Shark CryoGlow vs Omnilux: The $300 Mask Has the Better Paperwork

Affiliate disclosure: This post contains affiliate links. See our affiliate disclosure for details.

Omnilux tells you exactly what its mask emits and how much of it, on the page you buy from. Shark tells you both as well, as of a support article updated at the end of September 2026, with the figures on the support site. Shark is the one with the FDA clearance that names the product on the box. We own and use a red light panel at home, not either of these masks, so everything below comes from both manufacturers' live spec and pricing pages, the FDA's own 510(k) and adverse-event databases, and retailer review counts, all pulled the day this was written. Where a figure comes from a brand rather than an independent source, we say so. See about BankrollZen for where our hands-on stops.

Last reviewed: September 2026

Quick Comparison: Shark CryoGlow vs Omnilux

The Shark CryoGlow FW312 runs both a Better Aging and Skin Clearing mode under one FDA clearance for about $300. Its wavelengths (415, 630, 830nm) and maximum irradiance (128mW/cm2, combined, measured at the LED) are on SharkNinja's support site. We rate it 4.5/5.

The Omnilux Contour Face is about $395 and publishes its wavelengths (633 and 830nm) and output (~30mW/cm2) on the product page itself. We rate it 4.7/5.

Omnilux also sells the Clear (~$395, 415 and 633nm, rated 4.1/5 for acne) and the Contour Neck & Décolleté (~$395, 633 and 830nm, for neck and chest). A second Shark model, the CryoGlow Plus at about $380, offers wider coverage around the eyes and mouth. Individual sections below cover each.

---

The Number Shark Prints, and Why It Is Not Omnilux's Number

Every serious comparison of LED masks comes down to dose: how much light energy actually reaches your skin in a session. It is a simple sum. Irradiance, in milliwatts per square centimetre, multiplied by session length in seconds, gives you fluence in joules per square centimetre.

You can run that sum on Omnilux. The Contour Face page publishes an output of roughly 30 mW/cm², and the treatment is 10 minutes. Thirty milliwatts across 600 seconds is about 18 J/cm² per session. That is our arithmetic on two Omnilux-published figures, not a number Omnilux prints, and you should treat it as such. But the inputs are both there on the page, and you can check them yourself in about a minute.

Running that same sum on the Shark produces a figure, though not one in the same form as the Omnilux number, and what this page says on this point has changed since we first wrote it. SharkNinja's own FW312 product page gives the four treatment modes with their times (6 minutes for Better Aging, 8 for Skin Clearing, 4 for Skin Sustain) and describes the LED treatments using colour names: Blue, Red and Infrared. The wavelengths in nanometres and the irradiance figure are in SharkNinja's own FW300-series support article. Its FW300-series article, updated 29 September 2026, gives the three bands as "Blue (415nm), Red (630nm) and Infrared (830nm)" and 160 tri-wick LEDs carrying 480 light sources, and answers the irradiance question directly: a maximum irradiance of 128mW/cm2 from the combined wavelengths, measured at the source of the LED.

It is a real published figure. It is a maximum irradiance, combining all three wavelengths, measured at the source of the LED. Multiply 128 by the seconds in a six-minute Better Aging session and you get a figure in a different form from the ~18 J/cm² we calculated for the Omnilux.

That matters more than it sounds. Red light therapy has a biphasic dose response: below a threshold nothing happens, and above an optimum the effect tails off again rather than climbing. It is the whole reason Omnilux describes its ~30 mW/cm² as chosen for cell stimulation rather than engineering the biggest number it could. Without an output figure, there is no way to tell whether a 6-minute Shark session lands near the same territory as a 10-minute Omnilux session, well short of it, or past it. You are trusting Shark's clinical testing instead of checking the physics, which is a different kind of buying decision.

Our guide to red light therapy wavelengths covers why 633 and 830nm keep showing up on the masks with the deepest research behind them, and what the other bands are actually for.

---

What Each Mask Is Cleared to Do, Actually Checked

Both brands print "FDA Cleared." We searched the FDA's 510(k) database on 24 September 2026, and this is where the cheaper mask wins outright.

Shark has one record and it names the device. K242796, "CryoGlow (FW3XXXX)", filed by SharkNinja Operating, LLC, decision date 27 November 2024. The classification product code is OHS, "Light Based Over The Counter Wrinkle Reduction," with a subsequent product code of OLP, "Over-The-Counter Powered Light Based Laser For Acne," indicated for mild to moderate acne vulgaris. One clearance, one device, two indications. You can pull it up by K number in under a minute.

Omnilux has eight records and the Contour Face is not one of them. The most recent is K210948, "Omnilux CLEAR", cleared to GlobalMed Technologies on 24 June 2021. The other seven run from 2003 to 2009 and belong to the old Photo Therapeutics clinic machines: Omnilux Revive, Plus, Blue, Red, New-U, Clear-U. Nothing in the database is titled "Omnilux Contour Face."

Read that the way we read it in our Solawave vs Omnilux comparison: a name miss is not proof of absence. Home LED masks are routinely cleared under a contract manufacturer's model designator with no retail brand in the title at all. The Contour Face may well sit inside a record like that, and the FDA clearance badge on the page may be entirely proper. But a buyer who wants to verify the claim can verify Shark's in a minute and cannot verify Omnilux's at all, and that asymmetry runs the opposite way to the price.

---

Shark CryoGlow (FW312): ~$300

The FW312 is Shark's first LED mask and it is doing more jobs than the Omnilux at a lower price. Four modes: Better Aging (6 minutes, red and infrared), Skin Clearing (8 minutes, blue, infrared and red), Skin Sustain (4 minutes, red, blue and infrared) and Under-Eye Revive, a 5-to-15-minute cooling-only treatment with three temperature levels driven by built-in chill pads that Shark says cannot be removed. Shark calls the cooling InstaChill and the LED sequencing iQLED.

The clinical support is specific and Shark states its own limits: the Better Aging claim comes from a 12-week study with 60 subjects at one use a day in that mode, and the Skin Clearing claim from a 12-week study with 59 subjects in that mode. Those two add to the 119 participants quoted as "clinically tested by an independent third party" on the Amazon listing, which is a rare case of a brand's marketing arithmetic actually reconciling.

The observation worth having: Amazon's own review-aspect breakdown on the listing is unusually blunt for a product rated 4.4. Effectiveness gets 231 mentions (186 positive, 45 negative) and skin improvement gets 113 (87 positive, 26 negative), but battery life is the one aspect that reads negative overall, at 28 mentions with 20 of them critical, and value for money sits in Amazon's own "mixed" column at 68 mentions. A cordless mask that people like and whose battery they complain about is a specific, fixable annoyance rather than a bad product. But if your routine is four sessions a week for a year, plan on the charging stand, which Shark sells separately at ~$89.99.

Pros

• Priced at ~$300 vs the Contour Face's ~$395, with Better Aging and Skin Clearing modes in one device.
• 510(k) K242796 names the device, so the FDA claim is checkable in a minute.
• Under-eye cooling via InstaChill Technology.
• 6-minute anti-ageing session against Omnilux's 10.
• Two (2) Year Limited Warranty.

Cons

• Wavelengths and output are on the support site; the 128mW/cm2 figure is a combined maximum across three wavelengths, measured at the LED.
• The 60-day money-back guarantee applies only to orders placed directly on SharkNinja's own website.

Best for: anyone treating both blemishes and fine lines who would rather have one device than two, and anyone who wants the FDA claim to be verifiable.

Check price →

---

Omnilux Contour Face: ~$395

Flexible silicone mask, 132 LEDs arranged as 66 dual-chip bulbs carrying red at 633nm and near-infrared at 830nm, ~30 mW/cm² output, 10-minute treatment, two-year warranty, HSA/FSA eligible. Omnilux points at the platform's history rather than at this device's specs: over 20 years of the Omnilux technology and 40-plus peer-reviewed clinical studies across skin rejuvenation and acne. That is a brand claim about a family of devices, including clinic machines, not about the mask in your hands.

The observation worth having: Omnilux's return policy is the harshest in this comparison and it is buried in the FAQ rather than stated next to the price. Returns are accepted within 30 days only if the product is unopened, with the packaging seal intact, verified by photo. No opened product comes back. For a $395 device whose results are individual, unpredictable and take weeks to show up, that means you cannot try it and change your mind. You can only change your mind before you have tried it. Shark's own storefront gives you 60 days and your money back.

Pros

• Publishes both the wavelengths and the output, so you can calculate your own dose (~18 J/cm² a session by our arithmetic)
• 633 and 830nm are the two bands with the densest published research behind them for skin
• Two-year warranty, HSA/FSA eligible
• Flexible silicone sits closer to the face than a rigid shell

Cons

• ~$46 more than the CryoGlow and treats one concern rather than two
• Not named in the FDA 510(k) database: the clearance may exist under a manufacturer's model number, but you cannot check it
• 30-day returns, unopened only, verified by photo
• 10-minute session, nearly double the Shark's anti-ageing mode

Best for: buyers whose only concern is fine lines and firmness, and who want to know exactly what their skin is receiving.

Check price →

---

Omnilux Clear: ~$395

Same 132-LED construction, same price, different bands: blue at 415nm with red at 633nm, and a published output of 44 mW/cm², the highest figure either brand puts in writing. Aimed at mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris, and Omnilux is explicit that Clear and Contour must not be used at the same time; it recommends finishing a six-week Clear course first.

This is the row that decides the money. If you only have blemishes, Clear against the CryoGlow is a fair fight on price. If you have both, it is not close.

Pros

• Highest published irradiance in this comparison at 44 mW/cm²
• The only Omnilux device actually named in the FDA database (K210948, June 2021)
• Purpose-built for acne rather than an acne mode inside an anti-ageing mask

Cons

• Cannot be combined with Contour, so treating both concerns is sequential and costs ~$790
• Same unopened-only 30-day return policy
• Blue light is the most skin-sensitive band here; see our red light therapy for acne guide before spending

Best for: acne alone, on the Omnilux side of the fence.

Check price →

---

Omnilux Men: ~$395

Adds a third band at 1072nm to the Contour's 633 and 830nm, at the same ~30 mW/cm² output and the same 132 LEDs. Omnilux's stated reasoning is that men's facial skin is around 25% thicker, and 1072nm penetrates deeper than either of the other two. The brand also confirms in its own FAQ that women can use it: there is nothing gendered about the wavelength.

Best for: thicker skin of any kind, or anyone who wants the deepest published band in the range and does not need blue light.

Check price →

---

Omnilux Contour Neck & Décolleté: ~$395

108 LEDs as 54 dual-chip bulbs, 633 and 830nm, ~30 mW/cm², shaped for the neck and chest. Neither Shark mask covers this area at all, so it is an addition rather than an alternative. And at the same $395 as every other Omnilux device, it is the row that shows how the brand prices by product rather than by component count.

Best for: neck and chest, once the face is sorted.

Check price →

---

Shark CryoGlow Plus (FW350): ~$379.99

Shark lists a second CryoGlow on its own site at ~$379.99, model FW350, with a compare chart claiming wider coverage around the crow's feet and the lines near the mouth. We have not examined it in the detail we have given the FW312, so treat its row in the table as a pointer rather than a recommendation. If you are choosing between the two Sharks, the FW312 is the one this comparison is about and the one at ~$300.

---

What About the CurrentBody Series 2?

We have written it up properly against Omnilux in Omnilux vs CurrentBody, which covers the specs, the pricing, and where it stands against flexible masks.

Check price →

---

How to Choose Between Them

Start with how many things you are treating. One CryoGlow covers wrinkles and acne for ~$300. Covering the same ground with Omnilux costs ~$790. That gap is larger than any spec argument in this article.

Then decide whether you need the numbers. Omnilux publishes ~30 mW/cm² and the 10-minute session length on the product page. Shark publishes 128mW/cm2, a combined maximum at the LED, on its FW300-series support article. If the product-page output figure matters to you, buy the Omnilux. If you are content to trust a 119-subject clinical programme and an FDA clearance you can look up, the Shark is cheaper and does more.

Weigh the return policy like a spec. These devices take six to twelve weeks to show anything, and the results are individual. Omnilux's 30-day unopened-only window means the decision is final the moment you break the seal. SharkNinja's own store gives 60 days and your money back, but only if you buy there. Check which window you are getting before you click, because it is the one term that decides what happens if the thing does not work for you.

Session length is an adherence spec, not a trivia spec. Six minutes against ten sounds like nothing until it is a Tuesday in February. The mask you actually wear four times a week beats the mask with the better published dose that you wear twice.

Under-eye cooling is genuinely unique here. Nothing in the Omnilux range does it. Whether temperature-controlled chill pads are worth the price gap on their own is a matter of taste. But if puffiness under the eyes is the thing that sends you looking at LED masks, only one of these two addresses it.

For the wider field, our best red light therapy masks round-up covers the rest of the category, and the red light therapy hub has the panels, the research and the protocols.

---

FAQ

Is the Shark CryoGlow as good as Omnilux?

On paper it does more for less: ~$300 against ~$395, four treatment modes and under-eye cooling, and an FDA clearance that names the device. Where Omnilux is still better is disclosure, though by a narrower margin than it was. Omnilux publishes its wavelengths (633 and 830nm) and its output (~30 mW/cm²) on the product page. Shark publishes 415, 630 and 830nm and a 128mW/cm2 maximum on its support site, combined across all three bands and measured at the LED.

Is the Shark CryoGlow FDA approved?

No. Neither is the Omnilux. Both are FDA cleared, which is a different and lower bar than approval. The CryoGlow's clearance is 510(k) K242796, decided 27 November 2024, under product code OHS for over-the-counter wrinkle reduction with a subsequent code of OLP for over-the-counter light-based acne treatment. Clearance means the FDA accepted the device as substantially equivalent to one already on the market. It is not a finding that the device works on you.

What wavelengths does the Shark CryoGlow use?

Blue at 415nm, red at 630nm and infrared at 830nm. The FW312 product page describes the LED treatments by colour name: blue, red, infrared; the nanometre figures are in SharkNinja's own FW300-series support article, updated 29 September 2026, which also gives 160 tri-wick LEDs carrying 480 light sources and a maximum irradiance of 128mW/cm2 from the combined wavelengths at the source of the LED. Omnilux publishes 633 and 830nm for the Contour Face and 415 and 633nm for Clear, on the product pages themselves.

Do you need two Omnilux masks to match one Shark CryoGlow?

For acne and ageing together, yes. The Contour Face treats fine lines and wrinkles; the Clear treats mild-to-moderate acne; they cost ~$395 each and Omnilux says they should not be used at the same time, recommending a six-week Clear course first. The CryoGlow runs both a Better Aging mode and a Skin Clearing mode on one device under one clearance, at ~$300. That is ~$790 against ~$300 for the same two jobs.

Can you return an Omnilux mask if it does not work?

Only unopened. Omnilux accepts returns within 30 days of delivery provided the product is unopened with the original packaging seal intact, verified by photo. It does not accept returns of opened product. Since an LED mask takes weeks to show results, that effectively means no trial period. SharkNinja's own storefront offers a 60-day money-back guarantee on US orders, but buying the CryoGlow through a third-party retailer puts you on that retailer's policy instead.

How long does each mask take per session?

The Omnilux Contour Face treatment is 10 minutes. The Shark CryoGlow's Better Aging mode is 6 minutes, Skin Clearing is 8, Skin Sustain is 4, and the cooling-only Under-Eye Revive runs 5 to 15 minutes at three temperature levels. Both brands assume roughly daily use during an initial course. The shorter session is not a performance advantage on its own, since dose is intensity times time, but it is the kind of difference that decides whether a device stays in a routine.

Which is better for under-eye puffiness?

The Shark, and it is not a close call, because Omnilux does not compete in that lane. The CryoGlow's under-eye chill pads run an Under-Eye Revive treatment for 5 to 15 minutes at three temperature-controlled levels. Omnilux's range has no cooling function on any device. Shark claims visible tightening in one use; that is a brand claim about appearance, not a treatment for whatever is causing the puffiness.

---

Our Verdict

If we were spending our own money today, it would go on the Shark CryoGlow at ~$300. It is the cheaper device, it covers both of the things people actually buy LED masks for, and it is the only one of the two whose FDA clearance we could pull up by name in a minute. The 60-day money-back guarantee on Shark's own store is worth more on a product like this than any spec on the page, because the honest position on home LED masks is that results are individual and nobody can tell you in advance whether you will be one of the people it works for.

The case for the Omnilux Contour Face is narrower and real: it publishes an output figure (~30mW/cm2) on the product page itself. If that kind of disclosure is how you buy things, the $395 against $300 difference reflects it.