Shoppers spot Lululemon item dupe at Costco for $108 off… they even have the same zipper

Daily Mail​

25-04-2025

Shoppers can save $108 on a Lululemon pants dupe at Costco.
The Lululemon ABC 5 Pocket Pants are a beloved product which come in various sizes and colors.
However, customers have to shell out $128 per pair at the athletic apparel retailer.
The next best thing in shoppers' eyes is Costco's Kirkland Signature Men's 5-Pocket Performance Pant.
Like the Lululemon bottoms, they come in various sizes and colors and have also received positive reviews from shoppers.
Customers can snag one of the Kirkland-brand pants right now for only $20.
'When I held these two pairs of pants and inspected their construction, they looked almost identical,' wrote Alexander Aciman of the New York Times.
Aciman managed to find some significant similarities between both pants, including their zippers.
A substantial similarity is that both bottoms have a gusseted crotch, a small diamond-shaped patch replacing a traditional one that makes pants more comfortable to wear.
Aciman pointed out that it can also help improve range in motion, which is convenient for flights or standing for 12 hours.
'The crotch is a defining feature of Lululemon's pants (ABC stands for Anti–Ball Crushing),' he revealed.
'The previous-generation Kirkland performance pants lacked this feature, and its inclusion in the latest version brings these pants much more in line with the ABC pants.'
The shopper found that the Kirkland pants had the same kind of YKK zippers, a reinforced button, and seams sewn with about 11 to 12 stitches per inch.
'On most pants, this flat felled seam results in a flap of fabric inside the leg of the garment,' Aciman explained.
'Lululemon stitches this flap down, presumably for comfort; Kirkland's pants have the same sewn-down flap.'
Geometric pattern similarities include watch pockets and a zippered back pocket that's 'too shallow for a regular-size wallet or a passport...,' according to the expert.
But Aciman managed to tell the difference between the pants through their fabric.
'Lululemon's Warpstreme fabric is made from 53 percent elastomultiester and 47 percent recycled polyester, and Kirkland's is made from 74 percent polyester and 26 percent elastomultiester,' he said.
'That might sound similar, but the fabric is where Lululemon really sets itself apart.'
Aciman admitted that he preferred the Lululemon fabric and claimed his Kirkland pants 'swished like old-school gym shorts.'
Kirkland Signature Men's 5-Pocket Performance Pant
No need to shell out the big bucks for Lululemon pants when you can pick up a lookalike pair from Costco for a fraction of the price.
Beautifully designed to fit like a dream while providing all-day comfort coupled with peak performance, these bottoms are available blue, black, and grey.
$15.99 Shop
He insisted the Costco bottoms had a great design aesthetic and were comfortable to wear, but they still made him 'feel more like a schlub.'
'As a man who loves Costco, loves a deal, and has made a hobby of hunting down the factories that white-label clothing for designers, every fiber of my being wanted the Kirkland pants to be as good as or better than the Lululemon pants,' he said.
'My inherent skepticism of athleisure brands with flashy reputations left me with a hunger that could be sated only by the thought that a $20 pair of pants was just as good as pants retailing for six times that.'
After weighing out the pros and cons, Aciman concluded that the pants were similar but 'definitely not the same.'
Customers have been debating which pants are better for months on Reddit.
'Honestly thought the Kirklands were the Lulus at first,' a user wrote on a thread dedicated to the subject.
'Might just be my opinion but one thing I've found with Kirkland is that the cut just doesn't fit as nice and I can see it here too,' another customer wrote.
'It just looks a lot tighter and uncomfortable in the crotch area.'
'Costco definitely an option but I'll stick with my lulu.
'The difference is in the details,' another fan chimed in.