PureLift Face or Pro, A Side-by-Side Specification Comparison
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
This is the specification sheet rather than the argument, every published figure for PureLift Face and PureLift Pro set against each other.
This article compares the two on what decides the result you actually see, such as:
- Price and form
- Output and waveform
- Levels, modes and session
- Regulatory and manufacturing
- Reading the sheet honestly
and many more!
If you want the buying advice rather than the numbers, the companion article on which one suits you covers that.
Key Points:
Both reach 7 mA at 500 ohms across 10 levels on one dial.
Both run nanocurrent, microcurrent, EMS, Infusion, iontophoresis and PDM.
The specifications differ in exactly two places, the pulse description and the clearance record.
The difference you will actually notice is the form factor, compact handheld against slim professional pen.
Neither carries the diamond-faceted probe or PDM++, which sit on Pro Plus and GLOW.
Price and form
PureLift Face is $499, the compact handheld and the lightest device in the range, shaped for the bathroom shelf.
PureLift Pro is $699, the slim professional pen, the form and build treatment rooms use, which handles like an instrument rather than a gadget.
The pen shape gives finer control around the jaw and the orbital rim, where the working angle is tight, and that is the single most useful line on this page.
Output and waveform
Maximum output is 7 mA at 500 ohms on both, which is 7,000 microamps in the unit competitors usually publish.
Frequency range is 1.37 to 1.73 kHz across 361 points on both, delivered by PDM, Pulsed Dynamic Modulation.
Face publishes a pulse width of 4 microseconds. Pro publishes a monophasic rectangular pulse with alternating polarity, also at 4 microseconds, which is a fuller description of the same duration.
Neither model carries PDM++, the bipolar evolution of the waveform, which is on Pro Plus at $899 and GLOW at $999.
Levels, modes and session
Ten levels on one dial on both, with level 1 nanocurrent, level 2 microcurrent and levels 3 to 10 EMS, so the motor threshold sits at level 3 on each.
Two modes on both, Lift and Infuse, and the Infuse pass carries two delivery technologies, Infusion built on electroporation (Prausnitz 1993) and iontophoresis.
Session length is ten minutes on both, automatic, worked as three minutes on each side plus the Infuse pass.
Conductive medium is any water-based serum on both, with no proprietary gel required and no app.
Regulatory and manufacturing
Face is cleared under FDA record K190269, granted 28 August 2019, Class II.
Pro is cleared under K230506, shared with Pro Edition, Class II, and is built on the Pro Plus platform, K221443, as its predicate.
Both are manufactured in Japan in an ISO 13485 facility by a company that has made facial stimulation and nothing else since 1987, and clearance is a safety review rather than an endorsement of results.
Reading the sheet honestly
On output, technologies, levels, modes, session and conductive medium, the two devices are matched.
The clearance records differ because the two devices were cleared four years apart through different submissions, which is a regulatory fact rather than a performance one.
So the specification sheet points to one real decision, which shape you want in your hand, and anyone telling you the $200 buys more power is reading a different sheet from this one.
If the sheet sends you elsewhere
Pro Edition at $799 is the same professional pen at 7.7 mA at 500 ohms, tolerance plus or minus 1 mA, cleared under K230506 on 21 June 2023.
Pro Plus at $899 reaches 9 mA and adds the patented diamond-faceted probe from the 2019 design refresh and the PDM++ waveform, under K221443 granted 21 October 2022.
GLOW at $999 matches Pro Plus and adds red light at 634 nm cleared for wrinkles and blue at 465 nm cleared for mild-to-moderate inflammatory acne, under K243587 granted 6 March 2025.
Whichever line of the sheet decides it, the result comes from three minutes a side four times a week for three months rather than from the specification itself (Kavanagh 2012).