Shark CryoGlow Review 2026: Original vs CryoGlow Plus, FDA Clearance Checked

Quick Answer: The Shark CryoGlow is a rigid LED face mask that adds something no other mask on this site does: clip-on under-eye cooling with three chill levels, alongside red, near-infrared and blue light in short 4-8 minute modes. Its FDA claim checks out — FDA’s 510(k) database lists clearance K242796 (November 27, 2024) for wrinkle reduction and acne. The original lists at $349.99 (marked down to $299.99 on SharkNinja’s store at times), while the new CryoGlow Plus costs $379.99 for extra LEDs around the crow’s feet and lips. What Shark doesn’t publish is an overall irradiance figure, and every clinical percentage comes from Shark’s own studies of the original mask. This is a hardware and spec review, not medical advice.

Our best red light therapy mask guide already names the CryoGlow as the best mask with cooling, but a one-paragraph roundup entry can’t answer the questions people search for: which of the two CryoGlow models to buy, whether the “FDA-cleared” label holds up, and what Shark’s clinical numbers actually measured. This review checks all three against Shark’s own product pages, its launch press release, and FDA’s public database.

Shark CryoGlow by the numbers

• FDA clearance K242796, cleared November 27, 2024 — FDA’s 510(k) database lists “CryoGlow (FW3XXXX)” from SharkNinja Operating, LLC under product codes OHS (over-the-counter wrinkle reduction) and OLP (over-the-counter acne). The under-eye cooling is not part of either cleared indication.
• US launch: February 7, 2025 at a suggested $349.99, per SharkNinja’s Business Wire release — Shark’s first product in the skincare category.
• 60 and 59 subjects: Shark’s launch release cites a 12-week study of 60 people using Better Aging once a day (reporting 34% more radiant skin and 20% firmer skin at 8 weeks) and a 12-week study of 59 people using Skin Clearing once a day. Both are Shark’s own studies.
• “120% improved LED coverage” on the Plus is defined in Shark’s footnote as surface area around the crow’s feet receiving at least 3 mW/cm², compared with the original FW300 — the only power-density figure Shark publishes for either mask.
• 1.5 lb vs 1.7 lb: SharkNinja lists the original FW312 at 1.5 lb and the CryoGlow Plus at 1.7 lb — heavier than the flexible silicone masks in our mask guide.

CryoGlow vs CryoGlow Plus at a glance

1. Shark CryoGlow (Original) — The Better Value Now

The original CryoGlow is the model the FDA clearance, the launch press release and Shark’s clinical studies were all built around, and with the Plus now on shelves it is the one most likely to be discounted. SharkNinja’s own store has listed it at $299.99, marked down from $349.99, which puts it in the same price bracket as the HigherDOSE mask. The four modes cover the three things buyers actually ask an LED mask to do — fine lines (Better Aging), breakouts (Skin Clearing) and maintenance (Skin Sustain) — and the cooling mode adds a fourth no flexible silicone mask offers. The trade-offs are physical: TechRadar’s hands-on review listed short battery life, a restrictive fit and poor portability as its cons, which tracks with a rigid 1.5 lb shell built around cooling hardware.

2. Shark CryoGlow Plus — More LEDs Around the Eyes and Lips

The Plus is a coverage upgrade, not a new treatment. It went on sale in the UK on July 29, 2026 at £339.99 per TechRadar, and SharkNinja’s US store now lists it at $379.99 — $30 above the original’s list price, and $80 above the original when that is on sale. If crow’s feet and lines around the mouth are the specific reason you’re buying a mask, the added LEDs in exactly those zones are the one meaningful difference. If your main goal is acne or overall tone, the original’s light set and modes are the same, and the savings are real.

The FDA clearance, checked

This site judges every brand on two questions: does it publish a real output number, and does its regulatory claim hold up to a check? Several masks we’ve reviewed fail the second one — our RENPHO review, for example, could not match RENPHO’s “FDA-approved” wording to any public clearance. Shark’s claim does hold up. FDA’s 510(k) database shows K242796, received September 16, 2024 and found substantially equivalent on November 27, 2024, for a device named “CryoGlow (FW3XXXX).” The primary product code is OHS (light-based over-the-counter wrinkle reduction, regulation 21 CFR 878.4810) with a subsequent code OLP (over-the-counter light-based device for acne) — which lines up with the two light modes Shark markets hardest, Better Aging and Skin Clearing.

Three caveats keep this honest. First, “cleared” means FDA found the device substantially equivalent to one already on the market; it is not “FDA-approved” and not an independent efficacy test. Second, the InstaChill under-eye cooling is not part of either cleared indication — it’s a cosmetic comfort feature. Third, the clearance uses a wildcard model name (FW3XXXX); this review found no separate 510(k) for the Plus, so its “FDA Cleared” label appears to rest on the same family clearance rather than a new submission.

What Shark’s clinical numbers do and don’t tell you

Shark’s marketing is dense with percentages, and they are real figures from real studies — but all of them come from studies Shark ran or commissioned, with no published control-group comparison on the product pages. The launch release attributes the Better Aging results to a 12-week study of 60 subjects using the mode once daily, and the Skin Clearing results to a 12-week study of 59 subjects, also once daily. SharkNinja’s original-model product page reports figures such as 24% less visible fine lines and 45% less acne from those same two studies.

The CryoGlow Plus page adds a twist worth knowing: its footnotes credit the headline “fine lines in eight weeks” and “acne in four weeks” claims to the FW300 — the original mask — in an 8-week, 59-subject study and a 4-week, 119-subject study. In other words, the Plus’s clinical numbers were measured on the original CryoGlow. That doesn’t make them wrong, since the light modes are the same, but it means no published study isolates what the Plus’s extra LEDs add.

The coverage claim rests on a low bar

The only power-density figure Shark publishes for either mask is in a footnote: the Plus’s “120% improved LED coverage” counts the surface area around the crow’s feet that receives at least 3 mW/cm². That’s a threshold, not an output rating. For scale, HigherDOSE publishes 26 mW/cm² red and 24 mW/cm² near-infrared for its mask, per its own spec sheet, and our HigherDOSE review covers how that number was stated. Shark’s footnote tells you more skin now clears a modest bar — it doesn’t tell you how much light any of that skin actually receives. Shark’s launch release also claims “5x more energy” than a “leading competitor” in two modes, without naming the competitor.

How the CryoGlow compares to other masks we cover

The pattern is clear: the CryoGlow is priced with the mid-tier silicone masks, beats them on features (cooling plus a blue-light acne mode), and loses on fit and weight. If you want blue light without the bulk, compare the TheraFace in our Therabody review; if you want the closest-fitting red/NIR-only option, our CurrentBody vs Omnilux comparison covers the two leading silicone masks head to head; and if breakouts are the main goal, our red light therapy for acne guide ranks the acne-specific masks.

Who should buy the CryoGlow — and who should skip it

Buy the original CryoGlow if under-eye puffiness bothers you as much as fine lines, you want a single device for both anti-aging and breakouts, and you’d rather do a 6-minute session than a 10-minute one. At its $299.99 sale price it’s the best-value way to get FDA-cleared red, infrared and blue light plus cooling in one mask.

Buy the CryoGlow Plus if crow’s feet and lines around the mouth are your main target and the extra $30-$80 doesn’t matter — the added LEDs sit exactly there.

Skip both if you travel with your mask, find rigid masks uncomfortable, or want a published irradiance number to compare against panels. Anyone with light-sensitivity conditions or on photosensitizing medication should read our red light therapy contraindications guide and check with a clinician first. For how often to use any LED mask, see our how often to use red light therapy guide.

The bottom line

The Shark CryoGlow is the most feature-rich mask in its price bracket and one of the few whose FDA claim we could match to a public 510(k) — K242796, cleared for wrinkle reduction and acne. The original is the better buy for most people now that it’s being discounted; the CryoGlow Plus only earns its $379.99 if the eye and lip zones are your priority. What Shark still doesn’t give buyers is an overall irradiance figure, and its clinical percentages come from its own studies of the original mask. For the full field of masks ranked side by side, see our best red light therapy mask guide, and for what the research says about lines specifically, our red light therapy for wrinkles guide.

This is a hardware and specs review, not medical advice. Prices and specs are from SharkNinja’s US product pages, SharkNinja’s February 2025 launch release, TechRadar, and FDA’s 510(k) database, verified October 28, 2026, and change without notice. LED masks are not a substitute for treatment from a dermatologist.