Night vision vs thermal—which is actually better for investigations?

Gearing up for proper investigations and trying to decide whether to invest in a decent night vision monocle (£150-300) or thermal imaging (£200-400 second-hand). Both have decent budgets available. My question: which gives better paranormal investigation results in practice?

Night vision seems obvious for seeing ghosts visually, but I read that cold spots (thermal signature) are more reliable indicators. On the other hand, thermal can't see transparent entities. Anyone done proper side-by-side comparisons in real haunted locations?

Thermal is better for evidence because cold spots are documented, repeatable, and harder to argue with. Night vision is better for actually *seeing* things, which is subjective - shadows, reflections, pareidolia all come into play. If you want documentation, thermal. If you want to feel scared, night vision.

Get the night vision. Thermal is cool but you're spending £300 to measure air temperature variations that could be drafts, air conditioning, or normal atmospheric pockets. Night vision lets you actually investigate - spot people, see evidence of activity, navigate safely. More practical all-around.

cold spots (thermal signature) are more reliable indicators

Honestly? Neither will catch you a ghost, but both will help you document *something*. Start with cheaper thermal imager (FLIR ONE or similar, around £150 used) before spending big money. You might find they're not as useful as you'd think.

If you're doing UK residential investigations, night vision is probably more useful. Fewer active paranormal events means you're mostly gathering atmospheric data and checking for mundane explanations. Night vision helps with the checking part.