Sun Gloves UPF 50+ Fishing Gloves, Fingerless Sun Protection UV Review
Our verdict
At $9.99, these Sun Gloves UPF 50+ Fingerless fishing gloves land near the bottom of this comparison's price range while holding a 4.5 star rating across 381 reviews. With 100+ bought in the last month, they show real recent demand, making them a low cost option for sun protection on the water.
Check price on AmazonBest for
Anglers who want fingerless sun protection at a low price point and value a listing with recent purchase activity, since 100+ units bought last month signals ongoing demand rather than a stale or discontinued product.
Skip if
Skip this if you need cold weather insulation or cut protection, since this X-Large polyester glove is built for sun coverage, not warmth or blade safety. Buyers wanting the single largest review count should look at the Berkley pair instead.
- Material Polyester
- Weight 0.03 Kilograms
- Size X-Large
- Color Grey
- Feature 1 pair of gloves
- Priced 33% below the category median ($14.99 across 33 tracked models)
Our scorecard
-
Owner rating4.5/5
4.5 average across 381 owner ratings
-
Popularity2.7/5
381 owner reviews, more than most models here
The overall score is owner satisfaction weighted by how many reviews back it, so a high rating from few reviews counts for less. The bars below show where this model stands against the other fishing gear and tackle we track in this category on price, popularity and size. Context, not marks against it, and our read of the data, not a lab test.
Overview
A $9.99 price tag on a fishing glove usually means corners get cut somewhere, but the Sun Gloves UPF 50+ Fingerless Fishing Gloves pair that low price with a 4.5 star rating across 381 reviews and 100+ units bought in the past month. The X-Large, gray polyester glove weighs 0.03 kilograms and ships as a single pair per the listing.
Against the field, only the Berkley BTLCFG beats it on price at $7.99, and Berkley also has a far larger review base at 2,607 versus 381 here. Still, a 4.5 star average is close behind Berkley's 4.6 and ahead of the Glacier 015BK's 4.2, all while undercutting the Glacier's $23.21 and the Lindy AC950's $28.35 by a wide margin.
The 100+ bought-last-month figure stands out, since only the Lindy AC950 also reports triple digit recent demand among the four comparison gloves, while the Glacier 015BK lists no bought figure above the base tier at all. At 0.03 kilograms, this is the lightest glove by weight in the group, consistent with a fingerless, sun focused design rather than a heavier cold weather or puncture resistant build meant for different conditions entirely.
Pros
- Priced at $9.99, the second cheapest glove in this comparison behind only the Berkley BTLCFG
- 4.5 star rating across 381 reviews, ahead of the Glacier 015BK's 4.2 and close to Berkley and Lindy's 4.6
- 100+ units bought last month, matching the Lindy AC950 for recent demand among this group
- Lightweight at 0.03 kilograms, the lowest listed weight of the four gloves compared
- Fingerless UPF 50+ design ships as a full pair per the listing
Cons
- 381 reviews is well behind the Berkley's 2,607 and the Lindy's 898
- No cold weather insulation, unlike the Glacier 015BK's neoprene and fleece build
- No stated puncture resistance, unlike the Lindy AC950
- Only available in X-Large and gray per the facts given, limiting fit and color choice
Specifications
| Material | Polyester |
|---|---|
| Weight | 0.03 Kilograms |
| Size | X-Large |
| Color | Grey |
| Feature | 1 pair of gloves |
Performance notes
At 0.03 kilograms, this is the lightest glove in the comparison set, and a polyester fingerless build in an X-Large size supports that low weight. A UPF 50+ rating blocks a high share of ultraviolet exposure on the back of the hand, which matters on long days without shade, while the fingerless cut preserves grip for tying knots and handling line. That combination points to a glove built for warm weather sun exposure rather than cold water insulation or blade work. Compared to the Glacier 015BK's neoprene and fleece construction at 6.4 ounces, this glove trades warmth for lighter weight and breathability. The X-Large only sizing shown in the facts may not suit anglers who need a snugger fit, and the listing gives no puncture or cut rating, so it should not be treated as a fillet or handling glove.
What buyers say
A 4.5 star rating across 381 reviews, combined with 100+ units bought last month, points to a glove that is both liked and actively selling right now. That bought-last-month figure matches the Lindy AC950, the only other glove in this set reporting triple digit recent demand, even though this glove costs a fraction of the Lindy's $28.35. The review count of 381 is modest next to Berkley's 2,607, but the rating has held at 4.5 despite the low price, which often correlates with cut corners. Together, the pattern reads as a budget glove that is currently moving units and satisfying enough buyers to keep its rating above the Glacier 015BK's 4.2.
Similar fishing gear and tackle to consider
- AirFly
AirFly Surf Fishing Casting Glove Single Finger - Anti-Slip Finger
$9.95200+ bought last monthView on Amazon
Featured in
Frequently asked questions
Are these Sun Gloves UPF 50+ good value at $9.99?
At $9.99, they are the second cheapest glove in this comparison and carry a 4.5 star rating across 381 reviews plus 100+ units bought last month. That combination of low price, solid rating, and active recent demand makes them a reasonable budget pick for sun coverage.
What size do these fishing gloves come in?
The listing here specifies X-Large in gray, weighing 0.03 kilograms as a polyester fingerless pair. No other sizes or colors are given in the available facts, so buyers needing a smaller fit should confirm current options on the listing before ordering.
Do these gloves protect against cold water?
No. These are UPF 50+ sun gloves built from lightweight polyester, not an insulated design. Anglers fishing cold water should consider the Glacier 015BK, a neoprene and fleece glove built for that purpose, since this pair is meant for sun exposure instead.