Therabody Red Light Therapy — Full Review

Therabody is best known for the Theragun — the percussive massage device that essentially created the consumer recovery tool category. The company has since expanded into red light therapy with two products: the TheraFace PRO (a multi-function facial device with an RLT attachment) and the SmartGoggles (an eye mask combining heat, vibration, and light therapy).

This review assesses both products specifically through the lens of red light therapy performance. The question is straightforward: are these genuine PBM devices, or is the red light therapy component an afterthought on otherwise well-engineered products?

Quick verdict

Therabody’s red light therapy offerings are competent but limited. The TheraFace PRO delivers red and near-infrared light at modest irradiance through a small treatment head, making it suitable for spot treatment but impractical for broader protocols. The SmartGoggles are primarily a relaxation device with light therapy as a secondary feature.

If you are already in the Therabody ecosystem and want to add some RLT capability without buying a separate device, these products have a place. If red light therapy is your primary goal, dedicated devices offer substantially better value and performance.

TheraFace PRO

What it is

The TheraFace PRO is a multi-attachment facial device. The base unit is a handheld wand that accepts interchangeable heads for percussive therapy, microcurrent, cleansing, and — relevant to this review — red light therapy. It launched in 2022 and has been updated with improved attachments since.

Red light therapy specifications

Specification	Detail
Wavelengths	633 nm (red) and 830 nm (near-infrared)
LED count	30 LEDs (mixed red and NIR)
Irradiance (at contact)	~25-35 mW/cm² (estimated)
Treatment area	~8 cm² (attachment head size)
Treatment time	3 minutes per zone (manufacturer recommendation)
Power source	Rechargeable battery (shared with base unit)
RLT attachment included	Yes (in PRO package)
Price (UK, 2026)	~£349 (full kit with all attachments)

Wavelength analysis

The 633 nm and 830 nm wavelength pairing is therapeutically sound. Both wavelengths fall within the photobiomodulation action spectrum, with 633 nm well-absorbed by cytochrome c oxidase for superficial tissue effects and 830 nm providing deeper penetration into the dermis (Karu, 2008, Photochemistry and Photobiology, 84(5), 1091-1099).

Therabody does not publish detailed spectral data for the LED attachment, so independent verification of wavelength accuracy is not available. However, the wavelengths claimed are consistent with widely available medical-grade LEDs from manufacturers like Lumileds and Osram.

Irradiance assessment

This is where the TheraFace PRO falls short as a dedicated RLT device. At an estimated 25-35 mW/cm² at contact, the irradiance is towards the lower end of what is considered therapeutically effective.

For context, Huang et al. (2009) established that PBM efficacy follows a biphasic dose response, with optimal effects typically seen at irradiances of 50-100 mW/cm² (Dose-Response, 7(4), 358-383). The TheraFace PRO’s output is below this optimal range, meaning longer treatment times are needed to achieve equivalent doses.

At 30 mW/cm², a 3-minute treatment delivers approximately 5.4 J/cm². For skin rejuvenation, published studies typically use doses of 15-30 J/cm² per session (Avci et al., 2013, Seminars in Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery, 32(1), 41-52). To reach this range with the TheraFace PRO, you would need 8-15 minutes per treatment zone — considerably longer than the manufacturer’s recommended 3 minutes.

Treatment area limitation

The ~8 cm² treatment head is small. Treating the full face requires repositioning the device across multiple zones, with each zone needing several minutes of exposure. A full facial RLT session with the TheraFace PRO could take 30-45 minutes, compared to 10-15 minutes with a panel or LED mask.

This is the fundamental trade-off of a multi-function device: the RLT attachment must fit the same form factor as the other attachments, constraining the treatment area to a single small head.

Build quality

Therabody’s industrial design and build quality are genuinely excellent. The base unit is well-balanced, the attachment mechanism is secure, and the materials feel premium. The magnetic attachment system makes swapping between heads quick and satisfying.

The rechargeable battery provides adequate run time for multiple facial treatment sessions, though heavy RLT use (30+ minutes) will drain it faster than the percussive therapy modes.

Who is the TheraFace PRO best for?

Existing Therabody users who want to add RLT to their routine without buying a separate device. The convenience of a single multi-tool has genuine appeal.

Beginners exploring RLT who are not ready to commit to a dedicated panel or mask. The TheraFace PRO provides an introduction to red light therapy alongside other modalities.

Spot treatment users who want to target specific areas (a blemish, a fine line, a small scar) rather than the full face.

Not ideal for anyone prioritising RLT efficacy or wanting efficient full-face treatment.

SmartGoggles

What they are

The Therabody SmartGoggles are an eye mask combining three modalities: heat therapy, vibration massage, and light therapy. They are positioned as a relaxation and recovery device for eye strain, headaches, and stress.

Red light therapy specifications

Specification	Detail
Wavelengths	~620-640 nm (red)
LED count	Not disclosed
Irradiance	Not disclosed (low)
Treatment area	Periorbital region
Treatment modes	Combined with heat and vibration
Price (UK, 2026)	~£199

Assessment

The SmartGoggles use red LEDs positioned around the eye area, but Therabody does not publish irradiance data for the light therapy component. Based on the device design and power constraints (it runs on a small rechargeable battery), the light output is likely in the 5-15 mW/cm² range — below what most PBM researchers would consider therapeutically optimal.

The primary therapeutic value of the SmartGoggles comes from the combination of gentle heat (which increases periorbital blood flow) and vibration massage (which may relieve tension headaches and eye strain). The light therapy component is best understood as a supporting feature rather than a standalone PBM treatment.

For serious periorbital or transcranial PBM applications, purpose-built devices like the Vielight Neuro series deliver validated wavelengths at documented irradiances with clinical trial support. The SmartGoggles are not in the same category.

Who are the SmartGoggles best for?

Office workers and screen-fatigued users who want a relaxation device for eye strain. The combination of heat, vibration, and light is genuinely soothing.

Headache and tension sufferers who find heat and pressure around the eyes helpful. This is the device’s real strength.

Not ideal for anyone seeking clinically meaningful photobiomodulation for skin rejuvenation, neurological applications, or eye health.

How Therabody compares to dedicated RLT devices

Feature	TheraFace PRO (RLT)	Dedicated panel (e.g., Hooga HG300)	LED mask (e.g., Omnilux Contour)
Irradiance	~30 mW/cm²	~100+ mW/cm²	~30-50 mW/cm²
Treatment area	~8 cm²	~600 cm²	Full face
Session time (full face)	30-45 min	10-15 min	10 min
Hands-free	No	Yes (wall-mounted)	Yes
Multi-function	Yes (4 modes)	No (RLT only)	No (RLT only)
Price	~£349	~£150-250	~£300-400
Dose per minute	~1.8 J/cm²	~6+ J/cm²	~2-3 J/cm²

The comparison makes the trade-off clear. Therabody’s strength is versatility — one device, multiple functions. Dedicated RLT devices win on every performance metric: higher irradiance, larger treatment area, shorter session times, and hands-free operation.

The multi-tool dilemma

The TheraFace PRO’s RLT capability is analogous to the camera on a Swiss Army knife (if such a thing existed). It works, but it cannot compete with a purpose-built tool. The value proposition depends entirely on whether you want four adequate tools in one package or one excellent tool per function.

For someone who uses percussive therapy, microcurrent, and cleansing as part of their facial routine, adding RLT capability at no additional cost (it is included in the PRO package) is a genuine bonus. You get some photobiomodulation benefit with zero additional devices.

For someone whose primary interest is red light therapy, the TheraFace PRO’s RLT performance does not justify its price. A Hooga HG300 or similar panel delivers 3-4 times the irradiance at half the price.

Clinical evidence for Therabody’s RLT claims

Therabody does not publish device-specific clinical trials for the TheraFace PRO’s red light therapy attachment. This is a significant gap for a brand of this stature. Compare this to LightStim, which holds FDA 510(k) clearance for specific indications, or Joovv, which has sponsored clinical studies using its own hardware.

Therabody’s marketing references general PBM research, which is scientifically valid — the wavelengths they use (633 nm, 830 nm) do have strong clinical support. However, clinical outcomes are dose-dependent, and applying findings from studies using higher-irradiance devices to a lower-output attachment requires caution.

The key clinical trials that support the wavelengths Therabody uses include:

• Wunsch and Matuschka (2014) — a 136-subject RCT showing significant improvement in skin complexion and collagen density using 611-650 nm and 850 nm LEDs at irradiances substantially higher than the TheraFace PRO delivers (Photomedicine and Laser Surgery, 32(2), 93-100)
• Barolet et al. (2009) — demonstrated that 830 nm NIR improved skin texture and periorbital wrinkles, but used clinical-grade devices delivering 50-60 mW/cm² (Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 129, S23)
• Lee et al. (2007) — showed that LED photomodulation at 633 nm and 830 nm reduced wrinkle severity and increased collagen density, again using higher-output devices than consumer handhelds (Photomedicine and Laser Surgery, 25(3), 159-167)

The common thread: these studies used irradiances of 50-100+ mW/cm², whilst the TheraFace PRO delivers approximately 25-35 mW/cm². The wavelengths match, but the dose per unit time does not. Users can compensate by extending treatment times beyond the manufacturer’s recommended 3 minutes per zone, but this erodes the convenience proposition.

The bottom line on clinical evidence: Therabody’s RLT wavelengths are evidence-supported. Whether the TheraFace PRO delivers sufficient dose in the recommended treatment time to replicate published outcomes is uncertain. Longer sessions (8-15 minutes per zone) would bring the dose closer to the clinical literature.

Price and value assessment

TheraFace PRO (£349): Reasonable value as a multi-function facial device. The RLT component is a bonus, not a selling point. If you would buy the device for percussive therapy and microcurrent anyway, the included RLT attachment adds meaningful (if modest) capability at no extra cost.

SmartGoggles (£199): Fairly priced as a premium relaxation device. The light therapy component alone does not justify the purchase — evaluate based on the heat and vibration features.

Compared to dedicated RLT: If your budget is £349 and your primary goal is red light therapy, allocate that budget to a dedicated panel (£150-250) and pocket the savings. You will get substantially better RLT performance.

Final assessment

Therabody has built a strong brand on genuine product quality and thoughtful industrial design. The TheraFace PRO and SmartGoggles reflect that design philosophy — they are well-made, intuitive to use, and genuinely pleasant products.

As red light therapy devices specifically, they are adequate but not competitive with purpose-built alternatives. The RLT components deliver real photons at real wavelengths, but the irradiance and treatment area are constrained by the multi-function form factor.

Buy the TheraFace PRO if you want a versatile facial tool that includes RLT as one of several functions. Buy a dedicated panel if red light therapy is your primary objective.

References

1. Karu, T.I. (2008). Mitochondrial signaling in mammalian cells activated by red and near-IR radiation. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 84(5), 1091-1099. PubMed
2. Huang, Y.Y. et al. (2009). Biphasic dose response in low level light therapy. Dose-Response, 7(4), 358-383. PubMed
3. Avci, P. et al. (2013). Low-level laser (light) therapy (LLLT) in skin. Seminars in Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery, 32(1), 41-52. PubMed
4. Hamblin, M.R. (2017). Mechanisms and mitochondrial redox signaling in photobiomodulation. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 94(2), 199-212. PubMed