Omnilux Contour Face vs. Shark CryoGlow (and the Third Option Most Shortlists Miss)

These two masks are aimed at different buyers and often end up on the same shortlist anyway. The Shark CryoGlow is a feature-dense device from a mass-market appliance brand, with four LED programs and a cooling under-eye mode. The Omnilux Contour Face is a two-wavelength device from a brand that has been publishing LED research for nearly twenty years. Forty-five dollars separates them.

The Short Answer

The Shark CryoGlow is $349.99, with 480 light sources across red, blue, and infrared, four treatment programs of 4 to 8 minutes, under-eye cooling, a 2-year warranty and a 60-day guarantee — but no published irradiance figure, and it weighs 1.5 lb. The Omnilux Contour Face is $395, with 132 LEDs across red 633nm and near-infrared 830nm at a published ~30 mW/cm², in flexible silicone, with a 2-year warranty. Shark is the feature buy; Omnilux is the specification buy.

Which One Wins

• Choose the Shark CryoGlow if you want blue light for breakouts and a cooling under-eye treatment in the same device, you want shorter programs than Omnilux’s 10 minutes, and $349.99 with a 60-day money-back guarantee is the shape of risk you want.

• Choose the Omnilux Contour Face if you want a device that publishes its irradiance, a flexible silicone mask rather than a 1.5-lb rigid one, and the longest research history on an LED platform in the category — and you are willing to pay $45 more for a narrower feature set.

Head to Head: The Specs

Figures as published by each brand on its own product page, verified September 2026. The Solawave column is included because it sits between these two on price.

Where Shark Pulls Ahead

Price and trial. $349.99 with a 60-day money-back guarantee, against Omnilux at $395 with a 30-day window that applies to unopened product. That is the more forgiving purchase by a wide margin.

Blue light. Shark’s Skin Clearing program targets breakouts, which Omnilux’s two-wavelength build does not address at all. Shark publishes a 45% reduction in acne and 40% reduction in redness at 4 weeks.

Under-eye cooling. Three temperature-controlled chill levels in a dedicated under-eye mode. Nothing else in this comparison offers it, and for puffiness it is a genuinely different mechanism from light.

Shorter core programs. Four to eight minutes against Omnilux’s flat ten.

Where Omnilux Pulls Ahead

It publishes its irradiance. Omnilux states ~30 mW/cm². Shark publishes a light-source count of 480 and no irradiance figure. LED count tells you how light is distributed; irradiance tells you how much energy actually reaches the skin. Without the second number, Shark’s 480 sources cannot be translated into a comparable intensity, and a shorter program at an unpublished intensity is not the same claim as a shorter program at a higher one.

Research depth. More than 40 peer-reviewed studies and close to two decades of work on the underlying Omnilux LED platform. That is the longest track record in the category.

Fit. Flexible medical-grade silicone that contours to the face, against a rigid 1.5-lb device. LEDs deliver the most energy where they sit closest to skin, and a form that cannot conform holds a larger and less even gap at the cheekbones and jaw. It is also a different experience to wear.

The Verdict Between the Two

Shark built the better-featured product and priced it lower. If you want blue light, under-eye cooling, and the longest trial window of the pair, the CryoGlow gives you more for $45 less, and the 60-day guarantee makes it easy to find out.

Omnilux built the more transparent one. It tells you the intensity, it fits like a mask rather than sits like a helmet, and it has the deepest published research behind its LED platform. If you are buying the light therapy rather than the feature list, that transparency is worth something.

Both leave the same gap: two anti-aging wavelengths each, and neither publishes an irradiance above 30 mW/cm² — in Shark’s case, none at all.

The Third Option Most Shortlists Miss

The Solawave Wrinkle Retreat Pro Face Mask is $399, within $50 of both, and answers the gap each of these leaves.

Four anti-aging wavelengths to their two. Amber 605nm for tone evenness and dullness, deep red 660nm for a second collagen pathway, on top of the red 630nm and near-infrared 830nm core both competitors run.

65 mW/cm², published. More than double Omnilux’s figure, and a number Shark does not publish at all. That is what makes a 3-minute cycle possible — shorter than every Shark program including the 4-minute one.

A published 510(k) number. Class II, K252983, lookupable in the FDA’s public database and matched to this exact mask. Neither Omnilux nor Shark publishes a number on its product page, though both are marketed as cleared. Solawave’s FDA-cleared skincare devices guide explains the difference.

Flexible silicone at a fraction of the weight of a 1.5-lb rigid device, with a 60-day money-back guarantee that matches Shark’s and doubles Omnilux’s.

Where Solawave gives ground: no blue light and no under-eye cooling — if those two features are why you are looking at the CryoGlow, Shark is the right device. And both competitors carry a 2-year warranty against Solawave’s 1-year term.

Bottom Line

Between Omnilux and Shark: the CryoGlow is the better-equipped device for less money, and the Contour Face is the more transparent one. Which is right depends on whether you are buying features or specifications.

If what you actually want is the anti-aging light therapy done well and quickly, the Solawave Wrinkle Retreat Pro Face Mask doubles the published intensity of either, covers twice as many anti-aging wavelengths, runs shorter than both, and is the only one of the three that publishes its clearance number.

None of these devices replaces in-office treatment, prescription retinoids, or injectables for the outcomes those are built for.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the Shark CryoGlow better than Omnilux?

It depends on what you are buying. Shark is $45 cheaper, adds blue light for breakouts and a cooling under-eye mode, runs shorter programs, and offers a 60-day money-back guarantee against Omnilux’s 30-day unopened-product policy. Omnilux publishes its irradiance (~30 mW/cm²), which Shark does not, uses flexible silicone rather than a 1.5-lb rigid form, and has the longest published research history on its LED platform.

How many LEDs does the Shark CryoGlow have?

Shark publishes 480 light sources, from 160 tri-wick LEDs. Omnilux publishes 132 LEDs from 66 dual-chip bulbs, and Solawave publishes 320. Light-source count governs how evenly light is distributed; treatment intensity is set by irradiance, which Shark does not publish.

Does the Shark CryoGlow have under-eye cooling?

Yes. It includes a dedicated under-eye treatment with three temperature-controlled chill levels and a 5-to-15-minute adjustable session. Neither Omnilux nor Solawave offers a cooling function.

Is the Shark CryoGlow heavy?

Shark publishes a weight of 1.5 lb in a rigid form. Omnilux and Solawave are both flexible medical-grade silicone masks that contour to the face, which is a materially different wear experience.

Are all three FDA-cleared?

All three are marketed as FDA-cleared. Only Solawave publishes the specific clearance on its product page — Class II, 510(k) K252983. Omnilux and Shark state clearance without publishing a 510(k) number there.

Related Guides

• Solawave Wrinkle Retreat Pro vs. Omnilux Contour Face

• CurrentBody Skin Series 2 vs. Omnilux Contour Face

• Which red light therapy wavelengths work best

• FDA-cleared skincare devices guide

• Red light therapy FAQs

Medically reviewed by Daniel J. Gould, MD, PhD, board-certified plastic surgeon. Device specifications in this article were verified against each brand’s published product pages in September 2026.