PureLift GLOW or Shark CryoGlow, Light Against Light and Muscle
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
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.