Dyson Airwrap Vs Shark Flexstyle Is The Price Gap Justified By The Results

The world of at-home hairstyling tools has evolved dramatically in recent years. What was once limited to flat irons and curling wands now includes multi-functional systems that dry, smooth, curl, and volumize—all in one device. Two of the most talked-about models are the Dyson Airwrap and the Shark FlexStyle. While both promise salon-quality results with minimal heat damage, their prices couldn’t be more different. The Dyson Airwrap retails for around $599, while the Shark FlexStyle comes in at approximately $249—less than half the cost. So, is the steep price difference truly justified by the results, or can you achieve comparable outcomes with a more budget-friendly option?

This isn’t just about branding or aesthetics—it’s about performance, durability, user experience, and long-term value. To answer this question fairly, we’ll compare both devices across key categories: technology, attachments, ease of use, results on different hair types, noise level, portability, and longevity.

Core Technology: How Do They Work?

Both the Dyson Airwrap and Shark FlexStyle rely on Coanda airflow technology—a principle where air flows along a surface rather than blowing directly onto it. This allows the tools to wrap hair around barrels automatically, reducing the need for manual manipulation and minimizing direct heat exposure.

Dyson pioneered this technology and holds several patents related to its implementation. Their digital motor V9 spins at up to 110,000 RPM, creating high-pressure airflow that powers the Coanda effect efficiently. The Airwrap uses intelligent heat control with a glass bead thermistor that measures temperature over 40 times per second, adjusting output to prevent extreme heat spikes.

Shark, traditionally known for vacuums, entered the beauty space with FlexStyle as a direct competitor. It also employs Coanda-inspired airflow but uses a slightly different motor configuration. Independent tests show the Shark motor operates at lower suction pressure compared to Dyson, which may affect how consistently it pulls in shorter or finer strands.

“Dyson’s investment in aerodynamic engineering gives them an edge in airflow precision. Shark replicated the concept well, but there’s a noticeable difference in consistency, especially on fine or layered hair.” — Dr. Lena Torres, Hair Tool Engineer & Cosmetic Tech Analyst

While Shark markets its system as “Coanda-effect styling,” experts note it’s more accurately described as a hybrid between traditional ionic drying and partial air wrapping. In practice, users often need to assist the tool manually, particularly when curling shorter sections near the crown or nape.

Attachment Comparison and Versatility

One of the biggest selling points of both systems is their versatility. Each comes with multiple attachments designed for specific styling goals. Let’s break down what each offers:

Attachment	Dyson Airwrap (Complete Set)	Shark FlexStyle (Complete System)
Smoothing Brush	Yes – Soft + Firm bristles (2)	Yes – One dual-sided brush
Volumizing Brush	Yes – Root-lifting design	No
Round Curler Barrels	Two sizes: 1.2” and 1.6” (left + right)	One interchangeable barrel with dual directions
Pre-styling Dryer	Yes – Wide-toothed attachment	Yes – Concentrator nozzle
Total Attachments	7 (including storage case)	5
Magnetic Attachment System	Yes – Secure snap-on	Yes – But slightly looser fit

The Dyson system provides more specialized tools, including separate firm and soft smoothing brushes ideal for taming frizz or adding shine depending on hair texture. The absence of a dedicated volumizing brush on the Shark limits its ability to lift roots effectively without additional backcombing.

Additionally, Dyson includes both left- and right-handed curlers in two sizes, allowing for tighter ringlets or loose waves with natural directionality. Shark uses a single rotating barrel that changes direction via a switch—convenient, but less intuitive for beginners trying to maintain consistent curl patterns.

Tip: If you have shoulder-length or longer hair, having dual-direction curlers (like on the Dyson) makes styling symmetrical curls significantly easier.

Performance Across Hair Types

No tool performs equally across all textures. Real-world testing reveals important distinctions between how the Dyson Airwrap and Shark FlexStyle handle various hair types.

• Fine, straight hair: Both tools work well, but the Dyson excels at adding volume without weighing hair down. Its precise airflow prevents flattening during styling.
• Medium, wavy hair: The Shark produces acceptable results, though some users report needing to re-curl sections due to incomplete wrapping. Dyson delivers smoother, longer-lasting definition.
• Thick, curly hair: Here, the Dyson’s stronger motor shows its advantage. It dries and shapes dense hair faster, reducing overall styling time by nearly 30% in side-by-side trials.
• Short bobs or pixie cuts: The Shark’s smaller barrel diameter and lighter weight make it slightly easier to maneuver in tight areas, though Dyson’s compact design still allows good access.

In blind tests conducted with professional stylists, 7 out of 10 preferred the Dyson for achieving polished, red-carpet-ready finishes. The Shark was praised for being “surprisingly capable” given its price, but fell short in holding curls under humid conditions after 6 hours.

Real User Example: Sarah’s Transition from Dyson to Shark

Sarah M., a freelance graphic designer with thick, wavy hair, used her Dyson Airwrap daily for two years before switching to the Shark FlexStyle to save money during a relocation. She found the Shark took nearly twice as long to style her hair, required more hand-guiding during curling, and produced flatter results by midday. After six weeks, she resold the Shark and repurchased a refurbished Dyson.

“I wanted to believe the Shark was ‘good enough,’” she said. “And technically, it works. But if I’m spending 45 minutes every morning, I want my hair to look *effortless*—not like I fought with a tool. The Dyson just glides. That smoothness is worth the extra cost to me.”

Usability, Noise, and Long-Term Design

Beyond raw performance, everyday usability plays a major role in whether a device earns its keep.

Ergonomics: The Dyson Airwrap feels more balanced in hand, with a slightly forward-weighted design that aids control during brushing. The Shark FlexStyle is lighter overall (1.2 lbs vs. 1.5 lbs), which some users appreciate, but the lighter build can feel less substantial during prolonged use.

Noise Level: Decibel measurements show the Dyson operates at about 85 dB—noticeably loud, but within typical hair dryer range. The Shark averages 89 dB, making it objectively noisier despite similar motor claims. Users frequently cite this as a drawback, especially when styling early in the morning.

Cord Length & Heat Management: Both units feature 9-foot cords and cool-touch exteriors. However, Dyson’s thermal insulation is superior; the body remains cooler even after 30 minutes of continuous use. Shark users occasionally report warmth near the base after extended sessions.

Portability: Neither model folds compactly, but Dyson includes a premium hard-shell travel case. Shark offers only a soft pouch, leaving attachments loosely packed—a concern for frequent travelers.

Step-by-Step: Achieving Salon Waves with Each Tool

1. Prep damp hair (about 70–80% dry) with a heat protectant and light mousse.
2. Dyson: Use pre-styling dryer attachment to finish drying, focusing on roots for lift.
3. Shark: Use concentrator nozzle to smooth and dry, then switch to curler.
4. Section hair into 2-inch parts using clips.
5. Dyson: Select appropriate barrel, hold 1 inch from scalp, let Coanda effect wrap hair automatically. Hold 8–10 seconds.
6. Shark: Place hair in clamp, press activation button, and guide the tool upward slowly. May require manual adjustment.
7. Repeat until all sections are styled.
8. Finish with light-hold hairspray. Dyson styles typically last 8+ hours; Shark averages 5–6 hours before waviness relaxes.

Tip: For best results with either tool, avoid applying too much product before styling—excess residue can interfere with airflow adhesion.

Longevity and Value Over Time

The initial price gap is undeniable: $599 vs. $249. But true value lies in durability, warranty, and how long the device performs reliably.

Dyson backs the Airwrap with a 2-year limited warranty and has a reputation for responsive customer service. Replacement parts (like worn brushes or faulty motors) are available, though costly. Independent repair forums suggest average lifespan exceeds 4–5 years with regular cleaning and care.

Shark offers a 1-year warranty and fewer spare parts options. Early adopters of the FlexStyle have reported issues with barrel alignment and motor inconsistency emerging after 12–18 months. While Shark hasn’t had enough market presence to confirm long-term reliability, historical data on other Shark beauty products suggests higher failure rates beyond the warranty period.

Consider this: if the Dyson lasts five years, that’s roughly $120 per year. The Shark at $249 lasting two years equals $124.50 annually—nearly identical when factoring in replacement costs. And if the Dyson saves you 15 minutes per styling session, that’s over 90 hours regained over five years.

“When evaluating high-ticket beauty tools, don’t just ask ‘Is it expensive?’ Ask ‘What does it give me back in time, confidence, and consistency?’ That’s where real value lives.” — Marcus Lee, Consumer Beauty Strategist

Frequently Asked Questions

Can the Shark FlexStyle fully replace the Dyson Airwrap?

For casual users with fine to medium hair who prioritize affordability, yes—it can produce similar-looking styles with more effort. However, those seeking speed, consistency, and low maintenance will likely find the Dyson superior despite the cost.

Do both tools cause less heat damage than traditional irons?

Yes. Both utilize controlled heat and airflow instead of direct plate contact, reducing peak temperatures on hair. Dyson’s real-time heat regulation gives it a slight edge in preventing overheating, especially during repeated passes.

Are refill or replacement accessories easy to buy?

Dyson sells individual attachments (e.g., a new 1.2” barrel costs $70), though they’re pricey. Shark offers fewer standalone parts; replacing a damaged component often means buying a whole new kit. Third-party alternatives exist but may compromise safety or performance.

Final Verdict: Is the Price Gap Justified?

The answer depends on your priorities. If you’re looking for a capable, budget-conscious alternative that delivers decent results with some trade-offs in speed, consistency, and durability, the Shark FlexStyle is a legitimate option. It brings advanced technology to a broader audience and performs admirably for its price point.

However, the Dyson Airwrap justifies its premium through superior engineering, more refined attachments, better ergonomics, and proven long-term reliability. The difference isn’t just in branding—it’s in the details: how smoothly hair wraps, how little manual intervention is needed, how long the style holds, and how comfortable the tool feels after repeated use.

For professionals, frequent stylers, or anyone with thick, resistant, or hard-to-manage hair, the Dyson Airwrap earns its place as a worthwhile investment. For occasional users or those testing the waters of air-styling technology, the Shark FlexStyle offers a lower-risk entry point.

In essence, the price gap reflects not just materials or marketing—it reflects measurable differences in performance, refinement, and time saved. Whether that’s “justified” comes down to how much you value convenience, consistency, and quality in your daily routine.

🚀 Ready to upgrade your styling game? Weigh your hair type, routine, and long-term goals. Share your experience below—have you tried both? Which one earned a permanent spot in your bathroom?