We visited H&M and Zara to see which was a better fast-fashion store - and the winner was clear for a key reason

H&M was my first stop.

The entire first floor sold women's clothing. Some of the styles at the front of the store were nice ...

... but others missed the mark, like this t-shirt that just read "Saturday" on the front. The selection was very hit or miss — some of the clothes were fashionable, and others were far from it. The quality also hugely varied, with some clothes feeling like they were about to fall apart and others seeming to be of higher quality.

There were $10 jeans placed by the front of the store as well. H&M was certainly cheap, selling a lot of basics like jeans, t-shirts, and sweaters at low prices.

On top of the sometimes unbelievably low prices, there were sale racks all over the store.

The inventory problems really started to show here. The sale racks were completely cluttered and messy, and the products that were on sale felt totally random. There were jeans, dresses, tank tops, sweaters, scarves, and shorts. The aisles were narrow, and there was just too much going on at once.

The rest of the store was much neater than the sale racks, but it didn't seem to be organized in a clear way. There were nice blouses, sweatshirts, jeans, and pantsuits all displayed in the same spot.

Clothes for every season and occasion were next to each other.

It definitely embodied the idea of a "treasure hunt" experience, but if you were looking for something specific, it would be tricky to find it.

H&M also sold hats ...

... shoes ...

... and beauty products. Near the register, there were also face masks, perfume, scrunchies, socks, and other random small products.

Upstairs was a large kids' department. It had a boys' section and a girls' section, and each side was further organized by age. It was definitely easier to navigate than the women's section downstairs.

The men's section was also upstairs, and there was a pretty long line at the register. It didn't have as much as the women's department did, but what it did have was better organized.

Though the store was a mess, and the quality of the products varied, I found that in general, the store had a lot of great deals to offer if you were willing to look for them, and there was something for everyone style-wise.

I went to Zara next. It was directly across from the top level of H&M.

It felt much less cluttered than H&M. You didn't need to snake through every aisle to find something. It was a smaller store, but it had more space to walk around in.

It was also more minimalistic than H&M. Everything was more spread out, and the clothing racks were much less cluttered, making it easier to actually see everything without having to dig through piles of clothes.

The styles were very hit or miss at Zara, too. It was generally higher quality than H&M, but the prices reflected that — it was more expensive, too.

Basic blue jeans that were $10 at H&M were $45 at Zara. However, basic t-shirts were similarly priced at the two stores.

Zara had fewer basics than H&M. Instead, there were more t-shirts that felt like they were trying to imitate streetwear and high fashion.

Like H&M, Zara had a kids' section ...

... and a men's section.

H&M was more cluttered, and its inventory problems were obvious in the store. However, from a shopper's perspective, the store had a lot of great deals and a ton of variety in the styles it carried. Zara was slightly more expensive, and it didn't offer everything H&M did in terms of basics, beauty products, and accessories. Even though Zara was less cluttered and is performing well sales-wise, I found that H&M had more to offer overall.