I Tested 7 Natural Cat Litters: Complete Results & Data
- Tips Trove
- Aug 7
- 5 min read
If you've already watched my video comparing seven popular natural cat litters, this article contains all of the raw measurements, scoring methodology, and data that couldn't fit into the video.
If you haven't seen the video yet, you can watch it below before diving into the full results.
Why I Made This Comparison
Natural cat litters continue to grow in popularity as alternatives to traditional clay litter. They promise lower dust, renewable materials, and better environmental sustainability—but performance varies dramatically from one brand to another.
Rather than relying on manufacturer claims, I wanted to compare each litter using the exact same testing procedure.
The goal wasn't to determine the "perfect" litter, but to evaluate each one using repeatable, standardized tests.
Products Tested
Litter | Material |
Clay | |
Wood Fiber | |
Sorghum Grain | |
Whole-Kernel Corn | |
Walnut Shell | |
Pea Husk | |
Bean Husk / Bentonite | |
Bean Dregs |
Testing Methodology
Every litter was tested using identical procedures.
Test Setup
250 mL measured for cost-per-use calculations
Smooth coated paper bowls used to simulate litter box walls
15 mL dyed water
10-minute clumping time
Same drop height
Same tracking procedure
Same lighting for dust evaluation
Why I Used Weight Instead of Volume
Although every sample began with the same volume, cat litter is sold by weight.
Different materials have drastically different densities.
For example:
Litter | 250 mL Weight (in grams) |
A&H Slide (clay baseline) | 297 |
Naturally Fresh (Walnut) | 151 |
Catit (Pea Husk) | 154 |
Petrichor (Pea Dregs) | 201 |
Word’s Best (Corn) | 146 |
Hardball (Sorghum Grain) | 132 |
Fukumaru (Soybean Fiber) | 166 |
Okocat (Wood Fiber) | 125 |
This is why all cost calculations were based on grams instead of volume.
Clumping Test
Instead of giving every litter a simple "good" or "bad" rating, I broke clumping into four separate categories worth 10 points each, totaling 40.
1. Clump Formation
How well did the litter form a cohesive clump?
Score | Criteria |
10 | Forms one solid, cohesive clump with little to no loose wet litter. |
5 | Forms a clump, but has noticeable weak spots, cracks, or loose wet litter. |
0 | Does not form a usable clump; remains mushy, scattered, or falls apart immediately. |
2. Bowl Release
How easily did the clump release from the bowl?
Score | Criteria |
10 | Released cleanly |
5 | Some sticking |
0 | Major sticking |
3. Scoop Durability
Did the clump survive normal scooping?
Score | Criteria |
10 | Remains intact during scooping and transfer with minimal breakage. |
5 | Some pieces break off, but most of the clump stays together. |
0 | Breaks apart significantly during normal scooping. |
4. Drop Test
The clump was dropped twice 3 inches and 6 inches.
This simulates:
automatic litter boxes
aggressive scooping
normal handling
Score | Criteria |
10 | Holds shape under handling with little to no crumbling. |
5 | Shows cracks or breaks apart with moderate pressure. |
0 | Easily crumbles or disintegrates. |
Individual Clumping Scores
Litter | Formation (10) | Release (10) | Scoop (10) | Drop (10) | Total (40) | |
A&H Slide (clay baseline) | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 40 | |
Naturally Fresh (Walnut) | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | |
Catit (Pea Husk) | 5 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 30 | |
Petrichor (Pea Dregs) | 5 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 35 | |
Word’s Best (Corn) | 10 | 10 | 5 | 0 | 25 | |
Hardball (Sorghum Grain) | 10 | 5 | 10 | 10 | 35 | |
Fukumaru (Soybean Fiber) | 10 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | |
Okocat (Wood Fiber) | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 10 |
Cost Per Use
This was probably the most interesting part of the experiment.
Every sample started with:
250 mL litter
15 mL water
After removing the clump, I weighed the remaining litter.
The difference between the starting and ending weight represents how much litter was consumed during one use.
Cost per use was calculated using:
Weight Lost × Price Per Gram = Cost Per Use
Cost per use is weighted on a 25 point scale using (and rounded to nearest whole number):
Score = 25 × (Worst − Cost) ÷ (Worst − Best)
Cost Calculations
Litter | Starting Weight (grams) | Remaining Weight (grams) | Weight Lost (grams) | Price/Gram (cents) | Cost/Use (cents) |
A&H Slide (clay baseline) | 297 | 278 | 19 | 0.21636¢ | 4.11¢ |
Naturally Fresh (Walnut) | 151 | 129 | 22 | 0.254¢ | 5.59¢ |
Catit (Pea Husk) | 154 | 138 | 16 | 0.559¢ | 8.94¢ |
Petrichor (Pea Dregs) | 201 | 183 | 18 | 0.283¢ | 5.09¢ |
Word’s Best (Corn) | 146 | 127 | 19 | 0.275¢ | 5.23¢ |
Hardball (Sorghum Grain) | 132 | 118 | 14 | 0.492¢ | 6.89¢ |
Fukumaru (Soybean Fiber) | 166 | 148 | 18 | 0.347¢ | 6.25¢ |
Okocat (Wood Fiber) | 125 | 110 | 15 | 0.335¢ | 5.03¢ |
Tracking Test
Tracking is difficult to measure accurately because the amount transferred to a paw is often below the precision of most consumer kitchen scales.
Instead, I used the same paw, repeated the same motion, and compared every litter side by side under identical conditions.
Scores were assigned using the following scale.
Score | Description |
25 | Virtually no visible litter remained on the paw. |
20 | Small amount remained, but very minimal. |
15 | Noticeable tracking, but not excessive. |
10 | Quite a bit of litter remained on the paw. |
5 | Heavy tracking that would likely end up around the house. |
0 | The worst performer by a clear margin. |
Dust Test
Dust was evaluated by pouring every litter under identical conditions.
Because dust is primarily a visual characteristic, litters were grouped into performance tiers.
Score | Description |
10 | Virtually no visible dust cloud; clean pour. |
5 | Noticeable dust, but not excessive. |
0 | Large visible dust cloud or lingering dust. |
Final Scores
Litter | Clumping | Cost | Tracking | Dust | Total |
A&H Slide (clay baseline) | 40 | 25 | 15 | 10 | 90 |
Naturally Fresh (Walnut) | 5 | 17 | 15 | 5 | 42 |
Catit (Pea Husk) | 30 | 0 | 25 | 10 | 65 |
Petrichor (Pea Dregs) | 35 | 20 | 25 | 10 | 90 |
Word’s Best (Corn) | 25 | 19 | 20 | 10 | 74 |
Hardball (Sorghum Grain) | 35 | 11 | 0 | 10 | 56 |
Fukumaru (Soybean Fiber) | 25 | 14 | 25 | 10 | 74 |
Okocat (Wood Fiber) | 10 | 20 | 5 | 0 | 35 |
Overall Rankings
A&H Slide (clay baseline)
Petrichor (Pea Dregs)
Fukumaru (Soybean Fiber)
Word’s Best (Corn)
Catit (Pea Husk)
Hardball (Sorghum Grain)
Naturally Fresh (Walnut)
Okocat (Wood Fiber)
Things This Test Doesn't Measure
No single test tells the whole story.
This comparison intentionally focused on:
Clumping performance
Tracking
Dust
Cost per use
It does not directly measure:
Long-term odor control
Cat preference
Multi-cat performance
Biodegradability
Flushability
Long-term storage
Performance after several days of repeated use
If any of those factors are your top priority, I recommend using these results alongside your own experience.
Which Litter Would I Buy?
Based on these tests:
🏆 Best Overall: Petrichor (Pea Dregs)
💰 Best Value: Petrichor (Pea Dregs) tie with Okocat (Wood Fiber)
😺 Best Clumping: Petrichor (Pea Dregs) tie with Hardball (Sorghum Grain)
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did you use 15 mL of water?
It provided a consistent challenge that created measurable clumps without overwhelming the 250 mL litter sample.
Why wasn't odor control scored?
Odor perception is highly subjective and changes over time. Rather than assigning arbitrary scores, I focused on characteristics that could be evaluated consistently across all litters.
Why include a clay litter?
Arm & Hammer Slide served as a baseline because traditional clay litter remains the benchmark that many cat owners are familiar with.
Final Thoughts
Every litter in this comparison had strengths and weaknesses. The "best" option ultimately depends on what matters most to you, whether that's clumping performance, tracking, dust, or long-term cost.
Some links may be affiliate links or referral links. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases at no extra cost to you. Your support helps keep Tips Trove going—thank you!
Comments