UniFi UNAS 4 NAS Review – Simple Safe Storage?

The UniFi UNAS 4 is Ubiquiti’s desktop 4 bay NAS and part of the company’s growing UniFi storage portfolio. Positioned as a compact network storage appliance, it is designed to provide centralized file storage, backups, and shared access within a local network, while also integrating with the wider UniFi management platform. The 4 bay form factor is widely considered a practical starting point for NAS deployments, offering enough capacity for RAID redundancy while maintaining a relatively small physical footprint suitable for offices, home labs, and small business environments. At $379, the UNAS 4 enters the market as a relatively affordable turnkey NAS that includes both hardware and the UniFi Drive software platform. The system combines traditional SATA storage bays with NVMe SSD caching support and 2.5GbE networking, while also introducing PoE+++ power as a deployment option. On paper, the device aims to deliver a straightforward storage solution that focuses on core NAS functionality rather than attempting to compete directly with more feature heavy platforms.

UniFi UNAS 4 Review – Quick Conclusion

TLDR: The UniFi UNAS 4 is a compact $379 4 bay NAS aimed at straightforward file storage and backups, with a clean UniFi oriented deployment that includes PoE+++ power plus data over a single cable and a bundled 90W adapter for non PoE setups. It combines 4 SATA bays with 2 M.2 NVMe slots for SSD caching, simple click and load drive trays, and a small front status display, while UniFi Drive provides the expected NAS services such as SMB and NFS access, RAID options, snapshots, encryption, share links, and multi user management, plus backup support that can include other UNAS targets, SMB destinations, and several cloud providers. The main compromises are the single 2.5GbE port that caps throughput and offers no redundancy, NVMe trays not being included despite the slots being present, and a USB C port that currently functions mostly for basic external storage rather than broader expansion, so it fits best when the goal is uncomplicated storage within a UniFi managed environment rather than a more flexible, performance oriented NAS platform.

BUILD QUALITY - 9/10

HARDWARE - 7/10

PERFORMANCE - 7/10

PRICE - 9/10

VALUE - 9/10

8.2

PROS

$379 pricing is competitive for a turnkey 4 bay NAS with UniFi Drive included
4 bay 2.5 inch and 3.5 inch SATA support for flexible capacity planning
2 x M.2 NVMe slots for read and write SSD caching
PoE+++ support enables single cable power plus data deployment
90W PoE+++ mains adapter included, so PoE infrastructure is optional
Simple click and load HDD trays with straightforward access for drive installs and swaps
Front 1.47 inch color LCM display provides basic status and activity visibility
UniFi Drive software includes RAID options, snapshots, encryption, share links, and user management

CONS

Single 2.5GbE port limits throughput and provides no network redundancy or aggregation
M.2 NVMe trays not included, adding cost to use SSD caching
USB C port is currently limited in utility beyond basic external storage attachment

You can buy the UniFi UNAS 4 NAS via the link below – doing so will result in a small commission coming to me and Eddie at NASCompares, and allows us to keep doing what we do! 

UniFi UNAS 4 Review – Design & Storage

The UniFi UNAS 4 uses a compact desktop chassis that differs from the more traditional box shaped NAS designs seen from many competing brands. The enclosure is relatively narrow and deep, giving it a vertical appearance that resembles some earlier consumer NAS designs. The casing itself is constructed from polycarbonate rather than metal, which keeps overall weight down to around 2.6 kg without drives installed. Ventilation is primarily handled through openings along the upper portion of the chassis, with airflow directed toward a rear mounted cooling fan.

At the front of the unit is a small 1.47 inch color LCM display that provides basic system information. This panel is not touch enabled but can show details such as drive activity, network activity, and general system status. It acts primarily as a quick visual reference rather than a full control interface. For most configuration and monitoring tasks, the system is intended to be managed through the UniFi Drive interface via a web browser or mobile application.

The primary storage configuration consists of 4 drive bays supporting either 3.5 inch or 2.5 inch SATA drives. Each drive uses an individual tray that slides into the chassis and clicks into place without requiring screws for 3.5 inch drives. The trays are ventilated and designed for relatively straightforward installation or replacement, although they are not lockable. Compared with earlier UniFi NAS designs that grouped multiple drives into a single tray, the use of separate trays simplifies drive access and improves hot swap usability.

In addition to the main hard drive bays, the system includes 2 M.2 NVMe slots intended for SSD caching. These slots are located in a separate compartment on the base of the device and can be accessed by removing a small cover using the included key. Once installed, these SSDs can be used to provide read and write caching to improve responsiveness when working with frequently accessed data. At the time of writing, these NVMe drives cannot be used as independent storage pools and are limited to caching roles.

One design choice that may affect installation is that the trays required to hold the NVMe SSDs are not included in the retail package. Instead, they must be purchased separately or obtained as part of pre populated SSD modules from Ubiquiti. While the M.2 slots themselves are built into the device, the lack of included trays adds an additional step and cost for users who intend to make use of SSD caching alongside the main hard drive storage.

UniFi UNAS 4 Review – Internal Hardware

Internally, the UniFi UNAS 4 is built around a quad core ARM Cortex A55 processor running at 1.7 GHz. This type of processor is commonly used in embedded networking hardware and lower power storage appliances, where efficiency and reliability are prioritized over raw processing performance. Ubiquiti has extensive experience deploying ARM architectures across its networking and infrastructure products, and the choice here aligns with the system’s intended role as a dedicated storage appliance rather than a general purpose server platform.

The system includes 4 GB of LPDDR4 memory, which is fixed and not user upgradeable. For the core functions the device is designed to handle, such as file transfers, backups, and storage management, this amount of memory is generally sufficient. However, the fixed memory configuration does place a ceiling on how much additional functionality the hardware could realistically support in the future, particularly if the software platform expands with additional services or heavier workloads.

From a power perspective, the system is designed to operate within a relatively modest power envelope. The maximum system power consumption is rated at 90 W, with a maximum drive power budget of 80 W. Power delivery is handled through PoE+++, allowing both data and power to be carried through the same Ethernet connection when used with compatible infrastructure. For deployments without PoE support, the device ships with a 90 W PoE+++ adapter, allowing it to be powered from a standard mains outlet while still maintaining the same connection layout.

UniFi UNAS 4 Review – Ports and Connections

The UniFi UNAS 4 keeps connectivity simple, with a single 2.5GbE RJ45 port handling both network data and PoE+++ power delivery. This allows the unit to be deployed with a single cable when used with compatible switches or injectors, which can reduce cable clutter and simplify placement compared with NAS systems that require separate power and network connections. The port supports 2.5G, 1G, 100M, and 10M link speeds, so it can operate in mixed networks even if 2.5GbE infrastructure is not available.

The main limitation is that there is only 1 network interface, with no secondary port for link aggregation, redundancy, or dedicated management traffic. In practical terms, this reduces options for failover and makes the network connection a single point of dependency. It also places a hard ceiling on throughput, which is relevant on a 4 bay system where aggregate drive performance can exceed what a single 2.5GbE link can sustain in some workloads.

For external expansion, the device includes a 5 Gbps USB C port intended for attaching external storage. In its current form, it functions primarily as a straightforward way to connect a USB drive for basic transfers rather than as a broader expansion interface. The hardware capability suggests potential for wider use cases, but the available functionality is mainly determined by what UniFi Drive supports at the software level.

UniFi UNAS 4 Review – Software and Services

The UNAS 4 runs UniFi Drive and is managed through the same UniFi style web interface used across the wider portfolio, with system status, storage, backups, and user access presented through a single dashboard. For typical NAS use, the core functions are in place: initializing drives, building RAID storage, creating shared and personal drives, enabling file services, and checking drive health information. The interface is mostly structured around completing common tasks quickly and keeping administration consistent with other UniFi products, rather than exposing a long list of granular configuration controls. That approach makes initial setup and day to day management relatively straightforward, but it also means experienced NAS users may notice limits in how far the system can be tuned.

File access is centered on SMB and NFS, with browser based file management available for basic upload, download, and folder navigation. The web file manager covers essential functions and includes share link creation plus thumbnail and preview handling, but it is not designed as a full productivity layer with collaborative editing or advanced file workflow tools. Client access is largely built around standard network shares and UniFi’s account-driven identity layer, and while the system can be deployed locally without relying on a UniFi account, the most integrated remote workflow is clearly designed around UniFi’s own UI and identity services rather than third party remote networking options.

Data protection features cover most of what is expected for a general purpose file NAS. UniFi Drive supports snapshots, encrypted storage, and configurable retention policies, which covers common rollback needs and basic ransomware recovery strategy when paired with sensible scheduling. Backup tooling is one of the stronger areas in terms of scope, supporting tasks to another UniFi NAS, to SMB targets, and to cloud services such as Google Drive, OneDrive, Dropbox, Amazon S3, Backblaze B2, and Wasabi. Time Machine support is also present for macOS environments, and Microsoft 365 backup is part of the broader UniFi Drive direction, even if the overall feature set remains more storage and protection focused than application focused.

The limitations are consistent with the UNAS 4’s role and its hardware profile. There is no iSCSI target support, which restricts certain virtualization, hypervisor, and block storage workflows, and there is no container or VM layer intended for running third party services directly on the device. NVMe support remains limited to SSD caching rather than separate pools, and on the UNAS 4 that caching is also constrained by the single 2.5GbE connection, which can cap how much of the cache benefit is visible over the network in sustained sequential transfers. More broadly, system level configuration remains relatively contained, with fewer advanced networking and scheduling controls than many established NAS platforms provide.

Client side tooling is also still relatively limited compared with ecosystems that offer a more developed sync, selective download, and offline pinning experience across desktop and mobile. UniFi Drive does provide client app support and identity driven access, but the overall workflow remains closer to traditional network share usage than to a full cloud drive style experience. As it stands, the software aligns with the UNAS 4’s positioning as a storage and backup appliance with a clean management layer, rather than a platform intended to replace a more feature dense NAS operating system.

UniFi UNAS 4 Review – Noise, Temp, Temp & Performance

In practical use, performance on the UNAS 4 is largely shaped by its single 2.5GbE connection. With mechanical drives, the system can deliver consistent transfer rates that sit within the expected ceiling of a 2.5GbE link, but it does not have the networking headroom to take full advantage of what a 4 drive array can potentially deliver under sustained sequential workloads. This is most noticeable when using higher capacity 7200 RPM drives, where the combined throughput of multiple disks can exceed the network limit even before SSD caching is factored in.

Testing with mixed file transfers showed typical throughput in the range of roughly 180 to 250 MB/s depending on file type and workload, with higher results generally observed once NVMe caching was enabled. A 50 GB Windows transfer completed at a pace that aligned with these figures, with sustained rates remaining stable rather than spiking briefly and then dropping sharply. The overall behaviour suggests that the device can maintain steady network limited transfers, but it is not designed to chase peak throughput beyond what 2.5GbE allows.

NVMe caching improved responsiveness and helped maintain higher sustained transfer speeds, particularly during repeated reads and writes where the cache could play an active role. However, the caching implementation is limited to acceleration rather than acting as a separate storage tier, and the benefit is workload dependent. Large sequential transfers still remain constrained by the network port, while smaller or more frequently accessed data sees more practical gains from the cache layer.

From an operational standpoint, power draw remained relatively modest for a 4 bay system. A baseline measurement with no drives installed was around 14.1 W. With 4 HDDs and 2 NVMe SSDs installed, idle power use was observed at around 46 W, rising to roughly 50 to 51 W under active read and write workloads with moderate CPU and memory utilization. The relatively small gap between idle and active indicates that drive idle draw forms a significant portion of the total consumption in typical day to day use.

UniFi UNAS 4 Review – Conclusion & Verdict

The UniFi UNAS 4 is a compact 4 bay NAS that prioritizes straightforward storage deployment, particularly for users already running UniFi hardware and UniFi management. Its pricing, PoE+++ support with an included adapter, NVMe caching capability, and generally simple physical drive access make it a practical option for core NAS tasks such as shared folders, backups, and centralized file storage. The hardware choices are consistent with that goal, and the platform is best assessed as a storage appliance rather than a general purpose server. On the software side, UniFi Drive provides the expected baseline services for this category, including SMB and NFS file access, RAID options, snapshots, encrypted storage, share links, and multi user management. Backup support is broader than the basics, with options that can include remote UNAS targets, SMB destinations, and several mainstream cloud services, along with Time Machine support for macOS. Management is clearly aimed at keeping configuration simple through a unified interface, but it also remains more limited than mature NAS platforms in areas such as deeper system tuning, third party remote access alternatives, and broader application style features.

The trade offs are easy to identify. A single 2.5GbE port limits peak throughput and removes options such as link aggregation or network failover, which matters more on a 4 bay system than it would on a smaller unit. The NVMe slots are limited to caching rather than independent pools, and using them adds cost due to trays not being included. Cooling behaviour can become more noticeable if fan speed increases, and the USB C port currently operates mainly as an external drive attachment point rather than a broader expansion interface. Overall, the UNAS 4 makes the most sense when its role is kept narrow, and when UniFi Drive’s storage and backup feature set, alongside UniFi ecosystem integration, is a meaningful part of the purchase decision.

You can buy the UniFi UNAS 4 NAS via the link below – doing so will result in a small commission coming to me and Eddie at NASCompares, and allows us to keep doing what we do! 

Join Inner Circle

Want to follow specific category? Also Read...UniFi UNAS 4 ReviewLincstation E1 NAS Review - TOIs the UniFi Dream Router StilUniFi Dream Router 7 - ONE YEATP Link TL-WR3602BE Travel RouGli.Net Comet 5G Review - The Gl.iNet Comet 5G Review - The UniFi UNAS Pro 4 vs Pro vs ProUniFi UNAS Pro 4 vs Pro vs ProUniFi Cloud Gateway Industrial Subscribe You can also follow specific search terms:

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?

TRY CHAT

If you like this service, please consider supporting us. We use affiliate links on the blog allowing NAScompares information and advice service to be free of charge to you.Anything you purchase on the day you click on our links will generate a small commission which isused to run the website. Here is a link for Amazon and B&H.You can also get me a Ko-fi or old school Paypal. Thanks!To find out more about how to support this advice service check HEREIf you need to fix or configure a NAS, check Fiver Have you thought about helping others with your knowledge? Find Instructions Here  

Or support us by using our affiliate links on Amazon UK and Amazon US

    

 

WE LOVE COFFEE

Aujourd’hui, je vous propose un guide rapide pour installer et utiliser Dockhand sur votre NAS Synology. Dockhand est une alternative à Container Manager de Synology. Il propose une interface légère et directe, pensée pour ceux qui veulent garder la main sans se noyer dans une multitude d’options. Entrons immédiatement dans le vif du sujet…

Synology et Dockhand

Suite à mon article « Dockhand, Arcane ou Portainer : quelle interface Docker en 2026 ?« , je vous propose de découvrir comment installer facilement et rapidement Dockhand. Inutile de désactiver Container Station, vous pourrez parfaitement profiter de Dockhand en parallèle. Mieux encore, tous vos conteneurs existants seront automatiquement visibles.

Dockhand s’adresse aux utilisateurs déjà à l’aise avec Docker et qui recherchent une interface rapide et efficace. Si la ligne de commande ne vous fait pas peur, mais que vous appréciez d’avoir une vue d’ensemble claire de ce qui tourne sur votre serveur, Dockhand coche beaucoup de cases. L’approche est volontairement minimaliste, il n’y a pas de menus interminables, pas de concepts propriétaires obscurs. Vous gérez les containers, vous regardez les logs, vous redémarrez un service si besoin. L’outil est plus complet que Container Manager par défaut, tout en restant simple à prendre en main.

Installer sur un NAS Synology

Pour cette installation, j’ai simplement suivi le tuto officiel de Dockhand.

Préparation des dossiers

1. Ouvrez File Station
2. Allez dans le dossier docker
3. Créez un sous-dossier nommé dockhand

Création du conteneur Docker

1. Ouvrez Container Manager
2. Allez dans Projet → Créer
3. Renseignez les informations suivantes :
   • Nom du projet : dockhand
   • Chemin : docker/dockhand
   • Source : Créer un fichier docker-compose.yml

Collez ensuite le contenu suivant :

services:
  dockhand:
    image: fnsys/dockhand:latest
    container_name: dockhand
    restart: unless-stopped
    ports:
      - 3075:3000
    volumes:
      - /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock
      - ./:/app/data

Le port 3000 sur mon NAS est déjà utilisé. J’ai donc fait le choix du 3075…
Voici ce que vous devriez avoir :

Cliquez sur Suivant, puis sur Effectué… et patientez quelques minutes le temps que le conteneur démarre. C’est terminé !

Pour y accéder, tapez dans l’adresse suivante dans un nouvel onglet de votre navigateur : http://AdresseIPduNAS:3075

Première connexion

Lors de la première connexion, un message d’accueil s’affiche. Cliquez sur Got it. Dockhand vous demandera ensuite de créer un environnement…

Créer votre environnement

Appuyez sur le bouton Go to Settings puis…

le bouton bleu  + Add environment Dans mon cas, je l’ai nommé Production Synology, mais vous pouvez évidemment choisir le nom que vous souhaitez.

Profitez en pour aller sur l’onglet Updates pour gérer la vérification des mises à jour (Enable scheduled update check) et changer la Timezone pour mettre Europe/Paris. Je vous déconseille d’activer l’option de mise à jour automatique des conteneurs (trop risqué).

Scan des vulnérabilités

Dans l’onglet Security (toujours lors de la création de l’environnement), vous pouvez activer le scan automatique des vulnérabilités. À chaque installation ou mise à jour d’un conteneur, Dockhand analysera l’image afin de détecter d’éventuelles failles de sécurité.

Authentification

Par défaut, l’interface ne propose pas d’identification, mais il est possible de mettre en place un authentification facilement (identifiant + mot de passe, SSO, LDAP…).

Allez dans le menu de gauche Settings puis sur l’onglet Authentication. Vous cliquerez sur le bouton off en face de Authentication pour activer l’authentification (voir capture ci-dessus). A noter qu’il faut d’abord créer un utilisateur (Users) avant d’activer l’authentification.

En synthèse

Dockhand propose une interface plus complète que Container Manager sur un NAS Synology, tout en étant plus simple à prendre en main que Portainer. L’installation ne prend que quelques minutes et permet de gérer facilement ses conteneurs Docker. Si vous possédez un NAS QNAP, Asustor, TerraMaster ou Ugreen, sachez que la configuration présentée ci-dessus fonctionnera également

Gl.iNet Slate 7 vs Beryl 7 Travel Router – Which Should You Buy?

At first glance, the GL.iNet Beryl 7 (GL-MT3600BE) and the GL.iNet Slate 7 (GL-BE3600) appear very closely matched. Both are compact dual band WiFi 7 travel routers, both include dual 2.5GbE ports, USB 3.0 expansion, OpenWrt based firmware, and support for VPN client and server deployment. They are designed for similar use cases such as securing public WiFi in hotels and airports, creating a private subnet for multiple personal devices, or acting as a portable gateway for temporary work setups. On paper, their wireless speed ratings are identical, and their overall feature sets overlap significantly. However, there is a clear price separation, with the Beryl 7 typically retailing at $139.99 and the Slate 7 positioned higher at $169.99. Given how similar they appear in specification tables, this comparison focuses on what justifies that difference, looking beyond headline WiFi 7 support and examining hardware platform choices, memory configuration, interface design, performance ceilings, and overall positioning within the travel router lineup.

Gl.iNet Beryl 7 Travel Router		Gl.iNet Slate 7 Travel Router
Buy From Gl.iNet	Buy From Amazon	Buy From Gl.iNet	Buy From Amazon

Gl.iNet Beryl 7 vs Slate 7 – Wireless Connectivity

Both the GL.iNet Beryl 7 (GL-MT3600BE) and the GL.iNet Slate 7 (GL-BE3600) are dual band WiFi 7 routers operating across 2.4GHz and 5GHz, with identical rated wireless speeds of 688Mbps on 2.4GHz and 2882Mbps on 5GHz, for a combined 3600Mbps class rating. Neither device includes 6GHz support, which means both are technically WiFi 7 implementations without access to the expanded 6GHz spectrum or 320MHz channel widths. Instead, they focus on delivering WiFi 7 features such as improved OFDMA efficiency, 4K QAM, preamble puncturing, and Multi Link Operation within the existing 2 band framework.

In practical use, this means the wireless experience between the two routers is very similar when connecting modern WiFi 7 client devices. Multi Link Operation allows compatible devices to aggregate traffic across 2.4GHz and 5GHz simultaneously rather than choosing a single band. This can improve stability and reduce latency under load, particularly when multiple devices are active. However, because neither router supports 6GHz, both are limited to 160MHz channels, which caps the theoretical advantage compared to tri band WiFi 7 platforms. For most travel environments where surrounding networks are congested and spectrum is shared, the absence of 6GHz may not be the primary limiting factor.

It is also relevant that WiFi 7 client adoption is still developing, and many connected devices will continue to operate using WiFi 6 or earlier standards. In those cases, both routers fall back to backward compatible modes with similar performance characteristics. Since their radio specifications are aligned and both omit 6GHz, there is no material wireless generation advantage of one over the other. The distinction between these two models therefore lies less in raw WiFi 7 capability and more in the hardware platform and resource allocation that supports that wireless layer.

Gl.iNet Beryl 7 vs Slate 7 – Wired Connectivity

From a wired networking perspective, both the GL.iNet Beryl 7 (GL-MT3600BE) and the GL.iNet Slate 7 (GL-BE3600) are equipped with dual 2.5GbE ports. Each device includes 1 port typically designated as WAN and 1 as LAN, but both allow role reassignment within the software. This means either router can be configured to accept a multi gigabit internet uplink while simultaneously providing a 2.5G wired connection to a local client such as a workstation, NAS, or switch. In contrast to earlier travel routers limited to 1G LAN outputs, both of these models are capable of sustaining multi gigabit throughput on both ingress and egress.

In practical deployment, this gives both devices flexibility in scenarios where internet speeds exceed 1Gbps or where high speed local transfers are required. For example, a user connecting to a fiber service above 1G can feed that into the WAN port and still provide full 2.5G bandwidth to a wired LAN device. This configuration also supports load balancing or failover setups when combined with USB tethering or repeater modes. Since both routers share this dual 2.5G configuration, there is no structural limitation on either side in terms of raw Ethernet throughput.

The differences in wired behavior emerge more subtly in how the internal hardware handles sustained traffic across those ports, rather than in port specification alone. On paper, the Ethernet configuration is effectively matched between the two models. Both remove the earlier compromise seen in WiFi 6 travel routers where users had to choose between multi gigabit WAN or LAN, and both provide the same baseline flexibility for wired high speed connectivity in a compact travel format.

Gl.iNet Beryl 7 vs Slate 7 – Internal Hardware

Although their wireless ratings and Ethernet layouts are nearly identical, the internal hardware platforms of the GL.iNet Beryl 7 (GL-MT3600BE) and the GL.iNet Slate 7 (GL-BE3600) are based on different SoCs with distinct design goals. The Beryl 7 uses a MediaTek quad core processor operating at 2.0 GHz per core, paired with 512 MB of DDR4 memory and 512 MB of NAND flash. The Slate 7 instead uses the Qualcomm IPQ5018 platform, which integrates a quad-core ARM Cortex-A53 CPU running at about 1.0 GHz with additional packet processing and network subsystem features, and pairs that with 1 GB of DDR4 memory and 512 MB of NAND flash.

In real-world router workloads, CPU architecture and memory allocation each play a role. A higher clock speed like that in the Beryl 7 tends to benefit single threaded tasks such as some encryption operations and packet inspection. The Qualcomm IPQ5018’s emphasis on networking, hardware acceleration, and integrated network subsystem may offset its lower clock speed, particularly in tasks like NAT, traffic classification, or other system-level switching operations, and the doubled memory of the Slate 7 provides more space for concurrent services, queuing, and package expansions without immediate memory contention. In practice, the two platforms reflect different design priorities rather than a simple faster/ slower division.

Both devices provide a single USB 3.0 port for data expansion alongside a USB Type-C port for power input, meaning external storage, USB tethering, or a cellular dongle must share the same data port; using one function prevents the simultaneous use of the others. The Slate 7 also includes an integrated touchscreen display that provides real-time status information and direct toggling of features such as VPN or network mode, while the Beryl 7 relies solely on web and mobile app based controls. Internally, the distinction therefore is not just MediaTek versus Qualcomm, but a trade-off between frequency-focused CPU design, expanded system memory, and user interface enhancements.

Gl.iNet Beryl 7 vs Slate 7 – Deployment

When translating specifications into practical deployment behavior, the most measurable difference between the GL.iNet Beryl 7 (GL-MT3600BE) and the GL.iNet Slate 7 (GL-BE3600) appears in VPN throughput. The Beryl 7 is rated at up to 1100Mbps with WireGuard and up to 1000Mbps with OpenVPN DCO in client mode. The Slate 7, powered by the Qualcomm IPQ5018 platform, is rated at up to 490Mbps with WireGuard and up to 385Mbps with OpenVPN DCO. Although the Qualcomm platform is well optimized for routing and packet handling, the higher clock speed MediaTek processor in the Beryl 7 provides substantially more headroom for encrypted throughput. In scenarios where the internet connection exceeds 500Mbps and VPN encryption is permanently enabled, the Beryl 7 is less likely to become the limiting factor.

In raw LAN and WiFi performance, both devices operate within a similar ceiling due to identical wireless radios and dual 2.5GbE ports. Real world file transfers over 2.5GbE typically settle below theoretical maximums, often in the 230MB/s to 240MB/s range depending on workload and protocol overhead. Neither device consistently saturates the full 2.5GbE line rate under mixed routing and wireless conditions, which reflects internal processing overhead rather than port limitation. From a pure switching and routing standpoint without heavy encryption, both platforms are capable of sustaining high multi gigabit traffic within expected travel router boundaries.

Both units are rated to support up to 120 concurrent devices, which exceeds typical travel usage but provides insight into scheduler and resource allocation capacity. The Slate 7’s 1GB memory pool may provide additional stability when multiple OpenWrt services, monitoring tools, DNS filtering, and USB storage sharing are active simultaneously. The Beryl 7, meanwhile, demonstrates a clear advantage when encrypted traffic volume is high relative to available WAN bandwidth. As a result, the performance distinction depends less on wireless speed and more on whether the primary workload is VPN intensive broadband use or service heavy multi feature deployment.

Gl.iNet Beryl 7 vs Slate 7 – Which One Should You Buy?

The GL.iNet Beryl 7 (GL-MT3600BE) and the GL.iNet Slate 7 (GL-BE3600) are closer in capability than their price difference might initially suggest. Both deliver dual band WiFi 7 across 2.4GHz and 5GHz, both provide dual 2.5GbE ports, both support OpenWrt with extensive plugin flexibility, and both are designed for securing public internet connections while travelling.

From a purely wireless and Ethernet standpoint, they are effectively matched. The practical separation appears in internal resource allocation and user interface design. The Beryl 7, priced at $139.99, offers significantly higher rated VPN throughput and a faster clocked processor, making it better suited to users with high speed broadband connections who intend to run persistent encrypted tunnels. The Slate 7, priced at $169.99, provides double the system memory and integrates a touchscreen interface that allows direct device control without relying entirely on a browser or mobile app.

The decision therefore depends on workload priorities rather than headline WiFi generation. If the primary requirement is maximizing encrypted throughput over fast WAN connections, the Beryl 7 presents stronger performance value at a lower price. If the focus is on memory headroom for multiple services, a more integrated on device interface, and a Qualcomm based networking platform, the Slate 7 may justify its higher cost. Neither device includes 6GHz support, meaning both are dual band WiFi 7 implementations rather than full tri band models.

For users specifically seeking 6GHz spectrum and 320MHz channel capability, a different tier of hardware would be required. Within the compact dual band travel router segment, the distinction between these two models is defined less by WiFi 7 itself and more by how each device balances CPU performance, memory allocation, and interface design within a portable form factor.

Gl.iNet Beryl 7 Travel Router		Gl.iNet Slate 7 Travel Router
Buy From Gl.iNet	Buy From Amazon	Buy From Gl.iNet	Buy From Amazon
PROs	CONs	PROs	CONs
+ Cheaper + Smaller & Lighter + Lower Power Consumption	– Less RAM – Lesser CPU	+ LCD Control Screen + Better Hardware Inside + Better Build Quality	– More Expensive – Larger – Slate Pro Model Coming Soon

Join Inner Circle

Want to follow specific category? Also Read...Gl.iNet Comet 5G Review - The Gl.iNet Slate 7 vs Beryl 7 TraGl.iNet Beryl 7 vs Beryl AX TrGl.iNet Beryl 7 vs Beryl AX TrGl.iNet Beryl 7 Travel Router Gl.iNet Beryl 7 Travel Router Gl.iNet Reveal the Flint 4 WiFGl.iNet Flint 4 WiFi7 Router RGl.iNet Slate 7 Pro Revealed aGl.iNet Slate 7 Pro (GL-BE1000 Subscribe You can also follow specific search terms:

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?

TRY CHAT

If you like this service, please consider supporting us. We use affiliate links on the blog allowing NAScompares information and advice service to be free of charge to you.Anything you purchase on the day you click on our links will generate a small commission which isused to run the website. Here is a link for Amazon and B&H.You can also get me a Ko-fi or old school Paypal. Thanks!To find out more about how to support this advice service check HEREIf you need to fix or configure a NAS, check Fiver Have you thought about helping others with your knowledge? Find Instructions Here  

Or support us by using our affiliate links on Amazon UK and Amazon US

    

 

WE LOVE COFFEE

Cachem existe depuis plus de 16 ans. Seize années rendues possibles par une seule chose : la passion… et vous. Si vous lisez ces lignes, vous faites déjà partie de l’aventure.

Suite à mon précédent article « Cachem.fr : pourquoi je continue (et pourquoi parfois je doute)« , vos nombreux commentaires m’ont touché, encouragé et surtout fait réfléchir. Plusieurs idées sont revenues : comment aider ? Comment participer davantage ? Comment soutenir ?

Pour celles et ceux qui souhaitent aller un peu plus loin, il existe deux façons simples de contribuer.

Soutenir Cachem

Cachem est un blog totalement indépendant. Il n’y a pas de rédaction, pas de structure derrière… seulement du temps, de l’énergie et beaucoup de passion.

Les dons permettent concrètement de :

• Acheter du matériel pour réaliser des tests complets et objectifs
• Financer l’hébergement et l’infrastructure du site
• Maintenir l’indépendance éditoriale
• Continuer à produire des guides, tutoriels et retours d’expérience

Si Cachem vous apporte des informations utiles, des idées pour vos projets NAS ou des solutions à vos problèmes techniques, vous pouvez le soutenir ponctuellement via Buy me a coffee. Chaque contribution, petite ou grande, fait réellement la différence. Et elle envoie surtout un message fort : ce travail a de la valeur.

Contribuer en tant qu’auteur bénévole

Cachem est né d’une passion pour le NAS et la tech. Cette passion, beaucoup d’entre vous la partagent. Vous aimez partager votre passion pour le NAS ou la tech ? Cachem accueille des contributeurs pour publier des articles ou des tests. Ce n’est pas rémunéré, mais c’est l’occasion de :

• Partager vos connaissances avec une communauté passionnée
• Développer vos compétences rédactionnelles ou techniques
• Participer à un projet indépendant qui dure

Si cela vous intéresse, envoyez-moi un message via l’adresse e-mail ci-dessous. On pourra discuter de vos idées et trouver la meilleure manière de les partager.

Cachem reste avant tout un blog passion et toute participation est volontaire. Merci à tous ceux qui lisent, commentent et partagent : vous faites vivre cette aventure chaque jour.

UniFi Dream Router 7 – ONE YEAR LATER

A lot can change in 12 months with a router, especially one that launched with strong hardware and a lot of software ambition behind it. The UniFi Dream Router 7 (UDR7) arrived in February 2025 at $279 and immediately stood out on paper, but a year later the more useful question is not what it promised at launch, it is what it actually delivers now: is it better, worse, or largely the same after a full year of real-world use and updates? In this 1 year later review, I am looking at that from 3 angles: my own experience of using the UDR7 in a live home setup over the last 12 months, the wider experience of other users in home and business environments, and how Ubiquiti has supported the platform through UniFi OS and router software updates since release. The goal is to move beyond launch-day specs and first impressions and answer the more practical question for anyone considering an upgrade today: in early 2026, is the UniFi Dream Router 7 still worth $279?

My Own 12 Month Experience of the UniFi Dream Router 7

My own experience with the UDR7 over 12 months is slightly different from a short test bench review because this unit stayed deployed in my home for most of that time. After the original review, I kept it and ran it in a real environment rather than treating it as a temporary test device.

It was not my only wireless setup, so there was some unavoidable radio overlap in the house, and I was also running the UDR7 with 4 additional access points placed across different rooms. It was positioned behind a TV rather than in an ideal open location, which is worth stating because that kind of placement can affect both wireless behavior and thermals.

In terms of reliability, my own results were stable across the year. The UDR7 was set to install updates automatically, so it received every update as it arrived, and outside of planned interruptions for filming, firmware reboots, and a reprofile/reset around October for remote access preparation, it remained in service continuously.

Across that period it handled a regular set of around 12 active devices, while interacting with roughly 20 to 25 devices over time.

I did not run UniFi Protect on this unit in my own setup, so my long-term comments are focused on routing, wireless management, and day to day network operation rather than surveillance recording. In that role, it was dependable and I did not encounter recurring crashes or operational failures.

Resource use and thermals were also within a reasonable range for the way I deployed it. Internally, the system generally sat around 61 to 67°C depending on load, with CPU utilization commonly around 20 to 25% and RAM usage often around 40 to 50% when more security features and logging were enabled.

External temperatures were warmer than ambient but not excessive for a compact desktop gateway placed in a less than ideal location: roughly 48 to 49°C on the outer body, around 51°C near the top ventilation strip at peak use, and around 43 to 45°C at the base.

The copper ports remained cooler, while the SFP side ran hotter when used. None of this pointed to a thermal problem in my deployment, but it does reinforce that placement and ventilation still matter.

Traffic volume across the test period also helps frame the result. I put roughly 1.25TB of internet traffic through the unit, with just over 1TB downloaded and around 204GB uploaded, while also testing PoE output with a few APs.

The only PoE limitation I ran into was with a higher draw AP that exceeded what the port is designed to provide, which matched the published power limits rather than indicating a fault.

Taken strictly from my own 1 year usage, the UDR7 did what it was supposed to do at $279 in a mixed home environment with multiple APs, automatic updates, and steady day to day load. My experience was not a stress test of every feature, but as a long-running gateway deployment it remained reliable.

The Community Feedback on the UniFi Dream Router 7 in 1 Year

Looking at wider user feedback over the last 12 months, the most consistent pattern is that early criticism focused less on the hardware itself and more on launch readiness. Across UniFi Community threads, Reddit posts, and ISP forum discussions, many users described the UDR7 as capable hardware paired with software that felt immature in the first weeks and months after release. The phrase “unfinished at launch” appears repeatedly in community discussions, particularly from users who deployed it as a primary gateway rather than a simple single room router.

The most widely reported issue was selective connectivity behavior, especially on PPPoE connections using the RJ45 WAN port. Users reported situations where speed tests looked normal but specific services failed or behaved unreliably, including video calls, social media video loading, live camera feeds, and some VPN apps. Multiple threads also repeated the same temporary workarounds: moving WAN to the SFP+ port or enabling Smart Queues, with users noting the tradeoff in cost, added hardware, or reduced throughput. This issue appears frequently enough across separate threads and forums to be treated as a recurring launch-period problem rather than isolated misconfiguration.

A second recurring theme was inconsistent WiFi behavior in more demanding or more complex deployments. Community reports described unstable wireless performance, intermittent disconnects, poor range relative to expectations, and in some cases daily reboots or loss of connectivity requiring a full restart. Not every report points to the same root cause, and some users specifically tied their issues to WAN mode, AP combinations, or feature settings, but the overall pattern is clear: setups with heavier tuning, multiple APs, or more demanding coverage expectations were more likely to expose weaknesses during the early firmware cycle. Also, there was the expensive testing of ‘REAL’ MLO support by RTINGS last month, where the marketing materials around WiFi 7 routers and the level of currently MLO abilities vs the reality of client and router support.

By early 2026, community sentiment appears more mixed than uniformly negative. The strongest complaints are still easy to find, but there are also repeated updates from users saying behavior improved after firmware updates, manual upgrades, or configuration changes, especially in threads that started during the launch period. The broad shift is not that all criticism disappeared, but that the conversation moved from “basic reliability concerns” toward “specific deployment and tuning limitations,” which is a materially different position for a product that had a rougher first impression for many early adopters.

Changes, Fixes, Improvements on the UDR7 over 1 Year

The clearest difference between the UDR7 at launch and the UDR7 after 12 months is software maturity. Over the March 2025 to February 2026 period, UniFi OS and the router platform received a substantial number of additions, improvements, and fixes that changed the practical experience of using the device. This was not just a case of minor UI clean-up. The update history shows ongoing work across setup flow, backup and restore behavior, WAN resiliency, WiFi stability, VPN reliability, logging, storage handling, and administrative tooling. In simple terms, the software stack was actively developed throughout the year, which supports the wider view that the product improved materially after release.

The additions also indicate that Ubiquiti treated the platform as something to expand, not only stabilize. Over that period, support was added for features such as custom certificates, custom SMTP, packet captures, Hotspot 2.0/PassPoint, IPv6 traffic identification and DNS Shield support, SIEM integration, advanced mDNS options, Alarm Manager, CNAME DNS records, and additional identity and directory integration options. Some of these are more relevant to business or managed environments than typical home users, but they still matter in the context of value because the UDR7 is sold as a UniFi cloud gateway, not just a domestic WiFi router. The result is that 1 year later, the software feature set is broader and more aligned with the hardware’s original positioning.

Just as important are the fixes that directly overlap with common launch-era complaints. These include a specific fix for wireless throughput issues when using PPPoE on the RJ45 WAN port, fixes for MLO and guest portal interaction, WiFi and RF scanning related issues, stability improvements when using MLO, improved 2.4GHz client resiliency, improved minimum RSSI stability, and a long list of VPN, routing, and policy-based routing fixes. There were also repeated improvements to backup/restore resiliency, web UI stability, speed test stability, and hardware offloading. Taken together, this update history does not prove every user issue is resolved in every deployment, but it does show a sustained effort to address exactly the types of faults and inconsistencies that shaped the early reputation of the UDR7.

Is the UniFi Dream Router Better, Worse or the Same Value at $279 1 Year Later? (Verdict)

1 year on, the UniFi Dream Router 7 is easier to recommend than it was at launch, but for a different reason than the original review. The core hardware value proposition remains largely the same: at $279, it still offers an unusual combination of WiFi 7, multi-gig copper, 10G SFP+, 1 PoE output, UniFi application support, and a compact all-in-1 gateway design that many competing devices at this price either do not match or only match in narrower areas. What changed over the last 12 months is the software side. Early concerns around stability, selective connectivity, and inconsistent behavior in more demanding deployments were significant enough to affect the product’s reputation, and that criticism was not unreasonable. However, the volume and direction of updates over the year indicate that Ubiquiti has spent that time closing the gap between what the hardware promised and what the software delivered in practice.

The most accurate verdict in early 2026 is that the UDR7 is not a fundamentally different product than it was in February 2025, but it is a more complete one. In straightforward home and small business use, especially where the buyer wants a UniFi-managed gateway with room to scale, it now presents a stronger case than it did for early adopters. At the same time, buyers with more complex AP layouts, aggressive tuning requirements, or very specific expectations around WiFi 7 MLO behavior should still approach it with realistic expectations and pay attention to current firmware state and client compatibility. On balance, based on the hardware, the year of software support, my own long-term deployment experience, and the broader community trajectory, the UDR7 remains a valid purchase at $279 in 2026.

What I originally said about the UniFi Dream Router 7 in my Feb 2025 Review:

As appealing as the UniFi router and network software that this system is bundled with are, the main praise I have to give the UDR 7 is that everyone is going to feel the benefits of this router in their network at this price point. The small compromises it has compared to the previous UDR system (such as fewer PoE ports) are immediately outweighed by its versatility, which would be hard to find at a better price elsewhere. The fact that all LAN ports are 2.5G and that the two WAN/LAN ports are 2.5G and 10G SFP+ respectively puts this router massively ahead of most competitors in the sub-$300 market. Equally, support for the UniFi Protect surveillance software and the included WD Purple SD card storage are nice extras that you don’t commonly find elsewhere—let alone the inclusion of a PoE 2.5G port. The router and network management software is, of course, quintessentially UniFi in its presentation. Striking a balance between usability and information is a tough challenge, and the UniFi software almost succeeds. It excels in its presentation and management via the mobile app, though the desktop UI could be a touch more intuitive. How could you make wireless and wired network management truly user-friendly?

That said, the UDR 7 is a genuinely WiFi 7-ready router, offering 2×2 6GHz coverage and taking advantage of all the frequency and bandwidth benefits afforded to true WiFi 7 6GHz clients. Add a simple $20 USB WiFi 7 adapter to your system, and you can immediately enjoy base-level 2.8Gbps wireless connectivity, scaling this up substantially with the right WiFi 7 wireless NICs. Even if you’re not in love with the UniFi software platform or handing management of your services over to Ubiquiti’s remote services, you can still set up the device without a UI.com account. You do not need to deploy it with UniFi Network equipment, and VPN and encrypted protocol services can still be managed via popular third-party options if preferred. Buying a router for your home or business instead of relying on the one supplied by your ISP can often feel like an unnecessary expense. However, considering the price point and the network advantages the UDR 7 provides, I believe this system is worth it. Some of its services might require additional polish over time, and greater network capabilities on this router will be realized as technology progresses, but I wholeheartedly recommend the UDR 7 for the majority of setups.

BUILD QUALITY - 10/10

HARDWARE - 9/10

PERFORMANCE - 9/10

PRICE - 8/10

VALUE - 9/10

9.0

PROS

WiFi 7 Support – Offers Genuine 6GHz connectivity with 320MHz channels, enabling faster speeds and lower latency.
Multi-Gig Networking – Includes three 2.5GbE LAN ports and a 10GbE SFP+ WAN/LAN port, making it highly future-proof.
Comprehensive UniFi Software – Provides robust network management features, including VLANs, QoS, IDS/IPS security, and VPN support.
Integrated UniFi Protect Support – Comes with a pre-installed 64GB WD Purple SD card, allowing local video storage for security cameras.
Flexible WAN/LAN Configurations – Supports dual WAN for failover or load balancing, or repurposing the 10GbE SFP+ port as LAN.
High Customization & Security – Offers advanced firewall controls, application-aware filtering, and in-depth traffic analytics.
User-Friendly Mobile App – Easy setup and management via the UniFi mobile app, with intuitive controls and real-time monitoring.
No UI.com Account Required – Can be set up locally without requiring an online UniFi account, providing more control over network privacy.

CONS

Limited PoE Support – Only includes one PoE-enabled 2.5GbE port, which may be a drawback for users looking to power multiple UniFi cameras or access points.
6GHz Band Availability Varies by Region – While WiFi 7 delivers significant improvements, the 6GHz spectrum and 320MHz channels may not be fully available in all areas, limiting real-world performance.
Not the Most Budget-Friendly Option – Although competitively priced for a WiFi 7 router, there are still more cost-effective alternatives on the market, especially for users who don’t need UniFi’s ecosystem.
The MLO architecture is currently E-MLSR MLO (Enhanced Multi-Link Single Radio Operation Mode), which lacks the true aggregation of Sync MLMR (Synchronous Multi-Link Multi-Radio) MLO

Join Inner Circle

Want to follow specific category? Also Read...UniFi Dream Router 7 - ONE YEATP Link TL-WR3602BE Travel RouGl.iNet Beryl 7 vs Slate 7 TraGl.iNet Slate 7 vs Beryl 7 TraGl.iNet Beryl 7 vs Beryl AX TrGl.iNet Beryl 7 vs Beryl AX TrGl.iNet Beryl 7 Travel Router Gl.iNet Beryl 7 Travel Router Gl.iNet Reveal the Flint 4 WiFGl.iNet Flint 4 WiFi7 Router R Subscribe You can also follow specific search terms:

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?

TRY CHAT

If you like this service, please consider supporting us. We use affiliate links on the blog allowing NAScompares information and advice service to be free of charge to you.Anything you purchase on the day you click on our links will generate a small commission which isused to run the website. Here is a link for Amazon and B&H.You can also get me a Ko-fi or old school Paypal. Thanks!To find out more about how to support this advice service check HEREIf you need to fix or configure a NAS, check Fiver Have you thought about helping others with your knowledge? Find Instructions Here  

Or support us by using our affiliate links on Amazon UK and Amazon US

    

 

WE LOVE COFFEE

Asustor AS6704T v2 Lockerstor 4 Gen2+ NAS Hardware Review, Worth Your Data?

Asustor has always sat slightly off to one side of the mainstream NAS conversation. It does not chase the same marketing angles as the bigger names, but it has consistently tried to combine features that other brands often keep separated by model tier. The Lockerstor series is a good example of that approach, mixing prosumer hardware touches such as a metal chassis, HDMI output and multiple SSD bays with a fairly traditional four bay NAS layout. The Lockerstor 4 Gen2+ is not a clean-slate redesign. Instead, it is a mid-range refresh of the existing Lockerstor 4 Gen2, built on the same underlying platform. The CPU remains the Intel Celeron N5095, memory starts at 4 GB of DDR4, the four internal M.2 NVMe slots are unchanged, and the chassis and physical layout are effectively identical. The meaningful update in this revision is networking, with the Gen2+ moving from dual 2.5GbE ports to dual 5GbE. That change is intended to raise the usable network headroom for single users and small teams, particularly where SSD caching or multiple clients are involved, without forcing buyers straight into 10GbE. At the same time, the broader market has moved on since the original Gen2 launched. 2.5GbE is now common at this price point, and the N5095, while still stable and capable, is no longer the standout CPU it was in 2022 and 2023, with newer low power Intel platforms offering better efficiency and raw performance. Taken as a whole, the Lockerstor 4 Gen2+ is best viewed as a targeted update designed to keep the existing Lockerstor platform relevant for longer. It does not attempt to redefine what a mid-range four bay NAS should be, but instead focuses on addressing network performance as storage media and workflows continue to push beyond the limits of 2.5GbE.

Asustor AS6704T v2 Lockerstor 4 Gen2+ NAS Review, Quick Conclusion

The Lockerstor 4 Gen2+ is a competent and largely familiar system. From a hardware perspective, it remains solid, well built and flexible, with few outright weaknesses in isolation. The metal chassis, internal expandability and feature set still compare well against many competing four bay NAS systems. However, this revision does not materially change the overall character or capability of the platform beyond networking. The move from dual 2.5GbE to dual 5GbE is the defining update. For users who already have compatible network infrastructure, or who are working close to the limits of 2.5GbE with multiple clients, SSD caching or larger hard drives, this upgrade does provide tangible benefits. For others, particularly those still on gigabit or mixed networks, the improvement may be largely theoretical in day to day use. At the same time, the unchanged use of the Intel Celeron N5095 is more noticeable now than it was at the original Gen2 launch. While it remains stable and well supported, it no longer stands out in a market where newer low power Intel CPUs offer better efficiency and performance at similar price points. Combined with pricing that now faces stronger competition, the Gen2+ feels more like a stopgap refresh than a forward looking update. Overall, the Lockerstor 4 Gen2+ is a capable NAS that makes sense primarily for users who value its physical design, internal expandability and Asustor’s flexible hardware policy, and who can take advantage of 5GbE networking today. It is less compelling as a general upgrade for existing Gen2 owners, or as a default recommendation in a crowded mid-range market.

SOFTWARE - 6/10

HARDWARE - 7/10

PERFORMANCE - 7/10

PRICE - 6/10

VALUE - 7/10

6.6

PROS

Dual 5GbE networking provides higher aggregate and single client throughput than 2.5GbE when supported by the surrounding network
Four internal M.2 NVMe slots allow SSD caching, SSD storage pools, or mixed configurations without sacrificing SATA bays
Solid metal chassis and metal drive trays provide durability and assist passive heat dissipation
HDMI output with Asustor Portal enables direct media playback, VM interaction and local management without a client PC
Supports both EXT4 and Btrfs, including snapshot functionality for basic data protection and recovery
PCIe expansion slot allows future upgrade to 10GbE, extending the usable lifespan of the system
Flexible storage configuration, including use of NVMe drives as independent storage pools rather than cache only
Hardware warranty remains valid when installing third party NAS operating systems, supporting advanced and DIY users

CONS

Intel Celeron N5095 is now dated relative to newer low power CPUs available at similar price points (eg N100, N150, N355, etc) right now
ADM software is stable but lacks the depth, automation and flagship features found on some competing platforms
PCIe slot is shared between NVMe carrier and expansion cards, forcing a choice without a compatible combo card
Pricing faces stronger competition in 2026, reducing its appeal as a default mid range NAS option

Where to Buy a Product
			VISIT RETAILER ➤
			VISIT RETAILER ➤

Amazon in Your Region	B&H NAS Shop

Asustor AS6704T v2 Lockerstor 4 Gen2+ NAS Review, Design

The physical design of the Lockerstor 4 Gen2+ is effectively unchanged from the earlier Gen2 model. Asustor has retained the same chassis, dimensions and layout, making this revision visually indistinguishable from its predecessor. This is a deliberate choice rather than an oversight, and it reflects Asustor’s preference for continuity in this product line.

The enclosure is almost entirely metal, including the outer shell and the individual drive trays. This gives the unit a robust, industrial feel and contributes to passive heat dissipation. It also differentiates the Lockerstor from many competing four bay NAS systems that rely more heavily on plastic for cost and noise reduction. The trade-off remains increased vibration and audible resonance when using higher capacity, faster spinning hard drives.

On the front of the unit, the Lockerstor retains its LCD display, a feature that has largely disappeared from this segment. The display provides system status information such as IP addresses, temperature readings and alert notifications. Beyond basic monitoring, it can also be used for initial system setup, allowing the NAS to be configured without a connected computer. While this will not replace web based administration for ongoing management, it remains useful for rapid deployment and troubleshooting, particularly when network access is limited.

Status LEDs are present alongside the display and drive bays, offering basic activity indicators. These are functional but secondary to the information provided by the LCD panel. A front mounted USB port with a dedicated copy button is also retained. This supports both manual and automatic backup tasks and has been upgraded in earlier Gen2 models to USB 3.2 Gen 2, allowing higher speed transfers to and from external storage devices.

The drive trays themselves are metal, ventilated and feature a locking mechanism. They support both 3.5 inch and 2.5 inch SATA drives and allow hot swapping where the configuration permits. The tray design prioritizes rigidity and airflow over acoustic dampening, which again reinforces the Lockerstor’s server-like character rather than a living room friendly one.

Ventilation is handled through a combination of tray perforation, side vents and a large rear mounted cooling fan. There have been minor adjustments over successive revisions to improve airflow around the M.2 area, but the overall cooling approach remains conservative and tuned for reliability rather than silence.

In summary, the design of the Lockerstor 4 Gen2+ will appeal to users who value durability, serviceability and physical controls. It does not attempt to modernize its appearance or reduce its footprint, and buyers sensitive to noise or aesthetics should be aware of the compromises that come with this design philosophy.

Asustor AS6704T v2 Lockerstor 4 Gen2+ NAS Review, Ports and Connections

The rear connectivity of the Lockerstor 4 Gen2+ closely resembles that of the earlier Gen2 model, with one important exception. The dual 2.5GbE ports have been replaced with dual 5GbE Ethernet, which represents the core purpose of this refresh. Everything else in the port layout remains largely the same, reinforcing that this is a targeted update rather than a rework of the platform.

The two 5GbE ports support standard Ethernet features including link aggregation and SMB Multichannel. In practical terms, this allows higher aggregate throughput when multiple clients are accessing the NAS simultaneously, or improved single client performance in supported environments. Asustor positions this as offering near 10GbE class performance without the cost or infrastructure demands of full 10GbE. In reality, the benefits depend heavily on the surrounding network hardware, client support and workload type. Users without compatible switches or clients will see little immediate advantage over 2.5GbE.

Alongside the Ethernet ports, the Lockerstor 4 Gen2+ retains its HDMI output. This is used with Asustor Portal, a parallel interface that allows direct interaction with media playback, virtual machines and containerized applications when the NAS is connected to a display. Unlike some competing implementations, this HDMI output is actively supported, though it remains a secondary interface compared to the browser based ADM environment. Two rear USB ports provide USB 3.2 Gen 2 connectivity for high speed external storage, adapters and peripherals.

A PCIe expansion slot is also present and remains an important part of the Lockerstor design. In the Gen2+ series, this slot is described as no longer proprietary, allowing broader compatibility with third party 10GbE network cards. This adds flexibility for users who expect to outgrow 5GbE in the future, although it still requires choosing between PCIe expansion and the preinstalled M.2 carrier board.

The combination of four SATA bays, four internal NVMe slots and dual 5GbE networking provides sufficient internal and external bandwidth for many small office and creative workloads. However, it is worth noting that modern hard drives and NVMe SSDs can quickly approach or exceed the limits of a single 5GbE connection. In environments where sustained maximum throughput is a priority, the optional move to 10GbE may still be the more appropriate long term choice.

Overall, the port selection on the Lockerstor 4 Gen2+ is well rounded and flexible. The addition of dual 5GbE meaningfully updates the networking capability of the system, but it does not fundamentally change how the device integrates into a network compared to the earlier Gen2.

Asustor AS6704T v2 Lockerstor 4 Gen2+ NAS Review, Internal Hardware

Internally, the Lockerstor 4 Gen2+ is almost identical to the earlier Gen2 model. Asustor has not revised the core platform, and the internal layout, controller architecture and expansion approach remain the same. This consistency simplifies evaluation, but it also makes the age of some components more apparent in the current market.

The system is powered by the Intel Celeron N5095, a quad core processor based on Intel’s Jasper Lake architecture. At launch, this CPU was widely adopted in mid range NAS systems due to its balance of power consumption, integrated graphics and general purpose performance. It operates at a 2.0 GHz base frequency with burst speeds up to 2.9 GHz. In 2026 terms, the N5095 is no longer a standout choice. Newer low power Intel CPUs offer improved efficiency and stronger CPU side performance at similar price points, particularly for non media workloads.

The presence of integrated graphics remains relevant for hardware assisted video transcoding and HDMI based output, and the N5095 continues to handle typical NAS tasks, light virtualization and container workloads without issue. However, users planning heavier multi VM deployments or CPU intensive services may find the platform limiting compared to more recent alternatives.

Memory configuration starts at 4 GB of DDR4 2933 MHz SODIMM memory and can be expanded up to 16 GB. This is sufficient for most file serving, backup and multimedia tasks, and provides some headroom for virtualization and containers. ECC memory is not supported, which is worth noting given the pricing and the comparison to some competing systems in this segment.

One of the defining features of the Lockerstor platform remains the inclusion of four M.2 NVMe SSD slots. These support 2280 form factor drives and operate over PCIe Gen3. The slots can be used for SSD caching, dedicated storage pools, or a mixture of both, offering flexibility that is not universally available in this class. The practical throughput per slot is lower than modern x4 NVMe drives can deliver, but still significantly higher than SATA SSDs and more than sufficient for caching and high IOPS workloads. The NVMe slots are mounted on a dedicated PCIe carrier board that occupies the system’s expansion slot. This design choice means users must choose between using the four M.2 slots and installing a PCIe network card, unless a compatible combination card is used. While workable, it remains a compromise that should be considered when planning long term upgrades.

Overall, the internal hardware of the Lockerstor 4 Gen2+ remains capable and flexible, but it is clearly rooted in an earlier generation of mid range NAS design. The networking upgrade extends its usefulness, but it does not address the broader shifts in CPU and platform expectations that have emerged since the original Gen2 release.

Asustor AS6704T v2 Lockerstor 4 Gen2+ NAS Review, Software

The Lockerstor 4 Gen2+ ships with the latest version of Asustor Data Master, commonly referred to as ADM. Functionally, the software experience is the same as on the earlier Gen2 models, with no Gen2+ specific changes or features introduced as part of this refresh. Any improvements are the result of ongoing platform updates rather than hardware driven differentiation.

ADM presents a desktop style interface accessed through a web browser, with windowed applications, user accounts and a traditional file manager. It is straightforward to navigate and generally stable in operation. Performance on the N5095 platform is consistent and predictable, with no major responsiveness issues during typical file serving, backup or media management tasks.

Asustor continues to support both EXT4 and Btrfs file systems. Btrfs brings snapshot support and data versioning for shared folders and iSCSI volumes, while EXT4 remains available for users who prefer a simpler, lower overhead file system. Snapshot Center integrates with Btrfs to provide scheduled and manual snapshots, offering basic protection against accidental deletion or ransomware scenarios.

The application ecosystem in ADM remains broad but uneven. Core first party applications for storage management, backups, media indexing and basic virtualization are present and generally reliable. However, a number of advanced functions rely heavily on third party software. Virtualization, for example, is still built around VirtualBox rather than a native hypervisor. Container support is provided through Docker and Portainer, which is flexible but assumes a degree of user familiarity.

Multimedia support is one of ADM’s stronger areas. Applications such as LooksGood, Photo Gallery and SoundsGood provide local media management and streaming, and hardware assisted video transcoding is available through the Intel integrated graphics. HDMI output via Asustor Portal runs in parallel to ADM and allows direct playback and interaction with selected applications. While this remains more fully featured than some competing HDMI implementations, it is clearly secondary to the browser based interface and receives fewer updates.

Backup and synchronization tools are comprehensive in scope. ADM supports local and remote backups via rsync, USB devices, NAS to NAS replication and a wide range of public cloud services. DataSync Center and Cloud Backup Center consolidate many of these functions into centralized tools, though configuration can feel fragmented compared to more tightly integrated platforms.

Security features have expanded steadily since earlier releases. ADM includes a firewall, automatic IP blocking, antivirus scanning through ClamAV, two step verification and encryption options for shared folders and MyArchive volumes. These features provide a reasonable baseline for small business and advanced home users, though they rely on manual configuration rather than automated policy driven protection.

Overall, the ADM software platform is stable, functional and capable of supporting a wide range of use cases. It does not stand out for innovation or advanced automation, and it lacks some of the higher level, tightly integrated services offered by competitors. For users seeking a dependable and flexible NAS operating system that prioritizes core functionality over novelty, ADM remains adequate. For those placing heavy emphasis on software features and ecosystem depth, it may feel comparatively restrained.

Asustor AS6704T v2 Lockerstor 4 Gen2+ NAS Review, Conclusion

The Lockerstor 4 Gen2+ is best understood as a maintenance refresh rather than a new generation. Asustor has taken an existing and well established platform and updated it in one specific area, network connectivity, to better align with how storage performance and workloads have evolved since the original Gen2 launch. Outside of that change, the system remains fundamentally the same device. The move to dual 5GbE does meaningfully extend the usable lifespan of the Lockerstor 4 design for users who are already constrained by 2.5GbE, particularly in multi user environments or setups that make effective use of SSD caching and faster hard drives. For those users, the Gen2+ offers a tangible improvement without the immediate cost or complexity of moving to 10GbE. For others, especially those still on gigabit or mixed networks, the practical benefit may be limited.

At the same time, the unchanged internal platform is harder to ignore in 2026. The Intel Celeron N5095 remains stable and compatible with a wide range of workloads, but it no longer compares as favourably against newer low power CPUs now appearing in similarly priced systems. Combined with increased competition across this segment, the value proposition of the Gen2+ is narrower than it was when the original Gen2 launched. The Lockerstor 4 Gen2+ will appeal most to buyers who value its physical build quality, internal expandability, flexible storage configuration and Asustor’s relatively open hardware stance, including third party OS support. It is less compelling as an upgrade for existing Gen2 owners, and it is not a clear default choice in the current mid range NAS market unless its specific strengths align with the intended use case. In short, the Gen2+ succeeds in keeping the Lockerstor platform relevant for longer, but it does not redefine it.

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

Get an alert every time something gets added to this specific article!

NOTIFY ME

Want to follow specific category? Also Read...Asustor Lockerstor 4 Gen 2+ NAWeek 48 Tech Roundup – myQNAAsustor Black Friday DealsAsustor Gen5 Lockerstor R Pro Asustor Gen5 Lockerstor R Pro Week 18 Tech Roundup – WD & The Asustor Lockerstor Gen 3 NThe Asustor Lockerstor Gen 3 NAsustor Lockerstor 4 Gen 3 NASAsustor Lockerstor 4 Gen 3 NAS Subscribe You can also follow specific search terms:

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

If you like this service, please consider supporting us. We use affiliate links on the blog allowing NAScompares information and advice service to be free of charge to you.Anything you purchase on the day you click on our links will generate a small commission which isused to run the website. Here is a link for Amazon and B&H.You can also get me a Ko-fi or old school Paypal. Thanks!To find out more about how to support this advice service check HEREIf you need to fix or configure a NAS, check Fiver Have you thought about helping others with your knowledge? Find Instructions Here  

 

Or support us by using our affiliate links on Amazon UK and Amazon US

    

 

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

 

Ugreen continue son offensive sur le marché des NAS avec un nouveau 4 baies ambitieux : UGREEN NASync DXP4800 Pro. Après le DXP4800 Plus de l’an dernier, nous avons pu passer plusieurs jours avec le modèle Pro, une version musclée pensée pour les usages avancés, le multitâches intensif et les environnements exigeants sans compromis sur la simplicité d’utilisation. Sur le papier, la promesse est solide. En pratique, tout n’est cependant pas parfait…

UGREEN NASync DXP4800 Pro

Là où le DXP4800 Plus s’appuie sur un Intel Pentium Gold 8505, le DXP4800 Pro passe sur un processeur Intel Core i3-1315U, offrant plus de puissance brute et une meilleure capacité de traitement pour des charges lourdes : virtualisation, transcodage multimédia, IA, Docker…

Contenu de la boîte

À l’ouverture, on retrouve :

• Le DXP4800 Pro en lui-même ;
• 2 câble réseau RJ45 Cat. 7 ;
• L’alimentation externe et son câble ;
• Des vis pour les SSD avec un tournevis ;
• 2 blocs de pâte thermique pour les SSD NVMe ;
• Un guide de démarrage rapide en anglais, allemand et chinois ;
• Une feuille sur la garantie de 2 ans.

Comme pour son grand frère, l’emballage reste soigné, avec plusieurs niveaux de protection. On note les efforts du fabricant…

Design et connectivité

Extérieurement, il ressemble comme 2 gouttes d »eau aux DXP4800 Plus. Nous avons un NAS bien lourd avec un boîtier en aluminium bleu-gris. Son poids sur la balance affiche 4,1 kg. À l’arrière, nous avons toujours un ventilateur de 140 mm. Seul le nom en façade (en bas) diffère…

Du côté de la connectique, ce NAS dispose de :​

• 2 ports USB 3.2 Gen 2 (dont 1 Type-C) ;
• 1 port USB 3.0 Type-A ;
• 2 ports USB 2.0 Type-A ;
• 1 lecteur de carte SD ;
• 1 sortie HDMI 2.1 ;
• 1 port RJ45 2,5 Gb/s ;
• 1 port RJ45 10 Gb/s.

Une connectivité bien pensée et complète.

Intérieur du DXP4800 Pro

C’est là que les choses changent ! Le DXP4800 Pro est animé par un processeur Intel Core i3-1315U capable d’atteindre 4,50 GHz  (6 cœurs, 8 threads) avec iGPU intégré. Il est épaulé par 8 Go de RAM DDR5 (extensibles à 96 Go). On aurait préféré voir 16 Go pour ce modèle Pro. Le score PassMark est de 11 183 points ! Pour ce tarif, il largue tous les concurrents…

Installation des disques et SSD

Les disques durs 3,5 pouces s’installent assez facilement, sans outils. Les chariots sont différents de ceux de Synology ou QNAP, mais ils sont fonctionnels.

Pour installer un SSD SATA, il faut retirer une fixation en plastique (en bas à droite sur la photo ci-dessus) via un outil fourni. Attention à ne pas forcer trop fort au risque d’abimer la pièce. Le NAS dispose de 2 emplacements pour SSD NVMe, accessibles via une trappe sous l’appareil. C’est également ici que vous pourrez augmenter la RAM. L’ajout de pâte thermique (fournie) et le rôle de dissipateur thermique du capot en aluminium sont des points positifs.

De notre point de vue, le NAS n’est pas suffisamment surélevé. Les patins sous l’appareil ne sont peu assez haut, ce qui limite la circulation de l’air et favorise les vibrations. De nombreux utilisateurs recommandent l’ajout de petits amortisseurs en élastomère pour corriger ce léger défaut. Nous validons ce choix.

UGOS

Nous vous avons déjà présenté le système embarqué UGOS précédemment. Nous avons bien conscience que Ugreen est encore jeune sur le marché et il faut savoir être indulgent. Le système évolue régulièrement sans rivaliser pour le moment avec les ténors du marché. Cependant, il n’a pas à rougir, car il sait déjà répondre à de nombreux usages.

Installation d’UGOS

L’utilisateur doit taper dans son navigateur find.ugnas.com pour trouver son NAS sur le réseau. L’installation se fait en 4 étapes (voire ci-dessous) :

Par rapport à notre précédent test, l’interface est désormais bien en français.

Une fois l’installation terminée, le NAS redémarre… il ne reste plus qu’à se connecter avec l’identifiant et le mot de passe saisis précédemment. Un nouveau guide se lance pour accompagner l’utilisateur dans les premières étapes :

• Découverte de l’interface ;
• Création d’un volume de stockage ;
• Premier dossier partagé ;
• Découverte d’UGREENlink pour l’accès à distance.

Note importante : lors du test précédent, nous pensions avoir commis une erreur, mais non… le service SMB (partage réseau) est désactivé par défaut. Cela veut dire que si vous ne faites rien, le NAS n’est pas accessible par le réseau (Windows, macOS ou Linux).

Usage au quotidien

UGOS est un système Linux optimisé pour le stockage en réseau. Il propose un ensemble de paramètres, auquel on peut ajouter des fonctionnalités via le Centre d’applications : Antivirus, Download Center, Text Edit, etc. Ugreen a fait le choix de privilégier Docker pour compléter son environnement applicatif.

Le fabricant propose une application mobile tout-en-un qui permet de profiter de son NAS à distance ou sur son réseau local. Il faut avouer qu’elle est complète et bien pensée. Ugreen propose également une application de bureau (Windows et macOS), ainsi qu’une adapté à Apple TV et Android TV. Elles permettent d’accéder aux fichiers, au statut du NAS, aux notifications… mais aussi au visionnage de vidéo, etc. Tout y est, un véritable couteau suisse !

Ugreen déploie fréquemment des mises à jour pour corriger des bugs et soucis de traductions, mais aussi pour améliorer les performances et ajouter des fonctionnalités. Un NAS, c’est un investissement sur le long terme. Aujourd’hui, les NAS sont régulièrement mis à jour… et surtout pendant de nombreuses années.

Nouvel entrant et tolérance

Ugreen est nouveau sur le marché des NAS, mais ce n’est pas un novice. L’entreprise possède une solide expérience industrielle et maîtrise déjà la conception matérielle et logicielle. Le fabricant connait également très bien ce secteur exigeant, dominé par des acteurs comme Synology et QNAP. Côté matériel, le produit tient la route…

Sur la partie logicielle, UGOS reste limité pour un usage avancé. S’il répond à 90% des particuliers, certains pourraient être déçus. La majorité des utilisateurs parient sur des mises à jour futures pour corriger le tir dans les prochains mois. Ugreen en a bien conscience… À noter qu’il propose également la possibilité d’installer de systèmes alternatifs comme OMV, TrueNAS, Unraid, etc. Une approche ouverte, que beaucoup apprécient.

L’essentiel est là : une base matérielle fiable et une volonté claire d’évoluer.

Performances du DXP4800 Pro

Dans la première partie des tests, nous allons évaluer les performances des transferts à travers un réseau 10 Gb/s (entre le NAS et des ordinateurs). Ensuite, nous regarderons les capacités du processeur, en analysant ses performances globales…

Vitesses dans les transferts

Depuis plusieurs années, nous avons mis en place un protocole de tests rigoureux fournissant des données fiables et comparables avec les performances des autres NAS. Pour cela, nous utilisons 4 applications de mesure différentes (2 sous macOS et 2 sous Windows) et réalisons en plus des transferts de fichiers de tailles variées dans les deux sens (NAS -> Ordinateur puis Ordinateur -> NAS) :

• Petites tailles : 100 fichiers de 500 Ko à 12 Mo (MP3, photos, documents Office)
• Tailles moyennes : 30 fichiers de 12 à 350 Mo (DivX, images RAW, archives ZIP)
• Fichiers volumineux : 10 fichiers avec une taille comprise entre 4 et 10 Go (MKV, ISO)

À la suite des tests, une moyenne des transferts est calculée et nous la représentons sous forme de graphiques exprimée en mégaoctets par seconde (Mo/s). Plus le nombre est élevé, plus le NAS est rapide. Pour notre évaluation du DXP4800 Plus, nous avons configuré un premier volume avec 2 SSD NVMe en RAID 0, puis un second volume avec 3 SSD SATA en RAID 5.

RAID 0

Le NAS propose d’excellentes performances en lecture. Le système est réactif et les transferts solides. On voit tout de suite le gain offert par le nouveau processeur. Si les performances en écriture progressent (par rapport au DXP 4800 Plus), nous restons un peu sur notre faim.

RAID 5

Les débits vous surprennent… nous aussi. En lecture, le RAID 5 SATA assure et nous sommes sur des performances proches du RAID 0 NVMe. En écriture, les SSD SATA font même mieux sur les petits fichiers et ceux de taille moyenne. Par contre, sur les gros fichiers, les choses sont différentes.

Performances générales

Avec son nouveau processeur, Ugreen propose un NAS offrant des capacités bien plus étendues. Comparons rapidement celui-ci

	UGREEN DXP4800 Pro	UGREEN DXP4800 Plus	ASUSTOR FS6806X	Synology DS925+
Processeur	Intel Core i3-1315U	Intel Pentium Gold	AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14	AMD Ryzen Embedded V1500B
iGPU intégré	Intel UHD Graphics (13th Gen)	Intel UHD Graphics (12th Gen)	Aucun	Aucun
Score Passmark (CPU)	11 182	9 080	11 882	4 513
Score Single Thread	3 315	3 226	2 800	1 136
TDP	15 W (55 W burst)	15 W	15 W	16 W
RAM max supportée	96 Go DDR5	64 Go DDR5	64 Go DDR5	32 Go DDR4 ECC

Vous l’aurez compris, le changement opéré par Ugreen n’est pas anodin. On se retrouve avec un processeur taillé pour les tâches complexes ou il n’aura pas de difficulté : chiffrement des données, virtualisation, conteneurisation ou encore le transcodage vidéo. Il sera difficile de le mettre en difficulté. Seul regret, la présence de seulement 8 Go de RAM par défaut. On ne va pas se mentir, c’est un peu juste pour exploiter pleinement le potentiel de ce NAS : 16 Go auraient été préférables.

IA & DXP 4800 Pro

Ugreen a été intégré ici et là quelques touches d’IA dans ses applications maisons (notamment dans son application pour les photos). Mais nous avons voulu aller plus loin et tenté l’expérience des modèles Qwen2.5:3B et Gemma2:2B avec Ollama. Ils fonctionnent très bien avec ce NAS et répondent en quelques secondes. Attention, l’IA consomme beaucoup de ressources : processeur et RAM. Aussi, nous avons constaté une certaine limitation dans la gestion des ressources avec Docker, certainement pour protéger les fonctions de base du NAS.

Consommation électrique et nuisance sonore

Le ventilateur arrière est relativement discret. Côté consommation électrique, le NAS affiche environ 27 W en usage normal (avec 2 SSD NVMe et 3 SSD SATA) et jusqu’à 45 W en charge plus soutenue.

UniFi Cloud Gateway Industrial – Did Ubiquiti Go Too Hard Here?

The UniFi Cloud Gateway Industrial and UniFi Cloud Gateway Fiber are positioned as high throughput UniFi gateways that also act as the controller for UniFi Network and other UniFi applications, so the buying decision is less about basic compatibility and more about which hardware package better fits the environment and the deployment style. The Fiber model is typically the lower cost entry point and focuses on compact desktop placement, multiple high speed WAN options, and optional local storage via an NVMe SSD for UniFi Protect. The Industrial model costs more and its appeal is tied to practical deployment factors rather than raw routing numbers: a heavier, ruggedized, fanless chassis intended to tolerate harsher placement, integrated WiFi 7 for situations where local wireless is useful at the gateway, built in microSD storage for NVR use out of the box, and a much higher PoE output budget that can power downstream devices directly. Both are rated for similar IDS/IPS throughput and similar scale on paper, so the price gap tends to come down to whether you actually need the Industrial model’s power delivery, integrated wireless, and physical design features, or whether you would get more value by choosing the Fiber model and putting the savings into switches, access points, cameras, storage, or redundancy elsewhere in the network.

UniFi Cloud Gateway Industrial – Quick Conclusion

The UniFi Cloud Gateway Industrial only makes sense at $579 if you will actually use what drives that price. That primarily means the 270W PoE budget with multiple PoE+++ 90W ports, the integrated WiFi 7 radio, the included 128 GB microSD for immediate Protect recording, and the tougher deployment profile. That deployment profile includes a fanless design, heavier build, higher operating temperature rating, and more mounting options. Those features can replace a separate PoE switch, a basic access point, and some setup time. They are most relevant in locations that are not ideal for a small desktop gateway. If your network already has a PoE switch and dedicated access points, the value shifts quickly. The same is true if you mainly want a fast UniFi controller and gateway with flexible uplinks, or if you would rather put $300 into more switching, an AP, cameras, or more storage capacity.

In that case, the UniFi Cloud Gateway Fiber is generally the more rational buy. Both units share the same core platform traits that matter for routing and security workloads, including the 5 Gbps IDS/IPS rating. The Fiber’s higher WAN port count and 2x 10G SFP+ layout also fits conventional designs where WiFi and PoE are handled elsewhere. Put simply, the Industrial is a justified premium when it simplifies the overall bill of materials or solves placement constraints. It is hard to justify as an upgrade on performance alone. For typical indoor deployments, it usually makes more sense to buy the Fiber and allocate the difference to parts that materially expand the network.

You can buy the UniFi UNAS Pro 4 NAS via the link below – doing so will result in a small commission coming to me and Eddie at NASCompares, and allows us to keep doing what we do! 

UniFi Cloud Gateway Industrial (vs Fiber) – Design & Storage

Physically, the UniFi Cloud Gateway Industrial is built around a larger, heavier enclosure that is meant to stay in place rather than sit lightly on a shelf. In informal handling, it feels closer to a small piece of infrastructure gear than a typical compact gateway, which is consistent with its stated intent for rugged or semi permanent installs. By contrast, the Cloud Gateway Fiber is a low profile compact desktop unit, and its design reads more like a traditional small office gateway that can be placed near an ISP handoff or a small network stack.

The materials reflect that difference in intent. The Industrial uses a polycarbonate and aluminium alloy enclosure, while the Fiber uses polycarbonate. In practical terms, the Industrial’s metal content is more aligned with durability and heat management expectations in a fanless box that may be mounted in less forgiving places, whereas the Fiber’s lighter build aligns with a device expected to live in normal indoor environments.

Mounting flexibility is also not equal. The Industrial is listed as supporting wall mounting, compact desktop placement, and rack mounting via an accessory sold separately. The hardware design includes elements intended to support reconfiguration and installation style changes without changing the device itself.

The Fiber is primarily framed as a compact desktop form factor, which is typically fine for small racks or structured cabling areas only if you are comfortable improvising placement, rather than using a purpose built mounting approach.

Environmental tolerances are one of the clearest design separators. The Industrial is rated for an ambient operating range of -30 to 50 C, with 5 to 95 percent noncondensing humidity. The Fiber is rated for 0 to 40 C, also with 5 to 95 percent noncondensing humidity. If the gateway will be placed in a garage, loft, workshop, cabinet with poor airflow, or any space that regularly drifts outside typical indoor office temperatures, the Industrial’s ratings are the more relevant detail than most headline performance numbers.

Storage is where the devices take opposite approaches. The Industrial includes pre installed storage for NVR use, listed as a 128 GB microSD, and also supports microSD expansion. The Fiber does not ship with built in NVR storage, but supports selectable NVMe SSD storage up to 2 TB. In practice, the Industrial’s included microSD makes Protect usable immediately for light camera retention without additional parts, while the Fiber’s NVMe approach is better aligned with longer retention targets and scaling camera storage without relying on removable flash media

UniFi Cloud Gateway Industrial (vs Fiber) – Internal Hardware

At the core, both gateways sit on a very similar compute platform: a quad core ARM Cortex A73 CPU clocked at 2.2 GHz with 3 GB of system memory. In practical terms, that means neither device has an inherent advantage in baseline controller duties like running UniFi Network alongside other UniFi applications, or handling typical gateway services such as stateful firewalling, VPN termination, and traffic analysis.

The key performance headline for security enabled routing is also aligned. The Cloud Gateway Fiber is rated at 5 Gbps IDS/IPS throughput, and the Industrial model is positioned at the same 5 Gbps figure in the specifications you provided. That sets a realistic expectation that the price difference is not being driven by faster IDS/IPS, and that either unit can be the bottleneck if the goal is to inspect traffic at speeds above that rating.

Where the internal design diverges is less about raw compute and more about what each device integrates around that shared platform. The Industrial model bundles additional subsystems into the chassis, including a built in WiFi 7 radio, PoE switching hardware with much higher total PoE delivery, and cellular related features such as SIM slots intended for use with UniFi cellular hardware. Those additions change the role of the device from a gateway plus controller into something closer to a gateway, small switch, and basic wireless node combined, which can simplify certain installations where power and connectivity need to be consolidated.

The Fiber model stays more focused on being a high speed gateway with multiple WAN options and scalable local storage via NVMe for Protect, rather than integrating WiFi and high power PoE into the same chassis. In a typical structured network design, that aligns with the approach of keeping wireless and switching as separate components. In a more compact or power constrained install, the Industrial’s integrated approach can reduce the number of separate devices, but it also means you are paying for features you might not use if you already have dedicated switches and access points.

UniFi Cloud Gateway Industrial (vs Fiber) – Ports and Connections

Both gateways are built around multi WAN capability and a mix of 10 GbE and 2.5 GbE connectivity, but they prioritize different things. The Fiber model pushes WAN flexibility and high speed uplinks, listing a max WAN port count of 6. The Industrial model lists a max WAN port count of 5 and instead leans into powering downstream equipment directly through multiple high wattage PoE ports.

On the Cloud Gateway Fiber, the physical layout is centered on high speed copper and fiber. It includes (2) 10G SFP+ ports, (1) 10 GbE RJ45 port, and (4) 2.5 GbE RJ45 ports. Its default WAN configuration is shown as (1) 10G SFP+ and (1) 10 GbE RJ45, which makes it straightforward to mix fiber and copper upstream, or to reserve additional ports for LAN and internal switching depending on how you assign roles inside UniFi.

On the Cloud Gateway Industrial, the port layout is more explicit about power delivery. It has (4) 2.5 GbE RJ45 ports split as (2) PoE+++ and (2) PoE+, plus (1) 10 GbE RJ45 port that is PoE+++, and (1) 10G SFP+ port. The default WAN ports are listed as (1) 10 GbE RJ45 and (1) 2.5 GbE RJ45. In other words, it gives up some of the Fiber model’s extra high speed uplink optionality in exchange for multiple powered Ethernet outputs, including 90W class ports intended for higher draw devices.

Power input design also differs because it sets limits on what the PoE side can realistically do. The Industrial lists a PoE budget of up to 270W on DC input, with a 54V 350W adapter included, and it also supports an ATX power input (48V) with a lower PoE budget listed at 75W. The Fiber lists a much smaller PoE budget of 30W and is powered via a 54V DC jack with a 1.1A adapter. Excluding PoE output, both are in the same general range for the gateway itself, listed at 28W max for the Industrial and 29.4W max for the Fiber, but the Industrial’s power system is sized for PoE heavy deployments.

The Industrial also adds non Ethernet connectivity that the Fiber does not include. It has integrated WiFi 7 on 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz with external antenna support, and it includes 2 SIM slots intended for use with UniFi cellular hardware. The Fiber does not integrate WiFi or SIM slots, so wireless and cellular failover are typically handled by separate UniFi devices rather than being built into the gateway.

UniFi Cloud Gateway Industrial vs Cloud Gateway Fiber – Where Has $300 Been Spent?

At $579 versus $279, the Industrial is asking you to pay about $300 extra for a different kind of gateway bundle rather than a higher routing ceiling. Both platforms align on the core controller and gateway capability, including the same general IDS/IPS rating, so the decision largely comes down to whether you will use the Industrial model’s integrated features and physical design enough to offset the price difference. The biggest measurable value add is PoE output. The Fiber’s PoE budget is 30W total, which covers a single low to moderate power device, but it does not change how you design a network. The Industrial can deliver up to 270W of PoE output on DC input, with multiple ports supporting PoE+++ up to 90W per port. If your plan includes powering higher draw devices directly from the gateway, or you want to avoid adding a separate PoE switch in a small installation, that difference can replace other hardware and simplify cabling.

The next set of value drivers are convenience and deployment constraints. The Industrial includes integrated WiFi 7 (2.4 GHz and 5 GHz) with external antennas, plus dual SIM slots intended for cellular related UniFi use, and it is built for harsher placement with a higher listed operating temperature range. Those are specific benefits when the gateway needs to live in less controlled spaces, when a basic local wireless link at the gateway is useful, or when you want those functions inside a single enclosure. If you already plan to deploy dedicated access points, dedicated switching, and a separate failover device, these integrated features are less likely to change the design. Storage is a smaller part of the $300, but it affects out of box readiness. The Industrial includes 128 GB microSD intended for NVR use, so Protect storage exists immediately with no additional parts. The Fiber can scale higher with an NVMe SSD up to 2 TB, but that storage is optional and adds cost. If Protect is a core requirement and you want higher retention, the Fiber can still end up costing more once storage is added, while the Industrial starts with basic capacity included.

UniFi Cloud Gateway Industrial – Verdict & Conclusion

The UniFi Cloud Gateway Industrial is primarily justified by what it combines into a single chassis, and by where it is intended to live. The unit pairs a fanless, ruggedized enclosure and higher temperature tolerance with integrated WiFi 7 (2.4 GHz and 5 GHz) using external antennas, multi port PoE output that includes PoE+++ at up to 90W per port, and a high total PoE budget when powered from its included 54V adapter. It also includes pre installed microSD storage aimed at NVR duties, plus SIM slots that are designed around supported UniFi cellular integrations. None of these features change the stated IDS/IPS ceiling compared with other similar gateways, but they do change what additional equipment is required in smaller or more constrained deployments.

The value case depends on whether those integrated functions replace other purchases. If you would otherwise buy a separate network gateway, a WiFi access point or router, and a PoE+++ capable switch to power downstream devices, the combined cost and installation complexity can narrow the apparent price gap and in some cases make the Industrial model the simpler, potentially cheaper route overall. If your design already assumes dedicated switching, dedicated wireless, and storage sized beyond what a microSD setup can reasonably provide, the Industrial model’s premium is more likely to be paying for capabilities you do not use. In that situation, the practical advantage of the Industrial is mainly its physical build and power delivery, not a different performance class for routing and security inspection.

You can buy the UniFi UNAS Pro 4 NAS via the link below – doing so will result in a small commission coming to me and Eddie at NASCompares, and allows us to keep doing what we do! 

Join Inner Circle

Want to follow specific category? Also Read...UniFi UNAS 4 ReviewUniFi UNAS 4 ReviewIs the UniFi Dream Router StilUniFi Dream Router 7 - ONE YEAUniFi UNAS Pro 4 vs Pro vs ProUniFi UNAS Pro 4 vs Pro vs ProUniFi Cloud Gateway IndustrialUniFi UNAS Pro 4 NAS ReviewUniFi Travel Router Early ReviUniFi Travel Router Review Subscribe You can also follow specific search terms:

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?

TRY CHAT

If you like this service, please consider supporting us. We use affiliate links on the blog allowing NAScompares information and advice service to be free of charge to you.Anything you purchase on the day you click on our links will generate a small commission which isused to run the website. Here is a link for Amazon and B&H.You can also get me a Ko-fi or old school Paypal. Thanks!To find out more about how to support this advice service check HEREIf you need to fix or configure a NAS, check Fiver Have you thought about helping others with your knowledge? Find Instructions Here  

Or support us by using our affiliate links on Amazon UK and Amazon US

    

 

WE LOVE COFFEE

Aujourd’hui, c’est un article pas comme les autres. Je vous partage un peu en vrac mes idées et mes doutes. J’ai lancé Cachem.fr en 2009. À l’époque, je rédigeais des tutoriels sous Word pour des amis. Je partageais mes découvertes, mes tests, mes bidouilles. Personne ou presque ne parlait des NAS. Alors j’ai mis tout ça en ligne… Il n’y avait pas de stratégie, pas de business plan. Juste l’envie de partager une passion.

Cela fait plus de 16 ans, Cachem est toujours là. Sur le Web, on peut dire que c’est un dinosaure. Et moi aussi…

Une passion… mais pas mon métier

Dans la vie, j’ai un “vrai” métier. Je travaille dans une grande entreprise française dans un environnement structuré, exigeant, très éloigné du monde des NAS et des tests hardware. Au travail, je suis concentré à 100 % dans mes fonctions : Cachem n’interfère jamais.

Mais le soir, le week-end… entre deux moments en famille, Cachem reprend sa place.

Je passe en moyenne 12 heures par semaine dessus. Rédaction, tests, mises à jour, veille, échanges… Ça prend une place importante (trop ?) dans mon quotidien. C’est toujours une passion. Mais parfois, elle se transforme en contrainte.

Il m’arrive d’écrire “par devoir”, de me sentir obligé de publier. Comme si laisser le site au repos était une forme d’abandon.

Ce que Cachem m’apporte vraiment

Si je continue, ce n’est pas pour l’argent. La monétisation est anecdotique. Elle finance l’achat de matériel pour les tests, un restaurant avec madame de temps en temps, rien de plus. Je continue parce que Cachem m’apporte énormément :

• Le site m’oblige à rester curieux ;
• À comprendre les technologies en profondeur ;
• À tester des produits innovants ;
• À garder un équilibre intellectuel…

Et surtout, il y a le partage. Les commentaires et les échanges par mail. La reconnaissance d’une communauté passionnée. Cachem est un blog passion. Il l’a toujours été.

Les doutes sont réels

Je ne vais pas faire semblant : j’ai pensé arrêter. Régulièrement. Par manque de temps, par fatigue, par impression de ne plus rien avoir d’intéressant à raconter. Le paysage du web a changé. Les blogs ne sont plus à la mode. L’attention est ailleurs : TikTok, Instagram, YouTube…

Beaucoup de sites tech ferment, d’autres se regroupent sous de grands ensembles, les indépendants deviennent rares.

Parfois, je me demande si écrire a encore du sens. Et puis, je reviens toujours au même point. Le NAS revient toujours. Le NAS ne brille pas à la hauteur qu’il devrait, à mon goût. Il connaît des cycles, des périodes creuses, des vagues d’intérêt. Mais on y revient toujours :

• Face au cloud ;
• Face aux questions de souveraineté ;
• Face au besoin de disponibilité locale ;
• Face à la sécurisation des données personnelles…

Le NAS, c’est l’autonomie numérique à la maison. Et je crois que tant que ce sujet existera, j’aurai envie d’en parler. Parce que derrière la boîte noire posée sur l’étagère, il y a une philosophie : reprendre (ou garder) un peu le contrôle.

Pourquoi le rythme peut ralentir

Si le rythme évolue, ce n’est pas un abandon. C’est un équilibre à trouver. Ma vision : c’est que Cachem ne doit pas devenir une obligation pesante pour moi ou mon entourage. Il doit rester un espace de liberté.

Il y aura peut-être moins d’articles, peut-être plus de recul, peut-être plus de sélection, mais toujours la même sincérité.

Merci

Désolé si c’est un peu en vrac, je ne me suis pas relu, car je souhaite partager avec vous mon état d’esprit, ce qui se passe dans ma tête… un peu brut.

Merci à ceux qui lisent depuis des années,  à ceux qui commentent, à ceux qui partagent un article,  à ceux qui envoient un message pour dire simplement “merci”. Un blog indépendant vit par sa communauté. Alors si Cachem vous apporte quelque chose (une information, une solution, une réflexion) continuez à le faire vivre. Par un commentaire. Un partage. Un mot.

Cachem n’a jamais été un projet opportuniste. C’est un blog passion. Et tant que la passion sera plus forte que le doute, il continuera d’exister.

Gl.iNet Comet 5G Review – The ULTIMATE ALL-ACCESS KVM?

The GL.iNet Comet 5G is a remote KVM built to provide keyboard, video, and mouse control of a connected computer from power on through BIOS, rather than relying on a working operating system like traditional remote desktop tools. It accepts HDMI input from the host and offers HDMI passthrough so a local display can remain connected, with support up to 4K at 30 fps or 1080p at 60 fps, plus 2 way audio. Connectivity is where the Comet 5G differentiates itself most clearly in this product line: it can be managed over Gigabit Ethernet and Wi-Fi 6, but it also includes a nano SIM slot for 5G RedCap with 4G LTE fallback, intended for out of band access when the site network is down, segmented, or simply not trusted. It also supports a local AP mode that broadcasts its own wireless network for nearby management sessions without joining the surrounding LAN. In day to day use, the device is mainly aimed at remote maintenance tasks such as OS installs, recovery and imaging, BIOS changes, and support work on machines that lack built in management like iDRAC or iLO. Compared with the Comet Pro, it keeps the same general platform and interface approach, but adds the cellular path, the AP mode, a larger 3.69 in touchscreen, and 64 GB of eMMC storage for ISO and file staging. The key questions for a review are less about raw compute, since the core platform is similar to the Comet Pro, and more about whether the extra connectivity options, storage capacity, and on device usability justify its higher price for the way it will actually be deployed.

Gli.Net Comet 5G KVM Review – Quick Conclusion

The GL.iNet Comet 5G is essentially the Comet Pro style KVM experience with a stronger connectivity toolkit rather than a major jump in raw performance: you still get reliable BIOS level access, HDMI passthrough so a local screen can stay connected, and flexible access from a browser across different operating systems, but the main reason to choose it is the extra ways it can be reached when the local network is unavailable or not trusted. The nano SIM support (5G RedCap with 4G LTE fallback) gives an out of band route that can keep access available even when Ethernet or Wi-Fi are misconfigured, and the AP mode adds a direct nearby connection for quick point to point management without joining the site LAN, which can be genuinely useful in field work, segmented networks, or recovery situations. It also doubles the internal storage to 64 GB, which makes it easier to keep several ISO images and tools ready to mount remotely, and the larger 3.69 in touchscreen makes local setup and status checks less cramped. The trade offs are mostly about expectations: storage speeds remain modest, so uploading and copying large files is not fast; USB based storage expansion exists but is limited by USB 2.0, can require reboots, and drive compatibility is not always consistent; and while the device supports multiple paths and is marketed around failover, the current interface does not expose deep, router style controls for tuning how those paths behave. If you mostly run KVM over a stable wired or Wi-Fi network, the Comet Pro will usually cover the same core tasks for less money, but if you want a small KVM that gives you more options to regain access when networks are awkward or failing, the Comet 5G is the more complete tool as long as you accept the storage and configuration limitations.

SOFTWARE - 9/10

HARDWARE - 9/10

PERFORMANCE - 8/10

PRICE - 8/10

VALUE - 8/10

8.4

PROS

Cellular out of band access via nano SIM (5G RedCap with 4G LTE fallback) adds a separate path when the site LAN is down or misconfigured
Nearby Control via AP mode enables direct point to point access without joining the surrounding network, useful for local BIOS work and isolated environments
HDMI passthrough plus capture keeps a local monitor active while still providing remote KVM access (up to 4K 30 fps, 1080p 60 fps)
Browser based management and access works across Windows, macOS, and Linux without requiring a dedicated client
64 GB eMMC provides more room for ISO images and utility files than the 32 GB model, reducing how often media needs to be rotated
3.69 in touchscreen makes on device setup and status checks less cramped than smaller panel implementations
Multiple remote access approaches are available (LAN, relay, and VPN style options like Tailscale and ZeroTier), allowing different trust and routing models
Low complexity deployment with passive cooling and a small footprint makes it viable as a 24/7 appliance when powered independently

CONS

Storage performance is modest, and remains closer to mid range eMMC speeds than fast removable storage
External storage expansion has caveats, including USB 2.0 limits, possible reboots, and inconsistent compatibility depending on the USB drive and power draw
Failover and cellular controls are not deeply tunable in the current UI, so users expecting router grade policy controls may find configuration limited

Buy the Gl.iNet KVM 5G from Amazon Below:	Buy the Gl.iNet Comet KVM ($219) from the Official Store Below:

Gli.Net Comet 5G KVM Review – Design & Storage

The Comet 5G follows the same general design language as the Comet Pro, but it is physically larger and more deployment focused. It measures 128 × 93 × 33 mm and weighs 285 g, which makes it more of a bag sized tool than something that disappears behind a monitor without planning. The casing relies on passive ventilation rather than active cooling, and in normal use it is intended to be left running continuously, provided it is powered independently rather than from the host machine.

A practical difference in the Comet 5G design is the addition of external antennas to support its wireless roles.

This includes cellular and Wi-Fi antennas, and the unit is clearly built around the expectation that it may be used away from a stable wired network, whether that is via the SIM slot or via a direct nearby wireless connection. In a fixed desk setup the antennas can feel like overkill, but for temporary installs and field support they suit the intended use case.

On the front, the Comet 5G uses a 3.69 in touchscreen, which is notably larger than the Comet Pro’s 2.22 in panel. In practice, that extra size does not materially change the experience of mirroring the host display on the device itself, since you remain limited by the source resolution and scaling.

Where it does help is in the local management interface, where menus and status screens have more room and are less cramped, particularly during setup or when checking network state and service toggles directly on the unit.

Storage is expanded to 64 GB eMMC, and the main advantage is capacity rather than speed. In use, the internal storage is primarily for keeping ISO images, recovery media, and utility files that can be mounted remotely as virtual media or exposed to the host as a remote drive.

File transfers to and from the internal storage typically sit in the same general performance range as the Comet Pro, which means it is functional for staging installers and smaller toolsets, but slow for moving large data sets.

A newer software feature available across the platform also allows external storage via a USB drive, but it comes with constraints that affect how usable it is in practice. Adding a drive can require a reboot, compatibility varies between drives, and the management interface tends to treat partitions individually rather than offering straightforward full disk handling.

Because the port involved is USB 2.0, external storage is more about adding space for additional ISOs than achieving a meaningful improvement in transfer speeds.

Gli.Net Comet 5G KVM Review – Connectivity

The Comet 5G keeps its I/O layout simple, with the core KVM connections built around full sized HDMI input and HDMI output for passthrough. This avoids adapter reliance and makes it easier to drop into existing setups where monitors and capture paths already use standard HDMI cabling. In a permanent install, passthrough is the more important part of that arrangement, since it allows a local user to keep working on the attached screen while remote access remains available in the background.

For host control, the unit presents USB based keyboard and mouse emulation over its USB-C connection, while power is also supplied via USB-C at 5V/3A with PD compatibility.

In practical terms, powering it from an independent adapter is the safer approach, because drawing power from the host machine can remove KVM access when the host is powered off, rebooting, or in a state where USB power is unstable.

Wired networking is provided by a 1 GbE RJ45 port, which is the most consistent option for image quality and responsiveness when the site network is stable. Alongside this, the Comet 5G supports Wi-Fi 6 on both 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz, and it also includes an AP mode that allows a direct nearby wireless connection without joining the surrounding LAN.

That AP mode is best understood as a local management path rather than a general purpose hotspot, and it is primarily useful when you want a quick point to point session for BIOS work or initial configuration.

The main connectivity addition over the Comet Pro is the nano SIM slot for cellular access, supporting 5G RedCap with 4G LTE fallback. This is positioned as an out of band route that can keep the management channel available when Ethernet and Wi-Fi are unavailable or misconfigured, and it also reduces dependence on VLAN routing rules and other site side constraints.

In the current software experience, the cellular side is exposed through its own configuration section, but it does not offer the same depth of policy and failover tuning found on GL.iNet’s router products.

Gli.Net Comet 5G KVM Review – Internal Hardware

Internally, the Comet 5G is built around a quad core ARM Cortex-A53 SoC paired with 1 GB of DDR3L memory, which is broadly the same class of platform used by the Comet Pro. In review terms, this means the Comet 5G is not trying to win on raw compute, but on connectivity and deployment options, because the core processing headroom is similar. The A53 class CPU is adequate for running the management services, handling multiple control sessions, and keeping the on device UI responsive, but it is not aimed at heavier workloads outside the core KVM functions. The OS is Linux 6.1, and the device behaves like a small embedded appliance rather than a general purpose system you would extend with additional packages and services.

The video path is designed around HDMI ingest and H.264 hardware encoding, with the remote stream adapting to available bandwidth and quality settings in the client interface. Support is listed up to 4K at 30 fps and 1080p at 60 fps, with HDMI passthrough keeping a local monitor active while the unit captures the same signal for remote viewing.

Audio is supported in 2 directions, but the device itself is not treated as a standalone audio endpoint, so the practical experience depends on how the host exposes audio over HDMI or USB and how the client session is configured. Input is handled via USB based HID emulation, which is why copy and paste and keystroke injection can sometimes behave differently between applications depending on how they interpret simulated typing versus clipboard shortcuts.

The storage subsystem uses 64 GB eMMC soldered to the board, and in practice it is tuned for predictable, mid range throughput rather than high performance. Real world transfer rates observed during ISO uploads and mounted storage tests typically sit around the mid 20s to mid 30s MB/s range, which aligns with the Comet Pro experience and reflects the limits of the flash and controller rather than a network bottleneck.

That makes it usable for staging installers, recovery media, and driver packs, but not ideal for repeated large image transfers or heavy file shuttling. Expansion is possible via a USB drive using the USB 2.0 Type-A port, but that is primarily a capacity extension, because USB 2.0 limits both bandwidth and available bus power, and drive compatibility can vary depending on the enclosure controller and power draw.

Gli.Net Comet 5G KVM Review – Software, Services & Performance

The Comet 5G uses the same GLKVM software family as the earlier Comet devices, with access provided through a browser interface, a desktop client, and a mobile app. In testing, the browser UI is the most straightforward for configuration and for working across different operating systems, and it also exposes most of the device settings without needing to install anything locally.

Firmware maturity differed slightly between units during side by side use, with the Comet Pro running a stable 1.8 release build while the Comet 5G was still presented as beta, though the overall layout and feature set were close enough that the differences felt tied to hardware options rather than a separate software branch.

#

Account and session security options are built into the platform, including 2 factor authentication and passkey support at the account level, plus the ability to apply an additional password gate per device before entering a remote session. Remote access can be handled locally over LAN, through GL.iNet’s relay service, or through peer to peer options. Tailscale support is part of the platform, and newer software revisions have also introduced ZeroTier support, which addresses earlier feedback around relying on a single remote access option.

For users who prefer not to use relay services, these VPN style paths can provide remote reachability without opening ports or depending on the vendor’s cloud beyond account management.

Where the Comet 5G differs in day to day software behavior is how cellular and nearby access are exposed. Cellular configuration appears as a dedicated section for SIM based connectivity, while the Wi-Fi settings include an AP mode that allows direct nearby connections without joining the site WLAN. In practice, these features improve the chances of reaching the device when the surrounding network is misconfigured or inaccessible, but the management interface does not currently provide the same depth of routing, policy control, or visible failover logic that GL.iNet includes in its router products. Multi path behavior is present at a feature level, but there is limited opportunity to tune it beyond selecting the available connection modes.

Performance during remote control sessions depends mainly on the network path and the host workload rather than differences between the Comet 5G and Comet Pro hardware. Video quality controls and stream settings allow the session to be made more stable on weaker links, and the general desktop experience remains usable for BIOS work, OS installs, and troubleshooting.

A copy and paste stress test with a large block of text showed both devices could transfer long input sequences, but the Comet 5G produced fewer odd spacing issues in the final pasted document during that run. On mobile, both devices provide touch mode and cursor mode plus access to a software keyboard, and external Bluetooth keyboards and mice can be used, but fluidity and compression artifacts were more noticeable when the phone was on cellular data compared with a local Wi-Fi or wired path.

Gli.Net Comet 5G KVM Review – Verdict & Conclusion

The Comet 5G works as a continuation of the Comet Pro platform rather than a clean break. The remote session experience, general interface layout, and core feature set remain familiar, because the underlying compute and encoding approach is broadly the same, and both devices are aimed at the same type of work: BIOS access, OS installs, recovery tasks, and remote troubleshooting where standard remote desktop tools are not enough. The areas that do change the day to day ownership experience are mostly around how you can reach the device when things go wrong. The SIM based 5G RedCap and 4G LTE fallback adds a separate management path, and the AP mode provides a direct nearby connection that avoids relying on the site LAN. The larger 3.69 in screen also makes the on device menus easier to use, even if it does not transform the usefulness of live video mirroring on the panel itself.

On the positive side, the Comet 5G is more adaptable in awkward environments, such as networks with strict VLAN boundaries, unreliable Wi-Fi, or unknown cabling, and it gives you more ways to regain access without a site visit. The 64 GB eMMC storage is also easier to live with if you keep multiple ISO images or toolkits available, although transfer speed remains limited and does not materially improve over the 32 GB model. On the less positive side, the cellular and multi path story is currently presented more as a capability than as a deeply configurable system, so users expecting router style failover policies and detailed controls may find the options relatively basic. The external storage expansion feature helps with capacity, but it is constrained by USB 2.0, requires reboots in some situations, and drive compatibility can be inconsistent, which limits how predictable it is as a long term workflow.

Overall, the Comet 5G is easier to justify when you expect to use the cellular connection or the nearby AP mode regularly, because those are the main reasons it exists and the main differences you will notice. If the device will live on a stable wired network most of the time and you only need a straightforward remote KVM for routine maintenance, the Comet Pro will usually cover the same core tasks for less money. If your priority is having multiple ways to reach the box when the local network is down or not trusted, the Comet 5G is the more complete tool, but its value depends on those deployment realities rather than any large jump in raw performance.

Buy the Gl.iNet KVM 5G from Amazon Below:	Buy the Gl.iNet Comet KVM ($219) from the Official Store Below:

Join Inner Circle

Want to follow specific category? Also Read...Gl.iNet Comet 5G Review - The NanoKVM and it's 'Secret' MicrNanoKVM (Original) and it's 'SSipeed NanoKVM Pro KVM ReviewNanoKVM Pro KVM Review - A WHOGL.iNet Comet Pro Review - The Subscribe You can also follow specific search terms:

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?

TRY CHAT

If you like this service, please consider supporting us. We use affiliate links on the blog allowing NAScompares information and advice service to be free of charge to you.Anything you purchase on the day you click on our links will generate a small commission which isused to run the website. Here is a link for Amazon and B&H.You can also get me a Ko-fi or old school Paypal. Thanks!To find out more about how to support this advice service check HEREIf you need to fix or configure a NAS, check Fiver Have you thought about helping others with your knowledge? Find Instructions Here  

Or support us by using our affiliate links on Amazon UK and Amazon US

    

 

WE LOVE COFFEE

L’IT Partner est un événement high-tech que j’apprécie particulièrement. Pour cette 20e édition, le salon se tenait une nouvelle fois à l’Arena de La Défense. C’est un rendez-vous unique qui permet de rencontrer, sur un même site, plusieurs fabricants de NAS… mais pas seulement. En effet, au-delà du stockage, l’événement couvre l’ensemble de l’écosystème IT : infrastructures, cybersécurité, réseaux, cloud, services managés, distribution et intégration. Un concentré du marché en deux jours.

Un passage express, mais ciblé

Pendant ces 2 jours, pas moins de 230 exposants étaient présents. Cette année, mon agenda était particulièrement contraint. Malheureusement, je n’ai pu passer qu’un peu moins de deux heures sur le salon, et uniquement le second jour.

J’avais donc préparé en amont la liste des acteurs que je souhaitais absolument rencontrer. Résultat : un parcours optimisé, au pas de course, mais efficace.

Synology, Asustor et Ugreen : focus NAS

Ugreen : une première remarquée

Ugreen participait pour la première fois au salon avec son propre stand (et il ne désemplissait pas). La marque attire clairement la curiosité sur le marché du NAS. J’ai pu échanger longuement avec Gaëlle, France Business Development Manager, au sujet de l’arrivée d’Ugreen sur ce segment et des opportunités à venir pour le fabricant. La stratégie est ambitieuse et le positionnement mérite d’être suivi de près.

Asustor : montée en puissance en France

Asustor participait à son premier salon en France. Le constructeur était présent sur le stand du grossiste ALSO. La France (et plus largement l’Europe) représente un marché stratégique pour la marque. La présence de Mehdi, Sales Manager, a permis un échange constructif sur la situation actuelle du secteur et sur la stratégie de développement d’Asustor. Petite déception toutefois : Damien, bien connu de la communauté, n’était pas présent cette année. Ce sera pour une prochaine édition.

Synology : présence solide, peu de nouveautés

Comme toujours, Synology était au rendez-vous, avec une présence sur deux corners distincts via deux grossistes. Beaucoup de monde sur les espaces dédiés, preuve de l’intérêt constant pour la marque. En revanche, peu de nouveautés majeures à découvrir sur place cette année.

QNAP : une absence remarquée

On notera l’absence de stand pour QNAP. Même si j’ai croisé deux membres de l’équipe, le constructeur ne disposait ni de stand dédié ni de corner partagé. Un choix compréhensible au regard de leur actualité chargée (déménagement, nouveaux produits, roadshow…), mais une présence officielle aurait été appréciée.

Un événement incontournable pour les professionnels IT

L’IT Partners reste un rendez-vous clé pour les professionnels du secteur. Le salon offre un cadre efficace pour échanger avec les fabricants et les distributeurs, découvrir de nouvelles solutions et renforcer son réseau.

Même en passage rapide, la valeur ajoutée est bien réelle. Pour tous les acteurs de l’écosystème IT (intégrateurs, revendeurs, MSP ou éditeurs) c’est un événement à inscrire dans l’agenda.

UniFi UNAS Pro 4 vs Pro vs Pro 8 NAS – WHICH ONE SHOULD YOU BUY?

Within UniFi, the UNAS line is positioned as a straightforward, storage focused, turnkey NAS platform that fits into the same single pane management style as the rest of the ecosystem, prioritizing file storage, sharing, snapshots, and backup workflows over broader server style expandability. In this 3 way comparison, the UNAS Pro (7 bay, Nov 2024), UNAS Pro 8 (8 bay, Nov 2025), and UNAS Pro 4 (4 bay, Feb 2026) look similar on the surface, but they target different deployment constraints and ceiling limits in rack depth, storage scalability, cache options, memory headroom, network redundancy, and power design. Two of the units (Pro 4 and Pro 8) add M.2 NVMe cache support and higher availability 10GbE networking than the original Pro, while the Pro 8 also pushes furthest on RAM capacity and physical redundancy expectations for a rack install.

BUY
Pro	More 3.5 inch bays than UNAS Pro 4 at the same $499 price (7 vs 4)	1U chassis (smallest height)	Most total bays (8) plus 2x NVMe cache slots
	Shallower chassis depth than both (325 mm), easier fit in short depth racks	2x 10G SFP+ instead of 1x 10G SFP+ on UNAS Pro	16 GB memory (double UNAS Pro and UNAS Pro 4)
	Front 10G SFP+ and 1G RJ45 placement can suit front of rack cabling	NVMe cache support (absent on UNAS Pro)	3 total 10 GbE ports (2x 10G SFP+ plus 10 GbE RJ45), most flexible networking
	1.3 inch touchscreen (absent on UNAS Pro 4 and UNAS Pro 8)	Longer CPU clock than UNAS Pro (2.0 GHz vs 1.7 GHz)	Hot swappable power modules (only model with this design)
Con	No NVMe cache support (both UNAS Pro 4 and UNAS Pro 8 have it)	Lowest bay ceiling and no official expansion path, so it fills up fastest	Highest price up front ($799)
	Only 1x 10G SFP+ (UNAS Pro 4 has 2x, UNAS Pro 8 has 2x plus 10 GbE RJ45)	Deeper chassis than UNAS Pro (400 mm vs 325 mm)	Deepest chassis (480 mm), most demanding fit in shallow racks
	Lower CPU clock than UNAS Pro 4 and UNAS Pro 8 (1.7 GHz vs 2.0 GHz)	No hot swap PSU design (UNAS Pro 8 is the only one with hot swappable power modules)	No touchscreen (UNAS Pro includes a front touchscreen)
	Same 8 GB memory as UNAS Pro 4 and less than UNAS Pro 8 (16 GB)	Same 8 GB memory as UNAS Pro and less than UNAS Pro 8 (16 GB)	Higher power ceiling and max power consumption than the other 2 (250 W max)

At the same time, the lineup is notable for pricing that stays lower than many established rackmount NAS competitors at comparable connectivity, with both the UNAS Pro and UNAS Pro 4 landing at $499, and the UNAS Pro 8 stepping up to $799 for more bays, more memory, and more network paths. The practical decision usually comes down to whether the priority is maximum bays at the lowest buy in, a tighter 1U footprint with newer cache and dual 10GbE links, or a higher ceiling platform with the strongest long term headroom in bays, RAM, and connectivity for users who expect growth rather than a fixed storage target.

IMPORTANT – It is worth highlighting that all three UNAS solutions include the same software and updates in the UniFi Drive and NAS OS services. Alongside the client tools (eg Identity Endpoint and File/Folder services remotely) and can be easily integrated into an existing Ubiquiti/UniFi network landscape. HOWEVER crucially, it is not ‘mandotory’ – you can run any of the UNAS Pro systems completely ‘offline’ (i.e LAN only) and there is no need to already have an existing UniFi network (existing 3rd party network landscapes work perfectly fine) and you also do not need to use/register any kind of UI.com/Ubiquiti account to setup the device.

UniFi UNAS Pro 4 vs Pro vs Pro 8 NAS – Design

At a chassis level, the lineup splits into 2U and 1U designs, and that difference shapes how each unit fits into smaller racks and shallow cabinets.

The UNAS Pro is the shortest depth of the 3, while the UNAS Pro 4 and UNAS Pro 8 extend further back, which matters once you account for cable bend radius and rear clearance.

For compact wall racks and shorter cabinets, the older UNAS Pro tends to be easier to accommodate purely on physical depth, even before you consider anything about performance or features.

The UNAS Pro also stands apart on the front panel experience, because it includes a 1.3″ touchscreen that can surface live status information without needing to log into the UI. That is not present on the UNAS Pro 4 or UNAS Pro 8, which lean into a more conventional rack appliance faceplate focused on bay access and basic indicators. In day to day use, the screen is mainly a convenience feature for quick checks and basic local interaction, rather than something that changes how the system is deployed.

Another practical design difference is port placement philosophy. The UNAS Pro places its primary network connectivity on the front, while the UNAS Pro 4 and UNAS Pro 8 move connectivity to the rear, matching the typical layout most rackmount NAS systems follow. Front facing ports can reduce visible cabling in front of a rack and shorten patch runs in some UniFi heavy layouts, but rear mounted ports are generally easier to route cleanly in deeper cabinets with rear cable management.

Power implementation also affects the physical serviceability profile of each unit. The UNAS Pro 8 uses hot swappable power modules, which changes how you handle failure or planned maintenance compared with the fixed internal power approach used by the UNAS Pro and UNAS Pro 4.

All 3 use a steel enclosure and ship as purpose built rack devices rather than desktop conversions, but the UNAS Pro 8 is the one that most closely matches what many buyers expect from a higher end rack appliance in terms of field replacement for key physical components.

UniFi UNAS Pro vs Pro 4 vs Pro 8 NAS – Storage

The most obvious storage difference is the bay count and what that does to capacity planning. The UNAS Pro provides 7 front accessible 2.5 inch or 3.5 inch bays in a 2U chassis, the UNAS Pro 4 offers 4 bays in a 1U chassis, and the UNAS Pro 8 increases that to 8 bays in 2U. If you expect to grow into larger pools over time, the 7 bay and 8 bay models give more headroom before you are forced into drive replacements, a second NAS, or a new storage tier. With no official expansion chassis support referenced here, the physical bay count is effectively the ceiling for each system.

The UNAS Pro 4 and UNAS Pro 8 add 2 M.2 NVMe slots intended for SSD caching, while the UNAS Pro does not include NVMe slots. This changes how you can approach mixed workloads, because cache can reduce latency for repeated small file access and help smooth bursts of writes, depending on how the platform applies caching. It does not change the underlying reality that the main capacity tier is still the SATA bay set, but it gives the Pro 4 and Pro 8 a path to improve responsiveness for specific access patterns without committing to full SSD storage across all bays.

RAID flexibility also varies, not in the list of RAID levels available, but in how storage can be organized. All 3 units support RAID 5, RAID 6, and RAID 10, but the UNAS Pro 4 is listed as supporting a single RAID group, while the UNAS Pro and UNAS Pro 8 are listed with multiple RAID groups. In practice, the single group limitation matters if you prefer separating workloads or isolating different retention policies into distinct pools, rather than placing everything into 1 volume. On the larger models, multiple groups give more options for structuring storage around different priorities, such as performance versus redundancy, or shared storage versus dedicated project space.

Operational features tied to storage protection are also not identical across the range. Hot spare support is listed on the UNAS Pro and UNAS Pro 8, but not on the UNAS Pro 4, which affects how you plan for unattended recovery after a drive failure. All 3 support snapshots, file encryption, share links, Time Machine backup, and cloud and network backup targets, which makes baseline data protection and recovery workflows broadly consistent regardless of bay count.

The larger differentiation is therefore less about whether core protection features exist and more about how much flexibility you have in pool layout and drive management within the limits of each chassis.

All 3 systems are built around a quad core ARM Cortex A57 platform, but they are not configured identically. The UNAS Pro runs the Cortex A57 at 1.7 GHz, while the UNAS Pro 4 and UNAS Pro 8 are listed at 2.0 GHz. In day to day use, this tends to show up less as a dramatic jump in peak throughput and more as extra headroom when the system is handling several background jobs at once, such as indexing, snapshots, and multi user access, while still servicing file activity. The architecture choice is aligned with lower draw compared with typical x86 NAS hardware, but it also sets a ceiling on heavier compute workloads that some buyers associate with higher end NAS platforms.Memory is where the split is clearer. The UNAS Pro and UNAS Pro 4 ship with 8 GB, while the UNAS Pro 8 steps up to 16 GB. The practical impact is less about basic file sharing and more about how much concurrent activity the system can absorb before responsiveness drops, particularly when you add more users, larger file operations, more snapshot activity, and cache related behavior on models that support it. None of these systems are positioned as memory expandable platforms in the provided specifications, so the installed capacity is effectively the long term limit.

Power delivery and serviceability differ meaningfully between the range. The UNAS Pro and UNAS Pro 4 use internal AC to DC power supplies with an additional USP RPS DC input for redundancy, and their overall platform power limits are lower, matching their smaller scale.

The UNAS Pro 8 uses hot swappable power modules and is designed to support more demanding configurations, reflected in the higher maximum power consumption and the larger drive power budget. This does not automatically translate into higher idle power, but it does indicate how much overhead the chassis is designed to tolerate when fully populated and under sustained activity.

UniFi UNAS Pro 4 vs Pro vs Pro 8 NAS – Ports and Connections

Across the 3 systems, the shared theme is 10 GbE as the primary path for file access, but the implementation differs. The UNAS Pro provides a single 10G SFP+ port plus a 1 GbE RJ45 port, which typically ends up used either for management traffic or as a slower access fallback. The UNAS Pro 4 shifts to a dual 10G SFP+ layout, giving more flexibility for link aggregation or failover planning, even if the practical benefit depends on the storage configuration and client support. The UNAS Pro 8 goes further with 2x 10G SFP+ and adds a 10 GbE RJ45 port that supports multi speed negotiation, which makes it easier to drop into networks that are already built around copper 10 GbE.

Port placement is also part of the decision, because the UNAS Pro uses front mounted networking, while the UNAS Pro 4 and UNAS Pro 8 keep network connections on the rear. Front mounted ports can simplify short patch runs in racks that are set up around front facing switching, while rear mounted ports follow the more common rack NAS convention and can be cleaner in racks that route cabling at the back. None of the 3 is positioned as a platform for network expansion cards, so what you buy is the long term connectivity ceiling.

In day to day operation, the multi port models are mainly about resiliency and network design options rather than guaranteeing linear scaling for a single user. You can plan for redundancy across switches, use bonding where your environment supports it, or segment traffic patterns in a more controlled way.

The UNAS Pro 8 is also the only model here with 10 GbE available on both SFP+ and RJ45 in the base hardware, which reduces the need for media converters or additional transceiver planning if your network is not SFP+ centric.

UniFi UNAS Pro 4 vs Pro 8 vs Pro NAS – Price and Value

At list pricing, the UNAS Pro and UNAS Pro 4 sit at the same $499, but they are selling different priorities. The UNAS Pro concentrates its value in raw bay count and a shorter 2U chassis, trading away NVMe cache support and additional 10 GbE links to keep the platform simple. The UNAS Pro 4 is priced the same while reducing the HDD bay count and moving to a 1U chassis, but it adds 2x NVMe cache slots and a second 10G SFP+ port, positioning it more as a “small but fast access” rack NAS rather than a capacity first box.

The UNAS Pro 8 steps up to $799 and is priced like a higher tier option, but the spec sheet shows where that uplift is meant to land: more drive bays than either $499 model, NVMe cache capability like the Pro 4, more total 10 GbE ports, and a jump to 16 GB memory. It is also the only one of the 3 with a 10 GbE RJ45 port alongside SFP+, which can reduce friction in mixed copper and fiber environments. If the goal is to keep the same platform longer term, the Pro 8 is the only one here with both the capacity headroom and the memory ceiling to match it.

Using the simplified “price per bay” and “price per element” approach, the headline result is that the Pro 8 looks strongest once you count all the included hardware features rather than only the number of drive bays. The UNAS Pro has the lowest cost per bay because it is a 7 bay system at the same price as the 4 bay model, but the Pro 4 catches up when the NVMe slots and dual 10 GbE are treated as part of the value calculation. The Pro 8 is not the cheapest upfront, but it ends up close to the Pro 4 on cost per bay and is the lowest on cost per element because it stacks more of the “platform” features in one chassis.

UniFi UNAS Pro 8 vs Pro vs Pro 4 NAS – VERDICT

The UNAS Pro 4, UNAS Pro, and UNAS Pro 8 are close enough in naming to look like simple capacity steps, but they are positioned more like 3 different takes on the same UniFi Drive appliance idea. The UNAS Pro is the most capacity oriented at $499, giving 7 bays in a shorter depth 2U chassis with a built in 1.3 inch touchscreen and a straightforward port layout that suits some front of rack workflows. The UNAS Pro 4 shifts the emphasis away from bay count and toward “newer platform features” at the same $499 price, combining a 1U form factor with 2x 10G SFP+ and 2x NVMe cache slots, at the cost of a deeper chassis and fewer total drive bays. The UNAS Pro 8 is the most complete hardware package in the lineup, adding more bays, NVMe cache, more total 10 GbE connectivity including 10 GbE RJ45, and 16 GB memory, while also being the only one of the 3 to use hot swappable power modules. None of the 3 supports an official expansion shelf approach, so the bay count you buy on day 1 is effectively the long term ceiling unless you plan a separate NAS later.

Choosing between them mostly comes down to which ceiling matters first in your deployment: total bays, total network options, or overall platform headroom. If you want the most bays at $499 and the chassis depth is a priority, the UNAS Pro remains the obvious pick, with the tradeoffs being no NVMe cache path and a simpler network layout than the newer units. If you want the $499 option that aligns most with modern expectations for a small rack NAS, the UNAS Pro 4 has the cleanest argument, because dual 10G and NVMe cache can matter more than extra bays in smaller, faster working sets, even if those cache slots are not usable as standalone storage pools. If you are planning for longer retention cycles, heavier multi user access, or you simply want the most complete feature set in a single chassis, the UNAS Pro 8 is the one that most clearly justifies its higher price, particularly once memory, network flexibility, and the power module design are considered together. The main limitation across the lineup is that the ARM platform and fixed memory approach sets expectations about the long term performance ceiling, but within that constraint, the decision is primarily about how you want the hardware budget divided between capacity, connectivity, and overall platform resources.

	UNAS Pro (7 Bay, $499)	UNAS Pro 4 (4 Bay, $499)	UNAS Pro 8 (8 Bay, $799)
BUY
Pros	More 3.5 inch bays than UNAS Pro 4 at the same $499 price (7 vs 4)	1U chassis (smallest height)	Most total bays (8) plus 2x NVMe cache slots
	Shallower chassis depth than both (325 mm), easier fit in short depth racks	2x 10G SFP+ instead of 1x 10G SFP+ on UNAS Pro	16 GB memory (double UNAS Pro and UNAS Pro 4)
	Front 10G SFP+ and 1G RJ45 placement can suit front of rack cabling	NVMe cache support (absent on UNAS Pro)	3 total 10 GbE ports (2x 10G SFP+ plus 10 GbE RJ45), most flexible networking
	1.3 inch touchscreen (absent on UNAS Pro 4 and UNAS Pro 8)	Longer CPU clock than UNAS Pro (2.0 GHz vs 1.7 GHz)	Hot swappable power modules (only model with this design)
Cons	No NVMe cache support (both UNAS Pro 4 and UNAS Pro 8 have it)	Lowest bay ceiling and no official expansion path, so it fills up fastest	Highest price up front ($799)
	Only 1x 10G SFP+ (UNAS Pro 4 has 2x, UNAS Pro 8 has 2x plus 10 GbE RJ45)	Deeper chassis than UNAS Pro (400 mm vs 325 mm)	Deepest chassis (480 mm), most demanding fit in shallow racks
	Lower CPU clock than UNAS Pro 4 and UNAS Pro 8 (1.7 GHz vs 2.0 GHz)	No hot swap PSU design (UNAS Pro 8 is the only one with hot swappable power modules)	No touchscreen (UNAS Pro includes a front touchscreen)
	Same 8 GB memory as UNAS Pro 4 and less than UNAS Pro 8 (16 GB)	Same 8 GB memory as UNAS Pro and less than UNAS Pro 8 (16 GB)	Higher power ceiling and max power consumption than the other 2 (250 W max)

Join Inner Circle

Want to follow specific category? Also Read...UniFi UNAS 4 ReviewUniFi UNAS 4 ReviewLincstation E1 NAS Review - TOIs the UniFi Dream Router StilUniFi Dream Router 7 - ONE YEAUniFi UNAS Pro 4 vs Pro vs ProUniFi Cloud Gateway IndustrialUniFi Cloud Gateway IndustrialAcemagic N3A-3750H announced: UniFi UNAS Pro 4 NAS Review Subscribe You can also follow specific search terms:

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?

TRY CHAT

If you like this service, please consider supporting us. We use affiliate links on the blog allowing NAScompares information and advice service to be free of charge to you.Anything you purchase on the day you click on our links will generate a small commission which isused to run the website. Here is a link for Amazon and B&H.You can also get me a Ko-fi or old school Paypal. Thanks!To find out more about how to support this advice service check HEREIf you need to fix or configure a NAS, check Fiver Have you thought about helping others with your knowledge? Find Instructions Here  

Or support us by using our affiliate links on Amazon UK and Amazon US

    

 

WE LOVE COFFEE

Review of the UniFi UNAS Pro 4 NAS – Possibly the Best Value 1U Rack Ever?

Over the last 18-24 months, Ubiquiti has shifted the ‘UniFi’ label from being a networking and bridging ecosystem into a wider storage hardware and software platform that now includes a steadily expanding NAS line under UniFi Drive. Early UniFi UNAS storage products leaned heavily on simple file sharing and basic backup, but the pace of updates and the broader product rollout in 2025/2026 pushed the range closer to what small business buyers expect from an entry level NAS platform: clearer storage management, stronger snapshot and backup tooling, and tighter integration with the UniFi account and identity layer for remote access and user control (with the recent Drive 4.0 Update really uping their game considerably). The UniFi UNAS Pro 4 sits within that context as a compact 1U, 4 bay rack mount system designed mainly for file storage and sharing over SMB and NFS, rather than running third party applications, containers, or virtual machines. At $499, it is priced noticeably lower than many competing 1U rack NAS products at broadly comparable “headline” hardware, particularly where dual 10Gb networking and NVMe caching are concerned, which makes it hard to ignore if the goal is simple, high bandwidth storage in a rack footprint without moving into significantly higher spend.

UniFi UNAS Pro 4 Review – Quick Conclusion

The UniFi UNAS Pro 4 is a 1U, 4 bay rack mount NAS aimed at straightforward SMB and NFS file storage, and its main differentiator is value: at $499 it undercuts many comparable 1U rack units while still offering 2x 10Gb SFP+ plus a separate 1GbE management port, 4 hot swap bays for 3.5 inch or 2.5 inch drives, and 2 M.2 NVMe slots for read and write caching. In testing with 4 HDDs in RAID 5 over 10GbE, it delivered strong real-world file transfer results for a small SATA array, with synthetic benchmarks showing high peak throughput but some variability depending on the tool used, and the platform’s power draw and noise profile were heavily influenced by drive choice and fan mode, including very loud output if maximum cooling is forced. UniFi Drive covers the core fundamentals expected at this level, including snapshots, encrypted volumes, and a wide range of backup targets (NAS, SMB, and multiple cloud services, with Microsoft 365 direction evident in recent updates), but the interface still limits deeper tuning in places and the feature set remains focused on storage rather than apps. The main downsides are structural and easy to identify up front: NVMe can only be used for cache rather than storage pools, the NVMe carriers are an extra purchase, there are no USB ports for local copy tasks, the PSU is internal and not a hot swap module, and missing features like iSCSI, ECC, and RAM upgradability place a clear ceiling on more advanced workloads, though those trade-offs are broadly consistent with a $499 ‘turnkey’ NAS appliance in 2026 though and hard to criticise!

BUILD QUALITY - 9/10

HARDWARE - 7/10

PERFORMANCE - 7/10

PRICE - 9/10

VALUE - 10/10

8.4

PROS

Dual 10Gb SFP+ networking is unusual in a 1U 4 bay NAS at this price point + failover will not result in bandwidth throttle
A separate 1GbE port is useful for management or fallback connectivity
1U chassis with relatively short depth is easier to fit in smaller racks and cabinets
Rails and rack hardware included, reducing extra setup cost and friction
Ubiquiti and UniFi online/brand services are optional (i.e pure offline/LAN is possible)+ no need for a Ubiquiti/UniFi network setup to use
NVMe read and write caching support can improve responsiveness in mixed workloads
UniFi Drive provides snapshots, encryption, and a broad set of backup targets (NAS, SMB, and multiple cloud providers)
Setup and management are streamlined, especially for users already running UniFi infrastructure
Drive 4.0 Update scales up the Business Utilities notably

CONS

NVMe is cache only, with no option to use M.2 drives as primary storage pools
NVMe trays or carriers are not included, adding extra cost and an extra purchase step
Single PSU (no redundency) and non-slide removable SFX/ATX PSU (relies on propriatary UniFi Battery Backup rack module or external UPS)
No NAS Expansion Support, so 4 HDDs are your limit

You can buy the UniFi UNAS Pro 4 NAS via the link below – doing so will result in a small commission coming to me and Eddie at NASCompares, and allows us to keep doing what we do! 

UniFi UNAS Pro 4 Review – Design & Storage

The UNAS Pro 4 uses a conventional 1U rack mount layout, with a plain, functional front panel and an all metal enclosure intended for permanent installation rather than desktop use. It ships with rails and rack handles, which removes the usual extra step of sourcing mounting hardware separately. The chassis depth is about 400 mm, so it is not in the “full depth server” category, and that helps in smaller cabinets where rear clearance and cable management space can be limited.

Across the front are 4 hot swap bays supporting both 3.5 inch and 2.5 inch SATA drives. The trays are set up for tool-less 3.5 inch HDD installation with a click-in fit, while 2.5 inch SSDs still require screws to secure them properly. Each bay has status lighting, and the front panel also provides system level indicators so you can identify basic state and drive activity at a glance without logging into the interface. The trays feel rigid and spring-loaded, but they are not lockable, which is a practical consideration if the unit is placed in a shared rack or anywhere physical access is not strictly controlled.

From a capacity and planning perspective, this system is defined by its fixed 4 bay layout. You can configure a conventional RAID group within those bays, but there is no built-in path to scale beyond the internal slots, and there is no supported external expansion shelf option to push the same chassis further later on. That means the decision on drive sizes and redundancy level matters upfront, because the ceiling is reached quickly compared with higher bay count rack units. In a small rack deployment, it also means the unit is either a compact standalone store or part of a broader multi-NAS approach rather than a single box that grows over time.

In addition to the SATA bays, the chassis supports 2 M.2 NVMe slots intended specifically for SSD caching. The caching model is designed to accelerate HDD-based storage by using SSDs as a performance layer, rather than allowing NVMe drives to become their own primary pool for general file storage. Practically, that positions the NVMe feature as a supplement for mixed workloads, such as improving responsiveness for frequently accessed data and smoothing write behavior, rather than a route to running the system as a small all flash NAS.

A design detail that affects the storage experience is the physical NVMe mounting method. Instead of a simple screw-down slot on a board, the NVMe drives are installed via a tray or carrier mechanism, and that carrier is not included with the base unit. The carrier itself is neatly engineered with a clip-in style insertion and thermal padding, and it supports common M.2 lengths including 2280 and 22110, but requiring an additional part adds friction if caching is part of the plan from day 1. It is a small issue, but it is the kind of detail that can slow down an otherwise straightforward deployment.

UniFi UNAS Pro 4 Review – Internal Hardware

The UNAS Pro 4 is built around a quad core ARM Cortex-A57 CPU clocked at 2.0 GHz and paired with 8 GB of memory, which sets expectations for the type of workloads it is designed to handle. This is not a platform aimed at heavyweight compute tasks, but for file services and scheduled backup activity it has enough headroom to keep the system responsive, particularly when multiple users are accessing shared folders and snapshots are being taken in the background.

The CPU choice also reflects a focus on predictable appliance behavior and lower overall platform complexity rather than maximum expandable performance.

Internally, the power system is a single 150 W unit mounted inside the chassis rather than a hot swap module, which influences servicing and downtime planning. If the PSU fails, replacement is more involved than swapping an external canister, and that is a meaningful difference compared with rack systems that use easily replaceable redundant modules.

The unit does, however, support UniFi’s USP-RPS DC input as an alternative redundancy method, which changes the redundancy approach from “dual PSU in the chassis” to “centralized redundant supply for multiple devices,” with different trade-offs in cost, cabling, and rack layout.

A further internal design choice is how the system treats its software environment as a dedicated appliance rather than an OS sharing space with user storage. The system software runs on its own internal storage rather than living on the same disks that hold your data. In practical terms, that reduces the chance of the OS being affected by changes to the main array, and it can make maintenance tasks like drive replacement or pool rebuilds feel more self-contained, because the unit remains manageable even while the primary storage is under stress.

ARM-based NAS platforms typically bring some efficiency advantages, and this model follows that general pattern. The CPU class and memory configuration are aligned with lower baseline overhead than many x86 NAS designs, which can help keep idle draw and sustained power use in check relative to equivalent rack hardware, though drive choice still dominates the total. The trade-off is a lower performance ceiling compared with modern x86 systems for certain workloads, plus the usual limitations seen in this category: no practical RAM upgrade path, no ECC support, and fewer options for buyers who want to push beyond file services into heavier compute. At $499, those omissions are consistent with the target price bracket in 2026 rather than being unexpected corner cutting.

UniFi UNAS Pro 4 Review – Ports and Connections

The rear connectivity is centered on 2x 10Gb SFP+ ports, and that is the defining hardware choice for this NAS in a 1U, 4 bay format. It allows the unit to be placed into a 10Gb environment without adapters, and it also opens up practical options beyond raw throughput, such as separating traffic types, connecting into different switches, or keeping a second path available for failover. The choice of SFP+ over 10GBase-T will suit users already running fiber or DAC links in a rack, but it can be less convenient for small setups built around copper RJ45.

Alongside the 10Gb ports is a separate 1GbE RJ45 port that can be used for management or for general connectivity in networks where 10Gb is not available everywhere. In a mixed UniFi environment, this is useful because it avoids tying basic onboarding and administration to a 10Gb port that might be better reserved for file traffic. It also gives a simple fallback path for access and troubleshooting if the 10Gb side is being reconfigured, moved between switches, or temporarily taken offline.

What is missing is just as relevant as what is included. There are no USB ports for quick ingest, offline copy tasks, or attaching temporary media, which some rack NAS platforms still provide for convenience even in 1U designs. Wireless is not a focus here, though Bluetooth is present for initial setup workflows, which fits the product’s “appliance onboarding” approach more than it does ongoing connectivity. The result is a port layout that prioritizes network-first storage and rack integration, while leaving out local expansion and quick-access I/O features that some users expect on a NAS.

However, (and I am sounding like a broken record at this point) at $499, these ports and connections are a notable degree more than most other turn-key NAS solutions from Synology, QNAP and even Terramaster (the more budget end of the NAS market already) are offering at under 500! So, what is presented here is a great value Day 1 solution in terms of base connectivity, but there is no denying that it might well feel the pinch in 5 years down the road when your storage is filling and your storage speeds begin to bottleneck vs your other equipment bandwidth.

UniFi UNAS Pro 4 Review – Testing Noise, Temps, Power Consumption & Speed

Performance here needs to be framed around the physical limits of 4 SATA bays and the role of SSD caching. Even with dual 10Gb networking available, a 4 drive HDD array has a throughput ceiling that will be reached long before the network becomes the bottleneck in most single-client scenarios. The value of 10Gb in this context is less about hitting theoretical maximums and more about maintaining higher transfer rates consistently, handling multiple simultaneous users, and keeping latency lower when lots of smaller operations are happening alongside big file moves.

In testing with 4 HDDs in a RAID 5 configuration over a 10Gb link to a Windows 11 client, measured throughput landed in the range expected of a well-tuned 4 disk array. Using AJA with a repeated 1 GB test file, results sat around 680 to 730 MB/s for download and 520 to 600 MB/s for upload. A real-world Windows file transfer of 101 GB made up of 1,231 mixed files completed in 3 minutes and 57 seconds, which works out at an average of about 426 MB/s across the transfer, reflecting the usual drop from synthetic peak results when file variety and filesystem overhead are introduced.

Synthetic benchmarking results varied depending on the tool used, which is not unusual when caching behavior and test patterns differ. CrystalDiskMark with a 1 GB test file reported 353 MB/s read and 429 MB/s write in this run, with write coming out higher than read, which is atypical enough to treat as an outlier pending further retesting. ATTO produced stronger peak figures of 860 MB/s read and 570 MB/s write at the top end, which aligns more closely with the best-case behavior seen in sequential-focused tests on multi-drive arrays.

Noise, power draw, and thermal behavior were also measured because they affect rack placement and operating cost. With the fan profile set to auto and drives idle, noise sat around 42 to 44 dBA, dropping to roughly 38 to 40 dBA in the lowest RPM mode. Manually forcing maximum cooling pushed noise to around 56 to 57 dBA, and that level remained dominant even when drive activity increased, suggesting the cooling system prioritizes aggressive airflow when pushed. Power consumption with 4 enterprise HDDs measured roughly 49 to 50 W at idle and 60 to 62 W under activity, while swapping to 4 SATA SSDs reduced that to around 32 W during synchronization, underlining how drive choice can change the overall profile as much as the base platform.

UniFi UNAS Pro 4 Review – Software and Services

The UNAS Pro 4 runs UniFi Drive and is managed through the same style of web interface used across the broader UniFi portfolio, with system status, storage, backups, and user access presented in a single dashboard. For basic NAS use, the core functions are in place: creating storage pools, managing shares, enabling file services, and monitoring drive health. The interface is generally structured around doing common tasks quickly rather than exposing every possible tuning option, which keeps setup approachable but also limits deeper control in areas that some experienced NAS users look for.

File access is centered on SMB and NFS, with browser-based file management available for basic upload, download, and folder navigation. The browser file manager covers the essentials and includes sharing link creation, but it is not positioned as a full productivity layer with advanced file handling or rich collaboration features. Remote access and identity-based access tools are tied into UniFi’s account and identity layer, and while local-only deployment is possible, the most integrated remote workflow is clearly designed around UniFi’s own services rather than third party remote networking tools.

Storage protection features include snapshot support, encrypted volumes, and configurable retention policies, which addresses most common rollback and recovery needs for file storage. Backup tooling covers several targets, including backing up to another UniFi NAS, to SMB targets, and to cloud services such as Google Drive, OneDrive, Dropbox, Amazon S3, Backblaze B2, and Wasabi, with Microsoft 365 backup support also part of the broader UniFi Drive direction. These features reflect the brand’s recent focus on strengthening data protection rather than expanding into application hosting or media server style functionality.

The gaps are consistent with the product’s current scope. There is no iSCSI target support, which limits certain virtualization and block-storage workflows, and there is no container or VM layer for running third party services directly on the NAS. NVMe usage remains limited to caching rather than becoming its own storage pool, which narrows the performance paths available if the goal is to build a small all-flash volume.

Client-side tooling is also still limited compared with platforms that provide a dedicated sync-and-pin application, with access leaning on standard network shares and UniFi’s identity-driven access methods rather than a full drive-style client experience.

UniFi UNAS Pro 4 Review – Conclusion & Verdict

The UNAS Pro 4 is a focused 1U, 4 bay NAS that prioritizes networked file storage and straightforward deployment over broader application support. The hardware choices align with that goal: dual 10Gb SFP+ connectivity, 4 hot swap bays, and optional NVMe caching provide a platform that can deliver strong file transfer rates for a small array, while the ARM-based design keeps the system positioned as an appliance rather than a general-purpose server. Its main compromises are largely structural rather than hidden: fixed bay count with no expansion path, NVMe limited to cache, no USB I/O for local tasks, and a single internal PSU rather than a hot swap redundant design.

At $499, the value case is driven by how much rack-oriented networking is included at a price that undercuts many comparable 1U NAS systems, especially those offering 10Gb as standard. The software is usable for core storage tasks and has clearly improved over the last year in areas like snapshots and backup targets, but it still leaves out features that matter to some buyers, including iSCSI and a fuller client sync experience. For users who want a compact rack NAS primarily for SMB or NFS file storage with modern backup and snapshot features, it fits its role well; for users expecting a broader NAS app ecosystem or more hardware serviceability, the limitations are likely to be decisive. But, as Delboy once said, at this price, “what do you want? Jam on it?”. This system is giving more at this price than anyone else right now and for its limitations, for many these will be paletable in the grand scheme of things. 1U 4Bay rackmounts has always been something that most turnkey NAS brands treat poorly, due to the low saturation point of four SATA drives and why waste more capable hardware on that? In that sense, Ubiquiti is really piling on the hardware here at this price – and I for one applaud this.

You can buy the UniFi UNAS Pro 4 NAS via the link below – doing so will result in a small commission coming to me and Eddie at NASCompares, and allows us to keep doing what we do! 

Join Inner Circle

Want to follow specific category? Also Read...UniFi UNAS 4 ReviewUniFi UNAS 4 ReviewIs the UniFi Dream Router StilUniFi Dream Router 7 - ONE YEAUniFi UNAS Pro 4 vs Pro vs ProUniFi UNAS Pro 4 vs Pro vs ProUniFi Cloud Gateway IndustrialUniFi Cloud Gateway IndustrialUNAS Pro 4 ReviewUGREEN DXP4800 PRO NAS Review Subscribe You can also follow specific search terms:

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?

TRY CHAT

If you like this service, please consider supporting us. We use affiliate links on the blog allowing NAScompares information and advice service to be free of charge to you.Anything you purchase on the day you click on our links will generate a small commission which isused to run the website. Here is a link for Amazon and B&H.You can also get me a Ko-fi or old school Paypal. Thanks!To find out more about how to support this advice service check HEREIf you need to fix or configure a NAS, check Fiver Have you thought about helping others with your knowledge? Find Instructions Here  

Or support us by using our affiliate links on Amazon UK and Amazon US

    

 

WE LOVE COFFEE

The Terramaster F4-425 Value Intel 4-Bay – Does It Deserve your Data?

The TerraMaster F4-425 is positioned as a lower cost entry point into the company’s Intel based NAS lineup for the 2025 to 2026 generation, sitting below the Plus, Pro, and Max series models. It combines a 4 bay desktop chassis with the Intel Celeron N5095, 4GB of DDR4 memory with upgrade support up to 16GB, and a single 2.5GbE network interface. This places it squarely in the middle ground between basic ARM powered NAS systems and more fully featured x86 solutions with higher network bandwidth and NVMe expansion. The appeal of the F4-425 lies in its balance rather than specialization, offering enough CPU performance for multi user file access, media streaming, and general application use, while keeping cost, noise, and power consumption relatively controlled. It is clearly designed for users who want an Intel based NAS for everyday storage and media tasks, but who do not necessarily need the higher throughput, expansion options, or future scalability found in TerraMaster’s more expensive models.

SOFTWARE - 8/10

HARDWARE - 7/10

PERFORMANCE - 6/10

PRICE - 9/10

VALUE - 8/10

7.6

PROS

Competitive Intel-Based Value in a 4 Bay Format with the F4-425 vs other Intel Entry Systems
Flexible Storage Management With TRAID and TRAID Plus in the F4-425
Balanced Performance for Media and Multi-User Access of the F4-425 system
Practical Software Feature Set With TOS 6 of the F4-425
Flexible Platform for Turnkey or DIY NAS Use with the F4-425

CONS

Single 2.5GbE Network Port Limits Throughput of the F4-425
1.7 Lack of NVMe Expansion Limits Internal Performance in the F4-425
Aging CPU Platform for a New Generation NAS of the F4-425
HDMI Output With No Practical Software Use on the F4-425
Overlap With Better Equipped Models in the Same Lineup of the F4-425

Where to Buy a Product
			VISIT RETAILER ➤
			VISIT RETAILER ➤

Amazon in Your Region	Terramaster F4-425 on AliExpress	B&H NAS Shop

Competitive Intel-Based Value in a 4 Bay Format with the F4-425 vs other Intel Entry Systems

One of the key advantages of the F4-425 is how it positions itself within the x86 turnkey NAS market, particularly in the 4 bay segment. Systems that combine an Intel processor, upgradeable memory, and faster than gigabit networking are typically aimed at prosumer or small business buyers and often carry a noticeably higher price. The F4-425 offers a complete, ready to use solution that includes TerraMaster’s TOS 6 operating system, allowing users to deploy storage, backups, and shared services without needing to install or license additional software.

This lowers the overall barrier to entry for buyers who want an Intel based NAS primarily for general purpose storage, media streaming, or light application hosting. While it does not compete directly with higher end 4 bay systems that include multi LAN configurations or NVMe expansion, it delivers a core x86 experience at a price level that is more approachable, especially for users who do not plan to saturate network bandwidth or push heavy virtualization workloads.

Flexible Storage Management With TRAID and TRAID Plus in the F4-425

A notable strength of the F4-425 is its support for TerraMaster’s TRAID and TRAID Plus storage systems, which are particularly relevant in a 4 bay enclosure. Traditional RAID configurations often require matched drive sizes to avoid wasted capacity, and expanding an array later can involve rebuilding or replacing multiple disks at once. TRAID reduces this rigidity by allowing mixed capacity drives to be used more efficiently over time, automatically organizing available space while maintaining redundancy.

In a 4 bay system, this becomes more practical, as users are more likely to add drives gradually or replace older disks with higher capacity models as prices fall. The result is a storage setup that is easier to grow incrementally without complex planning. For users managing a family media library, backups from multiple devices, or shared data across several users, this flexibility can simplify long term storage expansion while reducing the need for disruptive migrations.

Balanced Performance for Media and Multi-User Access of the F4-425 system

The F4-425 offers a level of performance that is generally well suited to shared home or small office environments, particularly where multiple users are accessing data simultaneously. The Intel Celeron N5095 provides enough processing headroom to handle file transfers, background services, and media applications without the system feeling unresponsive under light to moderate load. In a 4 bay configuration, this performance profile pairs well with mixed workloads, such as ongoing backups, media indexing, and concurrent playback through applications like Plex, Emby, or Jellyfin using hardware assisted 4K decoding. While it is not intended for heavy virtualization or sustained high throughput tasks, the F4-425 can comfortably support several users accessing files or streaming content at the same time. This makes it suitable for households or teams where shared access and consistency are more important than peak benchmark performance.

Practical Software Feature Set With TOS 6 of the F4-425

The F4-425 benefits from TerraMaster’s TOS 6 operating system, which provides a broad and functional software environment without requiring additional licenses or complex setup. The platform includes native tools for file sharing, snapshots, cloud synchronization, and multi device backups, allowing the NAS to act as a central data hub for several users. In a 4 bay system, these features become more relevant as storage is often shared across multiple PCs, mobile devices, and services.

TOS 6 also supports container based applications and virtualization features that, while limited by the underlying hardware, can still be useful for light workloads such as small services or test environments. The software is not as polished as some higher profile NAS platforms, but it offers a level of depth that covers most common use cases and reduces the need to rely on third party tools for everyday management.

Flexible Platform for Turnkey or DIY NAS Use with the F4-425

An often overlooked advantage of the F4-425 is how accommodating it is for users who may want to move beyond the included operating system in the future. While it is sold and marketed as a complete turnkey NAS with TOS 6, the underlying x86 architecture allows relatively straightforward installation of alternative NAS operating systems such as TrueNAS, Unraid, or other Linux based platforms. TerraMaster does not restrict this process at the firmware level, and using third party software does not invalidate the hardware warranty. In a 4 bay system, this flexibility can extend the useful lifespan of the device, particularly for users whose storage needs or technical confidence evolve over time. The presence of HDMI output and KVM support simplifies local setup when experimenting with other operating systems, even if that HDMI port is not fully utilized by TOS itself. This dual role as both a turnkey appliance and a potential DIY platform adds practical long term value for more technically inclined users.

Single 2.5GbE Network Port Limits Throughput of the F4-425

A clear limitation of the F4-425 is its networking configuration, which consists of a single 2.5GbE port with no additional LAN interfaces or internal upgrade options. In a 4 bay NAS, this can quickly become a bottleneck once multiple drives are active, particularly in RAID configurations that are capable of delivering higher aggregate read and write performance than the network interface can carry. Even with mechanical hard drives, it is possible to saturate a 2.5GbE connection under sequential workloads, and this leaves little headroom for multiple users or concurrent tasks.

The lack of link aggregation, 5GbE, or 10GbE options also limits the system’s suitability for users with faster network infrastructure or plans to upgrade in the future. While USB based network adapters can be added, this introduces extra cost and complexity, and it does not fully compensate for the absence of native multi port or higher speed networking in a 4 bay chassis.

Lack of NVMe Expansion Limits Internal Performance in the F4-425

The absence of any M.2 NVMe slots on the F4-425 places a clear ceiling on its internal performance and storage flexibility. In a 4 bay Intel based NAS released into the 2025 to 2026 market, NVMe support is commonly expected, either for SSD caching or for high speed storage pools that can absorb bursts of activity and improve responsiveness under mixed workloads. Without NVMe, all storage activity is constrained to SATA drives, which limits the benefits of the x86 platform when running applications, containers, or multiple background services. This is particularly relevant in scenarios where the system is handling indexing, backups, and media access at the same time. While TerraMaster offers other models in its lineup with extensive NVMe support, the omission here means the F4-425 cannot be easily optimized for latency sensitive tasks, regardless of how much memory is added or how the drives are configured.

Aging CPU Platform for a New Generation NAS of the F4-425

The F4-425 relies on the Intel Celeron N5095, a processor that has been widely used across multiple NAS generations and is now showing its age in the context of newer Intel platforms. While it remains capable of handling file services, media transcoding, and light application workloads, it lacks the efficiency and performance improvements found in more recent Intel N series processors. In a 4 bay system, this matters because the hardware is more likely to be tasked with simultaneous operations such as multi user access, background maintenance, and application services. The N5095 can manage these workloads, but it does so with less headroom than newer alternatives, which can impact long term relevance. As software platforms continue to add features and increase baseline requirements, the CPU choice places a practical limit on how far the system can scale over time.

HDMI Output With No Practical Software Use on the F4-425

The inclusion of an HDMI port on the F4-425 may appear useful on paper, but in practice it offers limited functionality within TerraMaster’s software environment. The HDMI output is primarily used for basic system information and troubleshooting during boot, rather than providing a usable local interface or media output experience. There is no native desktop mode, multimedia interface, or direct playback environment available through TOS that would allow the NAS to function as a locally controlled media device. In a 4 bay system with an Intel CPU capable of hardware video decoding, this unused output can feel like missed potential, especially when other NAS vendors and newer platforms have begun to implement functional HDMI driven interfaces. While the port can be helpful when installing third party operating systems, its role within the default configuration remains minimal.

Overlap With Better Equipped Models in the Same Lineup of the F4-425

A practical concern with the F4-425 is how closely it sits to other TerraMaster models that offer substantially more capability for a relatively modest increase in cost. Within the same product family, there are options that add faster networking, NVMe expansion, additional LAN ports, or more modern Intel processors, sometimes at a price difference that may be difficult to justify ignoring. For buyers who already anticipate growing storage needs, higher throughput, or heavier application use, the F4-425 can feel constrained when compared directly against these alternatives. This internal competition weakens its long term value proposition, as users may find that spending slightly more upfront would avoid the limitations around bandwidth and expansion that cannot be addressed later through upgrades.

Conclusion and Verdict of the F4-425 Review – Should You Buy?

The TerraMaster F4-425 is best understood as a deliberately constrained Intel based NAS that prioritizes affordability and simplicity over expandability and peak performance. It delivers competent multi user storage, media streaming, and general NAS functionality in a 4 bay format, supported by a software platform that covers most common requirements without forcing reliance on third party tools. Its strengths lie in predictable behavior, flexible RAID options, and openness to alternative operating systems, rather than cutting edge hardware features. For users with clearly defined needs who value an x86 platform but do not expect to push high bandwidth workflows or advanced storage tiers, the F4-425 can meet expectations without unnecessary complexity. At the same time, its limitations are structural rather than temporary. The single 2.5GbE port, absence of NVMe expansion, and older CPU architecture set firm boundaries on future growth. These constraints become more apparent when viewed alongside other models in TerraMaster’s own lineup that address these gaps at a higher but not disproportionate cost. As a result, the F4-425 makes the most sense for buyers who want a straightforward Intel NAS for shared storage and media use today, and who are comfortable accepting that it is not designed to scale significantly beyond that role.

Amazon in Your Region	Terramaster F4-425 PLUS	B&H NAS Shop

Join Inner Circle

Want to follow specific category? Also Read...Terramaster F2-425 NAS - BeforTerramaster F4-425 NAS - ShoulTerramaster D1 SSD Pro ReleaseTerramaster TOS 7 Public Beta Terramaster Launch the TOS 7 P100 Reasons Why Users Choose STerramaster Black Friday 2025 Terramaster Black Friday 2025 Black Friday 2025 Deals - DataBlack Friday 2025 Deals - Data Subscribe You can also follow specific search terms:

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?

TRY CHAT

If you like this service, please consider supporting us. We use affiliate links on the blog allowing NAScompares information and advice service to be free of charge to you.Anything you purchase on the day you click on our links will generate a small commission which isused to run the website. Here is a link for Amazon and B&H.You can also get me a Ko-fi or old school Paypal. Thanks!To find out more about how to support this advice service check HEREIf you need to fix or configure a NAS, check Fiver Have you thought about helping others with your knowledge? Find Instructions Here  

Or support us by using our affiliate links on Amazon UK and Amazon US

    

 

WE LOVE COFFEE

Gl.iNet Beryl 7 Review – Best Budget WiFi 7 Travel Router

The Beryl 7 (GL-MT3600BE) is a compact dual band Wi Fi 7 travel router developed by GL.iNet as the successor to the Beryl AX (GL-MT3000), positioned as a mid range portable networking solution that introduces Wi Fi 7 support, dual 2.5GbE ports, and substantially higher VPN throughput while remaining priced at 139.99 dollars. Unlike traditional home routers designed for fixed installations and wide coverage, the Beryl 7 is intended for temporary and mobile deployments such as hotel rooms, shared offices, dorm setups, and remote work environments where portability and flexibility are priorities. Within the travel router segment, the Beryl series has focused on balancing price, control, and performance, and this model shifts further toward higher throughput networking, particularly in wired connectivity and encrypted traffic handling. With advertised VPN speeds of up to 1100Mbps via WireGuard and 1000Mbps via OpenVPN DCO, it exceeds many similarly sized travel routers that remain limited to 1GbE and lower VPN acceleration, yet it does not attempt to compete with higher cost tri band Wi Fi 7 devices that include 6GHz radios. Instead, it sits between entry-level Wi-Fi 6 travel routers and more expensive portable options such as the Slate 7, offering newer wireless standards without entering premium desktop router pricing from brands like Netgear or ASUS. Although branded as Wi Fi 7, it operates on 2.4GHz and 5GHz only, without 6GHz support, limiting full spectrum capability but still enabling features such as Multi Link Operation across its two bands. The device is aimed at technically aware users and frequent travelers who require advanced routing controls, VPN flexibility, and OpenWrt-based customisation in a compact chassis measuring 120 x 83 x 34mm and weighing 205g, modernizing the travel router category without moving into high end pricing tiers.

Gl.iNet Beryl 7 Review – Quick Conclusion

The Beryl 7 (GL-MT3600BE) is a compact dual band Wi Fi 7 travel router from GL.iNet that builds on the Beryl AX by adding dual 2.5GbE ports, a quad core 2.0GHz MediaTek CPU, 512MB DDR4 memory, 512MB flash storage, and substantially higher VPN throughput of up to 1100Mbps via WireGuard and 1000Mbps via OpenVPN DCO, while maintaining a portable near pocket sized scale and just 205g in weight. It supports Wi Fi 7 features such as Multi Link Operation across 2.4GHz and 5GHz, but omits 6GHz and 320MHz channel width, limiting full spectrum Wi Fi 7 capability. Design priorities include silent passive cooling, foldable antennas, minimal LEDs, and a programmable hardware toggle for VPN control, alongside flexible connectivity through wired WAN, LAN, repeater mode, and USB tethering with automatic failover. Boot time is approximately 51 seconds, captive portal access is typically achieved in around 35 seconds, power draw ranges from roughly 3.7W to 6.7W depending on load, and thermals remain stable under sustained use. The OpenWrt based firmware provides both simplified management and full LuCI access, plus an app ecosystem and GoodCloud remote management, though USB storage performance remains limited to around 50MB/s to 70MB/s and only a single USB port is available. Positioned between entry level Wi Fi 6 travel routers and higher priced portable Wi Fi 7 models such as the Slate 7, it does not include integrated battery, SIM, or 6GHz support, but offers strong wired flexibility, fast VPN acceleration, and granular configuration control at 139.99 dollars, making it a technically capable and competitively placed option for travel and temporary network deployments.

SOFTWARE - 10/10

HARDWARE - 7/10

PERFORMANCE - 8/10

PRICE - 8/10

VALUE - 8/10

8.2

PROS

Dual 2.5GbE WAN and LAN ports enable multi gig wired connectivity
WireGuard performance up to 1100Mbps with strong OpenVPN DCO throughput
Wi Fi 7 support with Multi Link Operation across 2.4GHz and 5GHz
Compact 120 x 83 x 34mm chassis with 205g weight for travel deployment
Low power consumption between ~3.7W and ~6.7W under typical loads
Fast boot time of approximately 51 seconds from cold start
Robust OpenWrt based firmware with full LuCI access and app ecosystem
Multi WAN failover across wired, repeater, and USB tethering sources

CONS

No 6GHz band support, limiting full Wi Fi 7 capability
USB storage performance limited to approximately 50MB/s to 70MB/s
Only 1 USB 3.0 port, restricting simultaneous tethering and storage use
The MLO architecture is currently E-MLSR MLO (Enhanced Multi-Link Single Radio Operation Mode), which lacks the true aggregation of Sync MLMR (Synchronous Multi-Link Multi-Radio) MLO

Buy the Gl.iNet Beryl 7 from Amazon Below:	Buy the Gl.iNet Beryl 7 from the Official Store Below:

Gl.iNet Beryl 7 Review – Design and Connectivity

The Beryl 7 follows the compact design language established by earlier Beryl models, maintaining a footprint of 120 x 83 x 34mm and a weight of 205g. It is not pocket sized in the strictest sense, but it remains small enough to fit easily into hand luggage, a laptop bag, or a cable pouch. The chassis uses rounded edges rather than sharp corners, which makes it easier to handle and store alongside other equipment. Ventilation is distributed around the casing to support passive cooling, and there is no internal fan, meaning operation is silent under load.

A distinguishing visual change compared to previous models is the mint green finish, which replaces the darker tones commonly associated with networking hardware. While aesthetic preference is subjective, the color makes the device visually distinct from most black or grey travel routers on the market. The overall construction feels rigid, and the dual external antennas are foldable and adjustable up to 180°, allowing users to reposition them depending on orientation and signal direction.

In terms of physical connectivity, the Beryl 7 includes 2 x 2.5GbE ports, configurable as 1 x WAN and 1 x LAN. This is a notable upgrade over older 1GbE limited travel routers and enables higher throughput when connected to multi gig internet services or high speed local networks. For portable scenarios, this can be relevant in environments such as serviced apartments or offices where faster wired backhaul is available. The inclusion of 2.5GbE on both ports provides flexibility, particularly when using the router in bridge, repeater, or failover configurations.

A single USB 3.0 Type A port is located on the side, supporting external storage devices or USB tethering from a smartphone. While it provides expansion capability, the presence of only one USB port means users must choose between storage and tethering unless they rely on a powered hub, which may introduce stability or power delivery considerations.

Power is delivered via a USB C input, supporting 5V/3A, 9V/3A, and 12V/2.5A. This allows the router to be powered by standard phone chargers, power banks, or USB outlets commonly found on transport systems.

Additional physical controls include a reset button and a programmable toggle button. The toggle button can be configured for tasks such as enabling or disabling a VPN or switching network modes, providing quick hardware level control without accessing the web interface. LED indicators are minimal and can be adjusted or disabled via software, reducing visual distraction in low light environments. Overall, the design prioritizes portability, silent operation, and practical connectivity over integrated batteries or cellular modems, reflecting its focus on wired and Wi Fi based networking rather than standalone mobile broadband functionality.

Gl.iNet Beryl 7 Review – Internal Hardware

The Beryl 7 is built around a MediaTek quad core processor running at 2.0GHz, marking a clear step up from the dual core 1.3GHz platform used in the previous Beryl AX. This increase in core count and clock speed directly supports higher VPN throughput, improved multi WAN handling, and better performance under concurrent client load. In portable routing scenarios where encryption, traffic shaping, and failover may be active simultaneously, the additional processing headroom is relevant, particularly when compared to entry level travel routers that rely on lower power chipsets.

Memory and storage are provisioned at 512MB DDR4 RAM and 512MB NAND flash. The RAM capacity is sufficient for running multiple services concurrently, including VPN client or server roles, firewall rules, and installed plugins through the OpenWrt environment. The increased flash storage compared to the Beryl AX allows for a broader range of optional packages and services without immediately encountering storage constraints. For users intending to extend functionality beyond basic routing, this additional internal space provides practical flexibility.

On the wireless side, the router supports dual band Wi Fi 7 operation across 2.4GHz and 5GHz, with theoretical combined speeds of 3600Mbps. While it does not include 6GHz support, it does retain Multi Link Operation across the available bands, enabling simultaneous use of both radios for compatible clients. The internal architecture is therefore designed to balance power efficiency and thermal stability with next generation protocol support, rather than pursuing maximum theoretical bandwidth at the expense of heat output or energy draw.

Gl.iNet Beryl 7 Review – Software and Services

The Beryl 7 runs a customized OpenWrt based firmware developed by GL.iNet, providing a layered interface that caters to both general users and more technically experienced administrators. The primary web interface presents a structured dashboard for managing WAN connections, Wi Fi networks, VPN profiles, client devices, and failover rules without requiring direct interaction with raw OpenWrt configuration files. For users who prefer deeper customization, full access to the underlying OpenWrt LuCI environment is available, allowing granular control over firewall rules, routing tables, VLAN configuration, and advanced networking parameters.

VPN functionality is a central component of the platform. The router supports both client and server modes, including WireGuard and OpenVPN with DCO acceleration. Configuration can be handled manually or through profile imports from commercial VPN providers. A physical toggle button on the device can be assigned to enable or disable VPN connections instantly, providing hardware level control without logging into the interface. This is particularly relevant in travel scenarios where switching between encrypted and non encrypted traffic may be necessary for compatibility with certain captive portals or services.

Multi WAN support is integrated into the firmware, enabling wired WAN, Wi Fi repeater mode, and USB tethering to operate in combination or as automatic failover paths. Users can define priority levels so that if one connection drops, the router transitions to another within seconds.

This feature is typically found in larger business oriented routers and is less common in compact travel models. The ability to combine wired and wireless sources adds resilience in temporary setups where network stability may vary.

An integrated app center allows additional services to be installed directly onto the router’s internal storage or external USB storage if attached. These may include ad blocking tools, network monitoring utilities, file sharing services, and lightweight media server applications. While performance is limited by the ARM based hardware and USB throughput, the software ecosystem provides flexibility beyond standard routing tasks. Remote management is also supported through the GoodCloud platform, enabling off site monitoring and configuration if required.

Gl.iNet Beryl 7 Review – Tests and Performance

Boot time from a full power off state to complete interface availability measured approximately 51 seconds, which is relatively quick for a router running a full OpenWrt based stack. Accessing and connecting to a public Wi Fi network, including reaching a captive portal login page, typically took around 35 seconds from initial startup. In practical travel scenarios, this reduces setup friction when moving between networks in hotels, cafés, or shared office environments.

Power consumption remained low across multiple usage patterns. With 3 wireless client devices streaming 4K video simultaneously, draw averaged between 3.7W and 3.8W. Under heavier mixed load involving multiple wireless clients, an active wired WAN and LAN connection, and repeated speed testing, consumption increased to roughly 5W to 6W. When adding a USB connected SSD and sustained traffic, readings reached approximately 6.4W to 6.7W. These figures allow the device to be powered reliably by common USB C chargers and mid capacity power banks without stability issues.

Thermal behavior reflected the passive cooling design. After 1 hour of sustained wireless streaming load, external casing temperatures remained around 41°C to 42°C. Under heavier combined wired and wireless traffic for a similar duration, surface temperatures rose to approximately 51°C to 54°C, with localized vent readings reaching about 56°C. No thermal throttling was observed during testing, and the absence of an internal fan resulted in silent operation throughout.

VPN throughput and failover functionality were key performance areas. Using WireGuard, speeds approached the advertised 1100Mbps ceiling under favorable conditions, while OpenVPN DCO performance reached close to 1000Mbps over Ethernet. Compared to non VPN traffic, throughput reductions of roughly 20% to 25% were observed depending on server location and encryption overhead. Multi WAN failover switching between wired, repeater, and tethered connections typically completed within 4 to 5 seconds, maintaining active sessions in most cases. USB storage performance, however, was limited, with transfer rates generally between 50MB/s and 70MB/s, indicating that while file sharing is possible, it is not a replacement for a dedicated NAS.

Gl.iNet Beryl 7 Review – Verdict and Conclusion

The Beryl 7 (GL-MT3600BE) represents an incremental but meaningful update to the Beryl travel router line. It introduces dual 2.5GbE connectivity, significantly higher VPN throughput, and Wi Fi 7 protocol support within a compact and low power chassis. Its strengths lie in wired flexibility, strong encryption performance, multi WAN failover capability, and the depth of control provided by its OpenWrt based firmware. Boot times are short, public Wi Fi onboarding is quick, power consumption remains modest even under mixed wired and wireless load, and thermal behavior stays within reasonable limits despite the absence of active cooling. The programmable hardware toggle for VPN control adds practical usability in travel scenarios, and the ability to power the device from common USB C chargers or transport based USB outlets increases deployment flexibility. At the same time, it omits 6GHz support, limiting full spectrum Wi Fi 7 functionality and restricting channel width to 160MHz rather than 320MHz. USB storage performance remains modest compared to dedicated network storage devices, and the single USB port can constrain simultaneous tethering and storage use without additional powered accessories.

In market terms, the device sits between entry level Wi Fi 6 travel routers and higher priced Wi Fi 7 portable platforms such as the Slate 7. It does not attempt to compete with tri band hardware, integrated batteries, SIM or eSIM functionality, or touchscreen management panels. The release timing also places it within a crowded product window that includes closely related models from the same manufacturer, which may narrow differentiation for some buyers. However, at 139.99 dollars, it provides an accessible entry point into multi gig wired networking and high speed VPN acceleration in a travel focused form factor. It does not redefine the category or present itself as a flagship device, but for users who prioritize portability, advanced routing controls, reliable failover, and strong encrypted throughput over full band Wi Fi 7 or integrated mobile broadband features, the Beryl 7 remains a technically competent and competitively positioned option within its segment.

Buy the Gl.iNet Beryl 7 from Amazon Below:	Buy the Gl.iNet Beryl 7 from the Official Store Below:

Join Inner Circle

Want to follow specific category? Also Read...TP Link TL-WR3602BE Travel RouGl.iNet Comet 5G Review - The Gl.iNet Beryl 7 vs Slate 7 TraGl.iNet Slate 7 vs Beryl 7 TraGl.iNet Beryl 7 vs Beryl AX TrGl.iNet Beryl 7 vs Beryl AX TrGl.iNet Beryl 7 Travel Router Gl.iNet Reveal the Flint 4 WiFGl.iNet Flint 4 WiFi7 Router RGl.iNet Slate 7 Pro Revealed a Subscribe You can also follow specific search terms:

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?

TRY CHAT

If you like this service, please consider supporting us. We use affiliate links on the blog allowing NAScompares information and advice service to be free of charge to you.Anything you purchase on the day you click on our links will generate a small commission which isused to run the website. Here is a link for Amazon and B&H.You can also get me a Ko-fi or old school Paypal. Thanks!To find out more about how to support this advice service check HEREIf you need to fix or configure a NAS, check Fiver Have you thought about helping others with your knowledge? Find Instructions Here  

Or support us by using our affiliate links on Amazon UK and Amazon US

    

 

WE LOVE COFFEE

Jonsbo N6 DIY NAS Case Review

The Jonsbo N6 is the latest addition to the company’s long running lineup of DIY NAS focused enclosures, positioned between the compact N4 and the much larger N5. It is designed as a 9 bay desktop NAS chassis that supports both ITX and Micro ATX motherboards, while also introducing several changes compared with earlier Jonsbo designs. These include proper metal drive trays instead of rubber mounted sleds, expanded fan support, flexible PSU placement, and the inclusion of a physical fan controller. After spending the last 2 weeks building, configuring, and testing the N6 in a real world NAS environment, this review looks at how the case performs in practice, how its design decisions affect usability, and where it fits within the wider Jonsbo NAS case range.

BUILD QUALITY - 10/10

HARDWARE - 9/10

PERFORMANCE - 9/10

PRICE - 7/10

VALUE - 8/10

8.6

PROS

Supports up to 9 x 3.5 inch or 2.5 inch drives, allowing dense storage in a relatively compact footprint
Compatible with ITX and Micro ATX motherboards, offering more flexibility than earlier Jonsbo NAS cases
Flexible PSU placement with support for ATX and SFX units, including multiple mounting positions
Integrated drive backplane simplifies installation and reduces individual cable clutter
Built in 3 speed fan controller provides basic manual airflow control without software dependency
Extensive ventilation on all sides, top, and base helps maintain reasonable thermals under load
Drive trays replace older rubber grommet mounting, making drive installation more straightforward
Build quality feels solid overall, with steel construction and improved internal layout for cable routing

CONS

Backplane uses individual SATA connectors rather than Mini SAS, limiting appeal for SAS focused builds
Clearance becomes tight with Micro ATX boards and larger ATX PSUs, especially around CPU cooling
Drive trays lack tool less latches, locks, or orientation indicators, increasing the chance of installation mistakes

Where to Buy a Product
			VISIT RETAILER ➤
			VISIT RETAILER ➤

Jonsbo N6 Review – Design & Storage

The Jonsbo N6 continues the brand’s established NAS focused design language, combining a compact tower format with a restrained, industrial appearance. The chassis uses a steel construction with aluminum accents and a wooden front trim, which has become a recognizable feature across several recent Jonsbo NAS cases. While the wood insert will not appeal to everyone, it is purely cosmetic and does not interfere with airflow or structural rigidity. Overall dimensions place the N6 clearly below the larger N5, though it is still substantial compared to many ITX cases due to its storage capacity.

Storage is the defining feature of the N6, with support for up to 9 drives in either 3.5 inch HDD or 2.5 inch SSD formats. All drives are housed in a dedicated lower compartment, separated from the motherboard area. This layout helps with cable management and keeps storage thermals isolated from CPU and expansion hardware. The capacity places the N6 in a relatively uncommon position, offering more drive bays than most compact NAS cases without stepping into full tower territory.

Unlike earlier Jonsbo NAS models that relied on rubber grommets and pull tabs, the N6 uses metal drive trays as standard. Each tray supports both 3.5 inch and 2.5 inch drives and slots directly into a rear mounted backplane. The trays are functional rather than refined, lacking tool less locking mechanisms or individual activity LEDs. However, spacing between drives allows some passive airflow, which is important given the density of a fully populated array.

All 9 drive trays connect to a single backplane PCB located at the rear of the drive cage. The front side of the board uses individual SATA connectors for each bay, simplifying installation compared to loose cabling. On the output side, the board breaks out into standard SATA data connectors rather than Mini SAS, alongside SATA and Molex power inputs. This choice favors compatibility but limits native SAS support, which may matter to users running enterprise drives or SAS controllers.

From an installation standpoint, drive access is straightforward, but orientation is something to be careful with. The trays do not include visual indicators for correct alignment, making it possible to insert a drive incorrectly if rushed. While this is not unique to the N6, it does introduce some risk during initial setup or drive swaps. Overall, the storage design prioritizes density and compatibility over convenience features, aligning with the case’s focus on DIY NAS builders rather than hot swap environments.

Jonsbo N6 Review – Internal Structure

The internal layout of the Jonsbo N6 is designed around flexibility rather than absolute clearance, and that becomes clear once hardware installation begins. The case supports Mini ITX and Micro ATX motherboards, but does not officially support full ATX boards, despite physical dimensions that appear close.

In practice, fitting an ATX board is technically possible but leaves insufficient clearance for cabling, airflow, and component access, making it impractical for most builds. With ITX boards, internal space is generous and largely unobstructed, while Micro ATX installations require more planning due to tighter edge clearances near the drive backplane and PSU mounting areas.

PSU placement plays a major role in how the internal hardware layout behaves. The N6 supports both ATX and SFX power supplies and allows installation in multiple positions using included brackets. Mounting a full size ATX PSU above the motherboard significantly reduces available CPU cooler height, which can limit cooler selection to low profile or compact tower designs. SFX power supplies offer more flexibility and reduce conflicts around the CPU socket area, particularly when using Micro ATX boards.

The option for dual PSU installation adds another layer of configurability, but it further increases complexity around airflow paths and cable routing.

PCIe expansion is relatively strong for a case in this category, with support for up to 4 full height expansion slots. This allows for the use of HBAs, network cards, or even a discrete GPU, provided length and thickness limits are respected. Clearance becomes tight when multiple expansion cards are installed alongside side mounted fans, especially on the lowest slot. Cable routing is generally straightforward, with clear channels and anchor points, but routing SATA or Mini SAS fan out cables is easier if completed before final motherboard installation, particularly in Micro ATX configurations.

Jonsbo N6 Review – Connectivity

The Jonsbo N6 keeps external connectivity relatively straightforward, with all user facing ports located on the front panel for easy access. This placement makes sense for a NAS chassis that is likely to be positioned on a desk, shelf, or rack adjacent surface rather than frequently accessed from the rear. The front I O layout focuses on essential connectivity rather than attempting to replicate a full desktop case feature set.

In practical use, the inclusion of a USB 3.2 Gen2 Type C port provides a high bandwidth option for external storage, temporary backups, or maintenance tasks such as system recovery media. Alongside it, the USB 3.0 Type A port offers compatibility with a wide range of existing peripherals. This combination should be sufficient for most NAS focused workflows, where frequent hot swapping of peripherals is uncommon but occasional high speed access is still required.

Internally, connectivity is more complex and is closely tied to the integrated drive backplane. All 9 drive bays connect through the rear mounted PCB, which uses individual SATA data connectors rather than Mini SAS or SAS HD outputs. Power delivery is handled through a mix of SATA power and Molex connectors, which provides flexibility but may increase cable management complexity depending on the power supply used.

While functional, this approach places more responsibility on the user to plan cabling carefully, especially in fully populated configurations.

Jonsbo N6 Review – N5 vs N6

The Jonsbo N6 and the N5 address similar DIY NAS use cases but sit at different points in the product lineup in terms of capacity and flexibility. The N6 is designed around a nine-bay drive layout with support for ITX and micro-ATX motherboards and compatibility with either ATX or SFX power supplies, offering a balance between storage density and a relatively compact footprint, which makes it suitable for builds that need a significant number of drives without a full tower size. By contrast, the N5 supports up to twelve 3.5-inch drives and up to four 2.5-inch SSDs, and accepts larger motherboard formats including ITX, micro-ATX, ATX, and E-ATX, giving it broader component compatibility and expansion potential.

The N5 also provides more PCIe slots and larger GPU clearance, supporting use cases that may combine NAS storage with workstation-class expansions, and includes a mesh front and more extensive cooling provisions to manage heat in its larger enclosure. Both cases offer USB-C and USB-A front I/O for quick access, but the N5’s larger size and multi-material construction generally result in greater internal space for hardware and cooling options. In practice, the N6 aims to offer a middle ground with substantial drive capacity and flexible power supply choices, while the N5 pushes more towards maximum expandability and support for larger and more powerful builds within the Jonsbo NAS ecosystem

Jonsbo N6 Review – Build Testing

In day to day use, the Jonsbo N6 shows that its performance characteristics are shaped more by component choice than by any inherent limitation of the chassis itself. With a fully populated 9 bay configuration using 7200 RPM hard drives, the case does not introduce noticeable bottlenecks in sustained storage workloads. During extended uptime testing across multiple days, system stability remained consistent, with no unexpected thermal throttling or airflow related instability observed. This aligns with the case design philosophy, which prioritizes open ventilation paths and modular fan placement rather than aggressive acoustic dampening.

Storage performance testing was carried out using a RAID 0 array across 9 mechanical drives, paired with a workstation class MATX motherboard and a dedicated SATA controller. Sequential read and write speeds reached approximately 2.0 to 2.1 GB/s in CrystalDiskMark, indicating that the enclosure itself does not constrain throughput. These figures are primarily governed by controller bandwidth, PCIe lane allocation, and drive characteristics, rather than the internal backplane. Random access behavior remained typical for high capacity HDD arrays, with no anomalies linked to vibration or drive seating within the metal trays.

Noise testing was conducted under multiple operating conditions to evaluate how the N6 behaves in real environments rather than synthetic silence. At idle with fans set to the lowest manual setting and drives spun down, measured noise levels hovered around 37 to 39 dBA. Under active disk access with the same fan profile, noise increased modestly to around 41 to 44 dBA, with most audible output coming from the rear exhaust area. Increasing the fan controller to mid and high settings resulted in only marginal increases, topping out around 43 to 44 dBA, suggesting diminishing returns in airflow relative to acoustic output.

Thermal measurements were taken after the system had been operating continuously for roughly 2.5 days, followed by active load and cooldown observation. Drive temperatures during idle periods generally sat between 25°C and 28°C, with active access pushing internal drive area temperatures to around 42°C. Surface readings across the chassis showed consistent heat distribution, with the rear PCB area and PSU zone measuring close to 42°C, while the top and side panels remained closer to ambient at roughly 26°C to 27°C. These results indicate that while airflow around the drive backplane is not optimal, overall thermal behavior remains within acceptable limits for a 9 bay enclosure.

Jonsbo N6 Review – Verdict and Conclusion

After extended hands on use, the Jonsbo N6 positions itself as a compact but ambitious DIY NAS enclosure that sits clearly between the smaller N4 and the larger, more expansive N5. It delivers a high storage density with 9 drive bays while introducing support for Micro ATX motherboards, which meaningfully expands hardware choice compared with earlier Jonsbo NAS cases. Build quality is consistent with the brand’s established approach, using thick steel panels, simple exterior styling, and a layout that prioritizes airflow potential and internal flexibility over visual flair. The inclusion of drive trays, a physical fan controller, multiple PSU mounting options, and extensive fan support marks a clear evolution over previous generations.

That said, the N6 is not without compromises. ATX motherboard support is effectively absent despite tight tolerances, cooling outcomes remain highly dependent on fan selection and placement, and the backplane design relies on standard SATA connections rather than SAS aggregation. Pricing at launch also places it in a competitive bracket where expectations are higher, particularly around refinement of drive trays and airflow optimization around the disk stack. For users who found the N5 too large or excessive but felt constrained by the N3 or N4, the N6 fills a specific and practical gap. It does not replace the N5 as a flagship option, but it stands as a capable and thoughtfully designed alternative for builders who value density, flexibility, and manageable footprint over absolute expansion.

Join Inner Circle

Want to follow specific category? Also Read...Jonsbo N6 NAS Case ReviewJonsbo N6 NAS Case ReleasedJonsbo N6 NAS Case RevealedJonsbo N10 NAS Case ReviewJonsbo N10 NAS Case Review - AJonsbo N10 and NV10 ITX NAS CaJonsbo N10 and NV10 ITX NAS CaJonsbo N5 ReviewJonsbo N5 vs N4 vs N3 vs N2 NAJonsbo N5 vs N4 vs N3 vs N2 NA Subscribe You can also follow specific search terms:

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?

TRY CHAT

If you like this service, please consider supporting us. We use affiliate links on the blog allowing NAScompares information and advice service to be free of charge to you.Anything you purchase on the day you click on our links will generate a small commission which isused to run the website. Here is a link for Amazon and B&H.You can also get me a Ko-fi or old school Paypal. Thanks!To find out more about how to support this advice service check HEREIf you need to fix or configure a NAS, check Fiver Have you thought about helping others with your knowledge? Find Instructions Here  

Or support us by using our affiliate links on Amazon UK and Amazon US

    

 

WE LOVE COFFEE

Gl.iNet Beryl 7 vs Beryl AX Travel Router – Which Should You Buy?

The GL.iNet Beryl AX (GL-MT3000) and the GL.iNet Beryl 7 (GL-MT3600BE) are two compact travel routers from the same product line, aimed at users who need portable, secure network access for travel, remote work, or temporary deployments. They share a similar physical footprint, OpenWrt based software environment, USB powered design, and the ability to convert a single wired or wireless uplink into a private network for multiple client devices. The comparison between them is relevant because the price difference is relatively modest, yet they are based on different wireless generations and hardware platforms. As a result, prospective buyers and existing Beryl AX users may reasonably question whether the newer Beryl 7 represents a meaningful upgrade, or whether the earlier model remains sufficient for most travel focused networking requirements.

Gl.iNet Beryl 7 Travel Router		Gl.iNet Beryl AX Travel Router
Buy From Gl.iNet	Buy From Amazon	Buy From Gl.iNet	Buy From Amazon

Gl.iNet Beryl 7 vs Beryl AX – WiFi 6 vs WiFi 7 (Do You Need It?)

The GL.iNet Beryl AX (GL-MT3000) is based on the WiFi 6 standard, supporting dual band operation across 2.4GHz and 5GHz with a combined theoretical maximum of 3000Mbps, rated at 574Mbps on 2.4GHz and 2402Mbps on 5GHz. The GL.iNet Beryl 7 (GL-MT3600BE) moves to WiFi 7 and increases the combined theoretical bandwidth to 3600Mbps, rated at 688Mbps on 2.4GHz and 2882Mbps on 5GHz. Both devices operate on 2 bands only, as the Beryl 7 does not include 6GHz support, meaning it does not use the additional spectrum sometimes associated with WiFi 7 implementations.

The practical distinction between WiFi 6 and WiFi 7 in this comparison lies less in raw peak numbers and more in protocol efficiency and connection handling. WiFi 7 introduces Multi Link Operation, allowing compatible client devices to connect across multiple bands simultaneously rather than selecting a single band. In supported environments, this can improve throughput consistency and reduce latency under load. However, the benefit depends on the presence of WiFi 7 capable client hardware. Devices limited to WiFi 6 or earlier will connect using backward compatible standards, reducing the generational advantage to incremental improvements in signal handling and overhead efficiency.

In real world travel scenarios such as hotel rooms, shared apartments, or temporary office spaces, both routers provide sufficient bandwidth for streaming, browsing, cloud access, and moderate file transfers across multiple devices.

The Beryl 7 offers higher theoretical wireless ceilings and additional aggregation capability for compatible hardware, while the Beryl AX provides established WiFi 6 performance that remains adequate for most sub 2.5Gb internet connections. The decision between them in wireless terms is therefore primarily influenced by client device compatibility and the value placed on higher theoretical throughput within a portable deployment context.

It is also worth noting that 6GHz WiFi support, while often associated with WiFi 7, currently has more limited regulatory and client adoption in parts of Europe compared to other regions. Even if a travel router in this class were to include 6GHz radios, many users in European markets would not consistently benefit from the wider 320MHz channels or expanded spectrum due to regional availability constraints and lower client device penetration. In practical terms, this reduces the immediate advantage of tri band WiFi 7 for a large portion of the target audience. Integrating 6GHz capability would also require more advanced RF design, revised antenna layout, higher power handling, and often a different class of processor platform, frequently moving toward higher tier Qualcomm solutions. That shift would increase component cost, thermal requirements, and overall retail pricing, placing the device in a materially different market segment than the current dual band Beryl models.

Gl.iNet Beryl 7 vs Beryl AX – Wired Connectivity for WAN and LAN?

Both the GL.iNet Beryl AX (GL-MT3000) and the GL.iNet Beryl 7 (GL-MT3600BE) include 2 Ethernet ports that can be configured as WAN or LAN depending on deployment needs. The structural difference lies in port speed allocation. The Beryl AX provides 1 x 2.5G port and 1 x 1G port, while the Beryl 7 provides 2 x 2.5G ports. This distinction directly affects how multi-gigabit internet connections and high speed wired clients can be distributed within the local network.

On the Beryl AX, users must decide whether the 2.5G interface will function as WAN or LAN if both upstream and downstream multi gigabit throughput is required. If the 2.5G port is assigned to WAN for an internet connection above 1G, the remaining LAN port is limited to 1G for wired clients such as a NAS or workstation. In contrast, the Beryl 7 allows a multi gigabit WAN input and a separate 2.5G LAN output simultaneously. This removes the need to prioritize one side of the connection when operating in environments with faster than gigabit internet access.

In lower bandwidth scenarios, such as hotel or public WiFi uplinks that rarely exceed 1G, the practical difference may be minimal. However, in deployments involving fiber connections above 1G, local high speed storage, or internal data transfers over wired connections, the dual 2.5G configuration of the Beryl 7 provides greater flexibility. The distinction is therefore less about port quantity and more about simultaneous throughput capability when handling multi gigabit traffic on both WAN and LAN interfaces.

Gl.iNet Beryl 7 vs Beryl AX – Internal Hardware (and what difference it makes?)

The GL.iNet Beryl AX (GL-MT3000) uses the MediaTek MT7981B dual core processor running at 1.3GHz per core, whereas the GL.iNet Beryl 7 (GL-MT3600BE) moves to a MediaTek quad core processor running at 2.0GHz per core. This is not simply an incremental clock speed increase, but a combination of higher per core frequency and a doubling of available cores. In practical routing workloads, additional cores allow parallel handling of encryption, NAT, firewall inspection, QoS rules, and multiple concurrent sessions. The higher clock speed per core also improves single threaded tasks such as certain VPN operations and packet inspection routines. As network traffic increases, particularly when VPN encryption is enabled, the scaling advantage of 4 cores at 2.0GHz becomes more relevant than raw wireless bandwidth alone.

Both devices include 512MB DDR4 memory, so runtime capacity for active services and simultaneous connections is comparable at a base level. The difference lies in onboard NAND flash storage. The Beryl AX provides 256MB of flash, while the Beryl 7 includes 512MB. For basic firmware and light package installation, 256MB is typically sufficient. However, users deploying additional OpenWrt packages, extended logging, container based services, or more complex VPN and DNS filtering configurations may benefit from the additional internal storage headroom on the Beryl 7. The larger flash capacity reduces the need to offload configuration or expand storage through external means.

Both routers feature a single USB 3.0 port for data connectivity, while the separate USB Type C port is dedicated to power input. This means there is only 1 usable USB interface for peripherals. External storage devices such as USB flash drives or portable SSDs can be connected for file sharing via Samba or WebDAV, effectively turning the router into a lightweight network storage node. However, using the USB port for storage prevents simultaneous use for USB tethering or a USB cellular dongle. In travel deployments where USB tethering to a smartphone or 4G or 5G modem is required, the port cannot be shared. As a result, internal flash capacity and USB role allocation may influence configuration decisions depending on whether the router is being used primarily for storage sharing, mobile broadband input, or wired WAN operation.

Gl.iNet Beryl 7 vs Beryl AX – Performance and Deployment Scale Long term

The hardware and wireless differences between the GL.iNet Beryl AX (GL-MT3000) and the GL.iNet Beryl 7 (GL-MT3600BE) translate into measurable differences in VPN throughput and concurrent device handling. The Beryl AX is rated for up to 300Mbps via WireGuard and up to 150Mbps via OpenVPN in client mode. The Beryl 7 increases those ceilings to 1100Mbps via WireGuard and 1000Mbps via OpenVPN DCO. These figures are dependent on network conditions and configuration, but the scaling difference reflects the impact of the stronger quad core 2.0GHz processor on encryption and packet processing workloads.

Client device capacity is also higher on the Beryl 7. The Beryl AX is positioned to support 70 plus connected devices, while the Beryl 7 is rated for 120 plus. In most travel scenarios, such as hotel rooms or short term rentals, both limits exceed realistic usage. However, in small office, lab, classroom, or event environments where a travel router may be used as a temporary gateway, the higher client handling ceiling provides additional headroom. The increase is less about encouraging high density deployments and more about ensuring stability when multiple devices are actively transferring data simultaneously.

Deployment flexibility also differs when combining wired, wireless, and VPN loads. On the Beryl AX, performance limitations are more likely to appear when multi gigabit WAN input, active VPN encryption, and numerous client sessions are all enabled concurrently. The Beryl 7, with dual 2.5G ports, higher wireless ceilings, and stronger CPU resources, is designed to sustain heavier mixed workloads before reaching saturation. In low bandwidth environments such as standard hotel WiFi, both units operate comfortably within their limits. The divergence becomes more apparent in high speed fiber connections, homelab testing, or sustained VPN dependent remote work scenarios.

Gl.iNet Beryl 7 vs Beryl AX – Which One Should You Buy?

The GL.iNet Beryl AX (GL-MT3000) and the GL.iNet Beryl 7 (GL-MT3600BE) occupy the same physical category and share a similar deployment philosophy, but they differ meaningfully in processing capability, wired configuration flexibility, wireless ceiling, and VPN throughput. The Beryl AX remains a WiFi 6 based travel router with 2.5G WAN support, stable OpenWrt integration, and sufficient CPU resources for encrypted traffic at moderate broadband speeds. For users operating within sub gigabit internet connections, running standard VPN client configurations, and connecting a typical number of personal devices, its limitations are unlikely to surface in normal travel use. It continues to provide a compact, USB powered solution for converting public or shared internet access into a private subnet.

The Beryl 7 expands on that foundation with WiFi 7 protocol support across 2.4GHz and 5GHz, Multi Link Operation, dual 2.5G Ethernet ports, higher VPN throughput ceilings, a stronger quad core 2.0GHz processor, and increased onboard flash storage. These upgrades primarily increase performance headroom rather than altering the use case itself. In environments involving faster than 1G internet connections, sustained encrypted traffic, heavier concurrent client activity, or mixed wired and wireless high throughput workloads, the Beryl 7 is less likely to encounter processing or port bottlenecks. The higher rated VPN performance, particularly with WireGuard and OpenVPN DCO, may also be relevant for remote workers whose encrypted tunnel speed is constrained by router hardware rather than the upstream connection.

It is also relevant that the Beryl 7 does not include 6GHz spectrum support, meaning it does not implement the full 3 band WiFi 7 feature set. Within the broader portfolio of GL.iNet, development is ongoing toward a 6GHz capable WiFi 7 travel platform, referenced as the Slate 7 Pro, which is expected no earlier than Q2 2026. As such, the Beryl 7 represents an incremental step forward within dual band travel routers rather than the final stage of WiFi 7 implementation in this segment. Buyers prioritizing immediate WiFi 7 support with stronger processing and dual 2.5G ports may find the Beryl 7 aligned with their requirements, while those satisfied with WiFi 6 performance and lower VPN ceilings may find the Beryl AX remains proportionate to its price and intended scope.

Gl.iNet Beryl 7 Travel Router		Gl.iNet Beryl AX Travel Router
Buy From Gl.iNet	Buy From Amazon	Buy From Gl.iNet	Buy From Amazon
PROs	CONs	PROs	CONs
+ WiFi 7 and MLO + Dual 2.5G WAN/LAN + Better CPU + More Storage	– More Expensive – Lack of 6Ghz – Same RAM/Memory	+ Cheaper + Lower Power Use + Same RAM/Memory + Same Software & Features	– Lacks MLO – Less Base Storage – Lower USB PD Support

Join Inner Circle

Want to follow specific category? Also Read...TP Link TL-WR3602BE Travel RouGl.iNet Comet 5G Review - The Gl.iNet Beryl 7 vs Slate 7 TraGl.iNet Slate 7 vs Beryl 7 TraGl.iNet Beryl 7 vs Beryl AX TrGl.iNet Beryl 7 Travel Router Gl.iNet Beryl 7 Travel Router Gl.iNet Reveal the Flint 4 WiFGl.iNet Flint 4 WiFi7 Router RGl.iNet Slate 7 Pro Revealed a Subscribe You can also follow specific search terms:

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?

TRY CHAT

If you like this service, please consider supporting us. We use affiliate links on the blog allowing NAScompares information and advice service to be free of charge to you.Anything you purchase on the day you click on our links will generate a small commission which isused to run the website. Here is a link for Amazon and B&H.You can also get me a Ko-fi or old school Paypal. Thanks!To find out more about how to support this advice service check HEREIf you need to fix or configure a NAS, check Fiver Have you thought about helping others with your knowledge? Find Instructions Here  

Or support us by using our affiliate links on Amazon UK and Amazon US

    

 

WE LOVE COFFEE

Bonjour à tous,

J’espère que vous allez bien. Certains d’entre vous sont peut-être en vacances et vous avez bien raison d’en profiter ! De mon côté, je vais bientôt prendre quelques jours pour aller faire un tour à Londres. Ce sera une première pour moi (ne vous moquez pas),  je n’ai encore jamais mis les pieds en Angleterre, ni même au Royaume-Uni. Notre fille aînée y passe un semestre, alors c’était l’occasion parfaite de la voir et de découvrir la capitale. Si vous avez de bonnes adresses ou des recommandations, n’hésitez pas à les partager en commentaires.

À la rédaction, 2 NAS sont actuellement en test. Les articles devraient paraître avant la fin du mois de février (oui, il ne reste plus que quelques jours)… On y travaille activement ! À ce propos, j’ai voulu acheter de la mémoire vive DDR5 pour équiper l’un des modèles prêtés. La claque a été sévère : je savais que les prix avaient augmenté, mais là, c’est devenu absurde.

Pour donner un exemple concret : le module de 8 Go en DDR5 Kingston coûtait environ 32 € l’été dernier. Aujourd’hui ? 153 €. En six mois, le tarif a été multiplié par presque 5… du grand n’importe quoi. On comprend mieux pourquoi certains fabricants hésitent encore à revenir vers la DDR4, dont le prix (lui aussi) a doublé. Est-ce que certains abusent ? On dirait bien…

Côté séries, j’ai récemment regardé His & Her : franchement, c’est assez médiocre. Le premier épisode démarre bien, mais la suite ne suit pas et même le twist final manque de surprise. En revanche, j’ai bien aimé Down Cemetery Road, malgré quelques longueurs… J’ai aussi vu The Studio et je comprends l’engouement outre-Atlantique, même si la série est très « US-centric  » et qu’elle aura sans doute du mal à séduire le même public ici. En ce moment, je regarde Pluribus : une vraie bonne surprise, un vent de fraîcheur ! Attention, le bonheur envahit la planète terre…

Bon allez, je vous laisse… Excellente semaine à tous !
FX

Vous savez ce qui fait réellement vivre ce blog ? Ce n’est pas seulement le contenu que je publie. C’est vous : vos réactions, vos ajouts, vos corrections et même vos désaccords constructifs. En parcourant les commentaires laissés sur Cachem, je constate à chaque fois la richesse des échanges, qui dépasse parfois la qualité de mes propres articles. Et c’est exactement ce qu’un blog devrait être : un espace de partage et de construction collective du savoir.

Pourquoi fermer les commentaires ?

Soyons honnêtes : oui, il y a des trolls. Oui, il y a des rageux (certains plutôt sympathiques, d’ailleurs). Et oui, le spam existe. Mais pourquoi tant de sites web ont fermé leur section commentaires, ou ne l’ont même jamais ouverte ?

Officiellement, la raison est souvent liée à la modération : filtrer le spam, gérer les trolls, éviter les débordements… c’est chronophage, je l’admets, mais il y a des outils. En creusant un peu, on découvre d’autres motivations, moins avouables : certains créateurs de contenu n’aiment pas être contredits. D’autres refusent de faire « l’après-vente » de leurs publications. Ils préfèrent diffuser leur vérité sans dialogue.

Permettez-moi d’être direct : créer du contenu en pensant avoir toujours raison, sans accepter le débat ou la contradiction, c’est reproduire, à petite échelle, les mécanismes de certains régimes totalitaires. Oui, j’assume le parallèle. Un blog sans commentaires, c’est comme un livre qu’on ne pourrait jamais annoter, discuter ou enrichir.

La communauté : une lueur d’espoir…

Quand je lis vos commentaires, je vois de la bienveillance, l’expertise et un véritable esprit de partage. Le niveau des échanges me rappelle ce qu’on peut trouver sur les meilleurs forums spécialisés, notamment ceux dédiés aux NAS où technicité et entraide coexistent harmonieusement.

Vos contributions dépassent parfois la qualité de mes propres articles. Et vous savez quoi ? Ça ne me vexe pas, bien au contraire !

L’écosystème parfait d’un blog

Un blog orienté tech’ comme Cachem (je dois être un des dinosaures du secteur) ne devrait jamais être une tribune à sens unique. Mon objectif est de partager mes expériences, mes avis et mes découvertes autour des NAS et de la tech en général. Mais l’enrichissement véritable vient de nos échanges.

Les commentaires transforment un simple article en conversation dynamique où :

• Les erreurs sont corrigées ;
• Les astuces complémentaires émergent ;
• Les cas d’usage se multiplient ;
• La communauté s’entraide (sans attendre mon intervention).

Bien sûr, tous les sujets ne se prêtent pas toujours aux commentaires sur un article de blog. Certains échanges, plus techniques ou très détaillés, peuvent rapidement dépasser le cadre d’un fil de discussion classique. C’est justement pour répondre à ce besoin que j’ai créé le Forum des NAS, un espace dédié où les passionnés peuvent poser leurs questions, partager leurs configurations et s’entraider en toute liberté, sans les contraintes d’un blog.

Le choix assumé de l’ouverture

Garder les commentaires ouverts sur Cachem est un choix éditorial fort. Cela signifie accepter d’être challengé, corrigé et complété. Reconnaître qu’on n’a pas toutes les réponses et que l’intelligence collective surpasse toujours l’expertise individuelle.

Oui, cela demande de la modération. Oui, il faut parfois gérer des commentaires désagréables. Mais le jeu en vaut largement la chandelle, tant la qualité des échanges en ressort enrichie.

En synthèse : continuez à commenter !

Merci à vous : commentateurs assidus, correcteurs bienveillants, partageurs d’astuces… et mêmes trolls gentils. Vous êtes la preuve vivante qu’Internet peut encore être un espace d’échange constructif, dans un monde où trop de créateurs préfèrent le monologue au dialogue.

Continuez à partager, débattre et enrichir. C’est cette énergie collective qui distingue un blog mort d’une communauté vivante. Et franchement, je préfère largement la seconde option.

Enfin, un clin d’œil particulier au Forum des NAS, autrefois modeste, devenu aujourd’hui une référence dans son domaine grâce à son esprit de partage, d’entraide et de bienveillance.