LED face masks · head to head
Two of the nine LED face masks in our comparison table, side by side. Every figure below is one the manufacturer publishes itself; where a brand stays silent the cell says so.
The short answer
The Omnilux Contour Face emits at 633 nm, 830 nm. The Shark CryoGlow (FW312) emits at 415 nm, 630 nm, 830 nm. Both cover red and near-infrared, the two ranges with the strongest published evidence for skin.
Only the Omnilux Contour Face publishes an irradiance figure (~30 mW/cm²). The Shark CryoGlow (FW312) does not, so the dose the two masks deliver cannot be compared.
Side by side
| Specification | Omnilux Contour Face | Shark CryoGlow (FW312) |
|---|---|---|
| Wavelengths | 633 nm830 nm | 415 nm630 nm830 nm |
| LEDs | 132 | 160+ (multi-zone) |
| Published irradiance | ~30 mW/cm² | Not published |
| Dose per session | ~18 J/cm² | — |
| Session | 10 min | 8 min |
| Modes | Single programme, 3–5×/week | 3 targeted programmes + under-eye cooling |
| Regulatory | FDA cleared · CE · TGA (Australia) | FDA cleared · CE/UKCA |
| Fit | Flexible silicone | Rigid, multi-zone |
| Power | Rechargeable controller | Corded USB-C (cooling needs power) |
| Price (EU) | €453.75 | €379.99 |
“Published irradiance” means the brand prints an output figure on its own product page. “FDA cleared” is not “FDA approved” — see the questions below.
Where they differ
Evidence notes
The Omnilux Contour Face uses 132 LEDs at 633 nm, 830 nm, in sessions of 10 min.
The Omnilux LED platform is referenced across 40+ peer-reviewed papers over 20+ years — the deepest clinical heritage in the category, though consumer-mask-specific data is still brand-linked.
The Shark CryoGlow (FW312) uses 160+ (multi-zone) LEDs at 415 nm, 630 nm, 830 nm, in sessions of 8 min.
Two disclosed brand-run 12-week studies — more published data than most rivals here. The under-eye cooling is a comfort feature, not a light mechanism.
Questions
The Omnilux Contour Face emits at 633 nm, 830 nm. The Shark CryoGlow (FW312) emits at 415 nm, 630 nm, 830 nm. Both cover red and near-infrared, the two ranges with the strongest published evidence for skin.
Only the Omnilux Contour Face publishes an irradiance figure (~30 mW/cm²). The Shark CryoGlow (FW312) does not, so the dose the two masks deliver cannot be compared.
The Shark CryoGlow (FW312) carries more diodes: 160 against 132. Diode count sets how evenly light reaches the face — a coverage figure, not an efficacy figure.
Omnilux Contour Face: FDA cleared · CE · TGA (Australia). Shark CryoGlow (FW312): FDA cleared · CE/UKCA. Clearance under section 510(k) means the manufacturer showed substantial equivalence to a device already on the market and met safety standards — it is not FDA approval, and it is not evidence of efficacy.