PlatinumLED BioMax Review: Prices, Tested Output and FDA Status

We have no paid relationship with PlatinumLED today. The buttons on this page go through a MoveWell link so we can count clicks.

Last verified November 1, 2026. Prices and specs were checked on platinumtherapylights.com that day. FDA status comes from FDA's GUDID database. We haven't measured this device ourselves.

Verdict

Verdict: The BIOMAX has the widest wavelength list of the big brands and a 3-year warranty. But its product page gives no mW/cm² figures in text, and a 2024 conference test measured the BIOMAX 300 below its advertised irradiance. It's an exempt heating-lamp listing, not an FDA-cleared device. If measured output matters most to you, Mito Red Light publishes more.

Who it's for and who it isn't

• For: people who want blue (480 nm) and 1060 nm in the same panel as standard red and near-infrared.
• For: buyers who value a long warranty and a published lifespan rating.
• Not for: anyone who wants to calculate a dose from a published, independently measured irradiance.
• Not for: fat loss. No good evidence supports claims that 1060 nm "burns fat"; see our myths section.

Prices (checked November 1, 2026)

Model	Price	LEDs	Power	Size (in)
BIOMAX 300	$659	100	180 W	18.9 × 8.7
BIOMAX 450	$799	150	260 W	19.7 × 11.8
BIOMAX 600	$1,049	200	350 W	35.0 × 8.7
BIOMAX 900	$1,299	300	380/490 W	35.8 × 11.8

All BIOMAX models have a 3-year warranty and a rated LED life of 100,000 hours.

Verified specs and output

• Wavelengths: PlatinumLED says seven. Its comparison table names 480, 630, 660, 810, 830 and 1060 nm, and the FAQ adds 850 nm¹.
• Claimed irradiance: no mW/cm² figure in the page text. Intensity appears only in chart images, with linked test PDFs¹.
• Measured irradiance: a 2024 conference paper that tested seven devices by spectroradiometry found the BIOMAX 300 below its advertised irradiance. The summary we found gives no figures, and the paper isn't peer reviewed³.
• Other measurements: Light Therapy Insiders measured the older BIO 300 (a different model) at 59 mW/cm² average and 86 peak at 6 inches, with red peaking at 658 nm and blue at 466 nm against a claimed 480; it doesn't name its instrument⁴. We don't apply those figures to the BIOMAX.
• Treatment area: the panel face (see sizes above). PlatinumLED suggests 8 to 14 inches for deep tissue and 16 to 24 inches for the face, 10 to 20 minutes per area.
• EMF: PlatinumLED states 0.0 µT at 4 inches; we haven't seen a test report.

FDA status

FDA's GUDID database lists the BIOMAX 300 under product code ILY, "Lamp, Infrared, Therapeutic Heating", exempt from premarket submission, with no 510(k) number². Infrared heating lamps are Class II but exempt from review⁵. PlatinumLED describes every BIOMAX as "an FDA Class II medical device made in an FDA-registered facility", while the same page calls them "low-risk, general wellness / fitness products". Neither means FDA cleared the device for any condition.

What the evidence supports

Panels are mostly bought for recovery, pain and skin. The trials behind those uses mostly didn't use panels. Knee osteoarthritis (grade B): a meta-analysis of 22 placebo-controlled trials found pain fell 18.7 mm more than placebo on a 100 mm scale at recommended doses, but those were clinic lasers delivering 4 to 8 J per spot on the skin⁶. Muscle performance and recovery (grade B−): most of 15 small trials found a benefit, mainly with clinic lasers or LED clusters on the muscle before exercise⁷. Wrinkles (grade B): a controlled trial found improvement at about 9 J/cm² twice a week with 611 to 650 nm red light⁸, but no panel we know of is FDA-cleared for wrinkles. Sleep and fat loss evidence is weak. Our evidence map grades each use and links the studies.

On the extra wavelengths: blue light has been studied for acne, but a meta-analysis of 14 trials found no significant pooled benefit⁹. We found no good trials of 1060 nm from a home panel.

Pros and cons

Pros

• Widest wavelength list of the three big panel brands.
• 3-year warranty.
• Test PDFs linked from the product page, though the links we saw were mismatched (BIOMAX PRO reports under BIOMAX headings).

Cons

• No mW/cm² in text. You can't work out a dose from the product page.
• Measured below advertised in a 2024 conference test (BIOMAX 300).
• Mixed regulatory wording. "Class II" and "general wellness" on the same page.
• Eye protection needed.

Alternatives

• Mito Red Light: accredited lab measurements and lower prices.
• Joovv: more polished and modular, no published output.
• Bon Charge: similar red and near-infrared panels plus a mask, shorter warranty.

See our Joovv vs Mito Red vs PlatinumLED comparison for all three side by side.

FAQ

Is PlatinumLED FDA-cleared?

No. The BIOMAX 300 is listed as an exempt infrared heating lamp (ILY) with no K number. "FDA-registered" refers to the facility, not a review of the device.

Does PlatinumLED publish irradiance?

Not in its product page text. Ask PlatinumLED for the report for your exact model, with the distance, whether the figure is average or peak, and the instrument used.

Which BIOMAX should I buy?

The 300 and 450 treat one area at a time; the 600 and 900 are tall enough for most of the body. Size matters more than wavelength count.

References

1. PlatinumLED. BIOMAX series product page: prices, wavelengths, specs and FDA wording. Checked 1 November 2026. Source
2. FDA GUDID device record: Platinum LED Therapy Lights BIOMAX300, product code ILY, exempt from premarket submission. Source
3. Light Therapy Insiders. Summary of an MHSRS 2024 conference paper that tested seven photobiomodulation devices by spectroradiometry (not peer reviewed). Source
4. Light Therapy Insiders. PlatinumLED BIO 300 review, with spectrometer readings (instrument not named). 7 February 2025. Source
5. 21 CFR 890.5500, Infrared lamp: Class II, exempt from premarket notification when it is an infrared therapeutic heating lamp. Source
6. Stausholm MB, et al. Efficacy of low-level laser therapy on pain and disability in knee osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials. BMJ Open, 2019;9(10). Source
7. Oliveira ACAS, et al. Does photobiomodulation improve muscle performance and recovery? A systematic review. Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte, 2023;29. Source
8. Wunsch A, Matuschka K. A controlled trial to determine the efficacy of red and near-infrared light treatment in patient satisfaction, reduction of fine lines, wrinkles, skin roughness, and intradermal collagen density increase. Photomedicine and Laser Surgery, 2014;32(2):93-100. Source
9. Scott AM, et al. Blue-light therapy for acne vulgaris: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Family Medicine, 2019;17(6):545-553. Source