Polyjacking vs Mudjacking — what's the difference?
Polyjacking uses lightweight expanding polyurethane foam. Mudjacking uses a heavy cement-soil slurry. Modern polyjacking wins on speed, durability, weight, and cleanliness — making it the standard for residential work in 2026.
Short answer
Polyjacking is the modern replacement for mudjacking. Both lift sunken concrete, but polyurethane foam is 95% lighter, completely waterproof, cures in 15 minutes, and uses dime-sized holes instead of 2-inch craters. Mudjacking is older technology and is being phased out in residential use.
Side-by-side comparison
| Feature | Polyjacking (Foam) Winner | Mudjacking (Slurry) |
|---|---|---|
| Material weight | 2–4 lbs / cu ft | 100+ lbs / cu ft |
| Hole size | 5/8 inch (dime) | 1.5–2 inches (toonie) |
| Cure time | 15 minutes | 24–72 hours |
| Waterproof | ||
| Won't wash out | ||
| Works in winter | ||
| Typical warranty | 5–10 years | 1–3 years |
| Risk of re-sinking | Low (light material) | Higher (heavy material) |
| Visible patches | Nearly invisible | Visible 2" plugs |
When mudjacking might still make sense
For very large commercial or industrial slabs where the soil is already strong, mudjacking can be 10–20% cheaper. For Canadian residential work — driveways, garages, sidewalks, patios — polyjacking is almost always the better choice.
Cost difference
Mudjacking is typically 10–20% cheaper upfront per job. But because mudjacking slurry can wash out or compress weak soil, repeat work is more common — making polyjacking cheaper over the lifetime of the slab.