What We Would Tell You Not to Buy, Including From Us
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
There are four situations where buying a PureLift is a mistake, and in three whole categories a competitor will serve you better than we will.
This article covers what actually decides the answer, such as:
- the concerns a muscle device genuinely cannot address
- the three categories where a competitor beats us
- the model in our range most people should skip
- when the honest advice is to buy nothing at all
- how to tell which problem you actually have
and many more!
A brand that has never told you not to buy something has not told you much.
Key Points:
If your concern is skin texture and fine lines rather than facial contour, an LED mask or an RF device addresses it more directly than we do.
If you want percussion massage for jaw tension, Therabody does that and we do not.
If you want the largest possible light dose across the whole face, a well-specified mask beats GLOW's light layer by a wide margin and costs a third as much.
If you will not use a device three times a week for twelve weeks, no device in this category will do anything for you, including ours.
Within our range, most people buying Pro Plus or GLOW for the output figure alone would be better served by Face or Pro.
If the problem is the surface, not the shape
Pinch the skin on your cheek gently. If it feels thin and crepey and settles slowly, that is a dermal problem.
Radiofrequency heats the dermis to provoke a collagen response over weeks, and light therapy works on skin cells, and both address texture more directly than muscle work does.
We do not make an RF device and have no plans to, so if a clinician has told you heat-driven remodelling is what you need, buy one.
NEWA publishes its frequency, wattage and thermal cutoff in its regulatory record, which makes it the most checkable option in that category.
If you want light, buy light
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.
HigherDOSE publishes 50 mW/cm2 and files 30 J/cm2; Shark files 128 mW/cm2 and doses up to 431 J/cm2; Omnilux publishes about 30 mW/cm2.
There is no version of that arithmetic where our light layer delivers more, and a mask covers the whole face at once while a probe does not.
Buy a mask if light is the purchase, and buy GLOW only if you want the muscle work with light alongside it.
If you want percussion, or an app
Therabody's TheraFace PRO does percussion massage and we do not, so for jaw tension specifically it is the better tool.
Some people genuinely want a guided app that scores their consistency and walks them through a routine, and ZIIP and NuFACE do that well.
Our devices have no app at all, which we consider a feature and some buyers will consider a gap, and both readings are reasonable.
There is no point pretending a preference is a defect just because it is not ours.
If you will not keep it up
Every result in this category comes from repeated sessions over three months, and the research protocols look like that because nothing shorter shows change.
If you already know from experience that a four-times-a-week routine will not survive your February, the honest answer is to buy nothing and spend the money on sun protection and sleep, which do more for a face than most devices.
That is not false modesty. A device used twice and shelved is worse value than no device at all.
If you are unsure, buy at the bottom of a range rather than the top, from anyone, and find out cheaply.
What not to buy in our own range
Pro Plus at $899 and GLOW at $999 publish 9 mA against 7 mA on Face, and people frequently buy up for that figure alone.
Higher output is not automatically better, since comfort decides whether you keep using a device and everything above your working level goes unused.
Buy Pro Plus for PDM++ and the diamond-faceted probe if you want them, and buy GLOW if you specifically want light in the same session; do not buy either for the milliamps.
Most people are well served by Face at $499, and Pro at $699 or Pro Edition at $799 if the slim professional pen format suits your hand better.
That advice costs us money on every customer who takes it, which is the only reason it is worth printing.
Working out which problem you have
Look at the line from cheekbone to chin in a mirror, and compare it with a photograph of yourself from five or ten years ago.
If the shape has changed, that is contour, and contour sits on muscle, which is our argument and the only one we make.
If the surface has changed while the shape has held, that is skin, and light or RF is the more direct answer.
Most people over forty have some of both, in which case devices stack rather than compete, and we have written about how to run them together.
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.
Positions and figures checked on 21 September 2026 against each brand's own published material and the FDA 510(k) database.