The community views H&M as quintessential fast fashion — generally not recommended for BIFL purposes — but with a notable caveat: many members report owning H&M items from 10-20 years ago that are still going strong, while newer H&M products are widely seen as having declined significantly in quality. The experience is described as highly inconsistent, with some items disintegrating after a few washes and others inexplicably lasting decades.
While H&M has produced occasional durable outliers — especially in older stock and specific natural-fiber items — the community consensus is that current H&M products are too inconsistent and generally too low quality to recommend as a buy-it-for-life purchase.
Older H&M items in particular earn genuine praise for longevity, and certain specific product categories like 100% cotton or linen pieces, children's toys, and bath linens are called out as surprisingly durable for the price.
The community broadly considers H&M fast fashion with noticeably declining quality over time; newer items frequently pill, fall apart at seams, or disintegrate within months. Ethical and environmental concerns are also raised repeatedly.
One longtime shopper noted that H&M items from 20 years ago are still in perfect condition with no pilling, but regrets not buying a lifetime supply back then given how much the quality has since dropped.
A chef described buying H&M t-shirts for work only to have them develop large holes at the seams within three to four months, which ultimately pushed them toward higher-quality alternatives.
Several members pointed out that H&M quality appears to vary dramatically by manufacturing facility, meaning a small number of genuinely durable items exist alongside a majority of throwaway pieces — essentially making every purchase a gamble.
One commenter observed that H&M clothing quality in Europe may be noticeably better than what's sold in the US, suggesting regional differences in what gets stocked.