Written and medically reviewed by Dr. Kamen Ng. Last reviewed 2026-09-12. 11 min read
Two devices from the same manufacturer, built for different jobs
A detail that rarely reaches patients: Ultraformer and Volnewmer are made by the same company. Both are Classys devices, developed in Seoul, and they were not designed to compete with one another.
That matters because the usual framing of energy-based treatment is a contest. Which machine is best. Which technology wins. It is the wrong question, and it is a question generated by marketing rather than by physics.
The useful question is which layer of your face has changed, and what deposits heat there.
What focused ultrasound actually does
Ultraformer MPT uses micro-focused ultrasound. The energy is converged, in the way a magnifying glass converges sunlight, so that it passes harmlessly through the surface and concentrates at a set depth beneath it.
At that focal point the tissue reaches coagulation temperature in a space smaller than a grain of rice. The surrounding tissue is unaffected. Those discrete points then contract and, over the following months, lay down new collagen as they heal.
Its distinguishing feature is depth. At its deepest setting the focus reaches the superficial musculoaponeurotic system, the fibromuscular layer a surgeon lifts during a facelift. Nothing else in non-surgical practice reaches it without a needle passing under the skin.
Its limitation follows from the same property. The energy is focal: precise points, with untreated tissue between them. That is exactly what you want for deep structural tightening. It is not what you want for improving the quality of the skin sitting on top.
What monopolar radiofrequency actually does
Volnewmer works on an entirely different principle. It passes a high-frequency current, 6.78 MHz, through the tissue from a single electrode. The tissue's own resistance to that current generates heat.
That heat is not focal. It builds through a volume of tissue, from the papillary dermis down through the reticular dermis, warming the collagen network fairly evenly rather than at scattered points.
Its distinguishing feature is coverage. Where ultrasound treats points, RF treats a field. The whole dermal scaffold within the treated area is heated, which suits a problem of overall skin quality rather than a problem of deep descent.
Two engineering details are worth knowing. The tip runs continuous contact water cooling, which protects the epidermis while the layers beneath are heated, and it is what allows treatment without anaesthetic and near delicate areas. And real-time impedance monitoring reads the skin's resistance and adjusts output shot by shot, which matters because skin density varies across a single face.
The device received FDA clearance in April 2024, and is registered with the Medical Device Authority in Malaysia. You can confirm that yourself on the MDA register by searching the device name, and we would encourage it rather than taking our word for it.
Why the combination, in one sentence
One treats the scaffold. The other treats the envelope sitting on it.
Consider what actually changes in a face over time. The deep support loosens and descends. Separately, the dermis thins, loses collagen density and reflects light less well.
Those are two different problems in two different layers, and they progress independently. Someone can have significant deep laxity with reasonable skin quality, or excellent underlying support with a thin, crepey envelope, or both at once.
Treat only the deep layer and you can end up with a better-supported structure under skin that still looks tired. Treat only the dermis and the skin improves while the descent that bothered you remains. Neither outcome is a failure of the device. It is a mismatch between what was treated and what had changed.
This is the same argument set out in our method: identify which layer has changed before choosing the tool, rather than choosing the tool and hoping it fits.
Side by side
| Ultraformer MPT | Volnewmer | |
|---|---|---|
| Energy | Micro-focused ultrasound | Monopolar radiofrequency, 6.78 MHz |
| Heat pattern | Focal points at set depths | Volumetric, across a field |
| Reaches | Dermis through to the SMAS | Papillary through reticular dermis |
| Best for | Deep laxity and descent | Skin quality, density and surface tightening |
| Surface protection | Energy passes through unfocused | Continuous contact water cooling |
| Comfort | Brief deep heat per line | Tolerated without anaesthetic in published work |
| Result appears | Three to six months | Peak at one to two months |
| Downtime | None | Redness and swelling, settling within about a week |
What the evidence actually says, and what it does not
We would rather quote the research accurately than flatter it.
The most directly relevant published work on the monopolar RF device is a study of 50 patients receiving a single full-face session without anaesthetic. Around 82 per cent reported satisfaction. Improvement was reported in skin laxity in roughly 53 per cent, texture in around 18 per cent and tone in around 12 per cent. Peak effect was noted between one and two months. Side effects were redness and swelling, resolving within a week.
Now the honest reading of that. Fifty patients is a small study. A single session is not a course. Satisfaction is a patient-reported measure rather than an objective one, and studies of new devices are frequently conducted by clinicians with an interest in them. The results are encouraging and they are not proof of superiority over anything else.
What they do support is that the treatment is tolerable without anaesthetic, that the effect appears within a couple of months, and that side effects are mild and short-lived. That is genuinely useful information for planning. It is not a claim that anyone will get a particular result.
Who this suits, and who it does not
The combination suits someone with both deep laxity and declining skin quality, which is the common picture from the mid-forties onward. It also suits someone who wants gradual, unremarkable change rather than a visible event.
A single modality suits someone where only one layer has changed. Early laxity with good skin quality points to the ultrasound alone. Good underlying support with a thinning envelope points to the RF alone.
Neither suits a face whose problem is volume loss rather than laxity. Tightening a deflated face makes it look tighter and no younger, and that is a different treatment entirely.
And neither replaces surgery. Where there is heavy laxity with genuine skin redundancy, the ceiling of non-surgical work sits below what surgery achieves, and no combination of sessions closes that gap. We say so at the consultation rather than after a course.
Planning and expectations
Both work on the same slow timescale. Collagen remodelling takes months, which is why neither shows much on the day and why a plan is judged at six months rather than six weeks.
Sequencing is decided at assessment, not from a protocol. Sometimes both in one visit, sometimes separated so the response to each can be read.
Neither is permanent, because ageing continues. Both are typically repeated annually.
And combining is not automatically better. It is better when both layers have changed. Where only one has, the second treatment is money spent on something you did not need, and we will tell you that rather than sell it.
How this is priced here. We do not sell the radiofrequency component as a standalone item on a menu. It is selected as part of a planned course of non-surgical lifting and contouring, priced for the plan rather than per device, because which layers need treating is a clinical decision rather than a product you pick. That approach is set out in the Hybrid Method.
On devices and verification
You are welcome to ask which device is being used on you, at what setting, and to see the handpiece. We would prefer that you did.
Counterfeit and refilled cartridges are a real problem in this category, and the ask that protects you is simple: request the device name and its registration, then check it yourself on the Medical Device Authority register, which is public and searchable by device name. Both devices described here are on it. A clinic that hesitates at that question has told you something.
Our article on verifying a lifting device sets out how to do that check, and our comparison of the four tightening options covers where threads and RF microneedling fit alongside these two.
Frequently asked questions
They deposit heat differently. Focused ultrasound converges energy at set depths, creating small discrete points of thermal coagulation, and at its deepest setting it reaches the SMAS, the fibromuscular layer a surgeon lifts. Monopolar radiofrequency passes current through tissue and heats a broad volume of the dermis fairly evenly. One is focal and deep, the other is volumetric and dermal.
Because they address different layers. If your deep scaffold has loosened and your skin quality has also declined, treating only one leaves the other unchanged. That is a common reason people feel a single treatment underdelivered: it worked on the layer it was designed for, and the layer that was also contributing was never addressed.
No, and we would be cautious of anyone saying so. Combining is appropriate when the assessment shows both the deep support and the skin envelope have changed. Where only one has, treating both is spending money on something you did not need.
Neither device produces its result on the day. Collagen remodelling is slow. Published data on the monopolar RF device reports peak effect between one and two months after a session, and the ultrasound component continues developing over three to six months. Assessment at six months is when a plan is properly judged.
The ultrasound component is felt as brief deep heat at each line of treatment and is uncomfortable rather than painful. The monopolar RF device uses continuous contact cooling and vibration, and in the published work was tolerated without anaesthetic. Redness and some swelling are usual and settle within about a week. Neither requires time away from work.
Sequencing is a clinical decision made at assessment, not a fixed protocol. Sometimes both are done in one visit, sometimes they are separated so the response to each can be judged. What matters more than the order is that both were indicated in the first place.
Neither is permanent, because ageing continues. Published reports for monopolar RF describe effects lasting from around six to twelve months or longer depending on the individual, and ultrasound lifting broadly similar. Both are typically repeated annually rather than continuously.
No. We do not sell it as a standalone item. It is selected as part of a planned course of non-surgical lifting and contouring and priced for the plan rather than per device, because which layers need treating is a clinical decision made after assessment rather than a product chosen from a list.
No. A facelift repositions tissue and removes redundant skin. Neither of these does either. They tighten and stimulate collagen in tissue that stays where it is, and the ceiling of that sits below surgery. Where surgery is the honest answer, we say so and refer.
This article is general information and does not replace individual assessment. Both treatments carry risks including redness, swelling and, uncommonly, burns or nerve irritation. Suitability is determined at individual consultation. Published study figures quoted are from a single small study and describe that study population rather than any expected result. Outcomes vary between individuals and no result can be guaranteed. Devices used are registered with the Medical Device Authority.