PureLift GLOW or the $299 to $399 LED Masks, Qure and Silk'n Compared
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
Silk'n at $299 and Qure at $399 sit in the mid-price mask bracket, and the interesting difference between them is where each one puts its numbers.
This article compares the two on what decides the result you actually see, such as:
- what each mask delivers per session, calculated from published figures
- which of the two publishes irradiance where you can see it
- why a three-minute session and a ten-minute session are not comparable
- the wavelength counts and what they do not tell you
- where a $999 device stops being a mask comparison at all
and many more!
Both are honest mid-price masks, and neither is a competitor to the muscle work GLOW does.
Key Points:
Silk'n LED Face Mask 100 is $299, runs 620 nm red, 460 nm blue and 850 nm infrared across 100 lights, and publishes about 28.5 mW/cm2 on its own page.
At ten minutes that is roughly 17 J/cm2, which the brand does not state but which follows from the figure it does publish.
Qure Q-Rejuvalight Pro is $399, runs five wavelengths across 160 dual-core LEDs, and publishes no irradiance on its page; its FDA filing gives 15 to 70 mW/cm2 depending on mode.
Qure's three-minute session at its 70 mW/cm2 wrinkle mode works out at roughly 12.6 J/cm2, below the Silk'n figure despite the higher irradiance.
PureLift GLOW is $999, publishes 0.113 mW/cm2 for its light layer, and carries eight further technologies including EMS at 9 mA.
Silk'n at $299
Silk'n publishes an irradiance of about 28.5 mW/cm2 on the product page, which puts it among the small minority of brands that do.
Sessions run ten minutes in manual mode, with a tapering protocol of three to four times a week in the first week falling to one or two by the fourth.
Its manual gives upper limits rather than operating figures for red and blue, which is a regulatory safety statement rather than a performance claim.
No clearance number appears on the page and we found no 510(k) under the MultiPlatform or mask names, so that is a gap.
Qure at $399
Qure publishes five wavelengths at 415, 605, 630, 660 and 880 nm across 160 dual-core LEDs, and a three-minute session used daily.
Its FDA filing publishes per-wavelength irradiance from 10 to 25 mW/cm2, with mode totals of 70 mW/cm2 for wrinkles and 45 for acne.
None of that appears on the page where you buy the mask, which is the pattern across most of this category.
The brand publishes that it is designed in Australia, while its filing names a Shenzhen manufacturer, which is entirely normal and worth knowing.
Why the session length changes the answer
Dose is irradiance multiplied by time, so a brighter mask used for less time can deliver less light than a dimmer one used for longer.
Qure at 70 mW/cm2 for three minutes is about 12.6 J/cm2; Silk'n at 28.5 mW/cm2 for ten minutes is about 17 J/cm2.
So the cheaper mask with the lower irradiance delivers more light per session, which you would never work out from the marketing.
Both figures are ours rather than the brands', calculated from what each publishes, and both should be treated as approximations since neither states a measurement distance.
What the wavelength count does not tell you
Five wavelengths sounds more complete than three, and it also divides the available power across more emitters.
None of the brands in this bracket publishes what each wavelength contributes to a claimed outcome, so the count is a feature list rather than a specification.
We take the same view of our own nine technologies: the number is only worth something because each one is named, its role stated, and its output published.
Where GLOW sits
GLOW publishes 1.13 W/m2 and 678 J/m2 over ten minutes, which converts to 0.113 mW/cm2 and 0.068 J/cm2, so both of these masks deliver far more light than GLOW's light layer.
That is the third time we have said so in this set of comparisons, and it will keep being true.
GLOW carries nine technologies on one dial and reaches 9 mA at 500 ohms with the diamond-faceted probe, which is where the muscle contracts.
Kavanagh and colleagues measured an 18.6 percent increase in cheek muscle thickness over twelve weeks of motor-level stimulation (10.1111/jocd.12007), and no mask attempts that.
Which to buy
Buy the Silk'n mask if $299 is the budget and you want a published irradiance figure and a longer session.
Buy the Qure mask if you prefer the five-wavelength approach and a three-minute daily habit, and accept that you will have to read a regulatory filing to find its power figures.
Buy PureLift GLOW if your complaint is the shape of your lower face rather than its surface, and buy a mask alongside it rather than instead of it.
This comparison 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.
Prices and specifications verified on 21 September 2026 against each brand's own published material and the FDA 510(k) database.