The Shark CryoGlow Plus scores 5.5 and ranks 21st of 47 in LED Face & Neck Masks; the Therabody TheraFace Mask Glo scores 6.2 and ranks 12th of 47 in LED Face & Neck Masks. The CryoGlow Plus leads on warranty & support.
What SharkCryoGlow Plus and TherabodyTheraFace Mask Glo owners report
Independent sources, scored for each model. CryoGlow Plus on 5 of five, TheraFace Mask Glo on 5.
SharkTherabody
Reddit
+1 Therabody
Shark CryoGlow Plus
5.0/10
Therabody TheraFace Mask Glo
6.0/10
The Shark CryoGlow Plus reading covers its product line.
What they say
SharkCryoGlow Plus
Reddit discussion of the CryoGlow line concerns the original FW312 mask, so this reading is the line's.
Owners there mostly like the under-eye cooling and the short sessions, while 11 report marks, indents, bruising or stinging under the eyes where the cooling pads rest and 10 call the mask heavy or say it drags on the under-eyes.
Several point out that the pads leave the under-eyes without light, and single owners report error codes, cooling that weakened and short battery life with the cooling on.
TherabodyTheraFace Mask Glo
Owners in r/Ulta, r/redlighttherapy, r/SkincareAddiction, r/SkincareAddictionLux and r/TheraBody mostly like the full-face coverage that reaches the mouth and under-eyes, the cordless 12-minute cycle and the build, and one owner who had both Therabody masks returned the original, rating the Glo 9 out of 10 against 8.5.
Several owners report softer skin, a more even tone or fewer breakouts, while others say it is too early to tell.
The recurring fault is the battery: across two February 2026 r/TheraBody threads, the second a word-for-word repost of the first, about a dozen owners describe a mask that shuts off mid-cycle after one to four sessions on a full charge, three of them on replacement units and one after six months of use, while two say charging it fully or switching chargers fixed it.
Several find it heavy or bulky, one returned it because it pressed on her nose and cheeks, four say the eye shields leave marks around the eyes or on the forehead, and two call the scalp vibration noisy.
Two found the red light hard on their eyes even with the shields, and one wishes it had nose holes.
Google
+2 Therabody
Shark CryoGlow Plus
6.0/10
Therabody TheraFace Mask Glo
8.0/10
Both readings are about these exact models.
What they say
SharkCryoGlow Plus
The Plus reviews so far are early hands-ons by UK beauty editors who also use the original.
Who What Wear's Eleanor Vousden (August 2026, with affiliate links), after a month, found it the same to use as the original, with more LEDs around the outer eyes, nose and lips and a battery she charges less often, but saw no visible difference from the extra coverage yet; she advises first-time buyers to pay the extra £40 and owners of the original not to upgrade.
The Mirror's Zoe Cripps (July 2026, with affiliate links), two years on the original and a few weeks on the Plus, reaches the same verdict and calls it an evolution rather than a revolution.
Grazia's Sameeha Shaikh (July 2026), who tried it before launch, calls it heavy and bulky but the best-fitting mask she has used, and had not used it long enough to judge any change in her breakouts.
TherabodyTheraFace Mask Glo
Magazine reviewers are broadly positive, and none of them measured the light output.
Allure's Christa Joanna Lee (December 2025, four weeks) calls it one of the most convenient and user-friendly masks she has tested, and GQ's Hannah Singleton (January 2026) kept it in rotation after two months of near-daily use, though she could not tell whether her forehead lines had softened and found the low-battery light easy to miss.
The Cut (November 2025, two weeks), T3 (November 2025, six weeks) and Cosmopolitan (May 2026, two months) all found the scalp vibration loud or distracting, and Allure, T3, Cosmopolitan and the Smudge Report (March 2026) say the closed mouth area makes breathing feel restricted or the mask warm inside.
Who What Wear UK's Grace Lindsay, whose unit was a sample sent to her desk, names its bulk for travel and marks left by the eye shields, and the National Post's reviewer (July 2026, over 40 days) found the strap will not sit over a bun and missed the stand the original mask includes.
Most of these sites earn from affiliate links, and Cosmopolitan's review describes 540 LEDs and a nine-minute cycle, which are not the Glo's specifications.
YouTube
+2 Therabody
Shark CryoGlow Plus
5.0/10
Therabody TheraFace Mask Glo
7.0/10
The Shark CryoGlow Plus reading covers its product line.
What they say
SharkCryoGlow Plus
Video reviews of the CryoGlow line are of the original FW312 mask, so this reading is the line's.
Its most-watched video, Abbey Yung's April 2025 short (364,903 views), regrets the $350 purchase over the weight, dents under the eyes, blocked under-eye light and fan noise.
Jen Luv's 70-treatment review (May 2025, 98,599 views, bought with her own money and carrying affiliate links) finds it comfortable and quick to use but not a must-have, and two smaller channels that bought or were given theirs say the weight drags on the under-eyes.
TherabodyTheraFace Mask Glo
The one full independent review is EndureWell's (August 2026, 561 views), whose description links to the mask with an Amazon affiliate link: it scores the Glo 8 out of 10 overall and 6 for comfort, finding that breath builds up behind the closed mouth area, that the mask is heavy at 514 g and that its fit varies with face shape, and would still pick it over the original for most buyers.
Adele Maree, gifted the mask by Therabody after a paid Instagram collaboration with the brand, compares it with her own Dr.
Dennis Gross mask (May 2026, about 1,000 views): she prefers the Glo's cushioned eye area and would buy it first, but finds it heavy enough to dent her nose and forehead and holds it in place rather than use the strap, and its battery lasted about eight days of face-and-neck sessions.
Eve Dawes, also gifted by Therabody, says in a February 2026 YouTube Short that the straps would not tighten enough to hold it up, so she could only use it lying down, that it left pressure marks lasting hours and that the vibration sounds like a swarm of bees.
Alanna Taylor-Green, who bought hers to replace a failed Dr.
Dennis Gross mask, posts only first impressions (mid-2026, about 1,100 views), liking the full coverage and noting it is harder to breathe in.
None of these videos measured the output.
Amazon
tied
Shark CryoGlow Plus
7.0/10
Therabody TheraFace Mask Glo
7.0/10
The Shark CryoGlow Plus reading covers its product line; the Therabody TheraFace Mask Glo reading covers its product line.
What they say
SharkCryoGlow Plus
The CryoGlow Plus has no Amazon US listing, and Shark's Amazon skincare store carries the original CryoGlow instead.
For the line, the original's shared Amazon file holds 4.4 from 1,066 ratings when read in September 2026, 77 percent five-star against 7 percent one-star, with eye cooling and ease of use mostly praised and battery life tagged 29 times, 21 negative.
Those ratings describe the original mask rather than the Plus.
TherabodyTheraFace Mask Glo
The Glo's Amazon US listing, sold by Therabody's TheraGun store and shipped by Amazon at $379.99, shares one review file with the original 648-LED TheraFace Mask: both listings read 4.1 from 343 ratings when read in September 2026, split 66 percent five-star against 11 percent one-star, so the figure describes the range rather than the Glo alone.
Across that shared file, comfort is tagged 20 times, 16 negative, and weight 21 times, 16 negative, while fit is tagged 21 times, 14 positive.
Skin improvement splits 22 positive to 14 negative, effectiveness 13 to 15, value for money 18 to 15 and the vibration 6 to 8.
Reviews marked as the Glo in the file include one owner who finds it needs charging often and one for whom the supplied eye shields did not block the bright light.
Owner reviews
tied
Shark CryoGlow Plus
7.0/10
Therabody TheraFace Mask Glo
7.0/10
The Shark CryoGlow Plus reading covers its product line.
What they say
SharkCryoGlow Plus
The CryoGlow Plus has no review file of its own yet: Best Buy lists it as coming soon and Ulta with no reviews.
For the line, Costco's CryoGlow kit holds 4.5 from 417 reviews when read in September 2026, 325 five-star against 33 one-star, with 173 of the 205 who answered recommending it and none of the 100 most recent syndicated from SharkNinja; recent critics there report units that would not charge or lost an under-eye cooler.
Best Buy's 4.8 from 249 on the original rests on reviews that, in every one read, carry Best Buy's note of promotional consideration or a sweepstakes entry.
TherabodyTheraFace Mask Glo
The retailer files disagree, and most of their reviews are incentivised or come from Therabody.
Best Buy holds 4.7 from 223 reviews when read in September 2026, 180 five-star against four one-star, with 95 percent recommending, but every one of the roughly 60 reviews read carries Best Buy's label for reviewers who received promotional consideration or a sweepstakes entry, 15 of them from its Tech Insider Network; its critical reviews describe a battery that fell from six cycles per charge to less than one within six months, a mask too heavy or too small for some heads, and a return over claustrophobia.
Nordstrom's file holds 4.2 from 121, 67 percent five-star against 12 percent one- or two-star, and its most-helpful critical reviews report units that arrived used or already returned, and a mask hard to breathe in with condensation building up inside.
Target shows 4.22 from 118, but 95 of its 107 written reviews are syndicated from Therabody; the 12 written on Target average 2.9, five of them one-star, with two reporting dark spots appearing after two weeks of use and one finding it hard to breathe in.
Ulta's 47 reviews average 4.7, and 26 of them say the product was received free in exchange for the review; the 21 that do not average 4.5.
SharkCryoGlow Plus vs TherabodyTheraFace Mask Glo: pros and cons
What each one does well, and where it falls short.
SharkCryoGlow Plus
What we like
510 light sources30 more tri-wick LEDs than the CryoGlow, at the crow's feet and mouth
Blue 415red 630 and near-infrared 830 nm published
Under-eye cooling at three levelswith or without the LEDs
Routines of 46 and 8 minutes, hands-free with a remote timer
Two-year warranty
What holds it back
Its 510(k)K242796, describes the 480-LED original, not this mask
Output never independently measuredthe 128 mW/cm2 is Shark's figure at the LED
Clinical claims footnote studies run on the FW300 series
The chill pads still block LED light from the under-eyes
1.7 lbheavier than the 1.5 lb CryoGlow
No Amazon US listingand no reviews yet at Best Buy or Ulta
TherabodyTheraFace Mask Glo
What we like
504 light sources at 633830 and 415 nm, the same peaks as the original
$379.99$270 below the 648-LED TheraFace Mask
514 g, 62 g lighter than the original
Cordless one-button 12-minute presetor 4-minute single modes
Covers the mouth area and under-eyesper Allure, GQ and T3
What holds it back
Sold as FDA clearedlisted under K230293, which describes the 648-LED mask
No output figure published and none measured
Closed mouth area feels stuffyper Allure, T3, Cosmopolitan and EndureWell
Shuts off mid-cycle on a full chargeper about a dozen Reddit owners
No stand in the boxtravel case $79.99 extra
SharkCryoGlow Plus vs TherabodyTheraFace Mask Glo: the numbers
Price, scores and rank, then only the specs that differ. Green marks the side with more.
SharkCryoGlow Plus vs TherabodyTheraFace Mask Glo: common questions
Is the Shark CryoGlow Plus better than the Therabody TheraFace Mask Glo?
On our scores, the Therabody TheraFace Mask Glo is ahead, 6.2 against 5.5. The Shark CryoGlow Plus leads on warranty & support (4 against 2) and ease of use (7 against 6).
Which has the longer warranty, the Shark CryoGlow Plus or the Therabody TheraFace Mask Glo?
The Shark CryoGlow Plus: 2 Years, against 1 Year.
What do owners say about the Shark CryoGlow Plus and the Therabody TheraFace Mask Glo?
Across 5 independent sources scored for both, the Therabody TheraFace Mask Glo is ahead on Reddit, Google and YouTube; Amazon and Owner reviews are level.
Scores calculated 8 October 2026 · Products excluded where fewer than two independent sources cover them · Researched and edited by Michael Ambrose · Unbroken Ads LLC · How we score