Shark CryoGlow Plus vs. CurrentBody: Two Very Different Approaches

Both of these masks promise the same outcome — smoother skin, fewer fine lines, a healthier glow — but they get there in almost opposite ways. One is a rigid, helmet-style mask built for full-coverage precision. The other is a flexible silicone mask designed to move with the face. Neither approach is objectively better; they're built around different priorities, and that difference shapes almost everything about how each mask feels to use.

Side by side

Rigid shell vs. flexible silicone

This is the most immediately noticeable difference. The CryoGlow Plus is a hard shell that sits just off the skin, held in place by an internal strap system. The CurrentBody mask is soft, flexible silicone that contours directly to the face and secures with a multiway head strap. Neither design is inherently more effective at delivering light, but the experience of wearing each one is genuinely different. The rigid Shark design feels more like a piece of equipment; the CurrentBody's silicone build feels closer to a wearable skincare product, and it packs down smaller for anyone who travels with their routine.

Blue light is the real differentiator

Both masks lean on red and infrared light for anti-ageing and collagen support, and both do it well. Where they diverge is blue light. The CryoGlow Plus includes it specifically to target acne-causing bacteria, which makes it the more versatile option for anyone dealing with both fine lines and breakouts. CurrentBody skips blue light entirely and instead adds a third infrared wavelength — deep near-infrared — layered on top of its standard red and near-infrared bands, leaning further into anti-ageing rather than trying to cover acne as well.

Cooling is Shark's signature move

The CryoGlow Plus's InstaChill under-eye cooling doesn't have a direct equivalent in the CurrentBody lineup. It's a genuinely different feature, not a marketing add-on: three adjustable cooling levels aimed at reducing puffiness around the eyes during the same session as the LED treatment. Anyone specifically shopping for de-puffing alongside anti-ageing light therapy will find that CurrentBody simply doesn't offer anything comparable.

LED count isn't the whole story

On paper, 560 LEDs sounds like a clear win over 236. In practice, LED count alone doesn't determine effectiveness — wavelength precision, distribution, and skin contact all matter just as much. CurrentBody's flexible silicone design means its LEDs sit closer to the skin across more of the face's natural curves, which can offset a lower raw count. Shark's rigid shell relies on higher LED density to compensate for the small gap between mask and skin. Both approaches are clinically reasonable; the number by itself isn't a reliable way to predict results.

Which one fits better

Someone dealing with occasional breakouts alongside early fine lines will likely get more overall value from the CryoGlow Plus, thanks to its blue light mode and under-eye cooling. Someone focused purely on anti-ageing and collagen support, who prefers a softer, more travel-friendly design, may prefer what CurrentBody offers. Both are FDA-cleared and require consistent use over several weeks before results become noticeable — neither is a shortcut, just a different tool for a similar job.

Still deciding between the two Shark masks? See our CryoGlow vs CryoGlow Plus comparison.

Disclosure: This article contains affiliate links. If you purchase through our link, we may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you.

Affiliate links. Same price for you, small commission supports VitalHub.