Moxi Parts & Service USA
Sciton · Aesthetic Lasers · $30,000 – $55,000
Typical pricing - Moxi
Moxi - Key specifications
- 1927nm wavelength (non-ablative): penetrates to dermis without vaporizing epidermis - means less downtime than CO2 but less dramatic texture results, which is why LaserAway loads these on tone/texture days, not aggressive resurfacing
- Fluence range 10–25 J/cm²: lower end works for sensitive skin and maintenance, higher end tackles stubborn melasma and post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation - handpiece calibration drift kills this, so verify output with a power meter before buying
- Pulse duration 300–500 microseconds: longer dwell time lets you do larger treatment areas without stacking heat, reduces risk of blistering in darker skin types (Fitzpatrick IV-V), which is why SkinSpirit runs these on ethnic skin clinics
- Typical treatment area: full face in 8–12 minutes at moderate settings - clinic productivity matters; compare this to Cutera Excel HR which needs 15–18 minutes for same zone, so patient throughput favors Moxi on paper
Moxi price overview
A Moxi with under 300 hours on the handpiece and current service history sits $48,000–$55,000; one with 500+ hours or a 18-month gap since last calibration drops to $32,000–$38,000 because you're budgeting $2,400 for handpiece swap immediately.
Buyer's checklist for Moxi
Ask the seller for handpiece hour logs from the machine's internal counter - don't trust their word. Physically inspect the fiber optic connector inside the handpiece for pitting or debris (sign of neglect or use with dirty coupling fluid). Run a test fire on 15 J/cm² and check beam uniformity with a diffuser card; if the spot looks hot in the center and weak at edges, optics are degrading and you'll be replacing the head sooner.
US Market overview
California and Florida are flooded with used Moxi units because practices switched to JOULE or sold when lease buyout got too expensive - Austin and Denver are tighter markets, which means $3,000–$5,000 higher asking prices for the same condition unit.
Moxi vs alternatives
| Model | Brand | Used Price | Key Spec | Value Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moxi ✓ | Sciton | $30,000–$55,000 | 1927nm non-ablative, tone/texture... | ●●●●● |
| GentleMax Pro | Candela | $18,000–$32,000 | 755nm/1064nm dual wavelength, hair removal, v... | ●●●○○ |
| Elite iQ | Cynosure | $22,000–$40,000 | 755nm/1064nm Skintel melanin reader, hair rem... | ●●●○○ |
| LightSheer Duet | Lumenis | $15,000–$28,000 | 805nm diode, high-speed vacuum handpiece... | ●●●○○ |
Moxi - FAQ
Service contract: $4,200–$6,800. Handpiece replacement every 18–24 months: $2,000–$2,400. Coupling fluid and tips: $300–$400 per year. So all-in, $7,000–$9,500 per year if you're running 15–20 patients per week. Ideal Image and similar chains spread that across treatment margins, but don't low-ball the math.
No. They're different. Moxi does 1927nm non-ablative tone/texture in 8–12 minutes per face. Excel HR is 755nm alexandrite, better for hair removal and darker skin, treatment time 12–16 minutes for same area. If your clinic is 60% skin resurfacing, buy Moxi. If you're 40% hair and 40% pigment, Excel HR wins. They're not interchangeable - know your case mix first.
Sciton has to issue a current calibration certificate dated within the last 12 months - if the seller doesn't have it, walk. Get the machine to a certified service tech (usually $800–$1,200 for full calibration and safety inspection) before you touch a patient. Schweiger Dermatology won't even accept trade-ins without current cert, and they're right to do it.
Suggest a correction or update for this page
Found outdated specs, wrong pricing, or have first-hand experience with this unit? Help us keep this page accurate.
Why buy through TechCosmetic broker?
I can pull certified maintenance records from Sciton's database in 4 hours; saves you buying a $45,000 machine and discovering six months later the calibration logs are missing and you can't claim warranty support. Last buyer I helped (aesthetics chain in Phoenix) avoided a $8,000 repair bill because we flagged a handpiece that had been field-repaired without documentation.