NuFACE Against ZIIP Halo, an Outside Comparison

Why we are writing this

We sell a facial device and we are not one of the two in this comparison, which is unusual enough to be worth stating at the top.

Both of these brands have more search presence than we do, both are frequently shortlisted against each other, and the only people writing the comparison at the moment are the two companies involved.

So the figures below are taken from each brand's own material and from their FDA filings, and where a brand does not publish something, we say so rather than filling the gap.

Our own devices appear once, at the end, and you can skip that part without losing the comparison.

What each one publishes

NuFACE does not publish an output figure on its product pages. The number appears in its FDA submission for the MINI+, which gives a maximum of 335 microamps and a range from 70 to 335, with a modulated square biphasic waveform and a default treatment frequency around 8.3 Hz. No load is stated anywhere, which limits how far the figure can be compared.

ZIIP publishes 309 microamps for the Halo, which is unusual in this category and worth crediting, though it also arrives without a stated load.

The two figures are close, and both sit in the microcurrent band. Ward and colleagues described the thresholds separating sub-sensory, sensory and motor current, and neither of these devices approaches the third.

So anyone choosing between them on strength is choosing between 309 and 335 microamps, a difference you are unlikely to perceive and which neither company has characterised at a stated resistance.

The app question

ZIIP is built around its application. Treatments are selected in the phone and pushed to the device, and the library of guided treatments is the core of what the brand sells.

For some people that is the entire appeal, since it removes the guesswork about where to move the probe and for how long. For others it is friction: a download, an account, updates, and a phone that has to be charged and nearby.

NuFACE has an app as well, and the device works without it, which is a meaningful difference in day-to-day use.

Neither approach is wrong. If you already know you will not open an app four times a week, that is a decision made for you.

Running costs

NuFACE's FDA file for the MINI+ lists a conductive gel primer under special requirements, and the gel holds its own clearance, so the pairing is designed in rather than suggested. Aqua Gel Activator runs $35 for 1.69 oz, $55 for 3.3 oz and $80 for 10 oz.

ZIIP's gels run from $29.99 to $79.99 depending on formula.

Neither brand publishes how many sessions a bottle delivers, so no honest cost-per-session figure exists for either, and anyone quoting one is guessing.

On a two-year view, both devices carry a few hundred dollars of conductor behind the sticker price, which we have set out across the whole category in what every branded gel costs.

Clearances and models

NuFACE has the deeper regulatory history, with records including K201680 for the MINI+, K191672 for the earlier Mini, and K201782 and K212947 associated with the Trinity line, plus K161654 covering the gel itself.

ZIIP's Halo is associated with K212342.

Both sit under the product code covering transcutaneous electrical stimulators for aesthetic purposes, and in both cases the cleared indication is cosmetic facial stimulation rather than any biological claim. Our guide to checking any brand's clearance explains how to read those records.

On price, NuFACE MINI+ lists at $250 with a frequent $175 sale price, Trinity+ is $395, and ZIIP Halo is $399.99.

Who each one suits

Buy NuFACE if you want the simpler device, no app dependence, the option of stepping up to attachments later, and the reassurance of the longest clearance history in this category.

Buy ZIIP if the guided treatment library is genuinely what will get you to use it, and if you like the idea of different programmes for different days rather than one routine.

Buy neither if what has changed is the shape of your lower face rather than its surface, because both devices sit below the level that contracts a muscle and say so in their own materials.

That last point is where our own devices sit, and it is the only sentence in this article where we are relevant. If you want the comparison including us, it is in our NuFACE piece and our ZIIP 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.