Emma Original Mattress Review

COUPON – Save 5% off your order with code NAPLAB.

In This Review
Performance Tests | Firmness | Support & Sleeping Positions | Design | Materials | Comparisons | FAQs

At NapLab, we put each mattress to the test.

We test 10 different factors that impact the performance, comfort, and feel of the mattress. We then take the results of those tests and compare them to every mattress we’ve tested to date.

Check out the full performance table below to see how this mattress ranks:

Factor	Emma Original	Average
Overall Score	8.45	8.54
Price (Queen)	C$674	$1,526 (Hybrid only)
Cooling – Score	10	8.6
Sinkage – Depth	2.11″	2.22″
Sinkage – Feel	Moderate	Moderate
Motion Transfer – Score	9.0	8.2
Motion Transfer – Acceleration	7.26 m/s²	8.79 m/s²
Response Time – Score	7.1	8.8
Response Time – Mostly Recovered	0.6 sec.	0.4 sec.
Response Time – Fully Recovered	1.6 sec.	1.0 sec.
Bounce – Height	10.48″	8.81″
Bounce – Feel	High	Moderate
Edge Support – Score	8.6	8.7
Edge Support – Sitting	3.75″	3.95″
Edge Support – Lying	Good	Excellent
Sex – Score	8.9	8.2
Pressure Relief – Score	7.0	8.6
Comfort Layer Thickness	1.50″	4.28″
Mattress Thickness	10.00″	12.19″
Off-Gassing – Score	6.7	8.1
Off-Gassing – Smell	Strong	Strong
Off-Gassing – Days	12 days	7 days
Company – Score	9.0	8.8
Trial	100 nights	174 nights
Warranty	10 years	40% have lifetime warranties, average of other 60% of mattresses is 13 years

How is Emma Original Different?

The Emma Original is a 10″ hybrid mattress with an overall performance level that is well below average, but a price that is also significantly less than the average.

Advantages

Aside from the attractive price, other advantages of the Emma Original include better cooling performance, lower levels of motion transfer, and better sex performance. It has high bounce, which gives the mattress an active feel.

Neutral Factors

This mattress has moderate levels of sinkage and high levels of bounce. Edge support is very near-average, so that is a bit of a neutral factor as well.

Disadvantages

A couple of disadvantages for the Emma Original include a slower material response time and rather disappointing pressure relief. The Emma Original only has a 1.5″ comfort layer, which is a major reason why pressure relief didn’t impressive.

Lastly, the Emma has strong off-gassing. In our tests, it took 12 days for the odor to dissipate, 5 days longer than the 7-day average duration.

The Emma Original has outstanding cooling. During our tests, I did not feel any significant level of heat retention around my body.

The mattress did an excellent job at keeping the surface cool. The Emma Original has a simple but proven hybrid design. We have just a 1.5” comfort foam layer atop an 8.5” coil unit. The coils bring extra airflow into the mattress.

• Baseline Temperature – the temperature of the mattress before anyone lies on it
• Maximum Temperature (0 minute) – the temperature of the mattress after lying on it for 15 minutes
• Ending Temperature (5 minute) – the temperature of the mattress after being lied upon and having no one on it for 5 minutes

In addition, while the 1.5” comfort layer doesn’t do any favors for pressure relief, for cooling it’s beneficial, as it’s simply less material in which heat can be easily absorbed and retained within.

Lastly, we tested the version with the optional cool-to-the-touch cover. Certainly, it’s not the best cooling cover we’ve tested, but it does add a slight level of improved cooling.

In my view, the extremely thin foam comfort layer is the primary reason that the cooling performance is better than average.

In our objective temperature tests, we measured a max surface level temperature of 89.2° F. This is 0.8° less than the average of 90.0° F, based on all of our tests to date.

After getting off the mattress, the temperature declined by 4.2 degrees from minutes 0 to 1, which is 0.6 degrees warmer than the average 0 to 1 minute decline of 4.8 degrees.

When we consider the combination of objective data, my subjective experiences, and an analysis of the materials, I’m confident in my view that cooling is outstanding.

The Emma Original has moderate sinkage. During our tests, we measured a pressure point sinkage depth of 2.11″. This is 0.11″ less sinkage than the average sinkage depth of 2.22″, based on all of our tests to date.

The level of sinkage is documented in the image below.

The mattress creates a slight body contour and has more of a floating “on” the mattress feel instead of sinking down “in” the mattress.

This feel, combined with the limited comfort layer, makes this mattress better suited to stomach and back sleepers and less great for side sleepers.

The Emma Original has a thinner-than-average comfort layer and a high level of support and resiliency from the coil unit. This combination is what creates the below-average sinkage and floating feel on top of the mattress.

The Emma Original has a very low level of motion transfer. During our tests, we measured a total acceleration range of 7.26 m/s². This is 17% less motion transfer than the average of 8.79 m/s².

This mattress is a rarity in that it has higher than average bounce, but still maintains below average motion transfer.

Seemingly, the coil unit is doing a fantastic job at isolating motion within smaller coil groupings and not transferring it across the mattress.

The level of motion transfer is also documented in the video below.

In our motion transfer chart, which visualizes our accelerometer data, we can see the highest motion peaks from 0 to 0.25 seconds.

Motion declines thereafter, but we do see a small yet noteworthy motion spike from 0.5 to 0.6 seconds.

By 0.90 seconds, we’ve returned to near-zero levels of energy, which is 0.02 seconds longer than the average motion duration of 0.88 seconds.

Overall motion transfer on the Emma Original is excellent. Motion intensity is better than average, while motion duration is essentially average.

The Emma Original is a mixed bag for material responsiveness, with a moderate mostly recovered response time and a slow fully recovered response time.

In our mostly recovered test, we measured a recovery speed of 0.6 seconds, which is 0.19 seconds slower than the average of 0.41 seconds, based on all of our tests to date.

In our fully recovered responsiveness test, we measured a recovery speed of 1.6 seconds, which is 0.59 seconds slower than the average of 1.01 seconds.

The level of responsiveness is documented in the video below.

Emma Original uses a mix of poly foam and memory foam within their comfort layer. While the poly foam layers are slightly faster to recover to their original shape compared to memory foam, none of these foams are especially quick.

When these foams are combined together, especially with a slower recovery memory foam, the totality of the mattress’s responsiveness speed ends up being slower than average by a healthy margin.

That slower recovery isn’t ideal and would typically have a bigger negative impact on ease of movement. However, the limited comfort layer thickness and floating feel on top of the mattress help to minimize that negative impact.

The Emma Original has a high level of bounce. During our tests, we measured a total bounce height of 10.48″. This is 1.67″ more bounce than the average of 8.81″, based on all of our tests to date.

This mattress uses a comfort layer that is considerably thinner than average. That limited use of foam means there is simply less material between sleepers and the coil unit.

The level of bounce is also documented in the video below.

As a result, the coil unit is able to create significant resiliency, creating a higher-than-average level of bounce.

That extra bounce is ideal for sex performance and also assists ease of movement. Even so, more bounce also has a negative impact on motion transfer, so there are pros and cons.

The Emma Original has excellent sitting edge support and good lying edge support.

In our sitting edge support test, we measured a sitting sinkage compression of 3.75″. This is 0.20″ less sitting sinkage than the average of 3.95″, based on all of our tests to date.

The level of edge support while seated is documented in the images below.

While lying directly on the edge of the mattress, I felt that the support was good in all sleeping positions. This mattress does not use any type of reinforced edge support coils or reinforced support foam along the perimeter.

This design choice is certainly helping to keep the price lower, but it’s also the primary reason that lying edge support is only good and not great.

The level of edge support while lying is documented in the images below.

Even so, considering the price of this mattress, it’s hard to complain too much. Sure, edge support could be better, and yet, it’s not bad.

The taller-than-average 8.5” coil unit, combined with the moderate sinkage and floating feel helps to create the right conditions to create good edge support.

The Emma Original has good sex performance. First up, let’s talk through the positives. The Emma Original has outstanding cooling performance and excellent edge support for sitting.

With just 3.75” of sitting edge sinkage, the edge is a robust and usable part of the mattress for amorous activities. Next, and most importantly, the mattress also has higher than average bounce at 10.48”.

This high level of bounce is the single most important factor when it comes to sex performance and the Emma Original has more than enough to facilitate good performance.

Moving on with a middling performance, we have noise, which we rated at a moderate level. The thinner-than-average comfort layer means less sound is absorbed.

Sex Factor	Factor Weight	Score	Rating
Bounce	65%	9.0	Very High
Edge Support	20%	9.1	Excellent
Noise	5%	8.0	Moderate
Pressure Relief	5%	7.0	Fair
Cooling	5%	10	Outstanding

Doing our testing, it was easy to get the entire mattress to bounce up and down on the foundation, creating an increased volume of noise.

Lastly, we have pressure relief, which only earned a fair score. Pressure relief isn’t the most important factor for sex performance, but it’s not nothing and absolutely has room for improvement.

Overall, sex performance is solid.

The Emma Original has a fair level of pressure relief. During our tests, I felt notable pressure points on my body and a general lack of comfort.

The mattress is equipped with just 1.5″ of comfort material, which is 2.78″ less comfort material than the average comfort layer thickness of 4.28″, based on all of our tests to date.

In my view, this just isn’t enough comfort material to create ideal pressure relief.

The thinner comfort layer means the body comes more into contact with the coil unit and it’s easy to feel the coils on the mattress. Regarding the material quality, it’s fine and basically what I expect at this price point.

Even so, it’s far from amazing and is certainly another major factor that’s negatively impacting pressure relief.

When you combine the okay material quality with a below-average total comfort layer thickness, slight contour, and floating feel you end up with a pressure relief performance that leaves much to be desired.

In our pressure mapping tests, we measured a max PSI of 0.75. Ideally, we want to see all PSI levels at or below 1.0 and the Emma Original did clear that threshold.

Pressure Relief (PSI)	Average	Maximum
Side Sleepers	0.14	0.75

Pressure Relief (PSI)	Average	Maximum
Back Sleepers	0.08	0.66

Pressure Relief (PSI)	Average	Maximum
Stomach Sleepers	0.08	0.39

When I consider our objective pressure mapping tests, material thickness, material quality, and my subjective experience on the mattress, I’m confident most sleepers will find the pressure relief to be fair.

The Emma Original had a strong smell upon the initial unboxing. The mattress smelled for 12 days. This is 5.0 days longer than the average smell duration of 7.0 days.

Emma mattresses come with a 100-night trial period and a 10-year warranty. Shipping and returns are both free.

Company Factor	Factor Weight	Score	Data
Returns	40%	10	$0
Trial Period	30%	8.0	100 nights
Warranty	20%	8.0	10 years
Shipping	10%	10	$0
Country of Origin	0%		Thailand

Comparing 102+ brands tested to date, the average trial period is 172 nights, 72 nights more than Emma offers.

The average warranty is 14 years, which is 4 years more than Emma’s 10-year warranty. And this excludes the 42% of mattresses that offer lifetime warranties.

The Emma Original is available in a single firmness, 6 out of 10, which gives the mattress a medium-firm feel.

This firmness is widely suitable for a range of sleepers, regardless of sleeping position or body weight.

Support on the Emma Original is fair. During our tests, I felt that support was fine and yet, it’s clear it leaves much to be desired.

The mattress is equipped with an 8.5″ support layer. This is 0.59″ thicker than the average support layer thickness of 7.91″, based on all of our tests to date.

Support Factor	Data
Comfort Layer	1.50″
Support Layer	8.50″
Firmness	Medium-Firm
Body Contour	Slight
Zoned Support	Yes
Reinforced Edge	No

The biggest issue limiting support performance isn’t the support layer, but rather the comfort layer. For a mattress to create ideal support it must be both supportive and comfortable, creating sufficient pressure relief.

The limited comfort layer means the mattress creates more pressure points, which causes discomfort and less restful sleep.

In addition, the Emma Original has more of a floating feel. This is a very specific feel, some really like it, some sleepers really hate it.

It’s more ideal for stomach sleepers and some back sleepers. Most side sleepers will not do well with this type of a support dynamic as it doesn’t create enough sinkage to bring the spine into a neutral alignment.

Check out the table below to see the sleeper weights and sleeping positions that would be best suited for this mattress.

Sleeper Weight	Stomach Sleeper	Side Sleeper	Back Sleeper
Under 150 lbs.	Yes	No	Yes
150-250 lbs.	Yes	Maybe	Yes
250-300 lbs.	No	No	No

When we consider the combination of the than thinner-than-average comfort layer, foam quality that is good but not great, fair pressure relief performance, and a floating feel it results in a supportive dynamic that leaves a lot to be desired.

Based on all of my tests to date, an analysis of the materials, and my subjective experiences, I’m confident that most sleepers will find support on the Emma Original is fair.

The Emma Original is a 10″ hybrid mattress that comes in a single firmness option—Medium-Firm. It has a basic hybrid design with a thin cover, coil support, and foam comfort layer (albeit thinner than average).

Design Factor	Data
Type	Hybrid
Thickness	10.00″
Cover Type	Thin
Weight	100 lbs.
Has Handles	Yes
Fiberglass-Free	Yes
Ships in a Box	Yes

Emma is fiberglass-free and is designed with carrying handles on the sides of the mattress for easier transport or rotations. It ships vacuum-sealed, rolled, and compressed in a box.

The Emma Original is 10″ thick and contains a combination of foam and coil layers. From top to bottom, here is a full list of the materials used in this mattress:

Layer Type	Thickness	Layer Specs
Poly Foam	0.50″	Not Available
Memory Foam	0.50″	Not Available
Poly Foam	0.50″	Not Available
Pocketed Coils	8.50″	Not Available

As I mentioned above, the Emma has a relatively thin foam layer and the majority of the mattress is made up of the pocketed coil unit.

The Emma Original has a thin cover that is 100% polyester. It is stretchy and very breathability. Emma offers two different covers on this mattress.

There is the standard thin cover as well as a cooling cover.

The Emma Original version that we tested did include this cooling cover and we found the cooling performance to be excellent. If you’re worried about cooling performance, the cover on this mattress certainly helps in this area.

The comfort layer is 1.50″ thick and made of three layers of poly foam. There are two layers of poly foam, each 0.5″ thick, and a 0.5″ memory foam layer sandwiched in the middle of the two.

This comfort layer is considerably thinner than the average and a major reason that pressure relief is lacking. If you want an Emma with a thicker comfort layer, I’d recommend checking out the Emma Performance.

The support layer is 8.50″ thick and made of a single pocketed coil unit. There is no base support foam, like we see on the Emma Performance.

Product Evolution

Emma was founded in 2015 in Germany and made the expansion to the North American market in 2019.

Emma, as a company, has undergone significant levels of product evolution.

The Comfort Adapt All-Foam was launched in April 2018, and it was renamed Emma Original on July 12, 2022. We tested this version of the mattress in 2023.

When we tested the Emma Original again in 2025, the model now includes a pocketed coil base and foam comfort layer, a drastic departure from the original all-foam design.

Below, you can see a side-by-side of the all-foam Emma Original vs. the hybrid version.

Other Mattresses to Consider

Not sure if the Emma Original is the right pick for you? Check out these three other top-rated hybrid mattresses for alternatives you may want to consider.

Frequently Asked Questions

Still have questions? Check out some of the top FAQs on the Emma Original mattress below and get the answers you’re looking for.