01.Introduction
Test results for 28 cots
Household cots are only used for a relatively short period of time, however it is during this time that safety is most critical. Cots can’t be sold to consumers without being certified under the mandatory Australian safety standard AS/NZS 2172:2003.
While manufacturers generally have documentation to prove certification, we often finds some failures in our CHOICE independent testing, which assesses each cot against both mandatory and non-mandatory clauses of the Australian Standard.
Since the introduction of a mandatory safety standard for cots in 1998, CHOICE tests have shown a real trend towards improvements in safety. Most cots in each test meet all the key safety requirements, and the cots that fail usually do so only by small margins.
We purchased nine popular brands of cots and put them through vigorous testing in our labs. The results are combined with those we've previously tested.
Only two models from this recent batch are not recommended, failing what we consider to be major safety issues. Three cots have minor failures and are still worth considering. Four pass all the key aspects of the standard but fail some information requirements, however we consider these to be very minor issues and so these models also make it into our recommended list.
Moving on up
Children are ready to move onto a bed when they can:
- Stand confidently in a cot.
- Shake the sides of the cot.
- Start to attempt to climb out.
Making this change at the right time will help to prevent injuries associated with the child falling out of the cot. Most cots come with a junior bed conversion kit that will increase its longevity, although sometimes these parts are sold as an optional extra (see the table).
We tested for:
- Safety and durability against selected clauses of the Australian/New Zealand standard for cots, AS/NZS 2172:2003.
- Information and labelling as set out by the Standard.
-
Ease of use and features – including dropsides, castors and brakes.
We have reconsidered our rating method for cots to bring it in line with how we rate other baby and kids products. This means minor failures are treated more leniently, while major safety failures still result in the cot not being recommended.
For more information on Nursery furniture, see Babies and kids.
CHOICE's experts independently test a wide range of products and services to bring you unbiased reviews, product comparison tools and buying advice that is trusted by 140,000+ members.
Get access to all
CHOICE benefits.
$1.91
/week
*Billed quarterly
Purchase this
single report.
$10
Models tested
Newly tested models
- Babyhood Georgia Sleigh
- Boori Madison 3 in 1
- Boori Urbane Hamilton 3 in 1
- Childcare Sussex XT
- Grotime C49 Harriet #
- Ikea Gulliver
- Love n Care Vogue
- Regent Ascot
- Tasman Eco Capri
Previously tested in March 2011
- Babyhood Qtee
- Boori Matilda
- Cariboo Q03
- Childcare Sandford XT
- Grotime C48 Ritz
- Ikea Sniglar
- Kingparrot Yarra
- Love N Care Sereno
- Regent Sherbrooke
- Tasman Eco Tuscany
Previously tested in 2010
- Babyhood Luna V2
- BeBe Care Coventry XT
- Bootiq Annabelle
- Childcare Durham XT
- Funtastic Humprey's Corner 2 in 1 #
- Grotime Venus #
- IKEA Hermelin #
- King Parrot Byron
- Love N Care Euro
# Discontinued.
Note – the Kingparrot brand, owned by Boori, has been phased out and these products have beeen rebranded as Boori Urbane from March 2011.
Earlier test results
You will also find results for the cots we tested in 2008 and 2009 in this report.
How we test
Safety Our tester, Antonio Bonacruz, assesses each cot against the mandatory safety clauses from the Australian Standard AS/NZS 2172:2003. Only cots that meet these requirements are recommended. He also tests them against some non-mandatory clauses that add to the cot’s safety, such as tests for finger traps. These are not considered critical so cots that fail these other clauses may still be recommended.
Information He assesses the cot’s instructions, labels and markings against the requirements of the standard. Clear and correct information, such as maintenance and usage instructions and date of manufacture, help make the cot safer to use. However, we do not consider the information requirements as critical as the safety tests, so cots that fail these requirements may still be recommended or worth considering.
Setting standards
We have reconsidered how we rate cots. In the past we took a fairly hard line; even a failure of information requirements was not good enough and we would rate such a cot (assuming it passed all safety tests) as worth considering rather than recommended. We also took the view that finger entrapments were enough of a hazard to warrant not recommending a cot.
Given that the mandatory requirements for cots do not include the finger entrapment clauses – there are no indications these are causing significant injury problems – and that most information failures are due to incorrect formatting or minor omissions (and don’t in themselves make the cot unsafe), we have revised our ratings so that a cot that passes all safety tests but fails some information requirements can still be recommended. A cot which passes all the key safety tests but has some finger entrapment hazards (which usually only occur in hard to reach areas, and may be covered up when a mattress is put in) is worth considering.
Reputable cot manufacturers and distributors (like the brands tested here) take safety seriously and have their products certified to the standard. Nevertheless sometimes manufacturing problems or inconsistencies arise and can result in some samples not meeting the standard. The manufacturers of the tested cots noted they have had these models certified and in many cases stated they were addressing the problems we found.
Want more?
Get access to our independent testing reports and save yourself time and money.
