Product comparison · LED Face & Neck Masks
Shark CryoGlow vs Omnilux Contour Face
The Shark CryoGlow scores 8.2 and ranks 3rd of 47 in LED Face & Neck Masks; the Omnilux Contour Face scores 9.0 and ranks 1st of 47 in LED Face & Neck Masks.
8.2
9.0
Across everything we scored, Omnilux Contour Face sits 0.81 ahead.
Verdict
Contour Face ahead · +0.81 (9.0 vs 8.2)Pick the Shark CryoGlow when
You want blue (400-499 nm)
Pick the Omnilux Contour Face when
A criterion we do not score decides itthe Contour Face leads on none of the ones we do
Where the Shark CryoGlow and Omnilux Contour Face differ
Scores on a 0–10 scale. Each row is one criterion, biggest difference first.
Wavelength Spec
tiedCoverage
tiedBuild Quality
tiedWarranty & Support
tiedEase of Use
tiedValue
one side unscoredLight Output
one side unscoredWhat Shark CryoGlow and Omnilux Contour Face owners report
Independent sources, scored for each model. CryoGlow on 5 of five, Contour Face on 5.
Both readings are about these exact models.
What they say
Shark CryoGlow
- Owners in r/redlighttherapy, r/Sephora, r/Ulta and r/Costco mostly like the CryoGlow's under-eye cooling and short sessions, and complain about how it sits on the face.
- Across those threads 11 owners report red marks, indents, bruising or stinging under the eyes where the cooling pads rest, 10 call it heavy or say it drags on the under-eyes, and several point out that the pads leave the under-eyes without light; one owner returned hers to Costco Canada over the fit and the blocked eye area.
- In a November 2025 r/Sephora thread (78 comments), three owners who had used the Omnilux prefer the Shark's fit, a few find the fan loud, and the poster flagged one reply that had been posted by three different accounts, since removed.
- Several owners report fewer or shorter-lived breakouts, while one returned it to Costco after six weeks of daily use seeing no change, and another was not wowed after two months of daily use.
- Single owners report error codes D2 and A3 (Shark agreed to replace the second unit), cooling that weakened after a month, a timer that changed from 6:00 to 6:22, and short battery life when the cooling runs.
- In a November 2024 r/redlighttherapy thread (175 comments), a commenter who says she tested it for eight weeks in Shark's market research liked its two-strap fit over the Omnilux's.
Omnilux Contour Face
- Owners in r/30PlusSkinCare and r/SkincareAddiction most often complain about fit: on smaller faces the mouth opening sits below the mouth and the bottom strap has to be pulled past its tightest setting, and several call the straps the reason they skip sessions.
- A much-cited r/SkincareAddiction review describes a unit that failed after one use and a return that required video proof and return shipping.
- Owners are split on whether they saw a visible difference; a December 2024 r/30PlusSkinCare owner who finds it uncomfortable still calls it well made and simple to charge.
- In a November 2025 comment on an r/redlighttherapy thread, a 2021 owner whose mask had begun to flicker reports being sent a replacement after the warranty had ended, as a one-time courtesy.
Both readings are about these exact models.
What they say
Shark CryoGlow
- Magazine reviewers rate it highly: WIRED gave it 8 out of 10 in May 2025 after eight weeks, faulting its weight and bulk and noting that the cooling pads leave the under-eyes without light, and TechRadar gave it 4.5 out of 5 in April 2025 after two months, faulting its battery life.
- WIRED and Harper's Bazaar both found the fans loud when the under-eye cooling runs.
- Business Insider's reviewer (June 2026, on a site that says it may receive products free) found it comfortable over eight weeks but saw no visible long-term change from the cooling pads, and faults the bulky battery pack and cord.
- None of these reviews measured the light output.
Omnilux Contour Face
- Harper's Bazaar (September 2026) got five to seven sessions per charge and found the corded controller swings when moving around.
- Wareable, which earns affiliate commissions on the mask, scored it 4.2 out of 5 in April 2026, praising the flexible fit and faulting the premium price and the lack of included eye protection, and Reviewed's tester with a high nose bridge found the mask rode up and shone into the eyes.
- RedLightTested read 26 to 30 mW/cm2 at 6 inches on a solar meter.
YouTube
tiedBoth readings are about these exact models.
What they say
Shark CryoGlow
- The most-watched video is a short by Abbey Yung (April 2025, 364,903 views), who paid $350 and says she regrets it: the mask is heavy enough to leave dents and pull down the skin under her eyes after six minutes, she found it hard to breathe in, the cooling plates block light from the under-eyes, and the fan is loud while they run.
- Jen Luv, who bought her own and links to it with affiliate links, found it comfortable over 70 treatments (May 2025, 98,599 views), liked keeping her eyes open through six-minute sessions, and saw at most a slight change in her forehead lines, calling it not a must-have.
- Valentina (March 2025, about 20,800 views), who bought hers and says the video is not sponsored, would buy it again after two months but uses it lying face-down because of the weight.
- MidlifeMum (August 2025, 10,926 views), given hers as a gift and linking to Amazon with an affiliate link, says it drags on her under-eyes with the cooling on and reports clearer skin after eight months of irregular use.
Omnilux Contour Face
- An unsponsored owner review after 60 days (Mary Pivin, July 2024, about 5,300 views) calls it simple to run but hard to seat properly and very bright.
- Light Therapy Insiders, which earns a commission on Omnilux sales and tested a unit Omnilux supplied free, scored it 60.5 out of 100 in September 2025 and declined to recommend it at its price: it stays in place and folds small for travel, but the two-strap system is a hassle, it presses on the nose, and its 66 bulbs give limited coverage.
Amazon
tiedBoth readings are about these exact models.
What they say
Shark CryoGlow
- The CryoGlow's colours share one Amazon US review file, sold and shipped by Amazon at $299 against a $349.99 list, and it holds 4.4 from 1,066 ratings when read in September 2026, split 77 percent five-star against 7 percent one-star.
- Eye cooling is tagged 78 times, 67 positive, ease of use 39 times with one negative, and relaxation 28 times, all positive.
- Battery life is tagged 29 times, 21 negative, with several owners saying it needs charging every day, and value for money splits 48 positive to 21 negative.
- One reviewer finds it easy to use and well made but heavy enough to mark the bridge of the nose, and two others call it heavy.
Omnilux Contour Face
- A third-party seller, Posh Gifts Online, lists the Contour Face under the brand name NRO at 3.9 from 77 ratings when read on 2026-09-29, split 65 percent five-star against 20 percent one-star.
- Omnilux does not sell this listing itself.
- US reviewers split between owners who saw a difference and owners whose units failed or showed nothing after months.
Owner reviews
+1 OmniluxBoth readings are about these exact models.
What they say
Shark CryoGlow
- Costco sells the CryoGlow as a members' kit with a charging stand and a silk pillowcase (model FW332COPL), and the listing holds 4.5 from 417 reviews when read in September 2026, 325 five-star against 33 one-star, with 173 of the 205 reviewers who answered recommending it; none of the 100 most recent reviews is syndicated from SharkNinja.
- Of those 100, May to September 2026, 47 carry text: 13 call it easy to use, nine praise the under-eye cooling and eight the short sessions, while seven report a unit that would not charge, would not turn on or lost an under-eye cooler, and three describe a skin reaction, from darkened cheeks to welt-like breakouts and a sunburn feeling.
- Best Buy's listing holds 4.8 from 249 with 94 percent recommending, but all 40 of its lowest-rated and most-relevant reviews carry Best Buy's note that the reviewer received promotional consideration or a sweepstakes entry; its tagged cons are battery life (10), noise (4) and weight (4).
- Ulta's 4.3 from 328 is mostly SharkNinja's own review file, 20 of the 25 newest, and Sam's Club holds six reviews.
Omnilux Contour Face
- Nordstrom lists it at 4.3 from 1,503 reviews when read on 2026-09-29: 66 percent five-star, 12 four, 10 three, 5 two and 6 one-star, with no reviews marked as syndicated from Omnilux or collected in a promotion.
- Critical reviews name the straps and skin sensitivity.
Shark CryoGlow vs Omnilux Contour Face: pros and cons
What each one does well, and where it falls short.
Pros 5
510(k) K242796 is Shark's own filing and describes this 480-LED mask
Blue 415, red 630 and near-infrared 830 nm published
Under-eye cooling at three levels, with or without the LEDs
Routines of 4, 6 and 8 minutes, hands-free with a remote timer
Amazon 4.4 from 1,066; Costco 4.5 from 417
Cons 6
Output never independently measured; the 128 mW/cm2 is Shark's figure at the LED
The chill pads block LED light from the under-eyes
Rigid 1.5 lb shell; owners report marks and pressure under the eyes
Fans audible while the cooling runs, and battery life a common complaint
Shark's US product FAQ gives blue as 630 nm, against 415 nm everywhere else
Sold at $299.99 against a $349.99 list price on sharkninja.com
Pros 6
Independent spectrometer reading of about 27 mW/cm2 against a stated ~30, inside 20 percent
FDA record for model TN19G traces to 510(k) K191629
Two published peaks, 633 nm red and 830 nm near-infrared
132 LEDs in 66 dual-chip bulbs across the full face
Rechargeable controller with a fixed 10-minute auto-off
Two-year warranty on mask and controller, 30-day return window
Cons 6
The 510(k) is filed under the OEM's name, faceLITE, not Omnilux
No published spectral chart or per-wavelength ratio
Two hook-and-loop straps; reviewers report the lower strap digging in and pressure at the nose bridge
No eye shields; the brand states eye protection is not required
One fixed session, no intensity or mode setting
No power draw, flicker or EMF figure published
Shark CryoGlow vs Omnilux Contour Face: the numbers
Price, scores and rank, then only the specs that differ. Green marks the side with more.
Wavelength bands
Both Near-infrared (800-880 nm), Red (620-680 nm)
Shark CryoGlow
+ Blue (400-499 nm)
Omnilux Contour Face
Nothing more
SpecShark CryoGlowOmnilux Contour Face
Measured irradianceNot measured25-49 mW/cm2
Claimed irradiance100-149 mW/cm225-49 mW/cm2
Dimensions7.99 x 5.51 x 8.62 inNot listed
Weight1.5 lbNot listed
Same on both
- Device type Face mask
- FDA status 510(k) cleared
- Safety listings IEC 62471 report
- Power Battery
- Session length 5-10 min
- Warranty 2 Years
We earn a commission if you buy through these links. It never changes a score.
Not sold on either one?
The top-scored and the cheapest other pick from each brand.
More from Shark 1 scored in LED Face & Neck Masks
What’s different
- FDA status: Registered or listed only, not 510(k) cleared
- Safety listings: none listed
More from Omnilux 6 scored in LED Face & Neck Masks
What’s different
- Wavelength bands: adds Blue (400-499 nm)
- Measured irradiance: Not measured, not 25-49 mW/cm2
Pick it ifYou want blue (400-499 nm)
What’s different
- Measured irradiance: Not measured, not 25-49 mW/cm2
Pick it ifPrice matters$95vs$395
Shark CryoGlow vs Omnilux Contour Face: common questions
Is the Shark CryoGlow better than the Omnilux Contour Face?
On our scores, the Omnilux Contour Face is ahead, 9.0 against 8.2.
Which is cheaper, the Shark CryoGlow or the Omnilux Contour Face?
The Shark CryoGlow, at $350 against $395: $45 less.
What do owners say about the Shark CryoGlow and the Omnilux Contour Face?
Across 5 independent sources scored for both, the Shark CryoGlow is ahead on Reddit; the Omnilux Contour Face is ahead on Google and Owner reviews; YouTube and Amazon are level.
More led face & neck masks comparisons
More head-to-heads with these two.
Scores calculated 4 October 2026 · Products excluded where fewer than two independent sources cover them · · How we score