Understanding PEMF magnetic field distribution is crucial when evaluating any PEMF mat or pad. While most manufacturer specifications—and our own tests—report surface-level measurements, this only tells part of the story. What really matters is how well the PEMF field extends into three-dimensional space—because that’s where your body lies during a session.
Manufacturers and marketers often emphasize the number, size, or shape of their coils. But what do these specifications truly mean in practice? The only way to determine which coil design and layout is most effective is to test it. That’s our approach at DrPEMFtherapy.com: Real Science, Real Testing, Real Results.
We’ve conducted extensive testing to generate general maps of PEMF magnetic field distribution for a wide range of mats, all using the same methodology. These maps allow you to pair gauss readings with a clearer understanding of how thoroughly each PEMF mat covers your body in three-dimensional space. We also explain how coil design affects performance and highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various layouts.
Testing Methodology
For each mat, we collected up to 300 data points to map relative PEMF strength. A grid was laid over each mat, with measurements taken at surface level, 3.5 inches, 5 inches, and 10 inches above. Yes—this process took an incredibly long time.
We used two types of gauss meters: the TriField T2 for most readings and the HT201 for high-gauss outputs that exceeded the TriField’s limits. In nearly every case, we tested the mats at their maximum intensity. While these meters don’t capture precise peak gauss readings like the F.W. Bell 5280, they provide excellent relative measurements, ideal for mapping intensity distribution.
Each square in the grid was measured near its center to yield the most accurate representation. Because PEMF mats use multiple coils, their magnetic fields sometimes interfere or repel one another. In such cases, we adjusted the meter’s position and angle to get a clean reading. To ensure consistency, we used a fixed-height box to measure field strength at 3.5, 5, and 10.5 inches above each mat.
How PEMF Field Distribution and Coils Work
Before diving into the results, let’s clarify what determines PEMF field distribution. There are three key factors:
- Coverage area of the coils or wires
- Intensity (measured in gauss or tesla)
- How magnetic field lines interact and repel one another
1. Coil Coverage
Coils are simply loops of wire, and magnetic fields are generated by the flow of electricity through these wires. Looping up wire multiple times into a coil increases the number of field lines and strengthens the magnetic field. Most PEMF mats use coils for this reason. However, some, like the QRS/Pure Wave mat, use a large, looped wire instead—and still achieve excellent field coverage.
2. Magnetic Field Strength
A stronger magnetic field (higher gauss) projects farther. If a mat’s intensity is low, its field won’t reach far unless the mat has extensive coil coverage. For example, the QRS/Pure Wave mat has lower intensity but broad coverage. On the other hand, the HealthyLine High Intensity Jet Mat uses smaller coils with higher intensity to achieve similar results. The most effective approach is seen in the MiraMate mat, which uses high-intensity printed circuit board coils covering the entire surface.
In contrast, mats with small coils and low intensity, like the NeoRhythm pad, have very poor distribution.
3. Coil Layout and Field Repulsion
Field interaction plays a key role. While the inverse square law is often cited to justify high-intensity devices, it mostly applies to point-source applicators (e.g., Sota Magnetic Pulser or Mira Mate Mini Magic). With mats or pads, the magnetic fields from multiple coils repel each other. This repulsion prevents the fields from diverging and instead pushes them upward in 3D space. That’s why the drop-off in intensity doesn’t strictly follow the inverse square law and why weak spots between coils at surface level don’t diminish much at higher distances.
PEMF Field Distribution Testing Results
We divided our findings into two categories: mats and pads. Some pads are bundled with mats, and in those cases, we noted differences in distribution between the paired products.
Rankings are based on two primary factors:
- Rate of intensity drop-off at increasing heights
- Evenness of distribution across the mat/pad
While surface readings are useful, your body primarily resides 3.5–5 inches above the mat, so distribution at those levels is more relevant. Note: these rankings do not consider overall intensity beyond how it affects field distribution.
Best PEMF Mat Magnetic Field Distribution
1. MiraMate Mat
The MiraMate ranks highest in PEMF magnetic field distribution due to its superior design. While we have primarily tested their pad (MiraMate Big Magic), the full-sized mat uses the same underlying design—a printed circuit board (PCB) coil system. This layout forms a planar grid of coils that spans the entire mat surface, ensuring that there are no dead zones.
What makes this design so effective is its combination of full surface coverage and coil repulsion. The magnetic fields from the outer coils repel those from the inner coils, which pushes the field upward in a uniform manner. This interaction allows the field to project evenly and deeply, with minimal intensity drop-off even at 10.5 inches above the mat. The only noticeable decrease in field strength occurs around the very edges of the mat. The MiraMate creates an environment where nearly your entire body receives consistent PEMF exposure.
Check out our full MiraMate review for more details and all testing results.
[Insert image of mat and testing results]
2. QRS / PureWave Mat
The QRS, also sold as the PureWave mat, takes a different approach by using a large oval-shaped wire loop rather than traditional coils. Despite this unique setup, its performance is excellent. Because the looped wire runs under most of the mat’s surface, coverage is broad and effective. Magnetic fields from the outer sections of the wire repel those in the center, projecting the field upwards.
This results in a slow intensity drop-off and fairly even distribution. It creates a dome-shaped field that remains strong up to around 5 inches above the mat. However, there is one weakness: a portion near the top of the mat lacks wire coverage, which causes a sharp drop in intensity in that area. Given the relatively low peak intensity of 243 milligauss, this uncovered section affects the mat’s overall performance more than it would in a higher-intensity mat. Despite this flaw, the field is uniform throughout the majority of the mat, which is crutial to have due to its low overall intensity, giving it second place overall.
Check out our full QRS / PureWave review for more testing data.
[Insert image of mat and testing results]
3. HealthyLine High Intensity Jet Mat
This mat ranks third due to its use of eight high-intensity, small coils distributed across the surface. Unlike the large-loop or full-grid designs, this mat focuses on intensity. These coils produce localized high-strength fields directly above them, which gradually even out as you move further away from the mat.
The placement of the coils allows for magnetic field repulsion between them, reducing intensity drop-offs compared to other mats that use weak or poorly spaced coils. The result is a more balanced field at 3.5 and 5 inches, even though surface-level readings may show hotspots directly above coils. Strategic body placement, such as lying with your hands or spine over a coil, can help you target specific areas with stronger PEMF exposure.
While there are small dips in field strength between coils, the overlap at a distance compensates for them. This mat performs much better at mid-range distances than you might expect from surface readings alone.
Check out our full HealthyLine review for additional insights and testing results.
[Insert image of mat and testing results]
4. Healthyline Multi-Wave Platinum Mat
The Healthyline Multi-Wave Platinum Mat ranks 4th, offering a design similar to the High Intensity Jet Mat but with not quite as good PEMF distribution. This is mainly due to uneven coil spacing—while the top portion of the mat provides good distribution near your head and torso, the bottom portion around row 5 (where your legs typically rest) is notably weaker. The positive side of this coil layout is that it results in a more even PEMF field near your core, with a slower intensity drop-off above the top part of the mat. As you move further away from the surface, the PEMF field also becomes more uniform. Additionally, this mat comes with the classic controller, which, while it lacks the advanced features of the upgraded version, it has a stronger PEMF intensity. This provides a PEMF field drop-off more comparable to the Jet Mat.
For full testing results, check out my complete Healthyline PEMF Mat review.
5. Bemer 3000 Mat
Ranking 5th is the Bemer 3000, which surprisingly outperformed the newer Bemer Pro model in our PEMF distribution tests. The Bemer 3000 uses a unique layout with two large oval coils positioned near the lower end of the mat (where your legs are), and four medium-sized circular planar coils placed in the top and middle sections. This results in the bottom of the mat being stronger than the top, which is a drawback if you’re targeting your head and torso. With a peak intensity of just over 400 milligauss, the mat is classified as low intensity—meaning its magnetic field drops off rapidly the further you get from the coils. This creates distinct intensity gaps between coil sets at rows 5 and 8, as well as at the top and bottom edges. If you want stronger PEMF effects for your upper body, you could consider lying on the mat in reverse.
Check out my full Bemer 3000 review for all test data and coil layout details.
6. OMI Beyond Mat
The OMI Beyond ranks 6th and is a significant improvement over the original OMI mat, thanks mainly to its upgraded intensity. With a peak gauss of over 10, the OMI Beyond produces a noticeably stronger PEMF field. However, a key flaw in the design prevented it from ranking higher: the coils are placed too close to the edges of the mat. This leads to a weaker intensity in the center, where you ideally want the most coverage. Fortunately, this problem diminishes as you move higher above the mat—magnetic field lines from either side begin to project upward and meet in the middle, creating a more uniform field in elevated positions. Despite the minor design flaw, this mat still provides better overall intensity then many other low-intensity options.
7. IMRS Omnium 1, IMRS 2000, IMRS Prime Mats
The IMRS mat series, including the Omnium 1, IMRS 2000, and IMRS Prime, share a virtually identical design and rank 7th on our list. These mats are often promoted for their “three pairs” of large coils, said to provide stronger intensity at the foot section and tapering down toward the head. Our testing confirmed this claim, with coil intensity measured at 100% near the feet, 70% in the middle, and about 35% at the head. However, despite being well-distributed directly above each coil, the spacing between the coil pairs is too large. This results in sharp drop-offs in intensity, especially near the folds of the mat around rows 5 and 9, and a weaker field at the very top. The models we tested produced a maximum of 1.5 peak gauss near the feet, which drops to about one-third of that intensity toward the head. The large gaps between coil zones severely impact consistent coverage at the surface and above the surface of the mat.
More details can be found in my complete IMRS review series.
8. Bemer Pro Mat
At 8th place, the Bemer Pro mat surprisingly ranks below the older Bemer 3000 model. Despite having marginally higher intensity, the Pro version suffers from an inconsistent coil layout. Although it follows a similar design to the Bemer 3000, our tests revealed the Pro’s magnetic field was not symmetrical, with hot spots appearing at different locations on each side of the mat. We believe this is due to the softer construction of the Bemer Pro and its interior lining, which may allow the coils to shift over time. This misalignment disrupts the repelling action between magnetic fields, leading to a faster drop-off in intensity above the mat and a more erratic distribution pattern. While this issue may vary between units, it highlights the risks of coil movement in softer mat designs.
9. Original OMI PEMF Mat
The original OMI PEMF mat ranks 9th, falling short mainly due to its lower intensity. While its coil layout closely resembles the improved OMI Beyond version, the original mat has a peak intensity of only 4.5 gauss—compared to 12.2 gauss in the Beyond model. Like its successor, this mat places its coils too close to the edges, resulting in a weaker field in the center of the mat. This weakness is made worse by the lower overall intensity, which causes a faster and more pronounced drop-off the further you get from the surface. This highlights the important balance between coil design and intensity to achieve good overall PEMF field distribution. The OMI Beyond is definitely the better choice if you’re comparing these two models.
10. Dr. Pawluk BioBalance Mat
The Dr. Pawluk BioBalance mat comes in 10th, despite boasting 21 small coils. While the coil layout achieves relatively even spacing with only a few weak zones, the issue lies in the mat’s intensity, which peaks at just 6.6 gauss. More importantly, it performs very poorly in maintaining field strength above the mat’s surface. At just 3.5 inches above the mat, the strongest reading was only 5% of the mat’s peak intensity. For comparison, the MiraMate holds more relative intensity at 10.5 inches than the BioBalance does at 3.5. This sharp drop-off limits the field’s effective reach, making it less suitable for users looking for a PEMF mat that is stronger than other low intensity PEMF mats, which Dr. Pawluk originally marketed this mat as a alternative for.
11. Higher Dose Mat
Ranking last is the Higher Dose mat, which despite its visual similarities to Healthyline models, offers dramatically weaker performance. This mat uses just 4 coils, all located in the center, leaving a quarter of the mat, near the bottom, virtually void of any PEMF coverage. Even in the areas where coverage exists, the intensity is low, with only a 4.7 gauss peak compared to 15+ gauss in similar Healthyline models like the TAO and TAJ. The limited number of coils creates a narrow zone of effective intensity, with rapid drop-offs along the edges, head, and bottom areas. This mat serves as a reminder that similar looks don’t always equate to similar functionality. For those seeking effective PEMF therapy, the Higher Dose mat simply doesn’t deliver.
Best PEMF Pad Magnetic Field Distribution
The PEMF magnetic field distribution for pads was tested using the same methodology as the full-sized mats, with one important exception: when pads came as part of a set with a mat (e.g., Bemer Pro, IMRS, QRS, and BioBalance), we placed more emphasis on intensity. That’s because pads are typically used for localized applications, where intensity becomes a more critical factor. In nearly all these sets, the pads are notably stronger than the mats they accompany. So, our intensity score considered both the pad’s standalone performance and the relative increase in intensity compared to its paired mat, while still accounting for magnetic field drop-off behavior.
1. MiraMate Big Magic PEMF Pad
This pad earned the top spot just like its full-sized mat counterpart. It delivers exceptional PEMF field distribution with minimal drop-off and robust intensity. The same superior coil configuration and electromagnetic design apply here, resulting in a wide and strong field that doesn’t quickly dissipate as distance increases. Its consistency, power, and unmatched field quality make it the best-performing PEMF pad we’ve tested.
2. HealthyLine Matrix PEMF Pad
The HealthyLine Matrix pad comes in at a close second. What sets it apart is its multifunctionality: not only does it provide solid PEMF coverage, but it also includes far infrared heat and red light therapy. With two powerful coils delivering over 40 gauss, this pad produces a deep-penetrating field that maintains good strength even at 5–10 inches away. The side of the pad without red light therapy offers higher PEMF intensity, but overall field uniformity is excellent. For users seeking therapeutic value beyond PEMF alone, this pad may be the best all-around option.
3. Bemer Pro PEMF Belt
Although not technically a pad, the Bemer Pro Belt ranks third thanks to its versatility and strength. Its flexible design allows it to wrap around limbs and joints, making it ideal for targeted treatments. Despite showing a quicker drop-off rate than some competing pads, its 12.5 gauss output is approximately 10 times stronger than the paired Bemer mat. This huge intensity boost outweighs its drop-off limitations, especially when compared to the IMRS and QRS pads, which offer only 2–3x the intensity of their mats. This belt proves to be the standout applicator in the Bemer system.
4. IMRS Omnium1 Pad
This pad earns fourth place largely due to its slower drop-off rates, especially in the center of both halves. While it shares a drawback with its full-sized mat—drop-off at the fold—the impact is less severe thanks to its smaller size and more compact coil spacing. The Omnium1 pad is about twice as strong in gauss as its paired mat and offers overall balanced PEMF field coverage. Regardless of where the pad is placed, users will experience reliable field strength and minimal drop-off.
5. QRS PEMF Pad
The QRS pad offers a fairly even field distribution but drops off more quickly than the QRS mat. While it’s roughly 4x more intense than the mat, the pad’s smaller surface area means its wire loop size is also smaller, meaning fewer magnetic field lines . This limits its ability to project strength upward like the larger mat does. Still, when factoring in the intensity gain, the pad holds its own and offers a solid performance, even if the drop-off is somewhat more pronounced.
6. IMRS 2000 Pad
The IMRS 2000 pad delivers a solid performance, outperforming its full-sized mat significantly. It uses two medium-sized coils placed closely together, which prevents obvious dead zones and creates an even field across the pad. While its distribution is similar to the QRS pad, it falls just behind due to a slightly quicker drop-off rate, likely caused by its lower intensity compared to the Omnium1 pad. Still, it’s a dependable mid-tier performer.
7. BioBalance Pad
The BioBalance pad shows meaningful improvement over the BioBalance mat but still ranks lower due to its unchanged intensity. Unlike other pad+mat sets where the pad is stronger, this pad delivers the same gauss as the mat. Its closely spaced coils do improve distribution and reduce drop-off, with field strength around 10% at 3.5 inches versus 5% for the full mat. Still, it lags behind competitors whose pads offer stronger fields or better retention of strength at distance.
8. OMI Pad
Second to last in our rankings is the OMI Pad, which contains one small coil in the center and four additional small coils in each of the pad’s corners. This lower intensity along with the sparse and undersized coil layout contributes significantly to its poorer performance. The low field intensity and minimal overlap between the coils result in a weak, uneven magnetic field with rapid dissipation. Due to the pad’s compact size, we couldn’t apply our standard grid test, so we measured directly from the central coil. As expected, this highlighted the classic behavior predicted by the inverse square law: at just 3.5 inches away from the coil, field strength dropped to less than 2% of its surface value. The pad does achieve a peak intensity of 4.7 gauss, which provides modest strength at the surface, but its effectiveness is limited to very shallow penetration. While its battery-powered portability is a practical plus, the combination of small coils and low intensity ultimately makes this one of the weakest pads we tested. For those seeking focused applications, more powerful spot applicators are a better choice.
9. NeoRhythm Pad
The NeoRhythm pad ranks last. While the NeoRhythm headband for brainwave stimulation performs decently, this pad model is severely underpowered. Although the company claims 25 gauss, we measured a peak of just 48 milligauss—likely due to a mix-up between milliteslas and microteslas. The pad contains five small coils, but the low intensity means the field barely projects out. We couldn’t run standard grid tests; the field dropped below 2% strength at just 3.5 inches. For PEMF therapy, this pad offers little value. Stick to NeoRhythm’s headband if you’re looking for brain-targeted stimulation.