Microcurrent Against High Frequency, Two Unrelated Treatments
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
High frequency is an oscillating current delivered through a gas-filled glass electrode and is used mainly on oily and breakout-prone skin, while microcurrent is a low direct current aimed at tone and texture.
This article compares the two on what decides the result you actually see, such as:
- what the glass wand in a salon actually is
- why high frequency is used on breakouts rather than on lines
- what microcurrent does that high frequency does not
- why neither one contracts a muscle
- which complaint sends you to which treatment
and many more!
A salon offering both is not offering you a choice between two versions of the same thing.
Key Points:
High frequency uses a glass electrode filled with argon or neon gas, which glows as an oscillating current passes through it.
Its traditional use is on oily, congested and breakout-prone skin, not on facial contour.
Microcurrent passes a low current into the tissue itself, aimed at cellular effects and, at higher levels in other devices, at muscle.
Neither treatment contracts a facial muscle, and neither is a lifting treatment in the structural sense.
High frequency is a professional-menu item far more than a home one, and quality varies widely among consumer versions.
What high frequency actually is
The glass wand you see in a salon is an electrode containing a low-pressure gas, usually argon, which gives a violet glow, or neon, which glows orange.
An oscillating current passes through the gas, and the treatment is applied by moving the electrode over the skin, either in direct contact or held slightly away to produce a small spark.
The traditional rationale is antibacterial and sebum-related, which is why it sits on facial menus for congested and breakout-prone skin rather than for ageing complaints.
Whatever else it is, it is not a treatment that puts a meaningful current into the deeper tissue, and it is not trying to.
What microcurrent is doing instead
Microcurrent delivers a low direct current into the tissue, in the hundreds of microamps, aimed at cellular effects over repeated sessions.
The two treatments therefore differ in what they touch as well as in what they are for: one works at the surface with an oscillating discharge, the other passes current into the tissue.
Ward and colleagues set out the thresholds that separate sub-sensory, sensory and motor stimulation, and microcurrent sits in the first two while high frequency is not really described by that scale at all.
Neither one contracts a muscle, so neither belongs in a conversation about facial contour.
Which complaint sends you where
Oily skin, congestion, frequent breakouts and post-extraction care are the traditional high frequency indications, and a good esthetician will use it as part of a treatment rather than as the treatment.
Dullness, texture, fine lines and a generally tired look are microcurrent territory.
Loss of contour is neither, and belongs to muscle-level work, which we cover in the microcurrent against EMS article.
Acne specifically has a better-evidenced home option in blue light at around 415 to 465 nm, which several LED devices offer and which has a clearer body of evidence behind it than home high frequency does.
On the home versions
High frequency wands sell cheaply online, and the quality range is wide.
The glass electrode is fragile, the ozone smell some units produce is off-putting to many people, and there is little published specification on consumer units to compare.
If you want to try it, a salon session with a trained therapist tells you more about whether it suits your skin than a cheap wand will.
We do not make one and have no opinion worth having on which consumer brand is best.
Safety notes for both
High frequency should not be used over broken skin, and the sparking technique in particular deserves training rather than experimentation.
Anyone with an implanted electronic device should avoid both treatments and ask the clinician managing the implant.
Both should be kept away from the eye area in their aggressive forms, and microcurrent around the eye should run at the lowest level of your routine, as we set out in the eye area article.
Pregnancy, epilepsy and heart conditions are a reason to ask a doctor before either.
If you are choosing
These are not alternatives, so the question is which complaint you are treating rather than which technology is better.
For congestion and breakouts, high frequency in a professional setting, or blue light at home.
For texture and tone, microcurrent.
For contour, neither, and the table of 33 devices shows which devices reach the band that addresses it.
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.