Emma Performance 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 Performance	Average
Overall Score	8.23	8.54
Price (Queen)	C$734	$1,529 (Hybrid only)
Cooling – Score	9.0	8.6
Sinkage – Depth	2.28″	2.22″
Sinkage – Feel	Moderate	Moderate
Motion Transfer – Score	7.6	8.2
Motion Transfer – Acceleration	10.23 m/s²	8.76 m/s²
Response Time – Score	6.7	8.8
Response Time – Mostly Recovered	0.7 sec.	0.4 sec.
Response Time – Fully Recovered	1.6 sec.	1.0 sec.
Bounce – Height	10.33″	8.80″
Bounce – Feel	High	Moderate
Edge Support – Score	8.4	8.7
Edge Support – Sitting	4.75″	3.93″
Edge Support – Lying	Excellent	Excellent
Sex – Score	8.7	8.2
Pressure Relief – Score	8.0	8.6
Comfort Layer Thickness	2.50″	4.29″
Mattress Thickness	13.50″	12.20″
Off-Gassing – Score	8.1	8.0
Off-Gassing – Smell	Strong	Strong
Off-Gassing – Days	7 days	7 days
Company – Score	9.0	8.8
Trial	100 nights	180 nights
Warranty	10 years	40% have lifetime warranties, average of other 60% of mattresses is 13 years

How is Emma Performance Different?

The Emma Performance is a 13.50″ hybrid mattress with an overall performance level that is below the average hybrid, but also a price that is also below the average. The result is an inexpensive hybrid that has some performance disadvantages.

Advantages

Advantages of the Emma Performance include better cooling, better sex performance, and slightly faster off-gassing than average as well. The price may also be a compelling advantage for some sleepers, being priced under C$800 for a queen mattress.

Neutral Factors

The Emma Performance has moderate levels of sinkage and high levels of bounce. Both sinkage and bounce are neutral factors since different sleepers will have different preferences in these areas.

Disadvantages

Disadvantages of the Emma Performance include higher levels of motion transfer, slower material response time, and slightly worse edge support.

Pressure relief is below average as well, largely due to the Emma’s thinner comfort layer (only 2.5″ where the average is 4.29″).

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

This mattress uses a simple, but proven hybrid design. The support coil unit brings plenty of airflow into the mattress. In addition, the foams all seem to breathe well.

Certainly, the thinner-than-average comfort layer isn’t great for pressure relief, but it is beneficial for cooling, as it’s less material that can absorb and retain heat easily.

• 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

Lastly, this mattress is equipped with a cooling cover. While this is far from the best cooling covers we’ve tested, it did appear to make a positive impact on cooling performance.

In our objective temperature tests, we measured a max surface level temperature of 91.1° F. This is 1.1° more than the average of 90.0° F, based on all of our tests to date.

After getting off the mattress, the temperature declined by 4.6 degrees from minutes 0 to 1, which is 0.2 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 excellent.

The Emma Performance has moderate sinkage. During our tests, we measured a pressure point sinkage depth of 2.28″.

This is 0.06″ more sinkage than the average sinkage depth of 2.22″, based on all of our tests to date. The mattress creates a slight body contour.

The level of sinkage is documented in the image below.

The Emma Performance has a slightly firm feel that creates a floating feel where the body lies more “on” the mattress as opposed to sinking down “in” the mattress.

There is a strong degree of pushback and support from the support layers. This feel isn’t good or bad, but it is a more specific feel.

You’ll want to be sure you enjoy more pushback, a slightly firm feel, and only a slight degree of contouring in order to be comfortable on this mattress.

The Emma Performance has a moderate level of motion transfer. During our tests, we measured a total acceleration range of 10.23 m/s². This is 17% more motion transfer than the average of 8.76 m/s².

This mattress has less comfort material than average. Having less foam means there is less material that can resist motion and reduce bounce.

In addition, the foams are primarily poly foam, which is more responsive, resilient, and springy, which also contributes to motion.

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

These design and material choices increase bounce in part by reducing the distance between sleepers and the coil unit, which results in higher motion transfer.

In our motion transfer chart, which visualizes our accelerometer data, we can see the highest motion peaks from 0 to 0.2 seconds. Immediately thereafter, we see a significant secondary motion spike from 0.5 to 0.6 seconds.

By 1.01 seconds, we’ve returned to near-zero levels of energy, which is 0.13 seconds longer than the average motion duration of 0.88 seconds.

When we look at the total motion picture, it’s just not great. We have higher than average motion intensity, a sizable secondary motion spike, and a longer than average motion duration. All that to say, motion transfer leaves much to be desired.

The Emma Performance has a slow material response. In our mostly recovered test, we measured a recovery speed of 0.7 seconds, which is 0.29 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 0.58 seconds slower than the average of 1.02 seconds.

Most of the materials within this mattress are fairly quick to recover back to shape. However, the 0.75” memory foam layer within the core is not. It’s a more traditional type of memory foam and has a slow material recovery speed.

The level of responsiveness is documented in the video below.

While the layers around it are able to rebound back to shape quickly, the slow recovery speed of this memory foam layer slows down the total responsiveness of the mattress.

This slower responsiveness makes it harder to move around on the mattress.

Fortunately, the limited sinkage depth, floating feel, and high bounce counteract that slower responsiveness, such that ease of movement is still reasonably good.

The Emma Performance has a high level of bounce. During our tests, we measured a total bounce height of 10.33″. This is 1.54″ more bounce than the average of 8.79″, based on all of our tests to date.

Hybrid mattresses, mattresses with a thinner-than-average comfort layer, and mattresses that don’t use much memory foam all typically create more bounce than average, and that’s exactly what we measured here as well.

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

The higher bounce helps to facilitate better ease of movement and is also a major factor in the good sex score. However, that high bounce is a significant reason why motion transfer isn’t great. As such, there are pros and cons worth considering here.

The Emma Performance has fair sitting edge support and excellent lying edge support.

In our sitting edge support test, we measured a sitting sinkage compression of 4.75″. This is 0.81″ more sitting sinkage than the average of 3.94″, 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 excellent in all sleeping positions.

After opening up the mattress to assess the materials, it doesn’t appear to use reinforced edge coils or reinforced edge support foam. Despite this fact, the mattress still maintained excellent lying edge support.

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

The combination of a limited comfort layer, minimal sinkage, a floating feel, and a slightly firm feel is helping to create better lying edge support.

While these attributes work well together to create good edge support for lying, when weight is localized to a single location as it is while sitting, we see that seated edge support struggles considerably.

The Emma Performance has good sex performance. First, let’s talk through what the mattress does well with minimal noise, excellent cooling, and good pressure.

In addition, we have a high level of bounce at 10.33”. This is notably higher than average and helps ensure the mattress is engaging, bouncy, and works with couples to facilitate less-strenuous amorous activities.

Sex Factor	Factor Weight	Score	Rating
Bounce	65%	8.9	High
Edge Support	20%	7.8	Fair
Noise	5%	10	Minimal
Pressure Relief	5%	8.0	Good
Cooling	5%	9.0	Excellent

The one area where the mattress struggled for sex is edge support, which we measured at 4.75” of sitting edge sinkage.

That is notably deeper sinkage than average and makes the edge of the mattress less usable for amorous activities.

While Emma Performance isn’t perfect for sex, it does more right than it does wrong and earned a better-than-average score.

The Emma Performance has a good level of pressure relief. During our tests, I felt a slight level of pressure relief. The overall experience is good and yet, it’s clear it doesn’t rise to the excellent or outstanding level.

The mattress is equipped with 2.5″ of comfort material, which is 1.79″ less comfort material than the average comfort layer thickness of 4.29″, based on all of our tests to date.

During our testing, I opened up the mattress to assess the foam quality and individual layers. The foam quality is fine, but also far from great. But beyond that, there just isn’t very much foam here.

We have just 2.5” of foam comfort material, which is well below average and is the primary reason that pressure relief isn’t any better than this.

These factors, combined with the slightly firm feel, floating feel, and high degree of pushback, create a feel that simply leaves much to be desired.

In our objective pressure mapping tests, we measured a max PSI 0.79. Ideally, I want to see all PSI measurements at 1.0 or below and the Emma Performance was able to clear that mark.

Pressure Relief (PSI)	Average	Maximum
Side Sleepers	0.11	0.48

Pressure Relief (PSI)	Average	Maximum
Back Sleepers	0.07	0.79

Pressure Relief (PSI)	Average	Maximum
Stomach Sleepers	0.06	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 good.

The Emma Performance had a strong smell upon the initial unboxing. The mattress smelled for 7 days. This is 0.1 days shorter than the average smell duration of 7.1 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%		Mexico

Comparing 103+ brands tested to date, the average trial period is 177 nights, which is 77 nights longer than Emma offers.

The average warranty is 14 years, which is 4 years more than this mattress as well. This average excludes the 42% of mattresses offer lifetime warranties.

The Emma Performance is available in a single firmness, 7 out of 10, which gives the mattress a slightly firm feel.

Shockingly, Emma rates the firmness at a 3 out of 10. In addition, they describe the mattress as “luxuriously soft”. I really do not understand or agree with their assessment or description at all.

This is absolutely without question not a soft mattress. It has all the characteristics and feel of a firm mattress with slightly firm feel, high degree of pushback, and a floating feeling.

Support on the Emma Performance is good. During our tests, I felt well supported in all sleeping positions. However, it’s clear that support could have been better.

Support Factor	Data
Comfort Layer	2.50″
Support Layer	11.00″
Firmness	Slightly Firm
Body Contour	Slight
Zoned Support	Yes
Reinforced Edge	No

The mattress is equipped with an 11.0″ support layer. This is 3.09″ thicker than the average support layer thickness of 7.91″, based on all of our tests to date.

For a mattress to create ideal support, it needs to support the body, keeping the spine in a neutral alignment, while also creating sufficient comfort and pressure relief.

This mattress has a very specific feel with a high degree of pushback, more of a floating feel, and a slightly firm feel. That feel can work for many stomach and back sleepers, but isn’t as ideal for side sleepers.

These factors, combined with the limited pressure relief, further push this as a mattress that’s just not as great for supporting side sleepers.

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.	Yes	Maybe	Yes

According to the product page, this mattress is equipped with 7 support zones. Zoned support helps to create better support where the body needs it and also reduces sagging and improves mattress longevity.

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

The Emma Performance is a 13.50″ hybrid mattress that comes in a single firmness option—Slightly Firm. Again, Emma is pitching this as a soft high-profile hybrid within their collection, but our tests showed a very different picture.

Design Factor	Data
Type	Hybrid
Thickness	13.50″
Cover Type	Thin
Weight	74 lbs.
Has Handles	Yes
Fiberglass-Free	Yes
Ships in a Box	Yes

The Emma Performance is 13.50″ thick and contains a combination of different foam types and a coil base. From top to bottom, here is a full list of the materials used in this mattress:

Layer Type	Thickness	Layer Specs
Poly Foam	0.75″	2.5-2.8 PCF
Poly Foam	0.50″	2.5-2.8 PCF
Memory Foam	0.75″	3.1-3.4 PCF
Poly Foam	0.50″	1.9-2.2 PCF
Pocketed Coils	8.00″	Not Available
Support Foam	3.00″	1.9-2.2 PCF

Emma says this is a 14″ mattress, but in our tests, we measured the mattress at a solid 13.50″ height.

The Emma Performance has a thin cover. It is soft, breathable, and also machine washable. On the lower sides of the mattress, the Emma has a thicker side panel fabric for better durability.

There are also flat handles designed into the side of the mattress, making it easier to rotate or transport this mattress.

The comfort layer is only 2.50″ thick and made of four layers of foam directly below the cover. Both top layers (blue) are poly foam layers. The top one is 0.75″ thick and the second layer is 0.5″ thick.

Next in the stack is a 0.75″ memory foam layer (yellow). The base of the comfort layer is a 0.50″ poly foam (grey), which acts a bit as a transitional layer between the comfort foams and the support layer below.

The support layer is 11.00″ thick and made of coils and support foam. Below the transitional poly foam is an 8.0″ zoned pocketed coil system, with stronger coils located at the core of the mattress and lighter coils at the head and foot of the mattress.

A 3.0″ support foam (dark blue) is at the very bottom of this mattress, giving the Emma more pushback and a stable foundation.

Product Evolution

Emma Performance has gone through a multiple different iterations over the time that we have tested this mattress.

This current version was tested in November 2025, but we tested an earlier version in 2024.

Concerning performance, I was disappointed in the 2025 Emma Performance as it performed notably worse than the 2024 Emma Performance we tested. The overall score dropped from 9.22 (2024 version) to 8.23 (2025 version), as listed in this review.

Categories which dropped in score include: motion transfer, response time, edge support, sex, pressure relief, and off-gassing.

When we first tested the older version of this mattress in 2024, it was called the Emma Hybrid Premium. In summer 2025, the mattress was renamed to the Emma Performance, at which time various design and material changes also were implemented.

Other Mattresses to Consider

Not sure if the Emma Performance 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 Performance mattress below and get the answers you’re looking for.