The Synology DS925+ versus QNAP TS-464 – Buy NEW or Buy QNAP?

Every so often in the NAS market, a new model arrives that challenges not just its predecessors but also its closest competitors. With the 2025 release of the Synology DS925+, buyers now face an interesting dilemma: go with Synology’s latest compact powerhouse, or choose QNAP’s TS-464—a device that has already proven itself since its release in 2022/2023 and offers a wide array of features at a competitive price. The DS925+ brings notable upgrades to CPU architecture, system memory scalability, and integration within Synology’s tightly controlled ecosystem. Meanwhile, the TS-464 has spent years benefiting from firmware maturity, PCIe expandability, and a more open hardware approach that appeals to power users and tinkerers alike. But which device is ultimately the better buy in 2025? Should you embrace Synology’s ecosystem with its newer, high-performance release, or does QNAP’s more versatile and budget-friendly offering still hold strong in the face of newer competition? Let’s dive into the details to help you decide which NAS deserves your next investment.

Synology DS925+ vs QNAP TS-464 – Hardware Specifications

When placing the 2025 Synology DS925+ alongside the 2022/2023 QNAP TS-464, one might expect the newer model to clearly dominate in every area. But hardware comparisons in the NAS market are rarely so simple. While both units are aimed at tech-savvy home users and small businesses looking for reliable, always-on storage solutions, their approaches to hardware—and the user needs they prioritize—are noticeably different. The DS925+ emphasizes streamlined performance, reduced noise, and integration within Synology’s tightly managed ecosystem. The QNAP TS-464, meanwhile, leans into raw hardware flexibility, DIY expandability, and a more open feature set for power users. Below is a detailed hardware breakdown of both NAS devices, showing where each shines and where compromises were made.

The DS925+ delivers a refined hardware experience out of the box, with its newer AMD Embedded Ryzen V1500B 4 Core/ 8 thread processor, dual 2.5GbE ports for faster LAN connectivity, and modern I/O including USB-C. It features two M.2 NVMe slots (for cache only, unless you use the Synology SNV3400 drives from Synology), dual memory slots supporting up to 32GB of ECC DDR4 RAM, and a compact metal chassis designed for quiet, efficient operation. It also runs cooler and quieter than many of its rivals, making it an ideal fit for environments where noise levels matter—such as living rooms, home studios, or small offices. This makes the DS925+ a “plug-and-play” NAS with premium internal components and minimal need for user intervention.

By contrast, the QNAP TS-464 takes a more modular, expandable approach. Powered by the Intel Celeron N5105/N5095 CPU (a quad-core processor with integrated graphics, but only 4 threads), it offers HDMI 2.0 output, two M.2 PCIe Gen3 x1 slots (which can be used for either caching or storage pools), and a PCIe Gen3 x2 slot for optional 10GbE or more M.2s, USB expansion, or even GPU cards. QNAP also includes dual 2.5GbE ports, putting it on par with the DS925+ in terms of network speed, but it edges ahead in overall hardware adaptability. Want multimedia output via HDMI? QNAP has it. Want to add NVMe storage pools or real-time transcoding? QNAP supports that too. That said, the TS-464 is based on a slightly older CPU architecture, lacks ECC memory support, and typically generates more fan noise under load. Additionally, its OS and ecosystem are broader in scope but often require more manual setup. Ultimately, the DS925+ is purpose-built for those who prioritize a quiet, polished, and simplified experience with modern performance. The TS-464, on the other hand, remains an excellent choice for users who prefer control, multimedia support, and greater hardware flexibility. Choosing between them largely depends on whether you value Synology’s stability and turnkey design, or QNAP’s freedom and potential.

AMD V1500B vs Intel N5105 – CPU Specifications (Synology DS925+ vs QNAP TS-464)

In any NAS system, the processor plays a pivotal role in determining the scope of functionality—whether it’s managing multiple concurrent users, running virtual machines, powering AI-driven applications, or simply handling encrypted transfers and background tasks efficiently. The Synology DS925+ and the QNAP TS-464 take noticeably different approaches in this regard. The DS925+ features the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1500B, a server-grade SoC designed for sustained multi-threaded workloads. The TS-464, on the other hand, runs on the Intel Celeron N5105, a more consumer-oriented chip that prioritizes integrated multimedia support and power efficiency. While both CPUs are quad-core, their architecture, instruction set, and target use cases diverge sharply—affecting not only raw processing, but also the capabilities unlocked within DSM and QTS/QuTS, respectively.

In terms of raw specs, the V1500B offers 4 cores and 8 threads with a base clock of 2.2GHz and support for ECC memory—a key advantage for mission-critical environments. This CPU is built for multitasking and thrives in scenarios involving virtual machines, container services, and intensive file indexing or backup operations. As a result, the DS925+ supports up to 8 concurrent virtual machines, 8 virtual DSM instances, and higher thresholds for connected users across Synology apps. It is better suited to offices or power users who rely on services like Synology Office, Drive, or Surveillance Station running in tandem. The system handles up to 150 Synology Chat users, 80 Office users, and 80 Drive users, offering excellent multitasking performance with low overhead.

The QNAP TS-464’s Intel N5105 is a 10nm Jasper Lake processor, also quad-core but without hyper-threading and with a slightly lower base clock (2.0GHz). However, it includes integrated Intel UHD Graphics, giving it one key advantage the DS925+ lacks: hardware-accelerated video transcoding via QNAP’s own QuMagie, Video Station, and especially Plex Media Server with support for on-the-fly 1080p and 4K decoding when paired with proper client-side licensing. This makes the TS-464 ideal for multimedia-heavy environments. Beyond media, the N5105 powers QTS and QuTS hero with access to QNAP’s broader and often more modular ecosystem. This includes Hybrid Backup Sync (HBS 3) for unified backup and disaster recovery, QuDedup for deduplicated snapshot replication, QVR Elite and QVR Pro for professional-grade surveillance (supporting multiple IP camera licenses natively), and AI Core features like face recognition and event detection when paired with the QuMagie or QVR Human apps. The TS-464 also supports Virtualization Station, enabling users to run lightweight Linux or Windows VMs with direct passthrough access to USB or PCIe devices, and Container Station, which offers both Docker and LXC container compatibility with GPU passthrough for NPU-based AI inference workloads. Thanks to the included PCIe Gen 3 x2 slot, the system supports optional upgrades like 10GbE NICs, QM2 expansion cards (for M.2 SSD or additional 2.5GbE/10GbE ports), or even Wi-Fi 6 cards, something entirely absent in the DS925+. Additionally, QNAP allows direct output to an external display via HDMI 2.0, enabling standalone use of HD Station apps like Chrome, LibreOffice, Kodi, and even Linux desktop environments — a feature highly prized in HTPC and security NVR deployments. Users can leverage Linux Station to run full Ubuntu VMs locally, or install Ubuntu Core through the App Center for custom development or edge AI inference scenarios.

Taken together, the TS-464 may not support the same high virtual machine/user count as the DS925+, but it compensates with a broader set of integrated appliances catering to power users, home labs, edge AI, and media-heavy deployments. It’s a more “tinker-friendly” platform, favoring flexibility and breadth over centralized system control and vertical integration. If you need an appliance that works across entertainment, security, and hybrid cloud workflows, with room for add-on functionality via hardware or apps, the TS-464 is hard to beat for the price. That said, the Synology DS925+ ultimately offers greater headroom for enterprise workflows, heavier VM usage, and large-scale hybrid deployments. It sacrifices media transcoding and graphical acceleration, but gains a server-class CPU that ensures consistent performance under heavier load conditions. Meanwhile, the TS-464 excels in edge-case versatility, offering more multimedia flexibility and richer expansion potential via PCIe. If your priorities lie in business-class performance, ECC memory support, and robust multi-user capacity, the DS925+ is the clear winner. But for media streaming, home lab tinkering, and a wider hardware feature set, the TS-464 remains a very compelling alternative.

Synology DS925+ vs QNAP TS-464 – Software Specifications

When it comes to NAS platforms, hardware is only half the story—what truly determines a system’s long-term value is the strength, maturity, and flexibility of its software. Synology’s DSM (DiskStation Manager) and QNAP’s QTS/QuTS Hero are two of the most advanced NAS operating systems available today, offering extensive suites of services for backup, virtualization, hybrid cloud, media streaming, and AI-assisted surveillance. But while both OS platforms cover similar ground, their design philosophies, application depth, and supported workloads differ substantially. The Synology DS925+ and QNAP TS-464, though comparable in price and both aimed at prosumers and SMBs, unlock very different software experiences depending on the deployment goals—be it centralized IT infrastructure, media-rich home labs, or container-based edge computing.

With the DS925+, Synology leans into its strength in unified management and vertical integration. DSM 7.2 is optimized for reliability, simplicity, and scalability within Synology’s ecosystem. The DS925+ supports up to 8 virtual machines and 8 Virtual DSM instances through Virtual Machine Manager, offers extensive group and user quotas, and enables full integration with Synology’s cloud services (such as Synology C2 Backup, C2 Identity, and Hybrid Share). Its higher hardware ceiling allows for more active users: 150 on Synology Chat, 80 on Synology Drive and Office, and up to 8 simultaneous VPN connections. Backup capabilities are similarly robust, with a higher threshold of shared folder sync tasks and superior support for incremental snapshot replication. Surveillance Station on the DS925+ supports up to 40 IP cameras and benefits from reduced CPU overhead during continuous recording, even while handling concurrent backup or media indexing operations. DSM’s elegant UI, consistent updates, and tightly integrated packages make it ideal for organizations that value centralized IT administration and long-term platform stability.

On the other hand, the QNAP TS-464 running QTS 5 or QuTS Hero offers a more open and modular software ecosystem. While the Intel N5105 CPU imposes lower multitasking ceilings than the V1500B, QNAP compensates with a broader set of feature-specific applications and customization paths. The TS-464 supports virtualization through Virtualization Station (for VMs) and Container Station (for Docker + LXC), and unlike the DS925+, can output video directly via HDMI 2.0—allowing the NAS to act as a standalone Linux desktop, NVR, or HTPC via HybridDesk Station. QNAP also differentiates itself with Hybrid Backup Sync (HBS3), which enables multi-destination sync, deduplicated backup via QuDedup, and real-time disaster recovery tools not found in DSM. QVR Pro and QVR Elite offer an expansive surveillance suite with optional AI-powered analytics (e.g., face recognition, people counting) when paired with compatible QNAP AI apps. The inclusion of ZFS with QuTS Hero (an optional OS for the TS-464) enables inline compression, self-healing file systems, and block-level snapshots, which can be critical for data integrity in business scenarios.

QNAP also encourages expansion through its App Center, which includes over 150+ native and third-party apps, from Node.js and GitLab to Home Assistant, Ubuntu Station, and even Mattermost for self-hosted chat. While the system supports fewer concurrent users and VMs than the DS925+, its strength lies in feature breadth and system-level flexibility. Add-ons like 10GbE NICs, QM2 SSD accelerators, or Wi-Fi 6 cards via PCIe further extend its versatility, especially for hybrid edge workloads or multi-role deployments that evolve over time. In short, the Synology DS925+ is designed for administrative simplicity and long-term scaling, excelling in consistent performance across multi-user deployments with deep DSM integration. The QNAP TS-464, meanwhile, is a powerful sandbox for customization, offering greater freedom, multimedia functionality, and third-party integration—at the cost of some operational polish and software limits. Choosing between them depends on whether your priorities lie in predictable enterprise-grade execution or a more adaptable, feature-dense platform.

Synology DS925+ vs QNAP TS-464 – Hard Drive and SSD Compatibility

In 2025, Synology has taken its most aggressive step yet toward locking down hardware compatibility, and nowhere is this more evident than in the DS925+. Following years of gradual restrictions—starting with warnings for unverified drives and progressing to default white-listing only Synology-branded media—the DS925+ now represents a firm line in the sand. At the time of writing, this system will not allow DSM initialization if it detects hard drives or SSDs that are not officially listed on Synology’s compatibility list. This list includes exclusively Synology HAT5300/HAT3310 HDDs and SAT5200 SSDs, with no third-party Seagate, WD, Toshiba, Samsung, or Kingston media currently supported. Regardless of drive quality or performance, unsupported models will be outright blocked during system setup. While Synology claims this guarantees optimal reliability and performance within DSM 7.2, the move drastically reduces flexibility for users and integrators alike.

In stark contrast, the QNAP TS-464 embraces an open compatibility philosophy. It supports virtually all major consumer and enterprise drives—from Seagate IronWolf and Exos, to WD Red, Red Plus, and Ultrastar, as well as Toshiba N300/X300 and Samsung/Kingston SSDs—up to 24TB per drive (or higher as of late 2025). QNAP also maintains a regularly updated compatibility list, but crucially, this list is advisory rather than mandatory. Users can install any 3.5″ or 2.5″ SATA HDD/SSD, and as long as it meets the physical and electrical standards, the TS-464 will initialize without issue. This means integrators, home users, or small businesses can reuse existing drives or select from the most cost-effective options in their region—something that’s increasingly difficult to do on newer Synology units. Moreover, QNAP allows mixing and matching of drive brands and capacities within the same storage pool (especially under QuTS hero’s ZFS environment), giving users granular control over redundancy, performance tuning, and cache layering with non-proprietary M.2 NVMe SSDs. This openness also applies to QNAP expansion units, many of which continue to work even with completely mixed-brand storage configurations—something Synology’s newer expansion policies have started to restrict.

For users in regions where Synology-branded media is expensive, hard to find, or simply not justified for non-critical applications, this policy shift on the DS925+ can be a deal-breaker. It positions the system closer to an appliance model, where Synology controls not only the hardware and software, but the storage medium itself. While that vertical integration may improve long-term reliability for some enterprise users, it’s difficult to reconcile with the broader DIY NAS community that values choice and modularity. Ultimately, this creates a philosophical divide: QNAP remains open, modular, and adaptable, trusting users to make informed decisions about their storage media. Synology, in contrast, is consolidating control, with the DS925+ exemplifying a move toward a closed ecosystem—potentially alienating users who previously praised DSM for its balance of simplicity and flexibility. Prospective buyers need to weigh not just performance and features, but how tightly they want to be tied to a single vendor’s hardware roadmap.

Synology DS925+ vs QNAP TS-464 NAS – Which Should You Buy?

The Synology DS925+ is a 2025 refresh designed with clear intent: push performance, tighten control, and streamline the out-of-box experience. In contrast, the QNAP TS-464—released in late 2022—is a Swiss Army knife of NAS flexibility, packed with customization options, open compatibility, and enough horsepower to meet the needs of both power users and small business deployments. Choosing between them ultimately comes down to what kind of NAS experience you’re after: a controlled, polished, and tightly integrated environment, or an open, adaptable, and hardware-friendly platform. On raw performance, the DS925+ has the edge. Its quad-core, 8-thread AMD V1500B CPU delivers higher throughput for multitasking, virtual machines, and heavier concurrent services, and DSM’s user/service thresholds are notably higher as a result. Add in dual 2.5GbE ports by default, and it’s clearly a step ahead of the DS923+ predecessor 1GbE-only base configuration, and you are looking at a healthy upgrade in several ways in this refresh. However, QNAP claws back ground with its PCIe Gen3 x2 slot, allowing 10GbE upgrades, Wi-Fi cards, and even GPU acceleration in select use cases—something Synology removed entirely from the DS925+. In QNAP’s favor is also its support for real-time hardware transcoding, HDMI 2.0 video output, and direct-attached monitor access—making it a better fit for media-centric environments where local playback, Plex, or Kodi usage matters.

Synology DS925+ NAS		QNAP TS-464 NAS
Check Amazon in Your Region for the Synology DS925+ NAS	Check B&H for the Synology DS925+ NAS	Check Amazon in Your Region for the QNAP TS-464 NAS	Check B&H for the QNAP TS-464 NAS

But perhaps the most significant dividing line is drive compatibility. The DS925+ will only initialize DSM with Synology-validated drives—locking out nearly all third-party HDDs and SSDs unless explicitly approved. This hardline stance means limited flexibility for users wanting to build using existing drives or regional market alternatives. Meanwhile, the TS-464 supports virtually all consumer and enterprise drives, from Seagate to Toshiba to Kingston, giving users total control over their storage budget and deployment roadmap. This open-ecosystem approach extends to M.2 NVMe usage too, where QNAP allows storage pool creation, caching, and tiering with off-the-shelf modules, while Synology restricts pool creation to only their branded NVMes. If you’re an IT administrator, content creator, or SMB looking for a polished, performance-forward NAS and you’re fully on board with Synology’s ecosystem—including its branded drives—then the DS925+ offers a streamlined, high-ceiling experience with excellent multitasking potential and cleaner UI/UX polish under DSM 7.2. But if you’re someone who values flexibility, upgrade paths, media support, or simply wants to control your storage choices without vendor lock-in, the QNAP TS-464 is an incredibly compelling alternative—offering strong performance for its price, an open architecture, and a deeper toolbox under QTS/QuTS Hero.

NAS Solutions	NAS Solutions
+ Better Software (In almost every respect!) + Much Better Global Support Presence + More business desirable + Larger Range of solutions – Compatibility restrictions on HDD and Upgrades More and more – Underwhelming hardware (comparatively)	+ Better Hardware for Price + Wider Variety of Solutions and Hardware Profiles + Supports ZFS and/or EXT4 (with ZFS platform now available on latest Intel Celeron Systems) + Wide accessory range and compatibility – Software can often feel inconsistent – Hit by Security Issues if the past
Check Amazon By Clicking Below:	Check Amazon By Clicking Below:

The Synology DS925+ is the better plug-and-play NAS for prosumers and SMBs who want a high-performance, low-maintenance experience—provided they’re comfortable buying into Synology’s tightly controlled ecosystem of software and storage hardware. On the other hand, the QNAP TS-464 remains the better choice for users who value flexibility, hardware freedom, and scalability—especially if media features, drive compatibility, or future upgrades are part of the plan. Ultimately, the DS925+ is the sharper tool, but the TS-464 is the more versatile one.

 

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
[contact-form-7]
Join Inner Circle

This description contains links to Amazon. These links will take you to some of the products mentioned in today's content. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Visit the NASCompares Deal Finder to find the best place to buy this device in your region, based on Service, Support and Reputation - Just Search for your NAS Drive in the Box Below

Need Advice on Data Storage from an Expert?

Finally, for free advice about your setup, just leave a message in the comments below here at NASCompares.com and we will get back to you. Need Help? Where possible (and where appropriate) please provide as much information about your requirements, as then I can arrange the best answer and solution to your needs. Do not worry about your e-mail address being required, it will NOT be used in a mailing list and will NOT be used in any way other than to respond to your enquiry. [contact-form-7] TRY CHAT Terms and Conditions   Alternatively, why not ask me on the ASK NASCompares forum, by clicking the button below. This is a community hub that serves as a place that I can answer your question, chew the fat, share new release information and even get corrections posted. I will always get around to answering ALL queries, but as a one-man operation, I cannot promise speed! So by sharing your query in the ASK NASCompares section below, you can get a better range of solutions and suggestions, alongside my own.

WE LOVE COFFEE

 

Reviewing the Beelink ME Mini NAS – Flashy Brilliance

The Beelink ME Mini NAS is a compact, six-slot network-attached storage solution aimed squarely at home users seeking a quiet, efficient, and flexible storage platform without the cost or complexity of traditional full-size NAS systems. Measuring just 99mm in each dimension and built with a minimalist cube design, the unit is designed to blend into home environments such as living rooms, bedrooms, or home offices. At its core is the Intel Twin Lake N150 processor, a 4-core, 4-thread CPU with a 6W TDP and a burst clock of up to 3.6GHz, paired with 12GB of soldered LPDDR5 4800MHz memory. This combination targets scenarios such as home media streaming, light file serving, or soft routing, rather than heavy enterprise workloads.

The ME Mini supports six M.2 2280 SSD slots, delivering a maximum theoretical storage capacity of 24TB. This includes one Gen 3 x2 slot (designed for the OS) and five Gen 3 x1 slots for storage expansion.

These SSD slots are actively cooled via an integrated heatsink and top-mounted silent fan, with thermal pads pre-attached for single-sided SSDs. Network connectivity includes dual Intel i226-V 2.5GbE ports and Wi-Fi 6 via an M.2 AX101 module, offering options for wired link aggregation or wireless deployment. Designed to support operating systems such as Unraid, OpenMediaVault, and TrueNAS, the ME Mini provides sufficient hardware for media servers like Plex or Jellyfin, personal backup, or even entry-level virtualization tasks. With a built-in power supply and no reliance on bulky external adapters, the device prioritizes simplicity and space efficiency.

Beelink ME Mini NAS Review – Quick Conclusion

The Beelink ME Mini NAS stands out as a compact, energy-efficient, and well-balanced storage solution tailored for home users seeking quiet and capable performance without the complexity of larger NAS systems. With support for six M.2 NVMe SSDs—one at Gen 3 x2 and five at Gen 3 x1—it offers up to 24TB of storage in a 99mm cube form factor, complete with an internal power supply and silent fan-assisted cooling. Its Intel Twin Lake N150 CPU and 12GB of LPDDR5 memory provide enough processing headroom for tasks like 4K media streaming, personal backups, and soft routing, while dual 2.5GbE LAN ports and Wi-Fi 6 expand its deployment options. Though the fixed memory and limited PCIe bandwidth on most slots constrain scalability, the thermal efficiency, low power draw (as low as 6.9W idle), and reliable Crucial SSD options make it a compelling value proposition. It’s not aimed at high-performance or prosumer use, but for users building a quiet, tidy, and effective DIY NAS at home, the ME Mini delivers far more than its size suggests.

Check Amazon in Your Region for the Beelink ME Mini NAS ($329 4/6)

Check AliExpress for the Beelink ME Mini NAS ($344 4/6)

Check the Official Beelink Site for the ME Mini NAS ($209 4/6)

Beelink ME Mini NAS – Design and Storage

Visually, the Beelink ME Mini sets itself apart from other mini NAS systems with its symmetrical cube-shaped design, measuring 99x99x99mm. Available in three color variants—Pearl White, Midnight Grey, and Peacock Blue—the device adopts a subtle, neutral aesthetic intended to fit into typical home environments without drawing unnecessary attention. The enclosure features rubber feet for vertical stability and ventilation grilles located at both the top and bottom, supporting a passive vertical airflow design that assists with heat dissipation.

Despite its small footprint, the chassis houses an integrated power supply unit (PSU), which eliminates the need for bulky external power bricks and simplifies cable management—an uncommon but notable design feature in NAS devices of this size.

Storage capacity is a central feature of the ME Mini, with support for up to six M.2 SSDs in 2280 format, totaling a maximum of 24TB. These slots are all positioned internally in a dual-sided configuration—three on each internal face—and interface via PCIe Gen 3. Five of the slots operate at Gen 3 x1 bandwidth, while one (typically slot 4) operates at Gen 3 x2, recommended for installing the OS. The use of M.2 NVMe SSDs enables dense storage with minimal thermal output compared to 3.5” drives, which aligns with the ME Mini’s aim of delivering high-capacity, low-noise storage for homes. There is also a 64GB eMMC module included by default, recommended for lightweight OS installations or router-based platforms.

Internally, the layout is deliberately engineered to optimize thermal contact between the SSDs and the large aluminum heatsink at the center of the chassis. Each M.2 SSD slot is lined with a pre-applied thermal pad to ensure direct contact with the heatsink, enhancing passive cooling performance. This configuration is most effective with single-sided SSDs, though there is still clearance for some double-sided modules.

The passive heat management is further augmented by a silent fan located at the top, which provides active airflow without introducing noticeable noise—recorded at just 31–34 dBA during idle operation and up to 40 dBA under heavy load.

The ME Mini’s storage design is not intended for hot-swapping or tool-less drive changes, a reflection of its focus on home and small office environments where drives are installed once and left in place. While this may limit flexibility for enterprise workflows, it benefits reliability and aesthetics, especially considering the internal PSU, which would otherwise be challenged by fluctuating thermal loads from frequent disk changes.

The result is a closed, compact system that maximizes storage density while maintaining a fanless aesthetic from the exterior.

For users opting for pre-configured models, Beelink offers bundles that include Crucial P3 SSDs—either one 2TB unit or two 2TB units—depending on the chosen configuration. This co-branding with Crucial ensures a known level of SSD endurance and performance, contrasting favorably with many competing budget NAS options which often use generic or unverified storage media. The factory pairing also ensures that one of the SSDs is installed in the Gen 3 x2 slot, delivering better system responsiveness and transfer speeds for OS-hosted operations such as Plex metadata handling, RAID cache, or VM images.

Beelink ME Mini NAS – Internal Hardware

The internal hardware of the Beelink ME Mini centers around the Intel Twin Lake N150 processor, a 4-core, 4-thread chip based on Intel’s 10nm architecture. With a base TDP of 6W and burst frequency of up to 3.6GHz, it is positioned as a power-efficient solution for NAS tasks that include multimedia playback, basic file sharing, and light application hosting.

While it does not support hardware transcoding at the same level as higher-tier Intel core chips with Quick Sync, the N150 performs adequately for 4K playback in Plex and other media servers when transcoding is avoided. In real-world use, the CPU averaged 60–75% utilization during simultaneous dual 2.5GbE access and SSD activity, indicating a solid baseline for single-user or family scenarios.

Complementing the CPU is 12GB of LPDDR5 memory, soldered directly to the board and clocked at 4800MHz. While the memory is non-upgradable, the capacity is sufficient for running lightweight NAS OS environments, containers, or even some virtual machines.

Unlike most mini PCs that cap out at 8GB in similar thermal envelopes, Beelink’s decision to include 12GB offers a practical boost for users running multiple services, such as a media server alongside a VPN container or light file indexing applications. The absence of SO-DIMM slots means this cannot be expanded further, which may deter power users seeking a more scalable system, but the default capacity fits the ME Mini’s home-use intentions well.

The overall thermal design pairs the CPU and SSDs with a centrally-mounted metal heatsink that acts as both a structural element and a cooling component. The silent fan located above the heatsink assists with vertical airflow, helping to maintain internal component temperatures during prolonged operation. During extended thermal tests—such as 24-hour idle and active file transfer sessions—surface temperatures peaked between 48°C and 60°C, particularly at the base where the PSU and networking ports reside.

While the design keeps the main components within reasonable thermal ranges, there is a potential thermal buildup at the bottom under sustained load, suggesting an optional future design revision could include a base fan.

Beelink ME Mini NAS – Ports and Connections

Despite its compact dimensions, the Beelink ME Mini includes a wide array of ports suited for both networking and peripheral connectivity. On the networking side, the unit features two 2.5GbE LAN ports (Intel i226-V), located at the rear, which support link aggregation or failover configurations. These enable transfer rates well above standard gigabit networking, although in practice, real-world throughput tends to be limited by SSD performance or PCIe lane constraints. During bandwidth testing, combined throughput between the LAN ports peaked around 580–600MB/s easily.

As much as many of us would want 10GbE – at this scale of CPU/Lanes, Price and just HEAT – I can understand why its absent here. That said, I do want to mention that the system includes onboard Wi-Fi 6 (via Intel AX101 module) and Bluetooth 5.2, expanding its use cases to wireless media streaming, mobile backups, and wireless NAS deployment without consuming physical LAN ports. More importantly though, UnRAID recently announced that in their latest update, you can now use wireless adapters (see below) – which, alongside UnRAID’s lightweight ‘on RAM’ deployment, makes it bloody IDEAL for using on the Beelink ME Mini

In terms of USB connectivity, the ME Mini provides a balanced selection across both older and high-speed standards. The rear I/O panel houses a USB 2.0 port (480 Mbps), while the front features one USB 3.2 Gen 2 port (10Gbps) and a USB Type-C port (also 10Gbps). This offers sufficient bandwidth for attaching external storage, keyboard/mouse input for system setup, or USB-based backup devices. While a higher count of USB 3.0+ ports might have benefitted users with multiple external drives, the available ports are positioned logically and suit the intended home-focused workflows.

Display output is provided via a single HDMI port located on the rear, which supports resolutions up to 4K at 60Hz. Although display output isn’t central to most NAS workflows, this port enables users to connect the system to a monitor or TV for initial OS installation, dashboard display, or media playback when used with platforms like LibreELEC or Kodi.

However, as noted during hands-on testing, functionality via HDMI may vary depending on the operating system installed—some headless NAS platforms may not fully support graphical output. Nevertheless, for users experimenting with hybrid HTPC/NAS setups or running Linux-based OS variants with a GUI, the HDMI port remains a useful inclusion.

Beelink ME Mini NAS – Performance and Power/Heat/Noise Testing

In testing, the Beelink ME Mini demonstrated respectable throughput for a system of its class, especially when factoring in its compact size, low power draw, and passively biased thermal design. Using Unraid and TrueNAS Core for performance benchmarking, sequential read and write speeds from the five PCIe Gen 3 x1 slots averaged around 740MB/s read and 544MB/s write under repeated 1GB test files. These numbers are typical for Gen 3 x1 lanes and reflect near-maximum lane saturation, suggesting minimal internal throttling under standard conditions. The Gen 3 x2 slot, intended for the operating system, provided higher performance—averaging 1.1GB/s read and approximately 960MB/s write when paired with the bundled Crucial P3 SSD.

Transfer speeds between SSDs installed in Gen 3 x1 and Gen 3 x2 slots were tested in both directions and maintained averages of around 590–600MB/s. These figures reflect the limitations of internal bandwidth allocation rather than SSD performance. Even so, for most home NAS scenarios such as 4K media playback, multi-user access to stored documents, or photo libraries, the bandwidth is more than sufficient. It’s worth noting that SSD cooling remained effective during prolonged access, with only modest thermal variation even under full-speed transfers across all six drives.

Thermal behavior during sustained load was closely monitored using a HIKMICRO thermal imaging camera. With all six SSDs installed and periodic access maintained over a 24-hour period, temperatures peaked at 48–51°C at the top panel and 58–60°C at the base, where most of the PSU and networking activity is concentrated. Running the same tests with the case removed saw temperatures settle slightly lower—around 49–51°C across the board—confirming the effectiveness of the internal heatsink and fan assembly. However, the bottom of the unit exhibited more thermal accumulation due to the lack of active ventilation underneath, pointing to an area for potential design refinement.

In terms of power consumption and noise, the ME Mini is especially frugal. With no SSDs installed, the device idled at 6.0–6.9W. When populated with six SSDs and left idle, it drew approximately 16.9W. During peak activity—dual LAN ports active, CPU load above 70%, and all drives in use—power draw peaked between 28W and 31W. These are competitive numbers even among ARM-based NAS devices, and particularly impressive for an x86-based solution with full M.2 NVMe storage.

Acoustic output was also controlled, with idle operation measured at 31–34 dBA and full load peaking at just under 40 dBA—quiet enough for placement in shared living spaces without distraction.

While performance is clearly limited by the Gen 3 x1 interface speeds on most slots, the device’s thermal and power efficiency arguably matter more for its intended audience. This NAS isn’t designed for high-throughput, multi-client virtualization tasks or heavy 10GbE video editing pipelines. Instead, it excels in delivering balanced, stable, and low-noise performance across general-purpose NAS workloads. For users building a Plex server, family backup archive, soft router, or even an experimental home lab appliance, the ME Mini offers just enough headroom to handle real-world demands without overwhelming complexity or cost.

Beelink ME Mini – Performance and Environmental Metrics (Over 3 Days)

Beelink ME Mini NAS Review – Verdict and Conclusion

The Beelink ME Mini NAS delivers an uncommon blend of size, functionality, and efficiency in a market segment often dominated by larger, louder, and less integrated alternatives. It is not designed to compete with traditional enterprise-grade NAS devices or modular, scalable solutions for prosumers. Instead, its strengths lie in targeting the needs of home users who want a quiet, energy-efficient storage solution that is easy to deploy, aesthetically unobtrusive, and capable of handling daily tasks such as media streaming, file backup, or soft routing. The inclusion of six M.2 NVMe SSD slots—paired with a Gen 3 x2 system slot—offers a rare level of expansion in such a small enclosure. The integration of an internal PSU, silent fan-assisted cooling, and a surprisingly effective thermal design are thoughtful touches that differentiate it from the majority of DIY NAS mini PCs.

That said, it is not without limitations. The memory is non-upgradable, thermal accumulation at the base suggests room for improvement, and bandwidth ceilings imposed by Gen 3 x1 lanes will constrain users who demand high parallel throughput. Still, for its price point—particularly when pre-order discounts are applied—the ME Mini offers significant value, especially when compared to ARM-based NAS solutions with similar or lower specifications. With bundled Crucial SSD options and support for a wide range of NAS operating systems, it positions itself as a ready-to-go platform for tech-savvy users wanting to avoid the assembly of a fully DIY system. Overall, while not a product for every use case, the Beelink ME Mini succeeds in its aim to be a compact, stylish, and capable home NAS.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
[contact-form-7]
Join Inner Circle

This description contains links to Amazon. These links will take you to some of the products mentioned in today's content. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Visit the NASCompares Deal Finder to find the best place to buy this device in your region, based on Service, Support and Reputation - Just Search for your NAS Drive in the Box Below

Need Advice on Data Storage from an Expert?

Finally, for free advice about your setup, just leave a message in the comments below here at NASCompares.com and we will get back to you. Need Help? Where possible (and where appropriate) please provide as much information about your requirements, as then I can arrange the best answer and solution to your needs. Do not worry about your e-mail address being required, it will NOT be used in a mailing list and will NOT be used in any way other than to respond to your enquiry. [contact-form-7] TRY CHAT Terms and Conditions   Alternatively, why not ask me on the ASK NASCompares forum, by clicking the button below. This is a community hub that serves as a place that I can answer your question, chew the fat, share new release information and even get corrections posted. I will always get around to answering ALL queries, but as a one-man operation, I cannot promise speed! So by sharing your query in the ASK NASCompares section below, you can get a better range of solutions and suggestions, alongside my own.

WE LOVE COFFEE

 

Is This The Beginning of the End of PLEX – Is It Jellyfin Time?

After more than a decade of keeping its Lifetime Plex Pass at $119.99, Plex has officially announced a significant price increase—raising the cost to $249.99 starting April 29, 2025. This announcement, delivered through a press release on March 19, also outlined several additional changes to Plex’s pricing structure and feature availability. While price increases are common in the subscription space, this is Plex’s first major change of its kind in over ten years. It affects not just future subscribers, but the entire conversation around personal media platforms and the value Plex provides in 2025. As someone who has tested and covered Plex across various NAS platforms over the years, I think it’s important to break this all down clearly—and fairly.

Note – at the time of writing, April 5th, the old prices from Plex Pass are still available and a Lifetime Plex Pass purchased now will be no different than one purchased after April 29th 2025)

The TL;DR – Plex Just Raised Prices and Paywalled Remote Streaming

Plex is doubling the price of its Lifetime Pass from $119.99 to $249.99 starting April 29, 2025—its first increase in over a decade. At the same time, remote streaming will no longer be free, now requiring either a Plex Pass or a new $1.99/month Remote Watch Pass. While Plex has removed mobile app unlock fees and teased new features like a Common Sense Media integration, users are frustrated that core features are being moved behind paywalls. Open-source alternatives like Jellyfin are gaining traction, though they lack Plex’s polish and easy remote access. Emby sits awkwardly between the two, offering both paid and free tiers but without a clear value advantage. If you’re a regular Plex user, now is likely the last chance to grab the Lifetime Pass at its original price—after that, the equation changes.

Why is PLEX Increasing Prices and Changing their Software Services?

Plex has positioned this move as a necessary step toward long-term sustainability and innovation, citing rising infrastructure and development costs. Alongside the new Lifetime price, the monthly subscription will increase to $6.99 (up from $4.99), and the annual plan will rise to $69.99 (from $39.99). That’s a considerable leap across the board. If you’re currently on the fence about investing in a Lifetime Pass, the window is closing quickly. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again—if Plex is part of your day-to-day setup, especially with multiple users or remote access needs, now is the most sensible time to act. Once the new pricing kicks in, the Lifetime tier may lose its appeal for newer users, especially when compared to other one-time license models in the tech space.

More controversial than the price hike, though, is the newly introduced limitation on remote streaming. As of late April, remote access will no longer be included in the free version of Plex. This means that if you want to stream media from your home server while away—say on a mobile device or at work—you’ll now need a Plex Pass or a new tier called Remote Watch Pass, which is priced at $1.99/month or $19.99/year. This shift marks a pretty significant change in Plex’s philosophy. Previously, you could set up a NAS, install Plex Media Server, and stream remotely with minimal friction. Now, that experience is essentially paywalled. While the company has clarified that users with an existing Plex Pass won’t be affected, new users and guests who rely on remote access will need to consider this new fee model.

In his own coverage of the news, Alex from the KTZ Systems YouTube channel offered a measured but critical response. He highlighted the underlying tension many feel: “You’re paying Plex to access your own files, on your own hardware, over your own network and internet connection.” It’s a fair point—and while I can understand Plex’s need for sustainable revenue, the optics of charging for what many considered a core, previously-free feature are less than ideal. In our recent joint podcast, Alex and I both agreed that if Lifetime Passes are no longer financially viable, Plex should have either phased them out or significantly increased the cost to signal their rarity. Instead, the $249.99 price tag sits in an odd middle ground—too high to feel like a deal, too low to feel truly premium.

(From official Plex Pages) IMPORTANT NOTE FOR CURRENT PLEX PASS HOLDERS:
For users who have an active Plex Pass subscription, remote playback will continue to be available to you without interruption from any Plex Media Server, after these changes go into effect. When running your own Plex Media Server as a subscriber, other users to whom you have granted access can also stream from the server (whether local or remote), without ANY additional charge—not even a mobile activation fee.

Could PLEX Have Approached Funding and Sustainability Better?

Rather than placing long-standing features behind a paywall, Plex had several other options for becoming more financially sustainable—many of which were discussed across the community in recent weeks:

• Introduce a “Plex 2.0” Premium Tier: Instead of retroactively limiting features, Plex could have rolled out a major version update with enhanced capabilities—such as native audiobook support, advanced download controls, or multi-user analytics—reserved for paying users, while leaving existing features intact for legacy users.

• Cap Lifetime Passes and Shift Focus to Recurring Tiers: Rather than awkwardly doubling the Lifetime price, Plex might have opted to discontinue Lifetime entirely and focus on expanding the value of annual/monthly subscriptions through regular feature rollouts or exclusive integrations, as seen in platforms like Roon or UnRAID.

• Use a “Freemium Scaling” Model: By allowing remote access for a limited number of external users or devices on the free tier (e.g., “first one’s free”), Plex could have maintained goodwill while encouraging heavier users to upgrade organically—similar to how many SaaS platforms incentivize scaling through added value, not restriction.

What Else is Changing in Plex?

To their credit, Plex has removed one of the more annoying barriers from its platform—the mobile app unlock fee. Previously, streaming via the Android or iOS app was limited to one minute unless you paid a small one-time fee or had a Plex Pass. With the rollout of their new mobile client experience, this limitation is going away. Local streaming—meaning within the same network—will now be completely free on mobile. This is undoubtedly a welcome change, especially for users who run everything locally and don’t rely on remote features. However, for those who previously enjoyed full functionality across networks without a subscription, this small improvement may not offset the new restrictions.

Plex also used the announcement to preview some upcoming features for Plex Pass subscribers, including an integration with Common Sense Media aimed at improving parental control tools, a new server management app (separate from Plex Dash), and a long-requested open API for metadata agents and custom integrations. While these additions have genuine value, their timing—bundled with a price increase and feature restrictions—makes it harder for users to assess whether Plex is giving more or simply charging more. Alex pointed out in our podcast that innovation, not restriction, should drive paid feature rollouts. It’s a sentiment I tend to agree with: adding new tools rather than paywalling old ones is the path that generates goodwill and long-term user engagement.

Is Now the time to Ditch PLEX, and Opt for Jellyfin or Emby Media Server?

Naturally, this news has reignited interest in Jellyfin, the most well-known open-source alternative to Plex. Jellyfin remains free, with no subscriptions or data collection, and offers solid core media server functionality. However, as Alex and I discussed in our joint video, Jellyfin comes with its own set of trade-offs. While it nails the fundamentals—smooth playback, broad codec support, and responsive local streaming—it lacks polish in its client apps, and remote access typically requires self-configuration through a VPN or mesh network like Tailscale. For tech-savvy users, that’s a worthwhile trade. But for those who rely on Plex’s seamless, cross-platform access, Jellyfin may still feel like a step backward in convenience.

Emby, once considered a middle ground between Plex and Jellyfin, is rarely mentioned in this conversation anymore—and there are reasons for that. Emby straddles an awkward line between open-source philosophy and commercial aspirations. It still charges for features like hardware transcoding and has moved away from its open development roots. In our podcast, Alex shared his own frustrations with Emby’s shift to closed source shortly after he purchased a Lifetime license. Combined with a smaller user base, inconsistent app support, and limited visibility in NAS ecosystems, Emby struggles to be either the budget-friendly choice or the polished premium one. In short, it’s not that Emby is bad—it’s that it’s not compelling enough to compete meaningfully right now.

Are We Seeing the End of PLEX on the Horizon?

One key issue here isn’t just the new pricing or paywalled features, but how Plex has communicated these changes. As we discussed in the podcast, the rollout feels rushed and reactive, missing an opportunity to reframe this as a strategic step forward—say, through a “Plex Plus” or “Plex Lite” tier with exclusive new tools, or by versioning changes the way other platforms (like UnRAID or even macOS) handle major updates. Instead, moving features behind a paywall post-launch risks alienating loyal users. Plex’s assertion that these changes won’t affect existing Plex Pass holders is reassuring, but it doesn’t help new users discovering Plex for the first time—and realizing that what used to be free is now a subscription service.

Ultimately, I don’t believe Plex is on the brink of collapse—as some dramatic headlines might suggest—but I do think this moment marks a turning point. If you’re a regular Plex user who streams remotely or shares content with others, the Lifetime Pass at $119.99 (until April 29) remains a solid investment. After that, the value calculus shifts dramatically. For new users, the free tier will still work well for local-only setups, and the Remote Watch Pass provides a budget-friendly option. But the days of a completely free, fully featured Plex experience are clearly behind us.

---

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
[contact-form-7]
Join Inner Circle

This description contains links to Amazon. These links will take you to some of the products mentioned in today's content. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Visit the NASCompares Deal Finder to find the best place to buy this device in your region, based on Service, Support and Reputation - Just Search for your NAS Drive in the Box Below

Need Advice on Data Storage from an Expert?

Finally, for free advice about your setup, just leave a message in the comments below here at NASCompares.com and we will get back to you. Need Help? Where possible (and where appropriate) please provide as much information about your requirements, as then I can arrange the best answer and solution to your needs. Do not worry about your e-mail address being required, it will NOT be used in a mailing list and will NOT be used in any way other than to respond to your enquiry. [contact-form-7] TRY CHAT Terms and Conditions   Alternatively, why not ask me on the ASK NASCompares forum, by clicking the button below. This is a community hub that serves as a place that I can answer your question, chew the fat, share new release information and even get corrections posted. I will always get around to answering ALL queries, but as a one-man operation, I cannot promise speed! So by sharing your query in the ASK NASCompares section below, you can get a better range of solutions and suggestions, alongside my own.

WE LOVE COFFEE

 

Visiting a NAS Production Facility in Shenzhen, China – The CWWK Factory and Office Tour

As part of a broader effort to explore the landscape of Chinese tech manufacturers, I recently visited the facilities of CWWK (ChangWang) in Shenzhen, China. CWWK is best known in enthusiast circles for producing NAS motherboards and compact computing solutions, often associated with budget-friendly, DIY network storage builds. My visit aimed to independently assess the scope and structure of their operations. What made this particular tour notable was the access I was granted: no NDAs were signed, there were no editorial restrictions placed on what I could film or ask, and I was permitted to record freely inside their production and R&D spaces.

This is uncommon, particularly in the tech hardware space, where many brands—especially in Asia—are typically guarded about internal processes, even when media are invited. The open format allowed for a more thorough and independent evaluation, without needing to speculate based on secondhand reports or promotional material.

It’s important to contextualize how the visit came about. CWWK did not arrange or sponsor my trip to China in any way. I was in the region for a series of self-funded visits to multiple tech companies, looking to gain a clearer understanding of how various hardware brands operate behind the scenes. The idea was to go beyond spec sheets and product listings and see what real infrastructure, if any, stood behind companies whose products are often marketed under many different brand names on platforms like AliExpress, Amazon, and Alibaba.

I reached out to CWWK on short notice—roughly 10 to 14 days prior—and they agreed to the visit. The fact that they were able to accommodate the tour with minimal lead time is worth noting. It doesn’t rule out the possibility of some presentation enhancements being made in preparation, but it does suggest that the company was not reliant on elaborate staging to present a working production environment.

The first location I visited was a mixed-use building that included administrative offices, logistics personnel, and access to part of the factory floor. Externally, the building bore no clear CWWK branding, which initially raised questions about ownership or exclusivity. Inside, however, the picture was more cohesive: staff wore uniforms bearing CWWK logos, and product runs on the factory floor featured motherboards that matched CWWK’s catalog.

While I wasn’t given lease documentation or corporate records, the volume of CWWK-branded activity suggested the company either occupies a substantial portion of the facility or has secured long-term, semi-exclusive use of the space. Several floors were accessible, and the presence of both production and support teams indicated that this was more than a satellite or temporary operation. Even so, it’s likely this building is part of a larger industrial complex shared with other tenants, which is common practice in Shenzhen’s manufacturing zones.

One of the key questions I brought to the visit concerned product design and IP ownership—specifically, whether CWWK truly engineers its own hardware or rebrands ODM (original design manufacturer) platforms that are available generically to other companies. In a formal meeting with several members of their team, facilitated by a translator, I was told that all motherboard designs are created in-house.

The company emphasized that while many of their designs do appear under other brand names, including through known resellers or system integrators, the core engineering and schematics originate from their internal teams. Some of these designs, they explained, are distributed under license or through contract manufacturing relationships.

While I wasn’t shown the full design pipeline or documentation for each SKU, I was given access to product schematics, test rigs, and development areas. Based on what I observed, it’s reasonable to conclude that CWWK controls the design process and that their platforms are later distributed—often without clear attribution—by partner companies.

Technical support and warranty policies are often ambiguous when it comes to imported tech from overseas sellers, so I took the opportunity to ask about their post-sales procedures. According to CWWK staff, customers who purchase through major e-commerce channels like AliExpress and Alibaba are serviced directly by the company’s internal support team. This contradicts the assumption that resellers handle all inquiries. They described a standard one-year warranty policy, during which defective products are repaired where feasible rather than replaced outright.

While this approach may not satisfy buyers expecting instant replacements, it aligns with broader industry trends aimed at reducing e-waste and extending hardware lifespans. I observed a dedicated support office where staff were responding to issues, many of which involved firmware or BIOS concerns. The responses to my questions were generally clear but did follow a templated structure, which made it difficult to determine how adaptable their support might be in complex cases.

Moving onto the factory floor, I was able to observe multiple stages of the production workflow. The environment combined automated processes—such as SMT (surface mount technology) component placement and soldering—with manual checkpoints, where staff would verify board integrity, inspect connector alignment, and move products between stations. The factory space showed signs of active use: floor scuffing, desk wear, and tooling marks suggested long-term operation rather than short-term setup.

Workers were equipped with anti-static wrist straps, and safety protocols appeared to be in place, though a few inconsistencies were observed. For instance, not all staff were wearing the full lab coats or coverings that I was required to wear as a visitor. While that’s not uncommon in similar facilities, it’s worth noting in the context of manufacturing discipline. Overall, the workflow followed a logical structure, and there were observable quality checks along the line, including one instance where a misaligned port was flagged and redirected for correction.

Direct interaction with factory personnel was limited, mainly due to language barriers and the guided nature of the tour. I attempted brief conversations, but most staff were focused on their tasks and understandably uninterested in lengthy exchanges with a foreign visitor.

I did not observe any signs of distress or visible overwork, but equally, I did not have enough time or context to draw firm conclusions about working conditions. The facility walls displayed motivational signage, some of which featured quite stern phrasing around responsibility and company reputation.

These types of messages—such as “Your mistakes are our mistakes”—may reflect common workplace culture in the region rather than specific managerial attitudes. In contrast, a separate building used for research and marketing featured more aspirational language. These environmental details may offer some insight into the tone and structure of the company, although they should be interpreted cautiously.

A portion of the facility was allocated to repairs and technical diagnostics. I observed several staff members actively responding to customer-reported issues and working on returned products. Desks were equipped with diagnostic tools and some BIOS interfaces were visible on screens.

In a nearby room, technicians were repairing or reworking boards—examples included reseating CPUs, correcting poorly soldered connectors, and inspecting DIMM slots.

Although the scale of this area was not massive (around six to eight desks), it indicated an operational RMA process. I did not assess how quickly repairs are processed or whether every return is examined manually, but the team appeared to be addressing real customer issues, not simply staging activity for the tour. Staff in this area were dressed more casually than the production line workers, likely due to the nature of their tasks involving pre-owned or defective components.

The second facility, located in the Beta Industrial Park, was clearly identified as a CWWK property. Unlike the first building, this one included prominent company branding, product showcases, and internal signage referencing CWWK’s development roadmap.

The upper floors were used by the R&D and marketing teams. In a dedicated product room, I was shown nearly every motherboard they’ve developed, including legacy models and upcoming releases. Several new boards were in early development, featuring high-density SATA fan-outs via SFF-8654 and NVMe expandability.

Designs ranged from micro-ITX to mATX, with plans to scale modularly using add-on cards for storage and connectivity. I also viewed design schematics and 3D renderings used to plan component layout and case compatibility. CWWK is working on 10GbE-capable models using newer Intel and AMD platforms, including boards with ECC memory support and USB4 integration. While I was not permitted to document everything in detail, the scope and clarity of the development process suggested an active, technically capable engineering team.

After spending a full day across both facilities, my overall impression of CWWK was that of a mid-sized but competent hardware developer with a growing international presence. While the first building’s exact ownership remains somewhat ambiguous, the second building was clearly operated and branded by CWWK, housing their product, development, and marketing teams. More significantly, based on my observations and the responses given, it is clear that CWWK designs and owns the intellectual property behind their motherboards.

There were also strong indications that they serve as an upstream supplier for other brands—likely including companies like Topton, MrRoute, and similar resellers often seen on Chinese e-commerce platforms. Whether these partners act as distributors, integrators, or white-label resellers wasn’t explicitly stated, but the relationship appears to exist.

CWWK is not a shell company or brand-only operation; it is a functioning developer and manufacturer of computing hardware with its own IP, infrastructure, and personnel. For buyers, this doesn’t automatically guarantee performance or support satisfaction, but it does lend some credibility and traceability to a product category often dominated by opaque supply chains and unbranded goods.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
[contact-form-7]
Join Inner Circle

This description contains links to Amazon. These links will take you to some of the products mentioned in today's content. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Visit the NASCompares Deal Finder to find the best place to buy this device in your region, based on Service, Support and Reputation - Just Search for your NAS Drive in the Box Below

Need Advice on Data Storage from an Expert?

Finally, for free advice about your setup, just leave a message in the comments below here at NASCompares.com and we will get back to you. Need Help? Where possible (and where appropriate) please provide as much information about your requirements, as then I can arrange the best answer and solution to your needs. Do not worry about your e-mail address being required, it will NOT be used in a mailing list and will NOT be used in any way other than to respond to your enquiry. [contact-form-7] TRY CHAT Terms and Conditions   Alternatively, why not ask me on the ASK NASCompares forum, by clicking the button below. This is a community hub that serves as a place that I can answer your question, chew the fat, share new release information and even get corrections posted. I will always get around to answering ALL queries, but as a one-man operation, I cannot promise speed! So by sharing your query in the ASK NASCompares section below, you can get a better range of solutions and suggestions, alongside my own.

WE LOVE COFFEE