Skip to content
Nungeum

Home head-to-head

Herman Miller AeronvsHON Ignition 2.0

Age hasn't cost the 1994 Herman Miller Aeron the lead: it averages 8.6 against 7.9 for the 2016 HON Ignition 2.0, and takes Design 9.0 to 6.8.

Herman Miller Aeron

Herman Miller

8.6

Used ones sell for more than most new chairs do. Resale prices are hard to argue with.

Price and availability change constantly, so we don't quote them here — the link opens current listings on Amazon.

HON Ignition 2.0

HON

7.9

Bought by the thousand for schools and offices, which is about as hard as durability tests get.

Price and availability change constantly, so we don't quote them here — the link opens current listings on Amazon.

Where they diverge

The widest gap is Value, HON Ignition 2.0 ahead 9.0 to 6.8. They come closest on Ease of use, 9.0 to 7.8. Left of center is Herman Miller Aeron, right is HON Ignition 2.0.

Herman Miller Aeron versus HON Ignition 2.0 — axis scores out of 10Horizontal bar chart of editorial scores out of 10 across 4 axes. Bars for Herman Miller Aeron run left from the axis labels, bars for HON Ignition 2.0 run right. Herman Miller Aeron: Value 6.8, Durability 9.6, Ease of use 9.0, Design 9.0. HON Ignition 2.0: Value 9.0, Durability 8.0, Ease of use 7.8, Design 6.8.Herman Miller Aeron (left)HON Ignition 2.0 (right)ValueHerman Miller Aeron — Value 6.8 out of 106.8HON Ignition 2.0 — Value 9.0 out of 109.0DurabilityHerman Miller Aeron — Durability 9.6 out of 109.6HON Ignition 2.0 — Durability 8.0 out of 108.0Ease of useHerman Miller Aeron — Ease of use 9.0 out of 109.0HON Ignition 2.0 — Ease of use 7.8 out of 107.8DesignHerman Miller Aeron — Design 9.0 out of 109.0HON Ignition 2.0 — Design 6.8 out of 106.8Editorial score out of 10 — higher is better

Which one to pick

Take the Herman Miller Aeron

Leads on Durability, Ease of use and Design.

  • You sit for six or more hours a day, every day
  • You run warm and foam seats become unbearable
  • You would rather buy once than three times

Take the HON Ignition 2.0

Leads on Value.

  • Volume matters — kitting out more than one desk
  • Parts availability years from now is a real concern
  • You want a warranty measured in decades, not years

What each one gets wrong

Herman Miller Aeron

  • The outlay has to be justified this quarter rather than this decade
  • You want a padded seat — this is mesh, and it feels like it

HON Ignition 2.0

  • The chair is visible in a living space you care about
  • You want the refinement of the contract flagships

Specs, side by side

SpecHerman Miller AeronHON Ignition 2.0
SuspensionWoven mesh, no foam—
SizesThree frame sizes—
WarrantyTwelve yearsLimited lifetime on most components
Back—Mesh with adjustable lumbar
Arms—Height and width adjustable

Rankings they both appear in

Questions

The HON Ignition 2.0 is 22 years newer. Why does it score lower?
Because the axes didn't move the way the release dates suggest. The 1994 model takes Durability, Ease of use and Design, widest on Design at 9.0 to 6.8. Value is where the 2016 model answers, and whether that is enough is the whole question.
What did the 2016 model improve?
Value. Value runs 9.0 to 6.8. That is not enough to move the average, which stays 8.6 to 7.9.
Which one ranks higher in "Twelve years on everything beats a limited lifetime"?
Herman Miller Aeron sits at #1 in "Twelve years on everything beats a limited lifetime", HON Ignition 2.0 at #4.