SummaryBackgroundWhile sport compression stockings (SCS) have become increasingly popular, there is no regulatory norm as exists for medical compression stockings (MCS). The objective of this pilot study was to compare five SCS with respect to their pressure profiles ex vivo and in vivo, and in relation to German standards for MCS (RAL norm).Patients and methodsIn vivo (10 competitive athletes; standardized procedure using the Kikuhime pressure monitor) and ex vivo (tested at the Hohenstein Institute) pressure profiles were tested for the following products: CEP Running Progressive Socks, Falke Running Energizing, Sigvaris Performance, X‐Socks Speed Metal Energizer, and 2XU Compression Race Socks.ResultsEx vivo ankle pressures of CEP (25.6 mmHg) and 2XU (23.2 mmHg) corresponded to class 2 MCS; that of Sigvaris (20.8 mmHg), to class 1 MCS. The remaining SCS achieved lower pressure values. The pressure gradients showed marked differences, and did not meet MCS standards. Average in vivo pressures were higher for 2XU, CEP, and Sigvaris than for Falke and X‐Socks. However, in vivo values for all SCS were below those of class 1 MCS. None of the SCS showed the decreasing pressure gradient (from distal to proximal) required for MCS.ConclusionsIn vivo and ex vivo pressure profiles of all SCS examined showed marked heterogeneity, and did not meet MCS standards. Consequently, the clinical and practical effects of SCS cannot be compared, either. It would therefore be desirable to establish a classification that allows for the categorization and comparison of various SCS as well as their selection based on individual preferences and needs (high vs. low pressure, progressive vs. degressive profile).