ZIIP Halo Against FOREO BEAR 2, Two App Led Devices 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
FOREO publishes more than twice the output and works without its app; ZIIP publishes a lower figure and builds its whole proposition around the treatment library in the phone.
This article compares the two on what decides the result you actually see, such as:
- 309 microamps against 680, both published openly
- what nanocurrent means on the ZIIP and whether it matters
- how dependent each device is on its app
- conductor costs on both sides
- which suits a routine you will actually keep
and many more!
Both brands publish their output on their own pages, which is rarer in this category than it should be.
Key Points:
ZIIP publishes 309 microamps for the Halo and FOREO publishes up to 680 for BEAR 2, both on their own product pages.
Neither states the load, so the two figures are indicative rather than strictly comparable.
ZIIP built its reputation on nanocurrent, current measured in billionths of an amp, paired with microcurrent.
ZIIP is app-dependent in normal use; BEAR 2 has an app and runs without it.
ZIIP gels run $29.99 to $79.99; FOREO states BEAR 2 must be used with a conductive serum at $41.90, with a $59 option.
Two brands that publish
Most of this category tells you the number of LEDs or the number of programmes and leaves out the one figure that would let you compare anything. These two do not.
ZIIP publishes 309 microamps for the Halo. FOREO publishes up to 680 microamps for BEAR 2. Both appear where a buyer can find them without reading a regulatory filing.
Neither states the resistance the figure was measured against, so the comparison is indicative rather than exact, and both are still ahead of the brands that publish nothing at all.
Of the 33 devices we track, six publish an output figure on their own page, and both of these are in that six.
What nanocurrent adds
ZIIP has built its identity on nanocurrent, which is current measured in billionths of an amp, an order of magnitude below the microcurrent band.
The claim for that band is cellular rather than muscular, and ZIIP has been working in it longer than almost anyone selling to consumers.
Whether you should pay for it depends on whether you believe effects that produce no sensation at all are worth having, which is a reasonable thing to be uncertain about.
FOREO does not offer a nanocurrent band, and its higher microamp figure is doing a different job rather than a better one.
The app, and how much it matters
ZIIP's treatments live in the phone. The library is the product as much as the handpiece, and without the app you have a device with far less to offer.
BEAR 2 also has an app, with guided routines and skin tracking, and the device runs perfectly well without opening it.
If you like structure and will genuinely use a library, ZIIP gives you more. If you suspect the app is one more thing that will stop happening by week three, FOREO is the safer purchase.
That is not a small consideration, because in this category the device you keep using beats the device with the better feature list.
Running costs
ZIIP sells its own gels from $29.99 to $79.99 depending on formula.
FOREO states that BEAR 2 must be used with a conductive serum, priced at $41.90, with the SUPERCHARGED Serum 2.0 at $59.
Neither publishes how many sessions a bottle delivers, so the honest figure for both is a few hundred dollars a year with regular use.
Both devices are therefore more expensive over two years than their sticker prices suggest, which we have set out across the category in the gel cost article.
What neither one does
Neither device contracts a facial muscle. At 309 and 680 microamps they sit below the motor threshold by design, and the companies do not claim otherwise.
So if your complaint is that the shape of your lower face has changed, neither of these is the category that addresses it, whatever the app says about lifting.
If your complaint is texture, tone and looking tired, both are reasonable and both are fairly priced against the rest of the market.
The published figures for 33 devices will place any other device you are considering alongside these two.
Which to buy
Buy ZIIP if the guided library is genuinely how you will use it and the nanocurrent band interests you.
Buy BEAR 2 if you want the higher published output, the massage layer, and a device that does not require a phone to be useful.
Buy neither if you want muscle work, which is our category rather than theirs, covered in the ZIIP comparison and the FOREO comparison.
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.