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 Shark CryoGlow (FW312) emits at 415 nm, 630 nm, 830 nm. The Silk’n LED Face Mask 100 emits at 463 nm, 592 nm, 633 nm. The Shark CryoGlow (FW312) covers both red and near-infrared, the two ranges with the strongest published evidence for skin; the Silk’n LED Face Mask 100 does not.
Neither brand publishes an irradiance figure, so the dose the two masks deliver cannot be compared from the specification sheets.
Side by side
| Specification | Shark CryoGlow (FW312) | Silk’n LED Face Mask 100 |
|---|---|---|
| Wavelengths | 415 nm630 nm830 nm | 463 nm592 nm633 nm |
| LEDs | 160+ (multi-zone) | 100 |
| Published irradiance | Not published | Not published |
| Dose per session | — | — |
| Session | 8 min | ~10 min |
| Modes | 3 targeted programmes + under-eye cooling | 4 colours |
| Regulatory | FDA cleared · CE/UKCA | CE marked cosmetic device — no FDA clearance for this model |
| Fit | Rigid, multi-zone | Semi-rigid |
| Power | Corded USB-C (cooling needs power) | Rechargeable, ~130 min runtime |
| Price (EU) | €379.99 €2.37 per LED | €160.00 €1.60 per LED |
“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 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.
The Silk’n LED Face Mask 100 uses 100 LEDs at 463 nm, 592 nm, 633 nm, in sessions of ~10 min.
A cosmetic device rather than a certified medical one. Its 463 nm and 592 nm are less evidence-backed than the core red and near-infrared.
Questions
The Shark CryoGlow (FW312) emits at 415 nm, 630 nm, 830 nm. The Silk’n LED Face Mask 100 emits at 463 nm, 592 nm, 633 nm. The Shark CryoGlow (FW312) covers both red and near-infrared, the two ranges with the strongest published evidence for skin; the Silk’n LED Face Mask 100 does not.
Neither brand publishes an irradiance figure, so the dose the two masks deliver cannot be compared from the specification sheets.
The Shark CryoGlow (FW312) carries more diodes: 160 against 100. Diode count sets how evenly light reaches the face — a coverage figure, not an efficacy figure.
Shark CryoGlow (FW312): FDA cleared · CE/UKCA. Silk’n LED Face Mask 100: CE marked cosmetic device — no FDA clearance for this model. 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.
Keep comparing