FOREO BEAR 2 Against NuFACE Trinity Plus, Who Publishes What
Medically reviewed by
4 independent reviewers
Andrew Conrad Barile, kinésithérapeute, DPT
Doctorat en physiothérapie (DPT), physiothérapeute agréé (PT)
Read bio
Le Dr Andrew Conrad Barile est docteur en physiothérapie et PDG ainsi que fondateur de Xtreem Pulse LLC. Il a obtenu son doctorat en physiothérapie à Daemen College et possède plus de vingt ans d'expérience clinique et entrepreneuriale en physiothérapie pédiatrique, thérapie craniosacrale et innovation en dispositifs médicaux. Sa profonde connaissance de l'anatomie humaine, de la physiologie musculaire et des technologies thérapeutiques offre une approche scientifique précieuse pour le rajeunissement du visage et les solutions anti-âge.
Bertica M. Rubio, M.D.
Directeur Médical, Clinique de Médecine Régénérative Anti-âge | Médecin Certifié par le Conseil | École de Médecine de Dartmouth
Read bio
Le Dr Bertica M. Rubio est une médecin certifiée et directrice médicale de la clinique de médecine régénérative anti-âge à Redlands, en Californie. Elle a obtenu son Bachelor of Science à l'Université Loyola Marymount et son Doctorat en médecine à la Dartmouth Medical School (Geisel School of Medicine). Elle a effectué sa résidence en pédiatrie au UC Irvine Medical Center.
Forte de plusieurs décennies d'expérience clinique, le Dr Rubio est spécialisée en médecine de gestion du vieillissement, médecine régénérative, cicatrisation des plaies et thérapies par facteurs de croissance. Sa pratique intègre la science médicale fondée sur des preuves avec des traitements esthétiques et régénératifs avancés, aidant les patients à atteindre une santé optimale et une vitalité juvénile.
Le Dr Rubio est passionnée par l'éducation des patients sur la science derrière les soins de la peau, le rajeunissement du visage et les technologies non invasives comme l'EMS (stimulation électrique musculaire) pour le tonus facial. Ses articles pour PureLift LAB allient connaissances médicales rigoureuses et conseils pratiques pour obtenir des résultats réels et durables.
Daniel Grinberg, MD, FACS
Otolaryngologiste et chirurgien de la tête et du cou certifié par le conseil | Membre, American College of Surgeons | Professeur clinique adjoint, Mount Sinai School of Medicine
Read bio
Daniel Grinberg, MD, FACS, est un oto-rhino-laryngologiste certifié par le conseil et chirurgien de la tête et du cou chez ENT and Allergy Associates à West Nyack, NY. Il a obtenu son diplôme de médecine au Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, a effectué sa résidence en oto-rhino-laryngologie au New York University Medical Center, et est professeur clinique adjoint à la Mount Sinai School of Medicine. Il est membre de l'American College of Surgeons et de l'American Academy of Otolaryngology.
La perspective chirurgicale de la tête et du cou du Dr Grinberg offre aux lecteurs de PureLift LAB une vision clinique élargie — reliant la pratique EMS à domicile à l'anatomie médicale sous-jacente avec la même rigueur scientifique que celle que nous appliquons à chaque spécification d'appareil.
Prof. Dr med Ivo Buschmann
Président d'Angiologie, Hochschule Medizinische Brandenburg | Directeur de clinique, Clinique universitaire d'angiologie, Hôpital universitaire de Brandebourg | Ancien consultant principal, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Read bio
Le Prof. Dr. med. Ivo Buschmann est titulaire de la chaire d'angiologie à la Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane (MHB) et directeur de la clinique universitaire d'angiologie à l'hôpital universitaire de Brandebourg. Il a effectué sa formation médicale à l'Université de Hambourg, a été boursier de la Société Max-Planck à l'Institut Max-Planck de recherche sur le cœur et les poumons, et a occupé des postes de consultant principal à la Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin Campus Virchow avant d'être nommé titulaire de la chaire à la MHB en 2016.
Le Prof. Buschmann est l'une des principales autorités européennes en arteriogenèse — la croissance et le remodelage des vaisseaux sanguins induits par le flux — avec plus de 150 publications évaluées par des pairs et plusieurs brevets américains et européens sur des dispositifs stimulant la croissance des vaisseaux collatéraux par une thérapie contrôlée du taux de cisaillement. Ses recherches relient la stimulation mécanique et électrique à l'adaptation vasculaire, à la microcirculation et à la perfusion tissulaire.
Les contributions du Prof. Buschmann apportent aux lecteurs de PureLift LAB une perspective en biologie vasculaire qui complète notre expertise clinique, en physiothérapie et en anatomie chirurgicale — expliquant comment la stimulation EMS engage non seulement les muscles faciaux mais aussi la microcirculation qui les alimente, et pourquoi une administration intelligente est aussi importante au niveau du flux sanguin qu'à celui de la contraction musculaire.
Partager
FOREO publishes a higher output figure and publishes it openly, NuFACE has the longer clearance record and the wider attachment range, and both operate below the level that contracts a muscle.
This article compares the two on what decides the result you actually see, such as:
- why one figure is on a product page and the other in a filing
- what 680 microamps against 335 actually means in use
- the massage feature that is not electrical at all
- conductor costs on both sides
- which of the two suits which buyer
and many more!
Neither of these devices is ours, and the comparison is written on each brand's own published material.
Key Points:
FOREO publishes up to 680 microamps for BEAR 2 on its own pages, which very few brands in this category do.
NuFACE's 335 microamps appears in its FDA submission rather than on its product pages, and neither brand states a load.
BEAR 2 adds T-Sonic pulsation, which is a massage feature rather than an electrical one.
FOREO states that BEAR 2 must be used with a conductive serum, priced at $41.90, with its SUPERCHARGED serum at $59; NuFACE gel runs $35 to $80.
BEAR 2 is $339 to $399 depending on promotion, and Trinity+ is $395.
The disclosure difference
FOREO publishes a maximum of 680 microamps for BEAR 2 where a buyer can see it, without needing to know that FDA filings exist.
NuFACE publishes no output figure on its product pages at all. The 335 microamp figure for the MINI+, and the details of waveform and frequency, come from its 510(k) submission.
Neither states the load the figure was measured at, which means the two numbers cannot be lined up precisely even though both exist.
On the narrow question of who tells the buyer more, FOREO wins this comparison, and that is worth saying about a competitor's competitor.
What the gap actually means
680 microamps against 335 sounds like double, and in a sense it is.
Both figures nonetheless sit inside the same band. Ward and colleagues set out the thresholds separating sub-sensory, sensory and motor stimulation, and the practical effect of moving from 335 to 680 microamps is that you feel more, not that a different category of effect becomes available.
Neither device contracts a facial muscle, and neither company claims a contraction in the way a muscle stimulation device would.
So if you are choosing between them on power, you are choosing between two devices doing the same job with different intensity, rather than between two different jobs.
What each adds beyond the current
BEAR 2 layers T-Sonic pulsation over the microcurrent, which is a vibration feature. It changes how the treatment feels and it is not doing anything electrical.
Trinity+ has the Boost button, which FOREO has no equivalent of, and an attachment system: an eye and lip applicator and a red light wrinkle reducer, each sold separately at around $160.
That attachment path is the strongest structural argument for Trinity+, since it is the only route by which either device gains a second modality.
FOREO's answer to that is a separate mask product rather than an attachment, which is a different purchase rather than an upgrade.
The cost after the box
FOREO states plainly that BEAR 2 must be used with a conductive serum, with its own priced at $41.90 and the SUPERCHARGED Serum 2.0 at $59.
NuFACE's requirement appears in its FDA file as a conductive gel primer, with gel at $35 for 1.69 oz, $55 for 3.3 oz and $80 for 10 oz.
Both are therefore devices with a running cost attached, and neither publishes how long a bottle lasts.
Over two years that cost can exceed the difference in sticker price between the two, which is the most useful thing to know when the prices are $339 and $395.
Clearances
FOREO holds K200803 covering BEAR and BEAR mini, and K232242 for BEAR 2 Body. We could not locate a record naming BEAR 2 for the face specifically, which may simply mean the face version ships under the earlier clearance as a non-significant modification, and the public database does not show that either way.
NuFACE has the deeper file, with K201680, K191672, K201782 and K212947 across its range, plus a separate clearance for the gel.
Both sit under the aesthetic stimulator product code with cosmetic indications.
Who each suits
Buy BEAR 2 if you want the higher published figure, you like the massage layer, and you value a brand that prints its output where you can read it.
Buy Trinity+ if you want the attachment path, the Boost function, and the longest clearance history in consumer microcurrent.
Buy neither if your complaint is contour rather than surface, since both sit below the motor threshold. Our own devices are the comparison for that question, set out in the FOREO piece and the NuFACE piece.
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.