Home / Mudjacking vs. Polyjacking
Concrete Lifting Methods
Mudjacking vs. Polyjacking
Two ways to lift sunken concrete. Here’s how polyurethane foam injection compares to traditional mudjacking — and when each one makes sense.
Side by Side
How they compare
| Mudjacking | Polyjacking (Foam) | |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | Lower up front | A bit higher, but longer-lasting value |
| Hole size | Large 1–2″ ports | Small, dime-sized ports |
| Cure time | 24–48 hrs | ~15 minutes — same-day use |
| Weight added | Heavy slurry | Lightweight foam — won’t overload soil |
| Waterproof | No — can wash out | Yes — won’t wash out or break down |
| Mess | More cleanup | Clean, minimal patching |
| Best for | Budget jobs, large voids | Driveways, sidewalks, long-term fixes |
Our take: for most Denver-metro driveways, sidewalks and patios we recommend polyurethane foam — it’s cleaner, lighter, waterproof, and you’re back on the concrete the same day. We’ll always tell you honestly if mudjacking is the smarter call for your specific job.
Good Questions
Frequently asked
Is polyjacking better than mudjacking?
For most driveways, sidewalks and long-term fixes, yes — foam is lighter, waterproof, cures in minutes and goes through smaller holes. Mudjacking can still make sense for budget jobs or very large voids.
Does foam last longer than mud?
Yes — polyurethane foam doesn’t wash out or break down, so the lift holds long-term.
Which is cheaper?
Mudjacking is usually a bit cheaper up front; polyjacking often wins on total value and lifespan. We quote both honestly.