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 The Light Salon Boost Advanced emits at 633 nm, 830 nm. Both cover red and near-infrared, the two ranges with the strongest published evidence for skin.
Only the The Light Salon Boost Advanced publishes an irradiance figure (~30 mW/cm² · ~18 J/cm² per session). The Shark CryoGlow (FW312) does not, so the dose the two masks deliver cannot be compared.
Side by side
| Specification | Shark CryoGlow (FW312) | The Light Salon Boost Advanced |
|---|---|---|
| Wavelengths | 415 nm630 nm830 nm | 633 nm830 nm |
| LEDs | 160+ (multi-zone) | 112 (56 × 633 nm · 56 × 830 nm) |
| Published irradiance | Not published | ~30 mW/cm² · ~18 J/cm² per session |
| Dose per session | — | ~18 J/cm² |
| Session | 8 min | 10 min |
| Modes | 3 targeted programmes + under-eye cooling | Single programme, 3–5×/week |
| Regulatory | FDA cleared · CE/UKCA | FDA 510(k) K191629 · CE |
| Fit | Rigid, multi-zone | Flexible silicone |
| Power | Corded USB-C (cooling needs power) | Rechargeable battery pack |
| Price (EU) | €379.99 €2.37 per LED | €450.00 €4.02 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 The Light Salon Boost Advanced uses 112 (56 × 633 nm · 56 × 830 nm) LEDs at 633 nm, 830 nm, in sessions of 10 min.
Publishes both a per-session dose and a verifiable FDA clearance number — rare transparency for a consumer brand.
Questions
The Shark CryoGlow (FW312) emits at 415 nm, 630 nm, 830 nm. The The Light Salon Boost Advanced emits at 633 nm, 830 nm. Both cover red and near-infrared, the two ranges with the strongest published evidence for skin.
Only the The Light Salon Boost Advanced publishes an irradiance figure (~30 mW/cm² · ~18 J/cm² per session). 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 112. Diode count sets how evenly light reaches the face — a coverage figure, not an efficacy figure.
Shark CryoGlow (FW312): FDA cleared · CE/UKCA. The Light Salon Boost Advanced: FDA 510(k) K191629 · CE. 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