The Quick Answer: Aerolase vs IPL in 2026
Aerolase Neo (1064 nm Nd:YAG, 650-microsecond pulse) and IPL (Intense Pulsed Light, 500–1200 nm broadband) are not equivalent tools. IPL is a surface device unsafe on Fitzpatrick IV–VI. Aerolase is a depth device safe across all six Fitzpatrick types. If you have brown or Black skin, melasma, active acne, rosacea, or a tan, Aerolase is the right device and IPL is functionally contraindicated. If you have very fair skin, simple sun spots, and zero pigment risk, IPL can produce excellent results faster and slightly cheaper per session — but with 1–3 days of redness or scabbing. This page is the head-to-head most clinics won’t write, because honest comparison usually pushes patients toward Aerolase.
Wavelength: The Single Most Important Difference
IPL emits a broadband light spectrum from roughly 500 to 1200 nm. The 500–600 nm portion (the bulk of the energy) is heavily absorbed by surface melanin. That’s the entire problem for darker skin: the same energy that’s supposed to break up sun spots also burns the surrounding pigmented skin.
Aerolase Neo emits a single wavelength of 1064 nm. At this depth-penetrating wavelength, melanin absorption drops by >90% compared to the 500–600 nm range. The energy passes through epidermal melanin and is selectively absorbed by deeper targets: melanosome clusters, dermal vasculature, sebaceous glands, hair follicles.
| Property | IPL | Aerolase Neo |
|---|---|---|
| Wavelength type | Broadband (500–1200 nm) | Single (1064 nm) |
| Surface melanin absorption | High | Minimal |
| Depth penetration | 1–2 mm | 4–6 mm |
| Targets | Surface pigment, surface vessels | Pigment, vasculature, sebaceous glands, follicles |
| Filter cartridges needed | Multiple (per indication) | One device, all indications |
Pulse Duration: 100× Faster Means 100× Less Heat
IPL devices typically pulse at 10–50 milliseconds (ms). Aerolase pulses at 650 microseconds (µs) — about 100× shorter.
Why this matters: thermal damage to surrounding skin is proportional to pulse duration. A long pulse heats the target and the surrounding tissue. A short pulse heats the target while surrounding tissue stays cool (a principle called thermal relaxation time).
The clinical consequence: with IPL on darker skin, the surrounding pigmented skin doesn’t have time to dissipate heat before the pulse ends — you get burns, blisters, and worsened pigmentation. With Aerolase, the pulse is so fast that surrounding skin barely registers it.
Fitzpatrick Safety Side-By-Side
| Fitzpatrick Type | IPL Safe? | Aerolase Safe? |
|---|---|---|
| I — Very fair | Yes | Yes |
| II — Fair | Yes | Yes |
| III — Medium | Yes with caution; avoid tan | Yes |
| IV — Olive | Not advised; high burn risk | Yes |
| V — Brown | Not safe | Yes |
| VI — Deeply pigmented | Not safe | Yes |
This single table eliminates roughly half the Toronto population from IPL consideration on safety grounds. Aerolase removes that gate.
Indication-By-Indication Comparison
Sun Spots / Solar Lentigines
IPL on Fitzpatrick I–III with discrete sun spots is fast and effective — 1–3 sessions, scabbing over the spot for 5–7 days. Aerolase clears the same lesions in 3–5 sessions with no scabbing. If you’re a fair-skinned patient who doesn’t mind looking like you have scabby age spots for a week, IPL wins on speed. Otherwise Aerolase.
Melasma
IPL is contraindicated. It often worsens melasma. Aerolase is one of the few defensible laser options for melasma. Not a contest.
Active Acne
IPL has a modest anti-inflammatory effect but does not target sebaceous glands. Aerolase targets C. acnes, sebaceous glands, and inflammation simultaneously, and works on Fitzpatrick IV–VI where acne and PIH most commonly co-occur. Aerolase wins decisively for acne in 2026.
Rosacea / Persistent Redness
IPL with appropriate filters reduces diffuse redness on Fitzpatrick I–III. Aerolase reduces redness and deeper vessels safely across I–VI. For mixed populations, Aerolase. For very fair patients with diffuse cheek redness only and no darker risk factors, IPL is reasonable.
Hair Removal
This is the one major category where the comparison flips. IPL hair removal works well on Fitzpatrick I–III with dark hair. For Fitzpatrick IV–VI, only Nd:YAG-based lasers (including Aerolase) are safe. For very fair skin with very dark hair, dedicated diode or Alexandrite lasers usually outperform IPL on results — but IPL home devices can be a low-cost adequate option for maintenance.
Post-Inflammatory Hyperpigmentation
IPL frequently worsens PIH. Aerolase is the appropriate tool. Not close.
Vascular Lesions (Telangiectasia, Cherry Angiomas)
IPL handles surface vessels on fair skin. Aerolase handles surface and deeper vessels across all Fitzpatrick types. For darker skin or deeper lesions, Aerolase.
Downtime, Pain, Anaesthetic
| Factor | IPL | Aerolase Neo |
|---|---|---|
| Pain level (1–10) | 4–6 (snapping, hot) | 2–4 (warm taps) |
| Anaesthetic required | Sometimes topical | None |
| Visible redness | 30 min – 24 hr | 0–60 min |
| Scabbing on treated spots | 5–7 days (sun spots) | None |
| Makeup same day | Usually no | Yes |
| Return to work | Same day with concealer | Immediately |
| Sun exposure restriction post-treatment | 4–6 weeks strict | 2 weeks SPF 50 |
Cost in Toronto (2026)
| Treatment | IPL Toronto Range | Aerolase Toronto Range | Bar Beauty Aerolase |
|---|---|---|---|
| Single session (full face) | $200–$375 | $275–$425 | $275–$285 |
| Package of 4 | $700–$1,300 | $1,000–$1,600 | $895–$995 |
| Package of 6 | $1,100–$1,900 | $1,500–$2,400 | $1,295–$1,395 |
| Sessions typically needed | 3–6 | 4–6 | 4–6 |
| Risk-adjusted cost (Fitzpatrick IV–VI) | Damages + corrective sessions | Listed price | Listed price |
IPL appears cheaper. For Fitzpatrick I–II patients with sun spots only, it usually is. For everyone else, the real cost of IPL includes risk-adjusted PIH correction — which can cost more than the original treatment.
Aerolase vs IPL: 5 Patient Examples
Patient 1: Fitzpatrick II, sun spots, age 47
Discrete brown spots on cheeks and decolletage. Did 2 IPL sessions at a competitor ($350 × 2 = $700) with 7 days of scabbing per session. Result: cleared. IPL was the right call here.
Patient 2: Fitzpatrick V, melasma, age 34
Two IPL sessions at a spa worsened her melasma noticeably. Re-treated at Bar Beauty with Aerolase package of 6 ($1,395). Returned to baseline + 60% improvement beyond baseline. Aerolase total: $1,395; previous IPL spend: $580 wasted.
Patient 3: Fitzpatrick IV, active acne + PIH, age 22
IPL never recommended — surrounding skin pigment too high risk. Aerolase package of 6 ($1,295) cleared active acne and PIH. IPL was not an option to compare.
Patient 4: Fitzpatrick I, rosacea, age 41
Tried IPL ($1,400 across 4 sessions); reduced redness but flares continued. Switched to Aerolase package of 6 ($1,395) which targeted deeper vessels she had. Result better than IPL.
Patient 5: Fitzpatrick III, mixed sun damage + vascular, age 38
Did Aerolase package of 6 ($1,395) at Bar Beauty handling both pigment and vessels in one device. Comparable IPL course would have required two filter cartridges and ~$1,800. Aerolase total: $1,395.
The Hidden Cost of IPL on the Wrong Skin Type
When IPL is misapplied to Fitzpatrick IV–VI patients, the visible consequences are: hypopigmented “ghost spots” where the device fired on pigment; PIH that takes 6–18 months to fade; persistent darkening of treated patches. Correction typically requires Aerolase or fractional non-ablative laser, topical cysteamine, and strict SPF for 12+ months. We see 1–2 of these patients per month. The original IPL spend ($600–$1,400) plus correction ($1,200–$2,500) makes the “cheaper” option more expensive than starting with Aerolase.
When IPL Still Makes Sense
To be fair: IPL is the right call when all of the following are true:
- Fitzpatrick I–II only, no tan, no melasma history
- Discrete, well-defined sun spots (not melasma, not PIH)
- You can take 5–7 days of scabbing
- You want fewer sessions and faster clearance
- You are comfortable with the device operator confirming there’s no UV exposure planned for 4–6 weeks
For literally any other profile, Aerolase is the better tool in 2026.
Aerolase Across the GTA
Bar Beauty Medical’s CityPlace location serves patients from Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton, Vaughan, Markham, Richmond Hill, Oakville, and Etobicoke.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Aerolase basically the same as IPL?
No. They are fundamentally different devices. IPL is broadband surface light unsafe on darker skin. Aerolase is single-wavelength 1064 nm safe across all Fitzpatrick types.
Which is more painful, IPL or Aerolase?
IPL is more painful. Patients describe IPL as a hot rubber-band snap; Aerolase as a quick warm tap. Aerolase requires no anaesthetic; some IPL sessions do.
Which has more downtime?
IPL has 1–7 days depending on indication. Aerolase has none.
Which is safer on dark skin?
Aerolase, decisively. IPL is not advised on Fitzpatrick IV and not safe on V–VI.
Which works on melasma?
Aerolase. IPL often worsens melasma.
Which is cheaper?
Per session, IPL is cheaper. After accounting for damages and corrections on darker skin types, Aerolase is cheaper for most patients.
Can I switch from IPL to Aerolase?
Yes — and many of our patients do, after a bad IPL experience. We start conservatively.
How many sessions do I need with each?
IPL: 3–6 depending on indication. Aerolase: 4–6 for most indications, 6–8 for melasma.
Can I get IPL at Bar Beauty?
We do not operate IPL devices at Bar Beauty Medical — in 2024 we transitioned to Aerolase exclusively because our patient population skews Fitzpatrick III–VI and the safety case for IPL is too narrow.
What if my last clinic told me IPL was safe for me but I’m Fitzpatrick IV?
Get a second opinion. The standard of care for Fitzpatrick IV-VI is Nd:YAG-based devices like Aerolase, not IPL.
Book a Free Consultation
Free 20-minute consult including Fitzpatrick mapping, indication assessment, and an honest device recommendation. Book at barbeauty.ca/book or call (416) 366-0000.
{“@context”:”https://schema.org”,”@graph”:[
{“@type”:”Article”,”headline”:”Aerolase vs IPL: The Honest 2026 Comparison (Wavelength, Safety, Cost, Downtime)”,”datePublished”:”2026-05-20″,”dateModified”:”2026-05-20″,”author”:{“@type”:”Person”,”name”:”Jasmine Saggu, RN”},”publisher”:{“@type”:”Organization”,”name”:”Bar Beauty Medical”,”logo”:{“@type”:”ImageObject”,”url”:”https://barbeauty.ca/logo.png”}},”mainEntityOfPage”:”https://barbeauty.ca/aerolase-vs-ipl-comparison/”},
{“@type”:”MedicalProcedure”,”name”:”Aerolase vs IPL Comparison”,”procedureType”:”https://schema.org/TherapeuticProcedure”,”bodyLocation”:”Face, body”,”indication”:{“@type”:”MedicalCondition”,”name”:”Hyperpigmentation, melasma, acne, rosacea, vascular lesions”},”howPerformed”:”Comparison of 1064nm Nd:YAG vs broadband Intense Pulsed Light”},
{“@type”:”Service”,”serviceType”:”Aerolase Treatment”,”provider”:{“@type”:”Physician”,”name”:”Bar Beauty Medical”,”address”:{“@type”:”PostalAddress”,”streetAddress”:”46 Fort York Blvd”,”addressLocality”:”Toronto”,”addressRegion”:”ON”,”postalCode”:”M5V 0E5″,”addressCountry”:”CA”},”telephone”:”+1-416-366-0000″},”areaServed”:[{“@type”:”City”,”name”:”Toronto”},{“@type”:”City”,”name”:”Mississauga”},{“@type”:”City”,”name”:”Brampton”},{“@type”:”City”,”name”:”Vaughan”},{“@type”:”City”,”name”:”Markham”},{“@type”:”City”,”name”:”Richmond Hill”},{“@type”:”City”,”name”:”Oakville”},{“@type”:”City”,”name”:”Etobicoke”}],”offers”:{“@type”:”AggregateOffer”,”priceCurrency”:”CAD”,”lowPrice”:”275″,”highPrice”:”1395″,”offerCount”:”4″}},
{“@type”:”Physician”,”name”:”Bar Beauty Medical”,”medicalSpecialty”:”Dermatology”,”address”:{“@type”:”PostalAddress”,”streetAddress”:”46 Fort York Blvd”,”addressLocality”:”Toronto”,”addressRegion”:”ON”,”postalCode”:”M5V 0E5″,”addressCountry”:”CA”},”telephone”:”+1-416-366-0000″,”aggregateRating”:{“@type”:”AggregateRating”,”ratingValue”:”5.0″,”reviewCount”:”166″}},
{“@type”:”BreadcrumbList”,”itemListElement”:[{“@type”:”ListItem”,”position”:1,”name”:”Home”,”item”:”https://barbeauty.ca/”},{“@type”:”ListItem”,”position”:2,”name”:”Aerolase vs IPL Comparison”,”item”:”https://barbeauty.ca/aerolase-vs-ipl-comparison/”}]},
{“@type”:”FAQPage”,”mainEntity”:[
{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Is Aerolase the same as IPL?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”No. IPL is broadband surface light unsafe on darker skin. Aerolase is single-wavelength 1064nm safe across all Fitzpatrick types.”}},
{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Which is more painful, IPL or Aerolase?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”IPL is more painful. Aerolase requires no anaesthetic.”}},
{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Which has more downtime?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”IPL: 1-7 days. Aerolase: none.”}},
{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Which is safer on dark skin?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”Aerolase, decisively. IPL is not safe on Fitzpatrick V-VI.”}},
{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Which works on melasma?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”Aerolase. IPL often worsens melasma.”}},
{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Which is cheaper?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”Per session, IPL is cheaper. After accounting for risk-corrected costs on darker skin, Aerolase is cheaper overall.”}},
{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Can I switch from IPL to Aerolase?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”Yes. We start conservatively after a bad IPL experience.”}}
]}
]}