Shark CryoGlow vs. CryoGlow Plus: What's Actually Different?

Shark Beauty didn't reinvent its LED face mask this year — it listened. The original CryoGlow turned heads with red, blue, and deep infrared light paired with an under-eye cooling system nothing else quite matched. But the people who actually lived with the mask kept coming back with the same two complaints: the battery didn't last, and the coverage around the eyes could go further. The CryoGlow Plus is Shark's answer to both.

It's tempting to assume "Plus" means a total overhaul, but that's not what happened. The Plus keeps the bones of the original intact — same treatment philosophy, same cooling technology, same FDA clearance — and sharpens the two things that mattered most. That distinction matters, because the answer has less to do with which mask is "better" and more to do with how often someone plans to use it.

Side by side

More LEDs, aimed at the right places

The number that jumps out first is the LED count: 560 in the Plus, up from 480. On paper that's just a bigger number, but the way Shark used the extra LEDs is what matters. Coverage was concentrated around the eye area, specifically the crow's-feet zone, because that's the part of the face most LED masks struggle to treat well. The curve of a mask around the eyes is hard to engineer for, and it's often where users notice gaps in light exposure. The original already handled this better than most competitors with its tri-wick LED sequencing, designed to avoid the hot spots and blind spots that plague flatter, cheaper masks. The Plus pushes that idea further into the one area where fine lines tend to show up first.

The upgrade nobody will complain about

Ask anyone who's owned the original CryoGlow what they'd change, and battery life comes up almost every time. A single session runs 10 to 20 minutes depending on the mode, which sounds manageable until the mask needs charging mid-week and the whole routine stalls. That's the kind of small friction that quietly kills consistency — and consistency is the entire point of LED therapy, since results build gradually rather than from a single treatment. Shark's fix is straightforward: roughly 75% more battery life in the Plus. Not flashy, but arguably the upgrade that matters most to anyone using the mask several times a week.

What didn't change — and why that's fine

Both masks share the same three settings — Better Ageing, Blemish Repair, and Skin Sustain — and the same InstaChill cooling system with three adjustable levels. Both blend red, blue, and deep infrared light, and both carry FDA clearance. Shark clearly decided the original formula worked; it just needed to last longer and reach further. If you already researched the science behind the original, none of that homework goes to waste.

Which one actually makes sense

The honest answer depends on how the mask will get used, not which version sounds more impressive. Someone easing into LED skincare, still figuring out whether a weekly habit will stick, loses very little by choosing the original CryoGlow — same core technology at a more accessible entry point. Someone who already knows they'll use the mask three or four times a week, and who has noticed fine lines forming around the eyes, is the person the Plus was built for. Those upgrades only pay off with frequent, consistent use.

Curious how the Plus stacks up against a very different design? Read our CryoGlow Plus vs CurrentBody comparison, or browse the wider LED face mask guide.

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.