Comparing Cinderella, EcoJohn, and Incinolet: Choosing the Right Incinerating Toilet For Your Cottage

How incinerating toilets are becoming the best alternative to composting toilets and saving cottagers from an expensive septic replacement.

The day has finally arrived. Except it’s not one you were looking forward to.
A notice from your cottage municipality…

Your septic reinspection results are in…

The system you have is no longer compliant. You need an entirely new septic.

Suddenly, you’re in a cold sweat and the dread sets in.

Now what?

New septic systems aren’t exactly cheap.
But what’s the alternative?

An outhouse… but you know how messy and smelly they are. That’s a quick way to make it so your family never wants to come to the cottage anymore.

Composting toilets are another option, though many cottage owners find they require more hands-on maintenance, and performance can vary depending on temperature, usage, and setup.

And a bucket in the woods is completely out of the question.

So, what do you do?

Your cottage is meant to be somewhere you escape to, a place where you can relax and let the stresses of everyday life melt away.

That’s hard to do when you’re faced with a high maintenance toilet.

And then it hits you…

Didn’t Cathy down the lake mention something about a toilet that was completely waterless and incinerated your waste?

Enter: incinerating toilets – the toilet solution that makes life at the cottage way easier.

Incinerating toilets have been around for decades, but have a lot of misconceptions around them.

In this article, we break down the basics of what an incinerating toilet is and compare the different brands available so you can make the most informed decision for your family.
What is an incinerating toilet?
An incinerating toilet is a completely waterless toilet that simply incinerates your waste so all that’s left is sterile ash.

While you might be thinking: “I don’t want the smell of burning waste in my cottage!” – there are some brands of incinerating toilets that have taken that into consideration and made theirs odourless.

Incinerating toilets have become a popular waste solution not only in cottages, but also mobile homes, bunkies, caravans, mining camps, railroad companies, and construction sites.

How are incinerating toilets different from composting toilets?

Incinerating toilets and composting toilets are both waterless alternatives to a traditional flush toilet, but they handle waste in very different ways.

A composting toilet is designed to break waste down over time, usually with the help of bulking material, airflow, temperature, and regular maintenance. For some cottage owners, they work well. For others, especially in colder climates or higher-use situations, they can become more hands-on than expected.

An incinerating toilet takes a different approach. Instead of storing waste and waiting for it to break down, it burns the waste at high heat and reduces it to a small amount of ash. There is no compost chamber to manage, no pile to turn, and no partially broken-down material to deal with later.

For a lot of cottagers, that is the big appeal: use it, run the cycle, and empty a small ash container when needed. Less “science experiment in the back room,” more “indoor bathroom that just works.”

If you’re comparing both options, we break it down in more detail here: Incinerating Toilets vs. Compostable Potties: Which Is Right for You?

Who are incinerating toilets best for?

Incinerating toilets are especially worth considering for cottages where a traditional septic system is difficult, expensive, or simply not practical.

They can be a good fit for:

• older cottages with aging or undersized septic systems
• rocky lots where excavation is difficul
• lakefront properties with setback or space limitations
• water-access cottages where construction and pumping are expensive
• bunkies, guest cabins, garages, and outbuildings
• off-grid properties
• owners who want a waterless toilet without the hands-on maintenance of composting

For many cottagers, the appeal is pretty simple: you get an indoor toilet solution without needing to dig up half the lot, install a full septic system, or keep apologizing to guests for the outhouse situation.

There are three main brands of incinerating toilets currently on the market. In 2024, the New Brunswick Research and Productivity Council conducted an independent research study to evaluate and compare the different incinerating toilets. You can download a copy of that report here.

How to know which incinerating toilet is best?

Without diving into the methodology here, we’ll break down some of the key findings of that report to help you decide which incinerating toilet is the right fit for you.

The 3 incinerating toilet brands we’ll talk about are: Cinderella, EcoJohn, and Incinolet.

Cinderella Incineration Toilets are made in Norway, and have been making incinerating toilets for over 25 years and sell worldwide. Cinderella manufactures 4 different incinerating toilet models with electric and propane options, all Canadian certified (NSF / C-UL-US).
EcoJohn is made in Arkansas, USA, and has been manufacturing waste management solutions since the early 2000s. They manufacture 5 different toilet models with both electric and gas powered options. No certification markings could be found on the EcoJohn toilets.

Incinolet is made in Texas, USA, and has been manufacturing toilets for over 65 years. They sell worldwide and have 1 toilet model that is electric only, which is Canadian certified (C-UL-US).

What sets them apart?

While each of these brands have their own claim to fame, they all perform the same function: they turn your waste into ash and incinerate all human waste, bowl liners, and toilet paper – at varying degrees of effectiveness.

So when choosing which one is right for you it’s important to take into consideration things like:

Is it completely odourless?
Is it certified for Canada?
Can it be opened during incineration?
How energy efficient is it?
Do they have an off grid model?

A comparison chart of all 3 brands can be found below, but first, here’s a quick summary of the report findings:

Cinderella Incineration Toilet

The report conclusion states:

“Through the entire testing process the Cinderella toilets proved to be the easiest to work with, the most consistent regarding performance and construction quality, and the most efficient in all three combustion tests.”

Models tested: Comfort (Electric) and Freedom (Propane)
(Note: Travel Model was also tested, but not summarized here as it can’t be installed in cottages)

Performance:
The Cinderella models were the strongest overall performers in the report. All three completed the single flush, triple flush, and heavy-use “triple double” testing. The Comfort Electric and Freedom Propane completed all tests without functional issues. Minor setup or use notes included some initial learning with the Comfort ash tray and a propane connection challenge on the Freedom model, but these were resolved during testing.

Safety:
Cinderella models performed well from a safety standpoint. The incineration pot and ash pan could not be opened or removed during incineration, the units paused and displayed warnings if the chamber hatch was blocked, and the propane models included safety shutoff if ignition failed. The report also noted visible certifications and rating plates on the Cinderella units tested.

Ease of Use:
The Cinderella models were described as easy to learn and easy to operate. Once installed, daily use is single-button operation. The manuals were model-specific and included step-by-step illustrated instructions. The Travel model’s ash chamber access was specifically noted as a positive, with the body lifting out of the way for easier access.

Odourless:
No excessive outside odour issues were found with the Cinderella models when properly ventilated. The tested models also included catalytic converters, which help with exhaust treatment.

EcoJohn

The conclusion in the research report states:

“Both EcoJohn units had issues with the XL unit received not working and the TinyJohn’s Bluetooth module being difficult to set-up and the toilet lid sensor breaking. However, the TinyJohn did produce good results in the single and triple flush tests once operational.”

Source: EcoJohn

Models tested: TinyJohn Propane and EcoJohn XL Electric.

Performance:
The EcoJohn results were mixed. The TinyJohn Propane worked well in the single flush and triple flush tests, but it could not complete the heavy-use “triple double” test because it gave an overcapacity warning and would not restart until the bowl was emptied. It also had setup and function issues during testing: the Bluetooth control module was difficult to connect, a hardwired panel had to be installed, and a broken lid sensor had to be manually bypassed. The EcoJohn XL Electric could not be properly tested because it stopped powering on during the first test and could not be repaired.

Safety:
The TinyJohn did include key safety features such as overheating protection, overcapacity protection, and propane shutoff if ignition failed. However, the report noted no visible certification markings or rating plate on the EcoJohn models tested. The TinyJohn was also rated as having a medium risk of contact with hot, live, or moving parts, compared with low risk for the Cinderella propane models. Because the EcoJohn XL was not operational, most functional safety testing could not be completed.

Ease of Use:
The TinyJohn offered single-button daily operation and error indicators through lights and a Bluetooth controller readout. However, the report described the manual as generic rather than model-specific, and testers found the TinyJohn louder than the other propane units. They also noted that the latch design caused pinched or scratched fingers during testing. The EcoJohn XL’s real-world ease of use could not be meaningfully assessed because the unit was not working.

Odourless:
No excessive outside odour issue was found with the TinyJohn when properly ventilated. Odour performance for the EcoJohn XL could not be assessed because the unit was not operational during testing.

Incinolet

The research report concluded:

“The Incinolet’s simplicity left it one of the easiest to use, but also left it being the most dangerous to operate by far, and it only managed to complete the single flush test effectively.”

Source: Incinolet

Models tested: Incinolet Electric.

Performance:
The Incinolet performed well in the single flush test, but struggled as the test load increased. It did not fully incinerate the waste in the triple flush test, and in the heavy-use “triple double” test it left a large amount of unburned material, including paper and liquid. Its efficiency dropped significantly in the heaviest test.

Safety:
The report raised several safety concerns with the Incinolet. It was possible to access the chamber during incineration, remove the ash pan during operation, and start combustion with the ash pan removed. The bowl also reached 55°C after about an hour and a half of operation, and sharp metal edges caused minor cuts while the unit was being moved.

Ease of Use:
The Incinolet was the most minimalistic model tested, with a single button and manual pedal. That makes it simple to understand, but the report noted that this simplicity also came with fewer built-in safety protections. It also required more frequent ash emptying than the Cinderella Comfort in the testing criteria.

Odourless:
A slight outside odour issue was found with the Incinolet. The report also noted that it did not include a catalytic converter.