Make New York Post a Preferred Source New York Post Composite LED face masks have become a popular addition to at-home skin care routines, but with so many options on the market, it can be difficult to know which devices are worth the investment. The TheraFace Mask Glo aims to stand out with multiple light therapy modes, a hands-free design and a built-in massage feature that promises to make at-home treatments feel a little more luxurious.
I’ve also tested competing devices, including the Shark LED Face Mask and Dr. Dennis Gross Skincare SpectraLite FaceWare Pro, so I approached the TheraFace Mask Glo with a clear idea of what matters most: comfort, ease of use, realistic treatment times and features that justify the price.
I also wanted to see whether the mask could deliver a worthwhile experience beyond its specifications. After using the device every day for eight weeks, I found that its biggest selling point was convenience. The cordless design made it easier to incorporate LED sessions into my routine, while the additional massage function offered something a little different from a traditional light therapy mask.
However, convenience isn’t the same as proven skin care results, and I wouldn’t recommend investing in an expensive device without considering what you want it to achieve, though I do want to know the mask is one of the popular items in our best gifts for wife guide.
My first impression of the TheraFace Mask Glo was that it prioritizes making skin care feel manageable. Instead of having to hold a device or stand in front of a mirror, I can simply place the mask on and relax.
Jump scare! But worth it for the skin… Victoria McDonnell Pros: Hands-free design makes LED sessions easier to fit into a busy routine Multiple light therapy modes offer flexibility for different skin care goals Built-in head massage functionality adds another dimension to the treatment experience I noticed a de-puffing effect around my cheeks, although this was a personal observation rather than a controlled assessment Its wearable format makes it convenient Cons: The upfront cost may be difficult to justify for someone new to LED therapy Consistent use requires an ongoing time commitment The massage intensity felt uncomfortable in some areas during my testing Results from at-home LED devices can vary, and the mask shouldn’t be viewed as a replacement for targeted dermatological treatment That might sound like a small advantage, but it’s an important one. The Glo’s hands-free design makes it easier to imagine maintaining a consistent routine, particularly on busy mornings or evenings when adding another skin care step isn’t especially appealing.
The mask offers multiple light therapy modes, giving users options for different skin care goals. Red light and near-infrared light are commonly used in devices designed to target visible signs of aging, while blue light is associated with blemish-focused treatments. The availability of different modes adds versatility, although individual results depend on factors such as the device’s specifications, treatment protocol and consistency of use.
Light mode: Red, red-plus-infrared, and blue LED light | Good for: Lines and wrinkles, Skin firming, Acne | Usage: Four to 12 minutes per day
The TheraFace Mask Glo combines wearable LED therapy with a built-in massage function. That combination is central to its appeal: rather than offering light treatment alone, it aims to make an at-home session feel more like a facial.
Light therapy: The device offers red, red-plus-infrared and blue LED treatment options, according to the selected mode. These different light settings are intended to address different skin care goals, although the presence of a particular light mode doesn’t guarantee a specific result.
Hands-free design: The wearable format allows me to complete a session without holding the device in place. For anyone who struggles to make time for skin care, this is arguably the most practical benefit.
Built-in massage: The mask has massagers built into the straps, allowing users to pamper their scalp while treating their face.
In my eyes, the most compelling feature isn’t any single technical specification. It’s the way the device brings several elements together in one wearable product. The combination of light therapy and massage makes the mask appealing to people who enjoy beauty technology and want a more involved skin care routine without booking regular in-person treatments.
New York Post Composite When I first tried the mask, I was so focused on the LED technology that I momentarily forgot about the massage feature altogether. Having used Shark’s LED mask regularly before testing Therabody’s offering, I initially approached the Glo as another light therapy device. The massage function was an unexpected addition.
I liked having the option to incorporate a relaxing scalp massage into my at-home routine without needing another piece of equipment. The flexibility to switch the function off was also welcome, particularly when I wanted a simpler treatment experience.
That said, my experience wasn’t entirely seamless. I found the massage intensity uncomfortable in certain areas, depending on my sensitivity, and it took some experimentation to work out which settings felt best. While I appreciated having the additional functionality, I’d have preferred an experience that felt more consistently comfortable.
Ultimately, I see the massage function as a useful bonus rather than the main reason to buy the Glo. If you enjoy combining skin care with a little at-home pampering, it adds appeal. If your priority is solely LED therapy, I’d place more emphasis on the device’s light specifications, treatment protocol, comfort and price.
Having tested the Shark LED Face Mask and Dr. Dennis Gross Skin care SpectraLite FaceWare Pro, I know that choosing an LED device isn’t simply a matter of comparing the number of features. Comfort, treatment preferences and the likelihood of using the mask consistently all influence the experience.
The Shark LED Face Mask, listed at $350 in my original price comparison, remains a favorite of mine because of its cooling properties. I particularly enjoy the refreshing sensation they add to my routine, which gives the treatment a different feel from a conventional LED session.
The TheraFace Mask Glo takes a different approach. Its multiple light settings and built-in massage feature make it an appealing alternative for people who want additional functionality in a single device.
For me, the choice comes down to priorities. Shark’s cooling feature is a genuine point of difference in my experience, while Therabody’s combination of LED treatment and massage offers a broader at-home facial experience.
Neither approach is automatically better. If cooling comfort is high on your list, Shark deserves consideration. If you’re drawn to the Glo’s combination of light therapy and vibration, its additional functionality may be more appealing.
The Dr. Dennis Gross Skincare SpectraLite FaceWare Pro is another established option in the at-home LED category. It has a treatment-focused design and is worth considering if you’re comparing recognizable skin care devices.
In my original comparison, I listed the SpectraLite FaceWare Pro at $455, making it $105 more expensive than the $350 Shark mask. Prices can vary, depending on where you shop.
When comparing the Dr. Dennis Gross mask with the TheraFace Mask Glo, I’d consider comfort, available light modes, treatment instructions and how naturally each device fits into my routine. I found the Dr. Dennis Gross mask less comfortable than the Shark, but that personal preference doesn’t establish that the TheraFace Mask Glo will be more comfortable for every user.
The Glo’s built-in massage feature gives it an additional point of distinction, but I’d avoid declaring it the better-value option without comparing current prices and the exact specifications of each model.
The Shark remains my personal favorite for its cooling properties. The TheraFace Mask Glo, meanwhile, appeals to me because of its combination of light therapy options and massage functionality.
I’d recommend considering the TheraFace Mask Glo if you’re already interested in at-home LED therapy and want a device that makes regular sessions easier to incorporate into your routine.
It’s appealing for skin care enthusiasts who enjoy experimenting with beauty technology. The hands-free format reduces the amount of attention required during treatment, while the massage function offers an additional feature for anyone who enjoys a more involved at-home facial ritual.
Before using Therabody (left) and after eight weeks of using Therabody (right). My skin was noticeably more glowy and smooth. Victoria McDonnell It could also make an appealing gift for someone who is passionate about skin care and appreciates higher-end beauty devices.
I’d be more cautious about recommending it to someone new to LED therapy or who isn’t likely to use it consistently. Anyone with an eye condition, a relevant medical concern or a medication that increases photosensitivity should seek appropriate professional advice before use. It’s also important to follow the manufacturer’s instructions for eye protection and treatment.
Victoria McDonnell I used the TheraFace Mask Glo daily for eight weeks, focusing on the practical considerations that matter when incorporating an at-home beauty device into an existing routine:
The TheraFace Mask Glo is worth considering if convenience and a multi-feature treatment experience are your priorities. I appreciate how easily it fits into my routine, and the massage function gives it an extra point of difference.
I also noticed what appeared to be a de-puffing effect around my cheeks, but I’d treat that as a personal observation rather than proof of the device’s efficacy.
After eight weeks of testing, I’d describe the TheraFace Mask Glo as a convenient, feature-rich option for people interested in incorporating LED therapy into an established skincare routine. Being able to complete a session without holding a device in place makes the process feel more seamless, and the multiple light settings give the mask flexibility across different skincare goals. The built-in massage function is a welcome extra.
This article was written by Victoria McDonnell, New York Post Commerce Journalist & Content Strategist, who has spent countless hours researching, testing hundreds of products and comparing the latest makeup, skincare, hair and beauty items and trends to determine what’s truly worth your hard-earned cash. She evaluates formulas, textures, ingredients and more, in addition to consulting medical and industry experts. Some of Victoria’s latest conquests include testing the best sheet masks on the market, and a rinse-and-repeat review of the best shampoos for all hair types and budgets. Victoria, who received a beauty industry essentials certification from the Fashion Institute of Technology, has been creating shopping guides for the New York Post since 2021 and previously held positions at Insider Reviews and CNN Underscored.
Looking for a headline-worthy haul? Keep shopping Post Wanted.
