Head to head · August 31, 2026
EMR-TEK Firewave vs AWA FX500
The FX500 is the cheaper of the two at $269.99, so it wins on value if the specs are close enough for your use. The Firewave covers more wavelengths, though the extra bands have thinner research behind them than 660nm and 850nm.
DISCLOSURE — we earn commission on purchases made through our links, at no extra cost to you. Rankings come from specifications and measurements, never from commission rates.
| Spec | Firewave | FX500 |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $312.49 | $269.99 |
| Wavelengths | 630nm · 670nm · 830nm | 660nm · 850nm |
| Emitters | 12 | 60 |
| Irradiance | EMR-TEK attributes 138.39 mW/cm2 at 6 in to Light Labs International, but publishes the identical figure for both the compact Firewave and the far larger Inferno, which cannot describe both. We have not seen the report, so this is recorded as the brand's claim rather than a verified measurement. | Brand headline is 220 mW/cm2 at 2 in, a distance nobody treats at. AWA's own blog gives 94 mW/cm2 at the conventional 6 in, less than half the marketing figure |
| Coverage | Compact panel, 60 degree beam | 298 x 182 x 60 mm; claimed spread about 15 x 14 in |
| FDA status | unknown | unknown |
| Warranty | 2 yr | 2 yr |
| Returns | 30 days | 60 days |
Firewave
One of the few brands citing a named testing lab, but the same number appears on a wildly different model, so treat the figure as per-module rather than panel-level.
FX500
Genuinely cheap and honest about power draw, but the irradiance headline is measured at a distance nobody uses. Judge it on the 94 mW/cm2 figure instead.