---
url: https://www.eurocovers.eu/vs/geomembrane
title: Hexagonal cover vs. geomembrane — comparison
description: Modular hexagonal covers tessellate without anchors; geomembrane covers are continuous, sealed, anchored. Comparison on cost, maintenance, and use-case.
updated: 2026-05-25
---

# Hexagonal cover vs. geomembrane — comparison

> Hexagonal modular covers tessellate without anchors and deploy without draining; geomembrane (continuous) covers seal completely (better for gas capture) but require anchoring, draining for installation, and have shorter lifecycle on dynamic water bodies.

For most EU industrial surface-water projects EuroCover quotes, the modular hexagonal cover
is what we recommend — capex, installation cost, and 10-year TCO usually favour modular over
continuous on dynamic water bodies. Continuous geomembrane stays the right pick when gas
capture or environmental containment is the design driver. The engineering reference for
this comparison sits at
[pond-cover.com/vs/hexagonal-vs-geomembrane](https://pond-cover.com/vs/hexagonal-vs-geomembrane).

## How they differ

Modular covers float independently and tessellate; continuous covers are a single anchored
membrane. The difference drives every other characteristic.

## When geomembrane is the appropriate choice

- Full methane capture (digester gas recovery)
- Complete sealing required for environmental containment
- Stable water level and regular reservoir geometry
- Application requiring residual environmental liability protection

## When hexagonal modular covers are the appropriate choice

- Surface-issue focus (evaporation, algae, odor, heat retention)
- Dynamic water levels
- Irregular shorelines
- Anchorless deployment requirement
- 25-year lifecycle priority