SPC vs WPC vs LVP Flooring —
The Complete B2B Technical Comparison
LVP (Luxury Vinyl Plank) is the product category. SPC and WPC are the two core technologies within it. SPC (Stone Plastic Composite) has a rigid limestone-PVC core at 1.95–2.05 g/cm³ — dimensional stability ≤0.10% (EN ISO 23999), fire rating Bfl-s1 (EN 13501-1), maximum EN 685 Class 43 (click) or Class 44 (dryback adhesive bond). WPC (Wood Plastic Composite) has a foamed wood-flour core at 1.2–1.5 g/cm³ — dimensional stability 0.15–0.25%, maximum practical EN 685 Class 31/33. For any commercial project requiring EN 685 Class 33/42 or above, SPC is the only technically correct specification. WPC is appropriate for residential comfort-priority applications where EN 685 Class 31/33 is sufficient.
First: Clarifying the Terminology Confusion
The LVP/SPC/WPC terminology confuses buyers, distributors, and even some specifiers — because the terms describe different things and are frequently misused interchangeably. Understanding the correct hierarchy resolves every downstream decision.
The Fire Rating Requirement: Bfl-s1 for All Commercial Specification
Beyond dimensional stability and EN 685 class, every commercial flooring project in the EU and UK requires a fire classification under EN 13501-1. This is a legal requirement under the EU Construction Products Regulation (CPR) and the UK Building Regulations (Approved Document B) — not a voluntary certification.
Consequently, when comparing SPC vs WPC for commercial specification, fire rating is a non-negotiable baseline requirement — not a differentiator. Both SPC and WPC can carry Bfl-s1 certification, but always verify with your supplier before specifying. Furthermore, the CE Declaration of Performance (DoP) issued under EN 14041 must explicitly state the fire classification — a CE mark alone is insufficient without the accompanying DoP.
The Core: What Is Actually Inside Each Plank
Every performance difference between SPC and WPC originates in the core layer. The core is not visible in the installed floor, but it determines every characteristic the specifier cares about.
Density: 1.95–2.05 g/cm³ · ISO 1183
Dimensional stability: ≤0.10% (EN ISO 23999)
Residual indentation: ≤0.05mm (ISO 24343-1)
Fire rating: Bfl-s1 (EN 13501-1)
Max EN 685 class: Class 43 (click) · Class 44 (dryback)
Density: 1.2–1.5 g/cm³ · Foam air pockets throughout
Dimensional stability: 0.15–0.25% (higher expansion risk)
Residual indentation: ~0.10–0.15mm (softer core)
Fire rating: Bfl-s1 available — verify per product
Max practical EN 685 class: Class 31/33 (residential)
Head-to-Head: Every Performance Parameter Compared
| Parameter | SPC Rigid Core | WPC Foamed Core | Flexible LVP |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core density | 1.95–2.05 g/cm³ | 1.2–1.5 g/cm³ | 1.0–1.3 g/cm³ |
| Dimensional stability | ≤0.10% (EN ISO 23999) | 0.15–0.25% | 0.25–0.40% |
| Fire rating | Bfl-s1 · EN 13501-1 ✓ | Bfl-s1 available — verify | Market dependent |
| Max EN 685 class (click) | Class 43 | Class 31/33 | Class 21/23 |
| Residual indentation | ≤0.05mm (ISO 24343-1) | ~0.10–0.15mm | ~0.20mm+ |
| UFH compatibility | Excellent — low thermal resistance | Moderate — foam reduces heat transfer | Limited — expansion risk |
| Underfoot feel | Firm — hard underfoot | Soft — warm and cushioned | Moderate flex |
| Impact sound reduction | △IIC 18–24 dB (with IXPE) | △IIC 20–28 dB (foam core) | Moderate |
| Rolling load resistance | Excellent — rigid stone core | Moderate — foam compresses | Poor — flexible |
| Moisture resistance (surface) | 100% waterproof | 100% waterproof surface | Water resistant only |
| Moisture risk at cut edges | None — limestone core inert | Wood flour absorbs moisture — swelling risk | N/A |
| CE EN 14041 + Bfl-s1 | Standard — per shipment | Available — verify per product | Market dependent |
| FloorScore / GREENGUARD Gold | Standard on SPC | Available — verify | Available — verify |
| Weight (kg/m²) | ~8–13 kg/m² (heavy) | ~5–7 kg/m² (lighter) | ~3–5 kg/m² |
| FOB price range | US$6.18–8.50/m² | US$7.50–12.00/m² | US$3.80–6.00/m² |
EN 685 Utilisation Class — The Commercial Specification Dividing Line
The EN 685 utilisation class is the European standard that classifies resilient floor coverings by intended use environment and traffic intensity. It is the parameter that most clearly separates SPC from WPC for B2B procurement.
WPC ✓
WPC ✗
WPC ✗
WPC ✗
EN 685 Class 33/42 requires the floor covering to withstand sustained rolling loads, heavy foot traffic, and concentrated furniture loads without permanent deformation. WPC’s foamed core (density 1.2–1.5 g/cm³) compresses under these loads — producing residual indentation values of 0.10–0.15mm versus SPC’s ≤0.05mm (ISO 24343-1). Furthermore, WPC’s dimensional stability of 0.15–0.25% produces visible joint gapping under commercial temperature cycling. Specifying WPC in a Class 33/42 or above environment creates warranty liability and a floor that visually and structurally fails within 24–36 months.
The Hidden WPC Risk: Wood Flour and Moisture at Cut Edges
WPC is marketed as 100% waterproof — and the surface is. However, the wood flour content in the core creates a specific failure risk: moisture absorption at cut edges.
When WPC planks are cut during installation, the wood flour in the core is exposed at the cut edge. Unlike SPC’s limestone-PVC core — which is genuinely inert — WPC’s wood flour absorbs water over time if exposed to sustained wet conditions at the perimeter. This produces localised swelling, lifting adjacent planks and breaking click joints. Consequently, WPC should not be specified for bathrooms, commercial kitchens, or any area where perimeter cuts will be in sustained contact with moisture.
SPC vs WPC for Underfloor Heating
SPC is the correct specification for underfloor heating. Its limestone-PVC core has low thermal resistance and maintains dimensional stability ≤0.10% across the UFH temperature cycling range (maximum surface temperature 27°C). WPC’s foamed core reduces heat transfer efficiency and its dimensional stability of 0.15–0.25% creates a higher risk of joint separation under repeated thermal cycling.
Container Yield: The B2B Importer Calculation
SPC’s dense core makes it significantly heavier per m² than WPC — which directly affects logistics cost. For the complete methodology, see our guide on how to calculate SPC container landed cost.
For large-volume commercial procurement where EN 685 Class 33/42 is sufficient and adhesive installation is acceptable, 2.5mm Dryback LVT delivers the lowest landed cost per m². Furthermore, see our dedicated guide on why 20ft containers beat 40ft for heavy SPC shipments for the complete weight and port compliance analysis.
Project Type Decision Guide
UFH standard in new UK residential. EN 685 Class 33 for units, Class 33/42 for corridors. SPC 5–6mm with 0.5mm wear. UKCA · FloorScore · Bfl-s1 EN 13501-1 for Approved Document B compliance.
5mm or 6mm SPC ClickEN 685 Class 33/42 minimum. SPC click 5–7mm for floating. 2.5mm Dryback for large-volume. CE EN 14041 DoP · Bfl-s1 EN 13501-1 · REACH standard for all EU tender submissions.
SPC Click or 2.5mm DrybackEN 685 Class 44 mandatory. Only achievable with 3mm Dryback LVT + 0.7mm wear + permanent adhesive bond. No click format achieves Class 44. NHS HTM 61 · Bfl-s1 · R10 slip resistance.
3mm Dryback · 0.7mm wear onlyNCC/BCA Part F5 acoustic compliance. 8mm SPC with IXPE achieves △IIC 23–24 dB. FloorScore · AS 4586 R10+ standard for AU import. Bfl-s1 maintained across all thicknesses.
8mm SPC Click · △IIC 23–24 dBEN 685 Class 21/23 sufficient. Comfort and acoustic warmth are priorities. No rolling loads. No UFH. No sustained wet area exposure. WPC’s softer feel is the correct choice where commercial durability is not required.
WPC — comfort priority onlyIf a commercial project specification states EN 685 Class 33/42, Class 43, or Class 44 — or if the project involves rolling loads, UFH, or wet area perimeter exposure — WPC is not a compliant product. Specifying WPC in these environments creates warranty liability that no price saving compensates for. Furthermore, the CE DoP for WPC will not confirm Class 33/42 because the product cannot achieve it under test.
SPC or Dryback — not WPCThe B2B Procurement Summary
| Project Requirement | Correct Specification | Why WPC Is Not Suitable | Key Standard |
|---|---|---|---|
| EN 685 Class 33/42 — office, retail, housing association | SPC click 5–7mm · 0.5mm wear | WPC density 1.2–1.5 g/cm³ cannot withstand Class 33/42 rolling loads. Max WPC class is 31/33. | EN 685 · CE EN 14041 · Bfl-s1 |
| EN 685 Class 43 — heavy commercial, logistics | SPC click 8mm · 0.7mm wear | WPC cannot achieve Class 43 under any conditions — not a compliant product for this specification. | EN 685 · Bfl-s1 · EN 13501-1 |
| EN 685 Class 44 — NHS, airport, supermarket | 3mm Dryback · 0.7mm wear · adhesive | WPC cannot achieve Class 44. No click format achieves Class 44 — permanent adhesive bond required. | NHS HTM 61 · EN 685 · Bfl-s1 |
| Underfloor heating — EU / UK | SPC click 5–6mm · max 27°C surface | WPC foam core insulates against heat and has 0.15–0.25% dimensional change across UFH range. | EN ISO 23999 · ≤0.10% |
| Large-volume import · Class 33/42 · adhesive acceptable | 2.5mm Dryback LVT · 0.55mm wear | Dryback delivers 5,100 m²/20ft vs WPC ~3,200 m²/20ft. Lower FOB + better yield = lower landed cost. | EN 685 Class 33/42 · CE DoP |
| Residential bedroom · comfort priority · Class 21/23 | WPC acceptable | WPC is appropriate where Class 21/23 is sufficient, no UFH, no wet area, comfort is the priority. | EN 685 Class 21/23 |
Frequently Asked Questions
Every Ecoflors sample kit includes TDS with EN 685 class confirmation, CE Declaration of Performance, Bfl-s1 fire certificate, FloorScore SCS-FS-05154, GREENGUARD Gold certificate, and full compliance documentation for your destination market. Dispatched within 5 business days.