Similar in Mechanism, Different in Use: Comparing Dualtetra and Estella (+ Gel Review)

In the previous post, I categorized home beauty devices into three groups and placed the cross-ultrasound devices in the same one. So in this post, I compared the two devices in more detail. Because both devices are ultrasound-based, the differences aren’t dramatic. But in actual use, I felt clear differences in their performance and overall experience, so I wanted to talk about them here.

The major differences between these two cross-ultrasound devices can be grouped into three areas. First, the method by which the cross-ultrasound is emitted from the device’s head. Typically, cross-ultrasound devices output their ultrasound in what’s widely known as the ‘water-drop’ pattern. If you drop a little water on the head of the device, you can clearly see the familiar water-drop ripple forming at the center, which shows where the ultrasound is being concentrated. Dualtetra functions through this fundamental cross-ultrasound mechanism. By contrast, Estella works a bit differently from Dualtetra. The waves aren’t concentrated in the center—instead, they appear across the entire head.

The second difference is the ultrasound frequency each device uses. Dualtetra, for example, uses four frequencies: 3, 10, 19, and 25 MHz. Given that higher ultrasound frequencies tend to affect only the more superficial skin layers, we can assume that this device is also designed to target relatively shallow depths. On the other hand, Estella choose much lower frequencies: 1,3,5,7,10Mhz. It appears to be designed with lower ultrasound frequencies to target deeper skin layers. While both devices operate at 3 and 10 MHz, they differ in the remaining frequencies. This difference is what led me to purchase Dualtetra first and subsequently Estella.

The third and final difference is in the variety of modes and the mechanisms each device offers. While I categorized Dualtetra as a cross-ultrasound device, it is not limited to ultrasound alone, as its name implies. It also provides pulse wave and LED functions on the opposite head. However, due to the mild tingling sensation I experienced during use, I discontinued using that side after the first few attempts. That said, if you prefer having multiple functions in a single device rather than using several separate ones, Dualtetra might be the right choice for you.

In summary, Dualtetra is equipped with eight modes: four E-shot modes (pulse wave + LED) and four U-shot modes (ultrasound). Unfortunately, because of the issue I mentioned earlier, I only use the four U-shot modes. Each U-shot mode uses a different type of cross ultrasound, depending on the setting. You can customize it by adjusting the ultrasound frequency and intensity. Since the manual explains when each mode should be used, you can combine and select the modes according to your skin condition.

By contrast, Estella focuses exclusively on ultrasound and offers a wide range of frequency options. There are nine modes in total, but unfortunately, the manual does not explain which ultrasound frequencies are combined in each mode. Still, Estella gives a general idea of when to use each mode through the mode names, so referring to the manual is enough to use it properly. One of the most notable differences from Dualtetra is that Estella allows you to adjust the intensity across five levels and explicitly states that its modes are designed for more than just facial use. To sum up, while Dualtetra offers only three intensity levels, Estella provides more finely graded control, allowing for more precise adjustment across different body areas.

Overall, the differences between the two devices can be categorized into three main points. However, given that both devices rely on a similar mechanism, it is difficult to determine which one performs better. That said, because the criteria for choosing between the two can differ depending on the intended use, I chose to focus on outlining the characteristics of each device rather than ranking them. From here on, moving beyond the straightforward comparison so far, I’d like to focus on the device I found myself using more often and my overall experience with it. Before moving on, it’s worth noting again that both devices use the same cross-ultrasound mechanism. As a non-expert, a fully professional comparison is difficult, so I’ll be focusing on my personal usage experience instead. With that in mind, what follows is based on my personal experience using the devices, rather than a professional or technical analysis.

I generally use the two devices interchangeably, as each offers a slightly different user experience. As noted before, the two devices operate on a similar mechanism, so the differences aren’t dramatic. Still, there are subtle differences you can feel in actual use, and I’ll focus on two key aspects. First, when using the devices, the frequency of the characteristic “beep” sound typical of ultrasound devices feels different. Personally, I found the “beep” sound typical of ultrasound devices to be the most uncomfortable part of using them. Dualtetra, in particular, was hard to get used to at first because of this. To elaborate further, because cross-ultrasound devices are usually used for sessions of ten minutes or longer, the audible feedback can feel uncomfortable at first. While I’ve personally grown used to it over time, those who are particularly sensitive to sound may still find this aspect distracting, making Dualtetra a less ideal choice for them.

Second, despite their similar mechanisms, the two devices differ in terms of how their effects are perceived during use. When using Dualtetra, I personally felt clearer effects in terms of skin calming and recovery. As noted earlier, its ultrasound seems to be more concentrated at the center, which may explain this difference. In contrast, Estella appeared to be more suitable for overall skin and scalp care, which may be attributed to its wider and more evenly distributed ultrasound output across the head. Compared to Dualtetra, Estella felt a bit smoother overall. This could be due to its output across the head. It’s also possible that some of these differences are influenced by the intensity settings. However, since the two devices use different intensity scales, a direct comparison isn’t easy, but I tried to balance this by using Dualtetra mainly at levels 1 or 2, and Estella at levels 1 or 3. In summary, Dualtetra is more appropriate for intensive, localized treatment, whereas Estella is better suited for general, all-over use.

+Gel Review

As a side note, since both devices are cross-ultrasound devices, they each included a gel as a complimentary item. In the case of Dualtetra, the gel has a more liquid consistency and comes in a container with a flip-top lid. Estella, on the other hand, provides a thicker gel packaged in a pump bottle. Because I usually apply the gel while moving the device and need to reapply it intermittently during use, I personally found Dualtetra’s gel to be rather inconvenient. Of course, gel preference can vary depending on what one prioritizes, but even from a usability standpoint, Estella’s gel felt easier to work with overall. Dualtetra’s gel, being more fluid, does spread more easily on the skin. However, since my usual method is to apply the gel to the device head first and then place it onto the skin, the gel tended to run down the device frequently, which became bothersome over time. In contrast, Estella’s gel is thicker and does not liquefy too quickly after being placed on the device head, allowing for smoother use without that inconvenience. That said, once applied to the skin, the performance of both gels felt quite similar. For this reason, choosing between the two ultimately comes down to personal preference rather than a clear difference in performance.

Personally, cross-ultrasound devices have been the most satisfying beauty devices I’ve used so far, which is why I wanted to take the time to compare these two products in greater detail. Of course, they cannot fully replace professional treatments performed in a clinic. However, when used consistently over a long period, the difference between before and after care is noticeable enough to make them worthwhile. For anyone considering investing in a beauty device, I would strongly recommend looking into cross-ultrasound devices. As mentioned in a previous post, there are certainly more affordable options available, and it is not strictly necessary to choose a high-end model like the ones discussed here. Still, I hope this review serves as a helpful reference for those interested in purchasing a cross-ultrasound device, and with that, I’ll wrap up this post.