Polyjacking and mudjacking can both be effective solutions for sinking concrete, but they have key differences. Polyjacking, which uses expanding polyurethane foam, is often considered a better option because the foam is significantly lighter than the cementitious material used for mudjacking. This reduced weight puts less pressure on the underlying soil and lowers the risk of future sinking. Polyjacking is suitable for any sinking concrete slab, while mudjacking is typically only recommended for non-structural concrete, such as sidewalks, patios, pool decks, and driveways. The primary drawback of polyjacking is its cost, which can be up to four times higher than mudjacking—as much as $25 per square foot compared to a maximum of about $6 per square foot for mudjacking.

Most houses are expected to settle over time, but foundation sinking of more than a few inches or uneven sinking of more than an inch for every 20 feet is cause for concern. Any significant or uneven sinking should be assessed by a professional to determine the cause and perform any necessary repairs. 

It restores concrete, prevents replacement cost disruptions, reduces trip hazards, and provides stability at a lower cost.

There is no real alternative to underpinning, although mudjacking and polyjacking are other repair methods that can add support from underneath your foundation. Rather than placing supportive piers under your structure, these involve pumping a material under your slab to lift a sunken section back into its original position. Polyjacking, in particular, is sometimes a suitable solution for stabilization issues under slab foundations, but underpinning is often accepted as the best and most permanent solution.