Skip to content
Vol. IV · Issue III · 08 May 2026 N 40°42′47″ · W 74°00′21″ Cal. 2026-05-07 14:32 UTC · σ 0.61 ● Lab in session
PLATE I Head-to-head · Felix Gray vs. GUNNAR Optiks N 40°42′ · W 74°00′ SCALE 2 routes · 1 plate · N · NEARCTIC
Plate I · Head-to-head

Felix Gray vs. GUNNAR Optiks

By · Biohacker Atlas Editorial Team · Editorial collective PUB ·
Fig. I · Bench side-by-side

The numbers.

A · Brand

Felix Gray

Fashion-forward, fully prescription-capable computer eyewear (clear daytime lens) with an amber evening option and no Rx blue-light upcharge

· Not yet tested
WELLNESS

Marketed as a general wellness device. Not FDA cleared, approved, or evaluated for any medical claim.

No sub
Price
$95–$359
Founded
2016
HQ
New York, USA
Visit Felix Gray →
B · Brand

GUNNAR Optiks

Long-established gaming-eyewear brand that publishes specific per-lens blue-light blocking figures at 450 nm, with many licensed gaming frame designs

· Not yet tested
WELLNESS

Marketed as a general wellness device. Not FDA cleared, approved, or evaluated for any medical claim.

No sub
Founded
2007
HQ
Carlsbad, California, USA
Visit GUNNAR Optiks →
Fig. II · Wayfinding

Which route is yours?

Route A

Choose Felix Gray if you prioritise the trade-offs in column A — see the bench above and the long-form below.

Route B

Choose GUNNAR Optiks if column B's trade-offs fit your stack better.

Fig. III · The long read

Side-by-side, in detail.

The Matchup

The two daytime, screen-focused brands in the category — and a study in opposite approaches. Felix Gray (NY, 2016) is the fashion-first, prescription-friendly option: designer-looking frames, full single-vision and progressive Rx with no blue-light upcharge, HSA/FSA eligible. GUNNAR Optiks (Carlsbad, 2007) is the veteran gaming/computer brand that does something rare in this space — publishes specific per-lens blocking percentages at 450 nm. Neither is a night-sleep lens system; both are about screen time.

Which means the evidence caveat hits both hard: a 2023 Cochrane review (17 RCTs) found blue-light lenses unlikely to reduce digital eye strain, and the AAO attributes screen discomfort mostly to blink rate and focusing fatigue, not blue light. So this comparison is less “which one fixes eye strain” (the evidence says probably neither) and more “if you want screen glasses anyway, which suits you.”

Head-to-Head Comparison

FeatureFelix GrayGUNNAR Optiks
Founded2016, USA2007, USA
IdentityFashion-forward computer eyewearGaming/computer eyewear
Blocking transparencyRelative only (“up to 15x/23x more”)Specific % at 450 nm (Clear 35%, Amber 65%, Amber Max 98%)
Lens optionsClear (day), amber (evening), polarizedClear Pro / Clear / Amber / Amber Max / Sun
PrescriptionSingle-vision + progressive, no BL upchargeYes (US-manufactured)
Frame rangeCurated fashion styles100+ styles incl. licensed gaming designs
Entry price (non-Rx)~$95-129Varies by frame
Top price~$359 (progressive Rx)Varies
HSA/FSAYesYes
RegulatoryEyewear (not a medical device)Eyewear (not a medical device)

Where Felix Gray Wins

  • It looks like normal eyewear. The least “biohacker” frames in the category — the closest to designer glasses you’d wear regardless of the lens.
  • Best prescription experience. Single-vision and progressive Rx with no blue-light upcharge, plus HSA/FSA eligibility, makes it the natural pick if these are your everyday prescription glasses.
  • An amber evening option. Beyond the daytime clear lens, the amber option gives you a (limited-evidence) circadian play GUNNAR’s clear lenses don’t emphasize.

Where GUNNAR Wins

  • Published blocking specs. GUNNAR states exact figures at 450 nm per lens (e.g., Amber 65%, Amber Max 98%). Felix Gray publishes only relative multipliers (“15x/23x more”), which can’t be compared objectively. For a spec-driven buyer, GUNNAR is far more transparent.
  • The highest-blocking lens in the matchup. Amber Max (stated 98% at 450 nm) blocks far more than any daytime clear lens — a legitimate option if you want a high-blocking lens for the evening.
  • Frame selection and value. 100+ styles including licensed gaming designs, often at lower price points than Felix Gray’s Rx tiers.
  • Longer track record. Operating since 2007 vs Felix Gray’s 2016.

The Decision

  • Choose Felix Gray if these will be your everyday prescription glasses, you care about how they look, and you want a clean Rx/HSA experience — treating the blue-light filtering as a minor bonus.
  • Choose GUNNAR if you want published blocking specs, a high-blocking amber option, a specific gaming frame, or better value — and you’re comfortable with a more gaming-oriented look.

The Honest Middle Case

Because the daytime eye-strain benefit is the weakest-supported claim in this whole category, the smartest reason to buy either is a reason that doesn’t depend on it: Felix Gray because you need good-looking prescription glasses anyway, or GUNNAR because you want a specific frame and like that it states its specs. If your actual goal is evening circadian support, neither daytime brand is the right tool — look at a dedicated amber/red night lens (BON CHARGE Magnum, Swanwick Sleep) instead, or GUNNAR’s Amber Max as a high-blocking compromise.

We’ll update this comparison after measuring each lens’s transmission to convert Felix Gray’s relative claims into absolute figures.

Changelog

  • 2026-06-16: Initial comparison published. Not yet tested; led with the Cochrane/AAO evidence and reported brand blocking figures as claims.
← Felix Gray review GUNNAR Optiks review →
Idioma / Language EN · ES