PureLift GLOW or Shark CryoGlow, Light Against Light and Muscle
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
Shark CryoGlow delivers far more light than PureLift GLOW does, and GLOW does five things CryoGlow cannot do at all, so this is a comparison of different jobs rather than of better and worse.
This article compares the two on what decides the result you actually see, such as:
- 128 mW/cm² against 0.113 mW/cm², and why that is not the whole story
- what the cooling function is cleared to claim and what the page claims
- why neither wavelengths nor irradiance appear where you buy the mask
- what $349.99 against $999 actually buys in each case
- whether owning both makes sense, and in what order
and many more!
Every CryoGlow figure below comes from Shark's FDA filing, because the product page publishes none of them.
Key Points:
CryoGlow is $349.99, carries 480 LEDs at 630, 415 and 830 nm, and is cleared under K242796 for fine lines, wrinkles and mild-to-moderate acne.
Its filing publishes a total of 128 mW/cm² and delivered doses up to 431 J/cm², none of which appears on the page where you buy it.
On light alone CryoGlow delivers far more than GLOW's light layer at 0.113 mW/cm², and we are not going to argue otherwise.
CryoGlow carries no current of any kind, so nothing on it reaches muscle.
The under-eye cooling is cleared to refresh, invigorate and soothe the skin; the product page says it helps visibly tighten under-eyes, which the clearance does not cover.
What CryoGlow is
CryoGlow is a rigid LED mask with 480 LEDs in 160 tri-wick packages, four routines running from four to eight minutes, and a separate under-eye cooling session of five to fifteen minutes.
Shark's FDA filing under K242796 publishes red at 630 nm, blue at 415 nm and infrared at 830 nm, with a total irradiance of 128 mW/cm² across the modes and delivered doses that reach 431 J/cm² for the Better Aging routine.
Those are serious figures, the clearance is real, and at $349.99 with no gel and no consumables it is a straightforward purchase.
It is also the best-selling device of its kind, which is worth saying plainly rather than working around.
Where the figures live
None of the numbers above appear on the product page.
The page publishes weight, cord length, wattage and amperage, and not a single wavelength, irradiance or dose figure.
This is the pattern across the category, and it is the reason we wrote a separate piece on why an output figure without its measurement conditions is not a specification.
Credit where it belongs: the filing is detailed, and a buyer who knows to look can find everything. Most buyers do not know to look.
On light, CryoGlow wins
PureLift GLOW publishes 1.13 W/m² and 678 J/m² over a ten-minute session, which converts to 0.113 mW/cm² and 0.068 J/cm².
Against 128 mW/cm² and doses in the hundreds of J/cm², there is no version of the arithmetic where GLOW's light layer delivers more light, and we publish the conversion so you can check it.
Coverage runs the same way, since a mask treats the whole face at once while a probe treats what you hold it against.
If light is what you want, and specifically if acne or overall texture is the concern, CryoGlow at $349.99 is the better buy and costs a third of what GLOW does.
What GLOW does that CryoGlow cannot
CryoGlow has no electrical current, so nanocurrent, microcurrent and EMS are all absent, and nothing on the device reaches the muscle layer that holds the lower face up.
GLOW carries nine technologies on one dial: Infusion, iontophoresis, nanocurrent, microcurrent, EMS, PDM, PDM++, blue at 465 nm and red at 634 nm, reaching 9 mA at 500 ohms with the diamond-faceted probe.
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 at any irradiance produces that, because light is not current.
GLOW also runs a serum delivery pass, which CryoGlow has no equivalent of, and works with any water-based serum.
So the choice is between more light across more of the face, and light plus the muscle work plus the serum step in the same ten minutes.
The cooling function, and a claim worth checking
InstaChill is thermoelectric cooling of two contact pads under the eyes, with fans rejecting the heat, and three adjustable levels.
Shark's clearance describes the cooling as intended to refresh, invigorate and soothe the skin, and it sits outside the cleared treatment indication, which covers the LEDs for wrinkles and acne.
The product page says the cooling helps visibly tighten under-eyes in one use, and tightening is not what the cooling function is cleared for.
No temperature is published anywhere, on the page or in the filing, for the function the product is named after.
Cold constricts vessels and reduces the look of puffiness for a while, which is a real and pleasant effect, and it is not the same as tightening.
Owning both
These two devices stack rather than compete, and the order matters.
Run GLOW first on clean skin with a water-based serum, three minutes per side and no longer, then the Infuse pass.
Put the mask on afterwards and let it do the whole-face light dose on skin that has just had circulation brought to it.
Ten minutes plus eight minutes, three to five times a week, is a routine most people can hold.
Which to buy
Buy CryoGlow if acne or texture is the concern, if you want hands-free treatment, or if $349.99 is the budget and light is the priority.
Buy PureLift GLOW if the lower face has started to drop, because that is a muscle question, and if you want the light alongside rather than instead of the muscle work.
Buy CryoGlow first if you can only buy one and your skin concerns sit at the surface, and buy GLOW first if what bothers you is the shape of your face rather than its surface.
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.
Specifications verified on 17 September 2026 against Shark's product page and its FDA 510(k) summary K242796.