FOREO BEAR 2 Against NuFACE Trinity Plus, Who Publishes What
Medically reviewed by
4 independent reviewers
Andrew Conrad Barile, PT, DPT
Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) | Licensed Physical Therapist (PT) | CEO and Founder, Xtreem Pulse LLC
Read bio
Dr. Andrew Conrad Barile is a Doctor of Physical Therapy and the CEO and Founder of Xtreem Pulse LLC, the engineering company behind PureLift. He earned his Doctorate in Physical Therapy from Daemen College and is a licensed physical therapist.
He brings over two decades of clinical and entrepreneurial experience across physical therapy, craniosacral therapy and medical device innovation, built on a working knowledge of human anatomy and muscle physiology.
For PureLift LAB he reviews how current is delivered across all ten levels, from sub-sensory nanocurrent and skin-level microcurrent to motor-level EMS, and how the Infuse pass fits into the same ten-minute routine.
Bertica M. Rubio, M.D.
Board-Certified Physician, Dartmouth Medical School | Medical Director, Antiaging Regenerative Medicine Clinic
Read bio
Dr. Bertica M. Rubio is a board-certified physician and Medical Director of the Antiaging Regenerative Medicine Clinic in Redlands, California. She earned her Doctor of Medicine from Dartmouth Medical School and completed her pediatrics residency at UC Irvine Medical Center.
With decades of clinical experience, she specialises in age management medicine, regenerative medicine, wound healing and growth factor therapies, and her practice integrates evidence-based medical science with advanced aesthetic treatment.
For PureLift LAB she reviews articles for medical accuracy across the whole dial, from the gentle nanocurrent and microcurrent settings through to muscle-level EMS and the Infuse pass.
Daniel Grinberg, MD, FACS
Board-Certified Otolaryngologist | Head and Neck Surgeon | Fellow, American College of Surgeons | Mount Sinai
Read bio
Daniel Grinberg, MD, FACS is a board-certified otolaryngologist and head and neck surgeon at ENT and Allergy Associates in West Nyack, New York. He earned his medical degree from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons.
He completed his otolaryngology residency at New York University Medical Center, serves as Assistant Clinical Professor at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and is a Fellow of both the American College of Surgeons and the American Academy of Otolaryngology.
For PureLift LAB he brings a wider clinical lens, connecting at-home facial stimulation from microcurrent to EMS to the anatomy underneath, with the same rigour we apply to every device specification.
Prof. Dr. med. Ivo Buschmann
Chair of Angiology, Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg | Clinic Director, University Clinic for Angiology
Read bio
Prof. Dr. med. Ivo Buschmann is Chair of Angiology at the Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane and Clinic Director of the University Clinic for Angiology at the Brandenburg University Hospital.
He trained at the University of Hamburg, was a Max Planck Society Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Heart and Lung Research, and held senior consultant posts at the Charite Universitatsmedizin Berlin before his appointment as Chair in 2016.
One of Europe's leading authorities on arteriogenesis, with over 150 peer-reviewed publications and US and EU patents, he reviews for PureLift LAB how the evidence on electrical stimulation is read and where its limits lie.
Share
FOREO publishes a higher output figure and publishes it openly, NuFACE has the longer clearance record and the wider attachment range, and both operate below the level that contracts a muscle.
This article compares the two on what decides the result you actually see, such as:
- why one figure is on a product page and the other in a filing
- what 680 microamps against 335 actually means in use
- the massage feature that is not electrical at all
- conductor costs on both sides
- which of the two suits which buyer
and many more!
Neither of these devices is ours, and the comparison is written on each brand's own published material.
Key Points:
FOREO publishes up to 680 microamps for BEAR 2 on its own pages, which very few brands in this category do.
NuFACE's 335 microamps appears in its FDA submission rather than on its product pages, and neither brand states a load.
BEAR 2 adds T-Sonic pulsation, which is a massage feature rather than an electrical one.
FOREO states that BEAR 2 must be used with a conductive serum, priced at $41.90, with its SUPERCHARGED serum at $59; NuFACE gel runs $35 to $80.
BEAR 2 is $339 to $399 depending on promotion, and Trinity+ is $395.
The disclosure difference
FOREO publishes a maximum of 680 microamps for BEAR 2 where a buyer can see it, without needing to know that FDA filings exist.
NuFACE publishes no output figure on its product pages at all. The 335 microamp figure for the MINI+, and the details of waveform and frequency, come from its 510(k) submission.
Neither states the load the figure was measured at, which means the two numbers cannot be lined up precisely even though both exist.
On the narrow question of who tells the buyer more, FOREO wins this comparison, and that is worth saying about a competitor's competitor.
What the gap actually means
680 microamps against 335 sounds like double, and in a sense it is.
Both figures nonetheless sit inside the same band. Ward and colleagues set out the thresholds separating sub-sensory, sensory and motor stimulation, and the practical effect of moving from 335 to 680 microamps is that you feel more, not that a different category of effect becomes available.
Neither device contracts a facial muscle, and neither company claims a contraction in the way a muscle stimulation device would.
So if you are choosing between them on power, you are choosing between two devices doing the same job with different intensity, rather than between two different jobs.
What each adds beyond the current
BEAR 2 layers T-Sonic pulsation over the microcurrent, which is a vibration feature. It changes how the treatment feels and it is not doing anything electrical.
Trinity+ has the Boost button, which FOREO has no equivalent of, and an attachment system: an eye and lip applicator and a red light wrinkle reducer, each sold separately at around $160.
That attachment path is the strongest structural argument for Trinity+, since it is the only route by which either device gains a second modality.
FOREO's answer to that is a separate mask product rather than an attachment, which is a different purchase rather than an upgrade.
The cost after the box
FOREO states plainly that BEAR 2 must be used with a conductive serum, with its own priced at $41.90 and the SUPERCHARGED Serum 2.0 at $59.
NuFACE's requirement appears in its FDA file as a conductive gel primer, with gel at $35 for 1.69 oz, $55 for 3.3 oz and $80 for 10 oz.
Both are therefore devices with a running cost attached, and neither publishes how long a bottle lasts.
Over two years that cost can exceed the difference in sticker price between the two, which is the most useful thing to know when the prices are $339 and $395.
Clearances
FOREO holds K200803 covering BEAR and BEAR mini, and K232242 for BEAR 2 Body. We could not locate a record naming BEAR 2 for the face specifically, which may simply mean the face version ships under the earlier clearance as a non-significant modification, and the public database does not show that either way.
NuFACE has the deeper file, with K201680, K191672, K201782 and K212947 across its range, plus a separate clearance for the gel.
Both sit under the aesthetic stimulator product code with cosmetic indications.
Who each suits
Buy BEAR 2 if you want the higher published figure, you like the massage layer, and you value a brand that prints its output where you can read it.
Buy Trinity+ if you want the attachment path, the Boost function, and the longest clearance history in consumer microcurrent.
Buy neither if your complaint is contour rather than surface, since both sit below the motor threshold. Our own devices are the comparison for that question, set out in the FOREO piece and the NuFACE piece.
This article sits inside our full map of the category, where we set out all 33 devices we track, what each one carries and what each brand publishes: Nine Technologies on One Dial, What the Rest of the Market Actually Carries.