I was actually thinking of installing laminate throughout the living space, but during the consultation they said that tile would be better for heating through an underfloor heating system. It heats faster and lasts longer, which is also cheaper in terms of consumption. Is this significant? I can install laminate myself, but it's a different story with tile.
I don't notice any difference between tile and laminate. In our house, the laminate flooring is plugged in.
The underfloor heating works at such low temperatures anyway that you don't even notice that the floor is warm. I don't know the heat transfer coefficients, but with such a low temperature difference, I don't think there is much difference.
What I would never do is laminate flooring in the kitchen.
Tile is basically better than underfloor heating in terms of heat permeability and heat distribution.
Laminate (wood + impact sound insulation) certainly insulates against heat. It doesn't do much (necessarily). Most say they don't notice a difference. Some say it also doesn't insulate, it just delays heat transfer, meaning the laminate will be even more sluggish with temperature changes. Personally, I think there is less heat gain in the long run, even if it's only 0.5°.
Tile is better in that regard, yes.
Laminate is also suitable. Manufacturers indicate the product suitability for underfloor heating. It's also not a bad idea to glue the flooring together (if possible), this also improves heat transfer. And if additional impact sound insulation is used, make sure it is suitable for underfloor heating.