What Alcon Vivity is
AcrySof IQ Vivity is a non-diffractive extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOL from Alcon, approved by the FDA on February 26, 2020 under PMA P930014, supplement S126. The primary models are DFT015 (and toric DFT315/415/515) and a UV-only variant, DAT015 (and toric DAT315/415/515). Vivity uses a proprietary non-diffractive wavefront-shaping technology (Alcon calls it "X-Wave") rather than diffractive rings, which is the manufacturer's stated rationale for aiming to reduce halos and glare relative to diffractive multifocal and trifocal designs.
What it looks like
The image below is reproduced from the lens's own FDA regulatory filing, not manufacturer marketing artwork, so what is shown is exactly what the FDA reviewed and approved.
Source: FDA SSED, PMA P930014/S126, Figures 1–2
Where the data on this page comes from
Every figure below comes from Vivity's FDA Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED) — the public document FDA published alongside approval (PMA P930014/S126: 220 patients implanted — 107 Vivity, 113 with a monofocal control lens — across 11 U.S. sites, followed to 6 months). It's worth noting that an earlier, differently paginated document for this same PMA/supplement (the "Master Text" / approved labeling) circulates alongside the SSED and is easy to mistake for it; the figures here are drawn specifically from the SSED itself, cited by table number.
Visual acuity by distance
Bars show relative acuity — longer bar = sharper vision. Exact logMAR value (lower is better) and Snellen equivalent shown at right.
Source: FDA SSED, PMA P930014/S126, Table 24
This is a smaller, more gradual advantage than the two trifocal-style lenses reviewed on this site (PanOptix and Synergy) — consistent with Vivity's design as an extended-range lens with a single stretched focal zone rather than three discrete diffractive focal points. Distance vision showed a small, non-clinically-meaningful difference from the control lens; intermediate vision showed a clear, consistent advantage; near vision showed the smallest advantage of the three distances, which the next section quantifies against the study's own pre-specified target.
Depth of focus
Rather than a full defocus-curve table (which, as with the other lenses reviewed on this site, exists only as a graph in this SSED — Figures 5–6), Vivity's SSED reports one directly comparable summary statistic: the diopter range over which each lens maintained at least 0.20 logMAR visual acuity.
Diopters (D) of defocus range — larger is a wider zone of usable clear vision.
Source: FDA SSED, PMA P930014/S126, p.37
Contrast sensitivity
Log units — higher is better. Measured in low-light (mesopic) conditions.
Source: FDA SSED, PMA P930014/S126, Table 19
At the lowest frequency tested, Vivity matched the control lens exactly; at every other frequency, and especially at the highest frequency (12 cpd), contrast sensitivity was lower. The SSED also notes that at 12 cpd, 43.0% of Vivity eyes were unable to perceive the pattern at all in this test — a meaningful share, and worth knowing about specifically because contrast sensitivity affects real-world tasks like night driving and low-light reading independent of an eye chart's letter-sharpness score.
Visual disturbances (halos, glare, starbursts)
% of patients reporting the highest bother level on a directed questionnaire.
Source: FDA SSED, PMA P930014/S126, Table 21
These rates are notably lower than we found reviewing the two diffractive trifocal-style lenses on this site (PanOptix and Synergy), which is consistent with Vivity's non-diffractive design rationale. On the related severity scale (Table 22), "severe" starbursts were reported by 3.8% of Vivity patients versus 2.7% of control patients, and "severe" halos by 0.9% in both groups — small, roughly comparable numbers between the two lenses on this particular measure.
Possible limitations, based on this data
- The trial's own pre-specified near-vision target (>50% of eyes at 0.30 logMAR or better at 40 cm) was not met — the actual result was 40.2%. Patients whose main priority is glasses-free reading should discuss this specifically with their surgeon.
- Contrast sensitivity was lower than the monofocal control at every spatial frequency except the lowest tested, and 43.0% of Vivity eyes could not perceive the highest-frequency pattern (12 cpd) at all in this test.
- As an extended depth of focus design rather than a trifocal, Vivity's near-vision gain over a monofocal lens is more modest than PanOptix's or Synergy's in this same dataset — a trade-off for its comparatively low halo/glare rates.
- Spectacle-independence questionnaire results (the "Never" response to "how often did you need to wear glasses") were referenced as a pre-specified endpoint in the SSED but the underlying percentages weren't accessible in the pages available to us, so they aren't shown above.
- This is one 6-month industry-sponsored registration trial (107 Vivity eyes) — a valid basis for FDA approval, but smaller and shorter than the accumulated real-world literature on some other lenses in this category.
Who this lens may suit
Based on this data, Vivity fits patients who most want to avoid halos and night-vision disturbances and who are comfortable with a more modest near-vision gain than a trifocal lens provides — likely still needing reading glasses for sustained close work or fine print more often than with PanOptix or Synergy in this dataset. Patients who prioritize glasses-free reading above minimizing photic phenomena may want to discuss whether a trifocal option better matches their goals. This is, again, a decision that depends on your own eyes and priorities and belongs in a conversation with your surgeon.
How it compares
Vivity is a non-diffractive EDOF lens — extending a single focal zone through wavefront-shaping technology rather than diffractive rings or multiple discrete focal points. For the category-level trade-offs against enhanced monofocal, diffractive EDOF, and full-range/trifocal designs, see EDOF (Extended Depth of Focus). For a look at a different lens using a related design philosophy, see our TECNIS PureSee Review.
A note on how manufacturers present this same data
As with the other lenses on this site, it's worth understanding how this same trial tends to be repackaged for marketing purposes. Materials for lenses in this category commonly lead with the low-disturbance and depth-of-focus figures shown above — both genuinely favorable — while the near-vision target miss documented in the SSED is the kind of result unlikely to appear in a sales presentation at all. Materials distributed to prescribers often draw on internal "Data on File" studies rather than the peer-reviewed or FDA-published data cited throughout this page, and are frequently restricted to healthcare-professional audiences. We've used the public FDA record and included the trial's unmet target specifically because a complete picture — not just the favorable half — is what a patient actually needs to weigh this decision.
A note on this review
This page is educational content, not a clinical trial result and not a personal recommendation. Every figure is sourced directly from the FDA's public SSED for PMA P930014/S126 and cited by table number so you can verify it yourself. Actual outcomes vary from patient to patient, and the right lens for you can only be determined by a qualified ophthalmic surgeon based on your individual eye measurements and health history.