The Infrared vs. Traditional Sauna Debate: What the Market Data Actually Shows

The question that generates the most heated debate in the sauna industry (infrared or traditional?) is usually framed as a binary competition. But a closer look at market data, consumer behavior, and clinical evidence suggests the two categories are diverging rather than competing. They serve increasingly distinct customer segments with different motivations.

Market Size and Growth

The global sauna equipment market was valued at approximately $905 million in 2024 by Grand View Research, with a projected CAGR of 6.3% through 2033. Within that, Grand View's data puts the traditional sauna segment (Finnish, smoke, and steam saunas) at roughly 43% of revenue, with infrared holding a larger share. The balance is split among hybrid designs and emerging categories like infrared panels and portable units.

Both segments are growing, but at different rates and in different channels. Traditional saunas are growing faster in the custom-built residential and commercial segments, while infrared saunas dominate the direct-to-consumer and ecommerce channels.

One data point worth flagging: on the Harvia Q4 2025 earnings call on 12 February 2026, CEO Matias Järnefelt explicitly identified US infrared as the next category Harvia wants to consolidate. That is a meaningful strategic signal from the largest publicly traded sauna company in the world about where the puck is moving.

"One of the prime candidates is infrared sauna business in the United States." — Matias Järnefelt, CEO, Harvia Plc, Q4 2025 earnings call, 12 February 2026

Järnefelt added that Harvia is also evaluating "other significant-sized markets in categories such as cold wellness, digital wellness" — a reminder that the wellness stack infrared brands are competing on (thermal therapy, recovery, at-home convenience) is increasingly bundled, not siloed.

Consumer Motivation

Purchase motivation data consistently shows strikingly different profiles between the two categories.

Key Pattern: Traditional sauna buyers cite "authentic experience" and "social use" as top motivations. Infrared buyers cite "health benefits" and "convenience" as primary drivers. Price sensitivity tends to be higher in the infrared segment, where the average unit cost is lower.

Clinical Evidence

The clinical research base is deeper for traditional saunas, largely due to decades of Finnish epidemiological studies, including the landmark Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease study. Infrared-specific research has accelerated since 2020, particularly in chronic pain management and cardiovascular markers.

Neither category has a monopoly on health benefits. The mechanisms differ: traditional saunas create benefits primarily through extreme heat exposure and the cardiovascular stress response that follows, while infrared saunas work through deeper tissue penetration at lower ambient temperatures.

Pricing and Channel Dynamics

Average selling prices tell an interesting story. The median traditional sauna installation in the U.S. runs between $4,500 and $12,000, while the median infrared unit sells for $1,800 to $5,000. This price gap has significant implications for distribution strategy, marketing spend, and how each category reaches its buyers.

Rather than converging, these two categories are likely to keep differentiating, each deepening its hold on a distinct customer base.