Comparing Polystyrenes: Looking at the differences between EPS and XPS

Photo ©

by Jason Burgess
Insulation is a critical component to specify when designing a functional, cost-effective, and energy-efficient building. One method to insulate a building is by installing 50 to 152 mm (2 to 6 in.) of rigid foam insulation on the exterior side of the wall framing. Two of the most frequently installed types of rigid foam insulation are expanded and extruded polystyrene (EPS and XPS). Both serve the same basic function: providing a means to manage the passage of heat in a building system. However, they differ in important ways.

The primary responsibility of any insulating construction material is to offer positive thermal performance. However, this is not the only factor to account when specifying a rigid foam insulation material. It is also critical to know how it will perform under several situations.

XPS is manufactured in a continuous extrusion process that produces a closed cell form of foam insulation. EPS, on the other hand, is manufactured by expanding spherical beads in a mold and then using heat and pressure to fuse the beads together.

Each product has proponents claiming one out performs the other. However, it is key to understand each product may be more suited for a particular use than the other. This can be made clearer by examining each product’s thermal and moisture protection, fire and water resistance, and implications for sustainably designed projects.

Thermal and moisture protection
R-value is a measure of a material’s resistance to heat transfer. The higher the R-value, the better the material can insulate. The usual procedure for testing a material’s R-value is ASTM C518, Standard Test Method for Steady-state Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Heat Flow Meter Apparatus. This test method requires a technician to measure the thermal resistance of a specimen placed between a cold plate and a hot plate.

Rigid foam insulation in a wall construction assembly delivers excellent R-values, but not all types of rigid foam offer the same thermal performance.

Rigid foam insulation delivers excellent R-values for such a thin product, but not all rigid foam offers the same thermal performance. The choice of  the insulation should be made after considering the effect its characteristics will have on the performance of the walls.

EPS is the insulation used most widely in insulated concrete forms (ICFs), structural insulated panels (SIPs), and exterior insulation and finishing systems (EIFS). It has the lowest average R-value of rigid foam insulation, typically R-4 per 25 mm (1 in.). The actual R-value of EPS depends on its density, with higher-density foams having higher R-values ranging from about 3.6 to 4.2 per 25 mm. Less-expensive EPS—typically sold at home improvement warehouse stores—is 0.4 kg (1 lb) density per 0.02 m3 (1 cf), appropriately called Type-I density EPS. Type-I products typically offer about R-3.9 per 25 mm or R-7.8 at 50 mm (2 in.).

However, Type-II EPS, rated at 0.6 kg (1.5 lb) nominal density, has an R-value between R-4.15 and R-4.2 per 25 mm. A 50-mm thick sheet would be R-8.3 to R-8.4. Type-II EPS is what most distributors will ship unless otherwise specified. In fact, many contractors refer to Type-II EPS as ‘standard density,’ not ‘high-density.’ (This information comes from the Green Building Advisor, 2015 edition in the Forum and can be found at

XPS, at about R-5 per 25 mm, has only a slightly better thermal performance than EPS. The thermal insulation performance of EPS and XPS in identical densities is quite close. However, EPS with the same level of density is less expensive. XPS is usually avoided in areas where materials with less density are needed or where the material, which is not produced below a certain density, is not applicable. In such a construction case, use of EPS as a less-dense material would provide the required insulation at a much lower cost.

Leave a Comment

6 comments on “Comparing Polystyrenes: Looking at the differences between EPS and XPS”

  1. Good article with regard to comparisons between the XPS and EPS. However, may have fallen bit short in the fact that there was no mention of NFPA 285 and the effect that it has on using these insulating materials. Such as added cost in material and labor at each and every window opening.

  2. You say “A higher potential for water absorption means a higher potential for the growth of mold. Again, most EPS products sold at home improvement warehouses absorb much more water than XPS products.” and later say “EPS offers mold resistance and receives a favorable rating under ASTM C1338, Standard Test Method for Determining Fungi Resistance of Insulation Materials and Facings.” These statements seem contradictory.

  3. In the article you mentioned that a typical EPS-panel has an R-value of on average 3.9 for 25 mm.
    However if I use R=d/lambda with a thickness of 0.025 m and a lambda of 0.033 W/m*K I get to an R-value of only 0.8 m2K/W
    Could someone tell me what I do wrong here?

    1. Imperial vs metric! Imperial R-Values in ft²•hr•°F/BTU for 25.4mm EPS range from 3.85 (low density foam @ 24°C =75°F) to R-4.8 (high density foam @ -4°C =25°F).
      Metric R-Values (called Rsi in Canada) in m²•K/W equivalent range for 25.4mm EPS is 0.66 to 0.85.
      If you use Windows/PC, I use this unit converter every day:

    2. I think you are correct here. The R value in this article for EPS seems wrong. EPS in my calculation too would have to be 125mm to be an R value of 3.0

Leave a Comment


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *