Aerogel vs Mineral Wool Insulation — Compared
Head-to-head
| Mineral wool | Aerogel blanket | |
|---|---|---|
| k-value (W/m·K) | 0.040–0.045 | 0.015–0.020 |
| Thickness for same R | baseline (e.g. 50 mm) | ~⅓–½ (e.g. 20–25 mm) |
| Temperature range | up to ~640 °C (mat) | up to ~650 °C |
| Cost per m² | baseline | ~3–8× higher |
| Water/CUI | absorbs if unprotected | hydrophobic |
| Best for | most hot equipment, cost-driven | tight clearances, low profile, weight |
When to choose which
Both work in removable covers
FAQ
Is aerogel better than mineral wool?
Aerogel conducts about 2–3× less heat, so it hits the same R-value in a third to a half of the thickness — but costs several times more. For most hot equipment mineral wool is more cost-effective; aerogel is best where space or weight is constrained.
How much thinner is aerogel than mineral wool?
For the same R-value, roughly one-third to one-half the thickness, because aerogel's k (≈0.015–0.020) is about half mineral wool's (≈0.040–0.045).
What is the temperature limit of aerogel insulation?
High-temperature aerogel blankets are rated to around 650 °C, similar to high-temperature mineral-wool mat, so both suit hot industrial surfaces.
Is aerogel worth the extra cost?
Where you have room for mineral wool, usually not — mineral wool delivers the same saving cheaper. Aerogel pays off when thickness, clearance or weight is the limiting factor, or where its hydrophobic nature helps against CUI.