PureSee vs Vivity: What the Optical Bench Data Actually Shows

TECNIS PureSee and Clareon Vivity are both non-diffractive extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses, but they create their extended range in different ways. PureSee uses a fully refractive power profile without distinct optical zones. Vivity uses Alcon's wavefront-shaping X-Wave design to extend a single focal range. Which one produces the higher-contrast image on an optical bench? The available data gives a useful answer — but only if we read it without turning a laboratory measurement into a promise about an individual patient's vision.

What MTF actually measures

Modulation transfer function, or MTF, describes how well an optical system preserves contrast at a specified level of image detail. The values in this comparison were measured at 50 cycles per millimetre. A higher number means that, under that particular bench setup, more contrast survives through the lens at that spatial frequency.

MTF is not the same as a defocus curve and does not answer how far from the eye you will see clearly. It also is not a direct measurement of a patient's contrast sensitivity. Real vision depends on the cornea, tear film, retina, optic nerve, residual refractive error, pupil behaviour, neural processing and the position of the IOL. Bench MTF isolates the lens so designs can be compared under controlled conditions.

Source 1: manufacturer optical-bench testing

J&J's manufacturer-supplied bench data — references DOF2023CT4025, DOR2023CT4028 and DOF2020CT4011 — used an average eye model and reported MTF at 50 cycles/mm. In that dataset, PureSee (DEN00V) had the higher far-focus value at both pupil sizes:

• 3.0 mm pupil: PureSee 0.310 versus Vivity 0.248. PureSee's value is about 25% higher.
• 5.0 mm pupil: PureSee 0.298 versus Vivity 0.191. PureSee's value is about 56% higher.

The larger-pupil result is relevant to discussing optical behaviour in dimmer conditions, but it should not be translated directly into a percentage improvement in night driving or patient-perceived vision. The test measures the lens in a model eye, not a person performing a real-world task.

Source 2: a peer-reviewed comparison with disclosed Alcon funding

A 2025 Scientific Reports study by Niknahad and colleagues tested two samples of each lens on an OptiSpheric IOL PRO2 bench under ISO 11979-2 methods. The study was performed at the David J. Apple Center for Vision Research at Heidelberg University and disclosed support from a research grant from Alcon Management SA, the manufacturer of Vivity. The paper states that the funding organizations had no role in conducting the research or preparing the manuscript.

At far focus and 50 cycles/mm, the study reported:

• 3.0 mm aperture: PureSee 0.28 versus Vivity 0.24.
• 4.5 mm aperture: PureSee 0.27 versus Vivity 0.21.

This independently conducted peer-reviewed experiment points in the same direction as the manufacturer dataset at far focus: PureSee produced the higher MTF value. But the Alcon-funded paper's broader finding was more balanced. It described far optical quality as comparable, found Vivity slightly stronger at intermediate focus in parts of the through-focus analysis, and calculated simulated visual-acuity differences of less than one letter at distance and intermediate. The authors concluded that the two lenses showed similar predicted effectiveness overall and called for more clinical research.

The manufacturer dataset, visualized

The chart uses the first dataset because it provides the directly read values at 3.0 and 5.0 mm. Brand names are deliberately kept out of the image itself; the lens identities and the commercial source of the data are stated here so the comparison remains transparent.

What this does — and does not — tell you

Across the two bench setups, PureSee showed the higher MTF at far focus at the tested spatial frequency and aperture sizes. That is a measurable optical difference. The consistency of direction across two laboratories makes the far-focus finding more credible than relying on one manufacturer slide alone.

It does not establish that every PureSee patient will see better than every Vivity patient. The datasets used different eye models, aperture sizes and equipment, and neither comparison is a randomized clinical trial of patient-reported vision. MTF at one spatial frequency also does not capture the complete through-focus range, halos, glare, spectacle independence, tolerance to residual refractive error or how an individual eye changes the result.

In fact, the peer-reviewed study is a good example of why the complete curve matters: PureSee had the higher primary far-focus peak, while Vivity showed an intermediate-focus advantage in parts of the analysis. Choosing between them therefore cannot be reduced to one pair of bars.

Practical takeaways

1. PureSee showed higher far-focus MTF than Vivity in both the manufacturer dataset and the 2025 peer-reviewed bench study.
2. The larger-pupil gap was wider in the manufacturer dataset, but a laboratory percentage is not a percentage improvement in night vision.
3. The peer-reviewed paper did not declare a simple overall winner. It found comparable far optical quality, an intermediate advantage for Vivity in parts of the through-focus testing and similar predicted effectiveness overall.
4. Funding and source matter. The manufacturer chart comes from J&J-supplied references; the peer-reviewed study disclosed an Alcon research grant. Both facts belong beside the numbers.
5. Use MTF as one input, not the deciding factor. Your retinal health, cornea, pupil, visual priorities, tolerance of optical phenomena and target refraction all belong in the discussion with your surgeon.

For broader context, read why contrast sensitivity matters, compare the individual PureSee and Vivity reviews, or explore the EDOF lens category.

← Back to Articles