CS2 Field-Tested vs Minimal Wear

Not all skins in CS2 are created equal. Some are valued by the community much more than others, with a flashy skin fetching several thousand dollars more than an almost identical one, even though both have zero impact on gameplay.

The biggest and most noticeable difference between versions of the same skin lies in wear and tear. Ever since skins were introduced in 2013, Counter-Strike has used a quality system that reflects the level of wear on a skin. In total, there are five levels: Factory New, Minimal Wear, Field-Tested, Well-Worn, and Battle-Scarred.

Factory New (FN) is the ideal condition of the skin, while each subsequent stage piles on more shabbiness—scuffs, scratches, faded paint, and so on. A Battle-Scarred version of the skin may barely show any of the original design.

However, for this article, we’re diving into the middle stages. The difference between them isn’t always obvious, and sometimes, you have to zoom in to spot it. Back in CS:GO Field Tested vs Minimal Wear debate would regularly flare up on the forums.  Let's settle this question once and for all and figure out which is better, Minimal Wear or Field Tested.

Field-Tested and Minimal Wear Difference

First, let's understand why the controversy surrounding CS2 skins Field Tested vs Minimal Wear condition exists and what determines the quality of a skin. When a skin drops from a case, it’s assigned a so-called “float value,” ranging from 0.0 to 1.0, where 0 means pristine and 1 indicates the most worn-out state. Float values are distributed by levels as follows:

1. Factory New (FN): 0.00 – 0.07;
2. Minimal Wear (MW): 0.07 – 0.15;
3. Field-Tested (FT): 0.15 – 0.38;
4. Well-Worn (WW): 0.38 – 0.45;
5. Battle-Scarred (BS): 0.45 – 1.00.

Sometimes, the gap between Factory New and Battle-Scarred is drastic, with the latter looking like it's been dragged under a bulldozer. But that's not always the case. The degree of wear and tear on a skin can vary depending on the specific design. For example, check out an AK-47 | Inheritance in Factory New:

Now, here is the same skin in the Battle-Scarred:

You’ll notice the colors are a bit more faded, and the enamel has cracks, but it still manages to look classy. Yet, the FN version is priced three times higher than the BS one.

But those are the extremes. If you compare skins that are closer in condition, especially with float values like 0.14 (MW) and 0.17 (FT), it can be nearly impossible to tell whether you are looking at Field Tested or Minimal Wear. For example, here is a Huntsman Knife | Lore in Minimal Wear:

And here’s the same knife in Field-Tested:

Can you notice it? That tiny scratch near the top of the blade on the Field-Tested version? It’s barely there, right? Yet, the price difference is clear: the MW version goes for $212, while the FT one is only $164.

So, is Field Tested better than Minimal Wear? At first glance, Field-Tested might seem like the perfect way to save a bit of cash. But that’s not always the case. Some skins show wear more dramatically than others. Let's take a more illustrative example — M4A4 | Temukau:

Here, you can already clearly see how the pattern is peeling off around the magazine and other parts, which noticeably affects the overall look. The MW version here is about $40, while FT goes for around $10.

What is Better: Field-Tested or Minimal Wear?

While it’s tough to declare a clear winner, if you can afford it, going for the skin in the best condition is usually a good bet. At the same time, if the difference in price is significant and the skins look nearly identical, then what’s the point of paying extra? You’ll still look sharp on the battlefield, and with Field-Tested, you’ll have some extra cash to either pocket or spend on another skin.

Here’s why you might want to choose Minimal Wear:

1. The skin looks cleaner, with fewer visible scratches and wear.
2. The cost of the skin can be much lower than Factory New, but with minimal visual differences.
3. The Minimal Wear skins have a better chance of increasing in value compared to the Field-Tested version.

On the flip side, Field-Tested offers its own advantages:

1. You can get an almost identical skin for less money.
2. There’s a better chance of finding a Field-Tested version on the market.
3. Some skins better when they’re worn out, for example, MAG-7 | Rust Coat. The extra wear and tear only adds to the skin's appeal.

In other words, if you’re considering a skin as an investment to flip later, go for Minimal Wear. If you’re just looking to play with the skin and there’s little visible difference between the wear levels, go with Field-Tested and don't stress.

Summary

In some cases, CS2 Field Tested vs Minimal Wear is like picking between a Coke you opened today and one from yesterday. The difference is minor—one just seems a bit fresher. It's unlikely that the latter has had time to run out, but the former tastes a little better. In many cases, the visual gap between these two wear levels is almost nonexistent—these two weapon states have minimal differences, which are only possible to notice with a magnifying glass. Picking a Field-Tested skin could save you a few bucks, or sometimes even a couple dozen of dollars, while still giving you a sharp-looking weapon.

Of course, float value matters. If you’re stuck choosing between AK-47 | Asiimov 0.10 and 0.36, don’t hesitate—grab the first one. Scratches ruin the sleek, futuristic vibe of the Asiimov, and while the price difference might be nearly double, having one beautiful skin is better than owning two beaten-up ones.

And one more thing. If you’re aiming to make money off the skin later, do not hesitate to choose Minimal Wear. If the skin’s popularity surges, the price gap between Minimal Wear and Field-Tested can skyrocket, sometimes by hundreds of dollars.