bit of the Wellness Briefs Original, but that’s where the similarity stops. This is a superior diaper that showed no sign of pinhole leaks. I highly recommend the Forma-Care X-Plus to those who are able to pick up a pack.

Key Features:

  • Bright blue plastic backsheet
  • Standing inner leak barriers
  • Dual waistbands
  • Refastenable tapes

Pros:

  • Snug/comfortable fit
  • Highly durable
  • Great absorbency/leak protection
  • Highly odor resistant
  • Very good price/quality ratio

Cons:

  • Limited availability
  • Hard to hide under clothing

 

Product Details

For the purpose of this post I will be reviewing and referring to the medium-sized Forma-Care X-Plus Diaper. However, other available sizes are listed below:


Packaging

Brand: Forma-Care
Manufacturer: unizell Medicare GmbH
Origin: Europe
Units Per Bag: 18
Cost Per Unit: $$
Dimensions (L x W x H): 38 cm (15") x 17 cm (6.7") x 24 cm (9.5")
Weight: 3.4 kg (7.6 lbs)
Available Sizes: S, M, L
Advertised Absorbency: Overnight

1.1 Forma-Care X-Plus Packaging

Diaper

Backsheet: Plastic (poly)
Wetness Indicator: Yes (darker blue 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: No
Outer Color: Bright blue (almost fluorescent)
Inner Color: White (blue inner lining)
Front Waistband: Yes
Rear Waistband: Yes
Folded Thickness: 2.3 cm (0.9")
Folded Length: 26 cm (10.2")
Dry Weight: 183 g (6.5 oz)
Fragrance: No
Diaper Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 81 cm (31.9") x 62 cm (24.4") x 29.5 cm (11.6") x 58 cm (23")
Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Rectangular, Rectangular
Padding Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 64 cm (25.2") x 31 cm (12.2") x 17 cm (6.7") x 34 cm (13.4")
Padding Wing Dimensions (fPW x fPH x bPW x bPH): 7 cm (2.8") x 16 cm (6.3") x 8.5 cm (3.4") x 20 cm (7.8")
Padding Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Semicircle, Semicircle
Total Padding Area: 1652 cm2 (256 in2)
Tape Spacing (t1 x t2): 6 cm (2.4") x 20 cm (7.8")
Tape (W x L): 2.5 cm (1") x 4 cm (1.6")

1.2 Forma-Care X-Plus Diaper


Laboratory Absorbency Tests

Total Absorption Volume (after press out): 1467 ml (51.8 oz)
Total Absorption Volume (before press out): 1492 ml (52.6 oz)
Time to Absorb Wettings (first to last): (56 s, 58 s, 66 s, 67 s, 79 s, 87 s)
Wet Folded Thickness: 6 cm (2.4")
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 93%
Total Padding to Absorbency Ratio: 0.89 ml / cm2 (0.20 oz / in2)
Press Out Volume: 25 ml (0.88 oz)

Surface Dampness Rating: 6

The Forma-Care X-Plus performed similarly to the Abena M4 when it came to surface dampness in the capacity test. There was a bit of surface dampness noticeable after the first wetting and non-insignificant amount in subsequent wettings. In real world testing the surface dampness was hardly noticeable, perhaps owing to the breathable design and padding coverage.



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: 1342 ml (47.3 oz)
Total Wettings: (1 standing, 2 sitting)
Leaked After Sitting: No
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 94%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.81 ml / cm2 (0.18 oz / in2)

Standing-Sitting Rating: 8
The Forma-Care X-Plus quickly and easily absorbed first wetting while standing. At this point there was still a large area of dry padding at the front and rear. There was no indication of any leakage upon sitting a few minutes later and surface dampness was neglectable. On the second wetting there was more moisture wicking up the rear of the diaper but it was absorbed quickly again with no sign of leakage. In spite of apparent surface dampness in the previous capacity test it wasn’t particularly noticeable during this test and the diaper maintained a high degree of comfort. On the third wetting moisture pushed out through the front leg gathers and leaked out from the wings. At this point the rear padding still felt relatively dry and comfortable but the front padding was clearly saturated. The padding had definitely swelled but was still in good shape with no noticeable clumping or tearing. I finished the test at this point because there was clearly a leak. Overall, I feel the Forma-Care X-Plus diaper will easily absorb 2 wettings during daily wear before leakage would be a concern, but 3 would definitely be pushing it.


Lying Down

Total Absorbed Volume: 1167 ml (41.2 oz)
Total Wettings: 3
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 95%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.71 ml / cm2 (0.16 oz / in2)

Lying Down Rating: 8

The Forma-Care X-Plus performed well when lying down. There was not so much as a hint of leakage after the first wetting and the moisture was absorbed quickly. The padding continued to feel comfortable and there was still a relatively large area of dry padding. The second wetting was again absorbed quite quickly but there was lingering surface dampness at the rear padding. However, once again there was no sign of leakage and the diaper still felt relatively comfortable at this point. By the third wetting the padding had swelled quite a bit, but still felt quite soft in a way. At this point there was a bit of leakage through the rear leg gathers and I called the test at that. There was still a little dry padding at the front of the diaper but the remainder felt quite saturated and likely would have leaked more if sitting down afterwards. Overall, I feel this diaper would be a reliable choice for bedwetting, taking at least 2 wettings before leakage would be a concern.

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


Daily Wear and Bedwetting

The Forma-Care X-Plus is a very well rounded diaper with a high level of absorbency, comfort and durability. It feels like a great diaper for both daily and overnight wear, however, it is also pretty thick and will stand out under most clothing. When worn for bedwetting I never experienced any leaks from this diaper, even when heavy wettings were experienced. Often, when waking up in the morning any dampness was imperceivable and I couldn’t tell if I’d wet during the night. Testing while lying down confirmed its absorption, with the Forma-Care absorbing a full 2 wettings and a likely capacity of 2~3 wettings before leakage. While this doesn’t put this diaper at the top of the premium diapers for absorbency I found it to be remarkably consistent in quality and absorbency. Compared with diapers with a thicker plastic backsheet like the Forsite AM/PM or NorthShore MegaMax I found the backsheet of this one to be softer, more flexible and more comfortable for extended wear. With that in mind, the Forma-Care X-Plus has a smaller “European” fit, so if you typically sit at the upper end of medium in other diapers you may be best to go large for this one. In terms of daily wear this diaper proved remarkably durable. I never had any of the tapes come loose during testing and the padding had virtually no clumping or tearing during both wet and dry wear. Moreover, I didn’t experience any chaffing or skin irritation with wear. This diaper is also among the quieter plastic-backed diapers on the market, though a bit noisier when wet. Perhaps the most significant downside of this diaper is that it will stand out under most clothing and could be difficult to wear discreetly when out of the house. In this regard its padding is relatively thick and forms an obvious diaper bulge at the front and rear and the bright blue (almost fluorescent) backsheet color is glaringly obvious. But if you can make it work I feel this is a diaper you can feel confidently protected in when out and about.


Suitability for Bowel Incontinence: 10

The Forma-Care X-Plus has all the features you’d be looking for when it comes to bowel incontinence. It has a plastic-backsheet and is incredibly odor resistant. Moreover, the dual waistbands retain a snug fit and it is not prone to sagging. It also has extensive rear padding coverage and standing inner leak guards, which is critical for containment. Overall, I can’t find any faults in this diaper in this regard and thus the perfect score.


Wear & Tear Tests


Fitting

The Forma-Care X-Plus has a bright blue plastic backsheet with a double-tape mechanism. The tapes cannot be repositioned after applying the diaper, but they can be refastened any number of times. The tapes are relatively small but high quality and hold very well even after multiple refastenings.

3.1 Forma-Care X-Plus Fastener
 

Ease-of-Use Rating: 8

The Forma-Care X-Plus has a compact European fitting, so you may need to go up a size for this diaper compared with others if you tend to have a tighter fit. During testing I found it was very easy to achieve and maintain a snug fit with the Forma-Care X-Plus and I was impressed with the softness of the plastic backsheet. The dual waistbands help with maintaining a snug fit while keeping it flexible. It’s also very easy to remove when it’s time for a change. It has a wetness indicator (blue text down the middle that fades when wet), which will also be helpful in some settings. The only downsides I would say are that the tapes are a bit on the small size so may be tough for some to reattach and the blue text of the wetness indicator doesn’t show much of a contrast compared with the bright blue backsheet. Another thing I didn’t factor into this rating is that the bag doesn’t appear to have any easy tear seams; although I didn’t find it particularly difficult to open in any case.

3.2 Forma-Care X-Plus Diaper Fit

Comfort


Comfort Rating (dry): 10

The Forma-Care X-Plus is amongst the most comfortable diapers I’ve tested with a number of similarities to the Tena Slip Active Fit Maxi or Molicare Slip Maxi. I actually found the fit of the Forma-Care to be a bit better than that of the Tena diaper. The backsheet is very smooth and perhaps the softest of any plastic-back diaper tested thus far or at least similar to the Molicare Slip Maxi. It’s notably different from the ABDL-oriented imports from China like the NorthShore MegaMax or Forsite AM/PM, which have a thicker, stiffer backsheet; I found this diaper to be more comfortable in comparison. It has a snug fit and flexible comfortable dual waistbands.The thick padding, while perhaps not the softest on the market, is still very soft, more so than the Drylife SlipSuper or ConfiDry 24/7. For a plastic-backed diaper it was also surprisingly resistant to overheating and never felt particularly clammy. Overall, I couldn’t find any downsides, thus a perfect score.


Comfort Rating (wet): 9

The Forma-Care X-Plus is a very comfortable diaper when wet, not unlike the Tena Slip Active Fit Maxi or Molicare Slip Maxi. It’s not quite as absorbent as some of the other premium diapers in the market, but it has a smooth and relatively breathable plastic-backsheet and the padding is very soft in both its wet and dry state. Personally, I found these diapers less susceptible to clamminess than those with a denser plastic and landing zone like the NorthShore MegaMax. Also, I found it a little less susceptible to rear surface dampness than some of the cloth-backed diapers like the Seni Super Plus. Moreover, the padding stays well intact and doesn’t clump or tear. I think there could still be some small improvements in terms of absorbency/surface dampness that would make this diaper even more comfortable in the wet state, but otherwise it’s about as good as it gets for comfort when wet.

3.3 Forma-Care X-Plus Topsheet and Backsheet


Durability

Dry Padding Deterioration Proportion: 6.1% (topsheet), 6.6% (backsheet)
Shake Deterioration Test: 5 shakes to deterioration


Durability Rating (dry): 9
The Forma-Care X-Plus was remarkably durable during the dry durability test. At the end of the test there was little in the way of padding deterioration with most occurring in non-critical sections, particularly where it would typically fold inward between the legs. During testing there was never any sign of clumping or tearing and the tapes lost very little adhesiveness, even after multiple re-attachments. The wetness indicator was little affected by sweat or smaller dribbles. Moreover, this diaper retained a snug fit throughout testing with no sign of loosening. There was still a little padding deterioration so I couldn’t quite give it a perfect score, but I put the Forma-Care X-Plus on par with the Tena Slip Active Fit Ultima when it comes to dry durability.


Durability Rating (wet): 9

The Forma-Care X-Plus performed well in terms of wet durability. There were never any signs of padding clumping and only small tears in the front wing padding. The backsheet itself proved highly resilient with no leaks or perspiration getting through from the wet padding. The tapes held up remarkably well with no sign of failure under weight and there was little perceivable sagging from this diaper; it retained its snug fit in both its wet and dry state. It’s not among the most absorbent diapers in the market, but provides a good level of protection and works well for daily wear. I can’t quite say this diaper provided the wet durability of the Drylife SlipSuper or NorthShore Supreme, but it wasn’t far off and more durable than the Molicare Slip Maxi/slightly more than the Attends Slip Regular Plus 10M.

3.4 Forma-Care X-Plus Dry Test Deterioration

Discretion Tests


Profile

Front Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 5 cm (2"), 4.5 cm (1.8")
Back Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 6 cm (2.4"), 5 cm (2")
Side Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 4.5 cm (1.8"), 3.5 cm (1.4")

Profile Discretion Rating: 5

The Forma-Care X-Plus presents a clear diaper bulge at both its front and rear and I wouldn’t recommend this diaper for discretion without careful consideration for clothing. Otherwise, it’s not particularly prone to sagging so the bulge wouldn’t increase much when wet. It certainly feels like a better one for around the house or bedwetting, though if you can make it work it’s actually very good for active wear. This diaper also features a bright blue backsheet that could prove very visible through thinner clothing or above the waistline.


4.1 Forma-Care X-Plus Jeans Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)

4.2 Forma-Care X-Plus Sweats Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right) 


Noise

Noise Rating: 7

The amount of noise produced by the Forma-Care X-Plus very much depends on its condition. In its dry state I noticed very little noise during wear, the padding stays in pretty close alignment with the backsheet and dampens noise. However, when the diaper is wet the padding and backsheet can separate a little resulting in considerably more crinkling with movements.

4.3 Forma-Care X-Plus Noise Profile

Odor Reduction

Odor Reduction Rating: 10
The Forma-Care X-Plus diaper is incredibly resistant to odors and very similar to the Tena Slip Active Fit Maxi in that respect. The snug fit and plastic backsheet definitely helps, but the padding in particular seems to have some properties that lock in odors. It isn’t the best in terms of surface dampness, but even then that didn’t seem to matter. I have no complaints when it comes to odor control from the Forma-Care X-Plus and thus a perfect score.


Want to give the Forma-Care X-Plus a try?

Help us continue to produce quality reviews by making a purchase through our Forma-Care X-Plus Medium or Forma-Care X-Plus Large affiliate link. With every purchase this blog will earn a small amount of commission at no extra cost to the purchaser.

Sunday, 27 February 2022

Tykables Little Rawrs Adult Diaper Review

*For more information on how I do reviews see Diaper Test Methodology. For a list of all product reviews see the Product Index.



Summary

The Tykables Little Rawrs is a high absorbency adult diaper that’s clearly targeted at the ABDL market. This diaper is made in China and features a “hybrid” design with a plastic backsheet, but grainy landing zone for hook and loop fasteners. These appear to be identical to Tykables Galactic, Unicorns and Puppers just with different designs, and are the company's second most absorbent line of products behind the slightly more absorbent Camelots or Overnights. A key distinguishing feature is the playful dinosaur prints in the front landing zone, again clearly targeting the ABDL market. In terms of construction, I found it very similar to the Rearz, Forsite and Bambino diapers, in fact I wouldn’t be surprised if they were all made in the same Chinese factory complex.

In terms of performance, I found it was better suited for overnight wear than daily wear. Yet due to its absorbency it could easily be used in either scenario and should take at least 3~4 wettings before leakage would be a concern under most circumstances. This diaper comes at a very high unit price so again feels more targeted at a novelty market than those who wear for incontinence and need a good balance of price to quality. It does absorb a huge amount, but not so much that I would say it’s worth the cost, particularly when you’re unlikely to want to stay in a wet diaper for such a long amount of time. I still prefer the BetterDry/Crinklz for fit and cost-to-value.

Key Features:

  • Plastic backsheet
  • Standing inner leak barriers
  • Repositionable hook & loop fasteners
  • Tape landing zone
  • Dual waistbands
  • Playful backsheet prints

Pros:

  • Snug/comfortable padding/backsheet
  • Very high absorbency/leak protection
  • Easy-use fasteners

Cons:

  • Very high unit cost
  • Surface dampness/initial pooling

 

Product Details

For the purpose of this post I will be reviewing and referring to the medium-sized Tykables Little Rawrs Diaper. However, other available sizes are listed below:


Packaging

Brand: Tykables
Manufacturer: China Hengyuan Group Co., Ltd
Origin: China
Units Per Bag: 10
Cost Per Unit: $$$$
Dimensions (L x W x H): 31 cm (12.2") x 19 cm (7.5") x 24 cm (9.5")
Weight: 2 kg (4.4 lbs)
Available Sizes: S,M,L
Advertised Absorbency: 6000 ml


1.1 Tykables Little Rawrs Packaging

Diaper

Backsheet: Plastic (poly)
Wetness Indicator: Yes
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 with orange leg gathers/wings (dino-themed landing zone)
Inner Color: White with orange leg gathers/wings (blue rectangle in middle padding)
Front Waistband: Yes
Rear Waistband: Yes
Folded Thickness: 3.3 cm (1.3")
Folded Length: 24 cm (9.5")
Dry Weight: 192 g (6.8 oz)
Fragrance: No
Diaper Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 81 cm (31.9") x 66 cm (26") x 33 cm (13") x 64 cm (25.2")
Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Rectangular, Rectangular
Padding Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 67 cm (26.4") x 30 cm (11.8") x 21 cm (8.3") x 40 cm (15.8")
Padding Wing Dimensions (fPW x fPH x bPW x bPH): 4.5 cm (1.8) x 13 cm (5.1") x 9.5 cm (3.7") x 19 cm (7.5")
Padding Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Semicircle, Semicircle
Total Padding Area: 1885 cm2 (292 in2)
Tape Spacing (t1 x t2): 4 cm (1.6") x 18.5 cm (7.3")
Tape (W x L): 5 cm (2") x 4 cm (1.6")

1.2 Tykables Little Rawrs Diaper


Laboratory Absorbency Tests

Total Absorption Volume (after press out): 2208 ml (77.9oz)
Total Absorption Volume (before press out): 2258 ml (79.7oz)
Time to Absorb Wettings (first to last): (54 s, 55 s, 60 s, 73 s, 71 s, 77 s, 82 s, 73 s, 76 s)
Wet Folded Thickness: 7 cm (2.8")
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 83%
Total Padding to Absorbency Ratio: 1.17 ml / cm2 (0.27 oz / in2)
Press Out Volume: 50 ml (1.6 oz)

Surface Dampness Rating: 5

The Tykables Little Rawrs show no signs of surface dampness after the first lab wetting, but considerable surface dampness on the second. This was earlier than I might expect from a diaper at this level of absorbency but similar to the other Chinese imports like the Forsite AM/PM, Bambino Karnevalee or Rearz Barnyard Elite Hybrid. I ranked this slightly ahead of those because it did perform slightly better in that regard. In real world testing the dampness wasn’t quite as bad.


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: 1483 ml (52.3 oz)
Total Wettings: (1 standing, 2 sitting)
Leaked After Sitting: No
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 55%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.79 ml / cm2 (0.18 oz / in2)

Standing-Sitting Rating: 9
The Tykables diaper easily absorbed the first wetting while standing without a trace of leakage upon sitting shortly afterwards. The front padding on the diaper swelled considerably and there and felt quite “squishy” but the rear padding remained completely dry. The second wetting while seated was again absorbed quickly, this time there was some temporary pooling at the front of the diaper but it was well contained by the leak guards. The surface dampness eventually subsided and aside from the swelling it wasn’t too different from its dry state. On the third wetting there was even more pooling at the front/midsection of the diaper and the rear leak guards were overwhelmed under the pressure while seated leading to a substantial leak. At this point the rear padding was still completely dry and the diaper clearly could have absorbed more but just wasn’t able to transfer moisture to the unused padding fast enough. It still absorbed a significant amount, though less than the Rearz Barnyard and much less than the BetterDry/Crinklz. It’s design is similar to the Rearz diapers with incredibly absorbent padding but some weaknesses in the leak guards when it comes to press out moisture. I feel it could reliably handle about 2~4 wettings in daily wear, but wouldn’t push it further.


Lying Down

Total Absorbed Volume: 2783 ml (98.2 oz)
Total Wettings: 8
Used to Total Padding Ratio:100%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 1.48 ml / cm2 (0.34 oz / in2)

Lying Down Rating: 10

The Tykables Little Rawrs performed impressively when tested while lying down, I found it comparable to the Rearz Elite Hybrid. There was a bit of initial pooling but once it was absorbed the diaper felt dry and comfortable. Similar to the Rearz Elite Hybrid, the padding had a very “squishy” texture when wet, but was still very resistant to pressout when lying down. The second wetting was again easily absorbed. Once again, I did notice some temporary pooling and felt some moisture may have made it into the sides, but there was no sign of leakage and the diaper still felt relatively dry. The third wetting was again absorbed quickly but with more pooling at the front and mid-section of the diaper. Once absorbed it again felt fine and surface dampness wasn’t too noticeable aside from a bit around the leg gathers. On the fourth wetting there was definitely some moisture pushing back up under the sides due to the pooling and the relatively loose fit of the inner leak guards/front padding. Even so, gravity took it to the rear padding and no exterior leakage was observed. The padding was very “squishy” at this point, but not particularly clammy. The fifth wetting led to even more moisture seeping into the sides, but somehow again avoided exterior leakage. By the 6th wetting I was wondering if this diaper was ever going to leak while lying down. The padding was clearly saturated but the moisture continued to pool at the bottom of the rear padding. It was noticeably damp/clammy at this point, largely due to moisture leaking into the sides. Same went for the 7th wetting. Then, finally on the 8th wetting there was a bit of leakage through the rear leg gathers, even then it wasn’t a huge leak though every bit of padding was saturated. For practical purposes I doubt anyone would come close to 8 wettings with this diaper but this was easily the most absorbed of any diapers tested so far when lying down; more so than the Rearz Barnyard or BetterDry/Crinklz.

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


Daily Wear and Bedwetting

The Tykables Little Rawrs is highly absorbent albeit with some inconsistency, depending on how it’s worn. In terms of shear absorbency the padding can easily absorb 6 or more wettings when not subject to any significant source of pressout. In terms of comfort it ranks high with soft padding and a thick but reasonably soft backsheet. The backsheet is hardly the softest on the market and I much prefer the soft less crinkly material of Attends Slip Regular Plus or Tena Slip Active Fit Ultima, whereas the material used in this diaper is similar to that of the Rearz, Bambino or Forsite diapers. The fit of this diaper is decent, it has good leg gathers, inner leak guards and dual waistbands, but can still feel a little loose at times. The padding is very prone to swelling like the Rearz Barnyard and feels big to walk around in, but doesn’t exactly sag due to the strong tapes. In daily wear I found this diaper could consistently hold up to 3 wettings, with this biggest issue arising if wet while seated as moisture tends to temporarily pool and push out through the leg gathers. For that reason it will likely leak well before its theoretical capacity during daily wear. That said, this diaper isn’t really designed for daily active wear, it produces a lot of noise and would be very difficult to hide when out. I found it can also get quite warm which could be a problem in active wear or warm weather. It’s high performance really comes into play for overnight wear. I never experienced anything resembling a leak when worn for bedwetting. It consistently absorbed a lot and it’s unlikely even the heaviest overnight wetters would trigger a leak in this diaper. That said, it doesn’t have the snuggest fit or fastest absorbency and moisture can easily get into the wings. Even if it doesn’t leak, once the wings have that dampness they will lead to skin irritation. When tested while lying down this diaper was by far the winner in overall absorbency of those tested to this point. And of course, for its target audience who want fun prints this diaper certainly fits the bill with dinosaurs on the front landing zone and asteroids sprinkled through the backsheet. In fact the fiery tail of the asteroids fades when wet so it doubles as a wetness indicator.

 

Suitability for Bowel Incontinence: 9

The Tykables Little Rawrs is well suited for bowel incontinence with its plastic backsheet and massive amount of rear padding. It also has dual leak guards, but I found they still fit a bit loose so maybe not the best for odor containment. On the other hand, it has high standing inner leak guards and there isn’t too much more that can be asked for with respect to containing bowel movements. One thing to note though is that the tapes will only stick to the landing zone, so it would be challenging to properly close up after usage.


Wear & Tear Tests


Fitting

The Tykables Little Rawrs is a “hybrid” style diaper that features a plastic backsheet with a tape landing zone and hook & loop fasteners. The fasteners also contain a little adhesive tape material but I feel the primary function of that is to keep them stuck to the backsheet when folded. The landing zone is similar to that of Attento or Unicharm diapers as well as other ABDL-focused diapers like the Rearz Elite Hybrid or Bambino Karnevalee.

3.1 Tykables Little Rawrs Fastener

Ease-of-Use Rating: 8

The Tykables Little Rawrs has a very similar design to the Bambino Karnevalee or Rearz Barnyard Elite Hybrid. It’s easy to get a reasonably snug fit with this diaper, but I found sometimes the lower tapes can be a struggle with the way the landing zone folds. The tapes are easy to attach and reattach on the landing zone and don’t lose much stickiness over time. It’s tough to get a perfectly snug fit, but it never feels so loose enough that sliding off would be an issue. It also features widespread wetness indicators (asteroids with fire that fades when wet), which will be useful for knowing when it’s time for a change. Removing the diaper is a breeze, but like other “hybrid” models it can be a challenge to close up because the tapes only really adhere to the landing zone.

3.2 Tykables Little Rawrs Diaper Fit
 

Comfort


Comfort Rating (dry): 9

I found the Tykables diaper to be similar to the Rearz Barnyard Elite Hybrid when it comes to dry comfort. It has a very thick feel to it even when dry and you’ll certainly be aware you’re wearing a diaper but is also very comfortable. The plastic backsheet is quite soft, though the plastic feels a bit on the thick side, which may be an issue in warmer weather. It wasn’t among the top performers for heat distribution but I didn’t find it particularly bad in this regard either. The padding itself is extensive with a pillow-like softness. The padding is also quite resistant to clumping or tearing, even though it frequently detaches from the backsheet. I didn’t find the padding detaching from the backsheet to be too much of an issue for comfort because it easily retains its form. The fit is quite similar to the Rearz diaper, the front/rear leg gathers are nice but in practice I don’t feel they add much to the snugness of the fit. Overall, I found this diaper to be comfortable, but not so much to earn a perfect score.


Comfort Rating (wet): 7

I rank the Tykables Little Rawrs similar to the Forsite AM/PM or Rearz Barnyard when it comes to comfort when wet. It performed similarly to those two when it came to surface dampness, but the shear area and absorbency of the padding did a good job at countering that surface dampness. The dampness was most noticeable immediately following a wetting with temporary pooling. That aside, the tapes on the diaper hold up very well under weight. The padding swelled considerably during testing, but was also highly resistant to clumping or tearing. However, this diaper isn’t particularly breathable and I found that to be more of an issue when wet. Overall, not bad, but not quite up there with the BetterDry/Crinklz or Seni Super Quatro when it comes to wet comfort.


3.3 Tykables Little Rawrs Topsheet and Backsheet


Durability

Dry Padding Deterioration Proportion: 17.3% (topsheet), 14.4% (backsheet)
Shake Deterioration Test: 3 shakes to deterioration


Durability Rating (dry): 8
The Tykables Little Rawrs diaper performed well during the dry durability test and again was similar to the Rearz Barnyard. Its padding is very resistant to clumping or tearing but has a tendency to detach from the backsheet. Unlike the Rearz diaper the wetness indicators on this one don’t run along the sides of the diaper and won’t be absorbed into the skin. The tapes on this diaper are of a high quality and easily hold up with wear. After the dry durability test there was very little deterioration in the core padding with most occurring in the wings and the typical inward folding of the padding at its mid-section.


Durability Rating (wet): 8

The wet durability of the Tykables Little Rawrs was comparable to its dry durability. The padding swelled a lot when wet and had a “squishy” feel to it but it resisted clumping or tearing and the tapes held strong through testing. It didn’t hold up quite as well as some in the wet shake test, but that might be expected for the amount it absorbed. Moreover the wetness indicators are hardly disturbed by sweat or light dribbles.

3.4 Tykables Little Rawrs Dry Test Deterioration

Discretion Tests


Profile

Front Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 3 cm (1.2"), 3.5 cm (1.4")
Back Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 9 cm (3.5"), 5 cm (2")
Side Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 6 cm (2.4"), 6 cm (2.4")

Profile Discretion Rating: 3

The Tykables Little Rawrs produces a large diaper bulge at both its front and rear, which would be very difficult to hide under all but the heaviest of clothing. This diaper is not designed with discretion in mind and would be best kept for around the house or overnight wear.


4.1 Tykables Little Rawrs Jeans Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)

4.2 Tykables Little Rawrs Sweats Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right) 


Noise

Noise Rating: 4

If discretion is your primary objective, you’ll want to avoid this diaper. The backsheet easily becomes detached from the padding and produces a substantial amount of noise. It will easily be heard when walking, sitting or even just changing positions. I actually found it to be even noisier than the Rearz Barnyard Elite Hybrid in spite of the very similar design.

4.3 Tykables Little Rawrs Noise Profile

Odor Reduction

Odor Reduction Rating: 8
The Tykable Little Rawrs diaper features front and rear waistbands with a plastic backsheet, which is well suited for containing odors. It is susceptible to surface dampness, which certainly can be an issue in this regard, but it has a relatively snug fitting. That said, gaps in the backsheet do happen and it isn’t among the snuggest diapers on the market. In real world testing, I didn’t notice odors very often. I put it near the top of the market, but not quite at the top in this regard.