What a cotton t-shirt costs — four checked, 17.95 to 30 €
We read the stated composition of four crew-neck t-shirts on the same day. Three are 100 % cotton. The price range is nearly double.
The finding, first
On 27 July 2026 we opened four crew-neck t-shirts in German online shops and read the composition each retailer states on its own product page. Three of the four are given as 100 % cotton. They cost 17.95 €, 19.90 € and 30 €.
That is worth stating plainly, because the assumption running through most buying advice is the opposite — that a cheap t-shirt is cheap because it has been cut with synthetics. At this price range, in this category, that is not what the labels say.
So what does the extra money buy?
Not a different fibre. The Massimo Dutti shirt costs two thirds more than the Zara one and states the same 100 % cotton. Whatever separates them is not visible in the composition line at all.
What can separate them: yarn quality and staple length, knit construction — the Massimo Dutti listing names it as interlock, a denser double-knit — fabric weight, dyeing, seam finishing, and how the shirt holds its shape after twenty washes. None of that appears in a composition statement, and we have not measured any of it. We are not going to tell you the more expensive shirt is better made, because we do not know.
A composition line tells you what the fibre is. It does not tell you how good the fabric is.
Where the composition does earn its keep
The one shirt in this group that is not 100 % cotton carries the word cotton in its product name: Uniqlo’s AIRism line, at 53 % cotton with the remainder synthetic. That is a deliberate technical fabric rather than a substitution — but it is also the case that reading the name instead of the composition would get you the wrong shirt, at the same price, in the same shop.
That is the practical use of a composition line: not to rank quality, but to check that the fabric is what the product name implies.
Four crew-neck t-shirts, stated composition, read 27 July 2026
| Product | Brand | Price | Stated composition |
|---|---|---|---|
| T-Shirt aus Baumwolle mit Rundhalsausschnitt | Zara | 17,95 € | 100 % cotton |
| 100 % Supima Baumwolle T-Shirt | Uniqlo | 19,90 € | 100 % cotton |
| AIRism Baumwolle T-Shirt | Uniqlo | 19,90 € | 53 % cotton, 30 % recycled polyester, 17 % elastomultiester |
| Interlock-T-Shirt aus 100 % Baumwolle | Massimo Dutti | 30,00 € | 100 % cotton |
Compositions and prices as stated by each retailer on its own product page, read 27 July 2026. They change without notice. We ran no lab test and bought none of these shirts.
Sources
4 in total · archived internally- Produktseite Zara — „T-Shirt aus Baumwolle mit Rundhalsausschnitt", 17,95 € — ZARA Deutschland Read 27 July 2026
- Produktseite Uniqlo — „100 % Supima Baumwolle T-Shirt", 19,90 € — UNIQLO Deutschland Read 27 July 2026
- Produktseite Uniqlo — „AIRism Baumwolle T-Shirt", 19,90 € — UNIQLO Deutschland Read 27 July 2026
- Produktseite Massimo Dutti — „Interlock-T-Shirt aus 100 % Baumwolle", 30 € — Massimo Dutti Read 27 July 2026
Questions readers ask
Is a more expensive t-shirt better?
We cannot tell you that from these figures, and neither can anyone else who has only read the composition. Three of these four state the same fibre at prices from 17.95 € to 30 €. What differs — yarn, knit, weight, finishing — is not in the composition line, and we did not measure it.
Are cheap t-shirts usually cut with polyester?
Not in this sample. The cheapest shirt here, at 17.95 €, is stated as 100 % cotton, while a synthetic blend appears at 19.90 € — in a technical fabric line where the synthetic share is the point.
What is interlock?
A double-knit construction, denser and more stable than a single jersey. The Massimo Dutti listing names it. It is a plausible reason for a price difference at identical fibre content — but it is a construction claim, not something we verified by measurement.
Why are COS and H&M not in this table?
Their product pages block automated access, so we could not read them the same way on the same day. Rather than mix in figures gathered differently, we left them out and say so.