Le récap tech de la semaine s’annonce plus court que d’habitude, mais certainement pas moins dense. Voici les tests à ne pas manquer !
Cet article Speedrunner, boîtiers, carte graphique et Windows 11, tous les dossiers à ne pas manquer ! a été publié en premier par GinjFo.
The LincStation E1 is a compact 2-bay NAS from LincPlus aimed at users who want a simple way to move file storage, backups, and basic media access off third-party cloud services and onto local hardware. It is built around an ARM platform and combines 2 x SATA drive bays with 2 x NVMe slots, which gives it a433 storage layout that is more flexible than many entry-level NAS units in this price class. Rather than targeting enthusiasts who want extensive customization from day 1, the E1 is positioned as a ready-to-use system with LincPlus’s own LincOS software, desktop and mobile apps, and a feature set focused on everyday tasks such as file sharing, photo backup, remote access, and media browsing. From a review perspective, the main appeal of the E1 is not that it competes directly with higher-end NAS systems on raw performance or software maturity, but that it tries to offer a broad hardware and feature package at a very low entry cost. The combination of 2.5GbE networking, dual NVMe support, and a compact chassis makes it an interesting option for first-time NAS buyers, light home users, or anyone looking for a secondary backup device with low power usage. At the same time, its value depends heavily on expectations, especially around software polish and the realities of buying storage media separately, so it is best evaluated as a budget-oriented turnkey NAS with clear strengths and equally clear limitations.
Want to Learn More about Lincplus Lincsation NAS Solutions? The N1, N2 and S1 all include an UnRAID Software License included:
|
At the time of review, the LincStation E1 is positioned as a crowdfunding product rather than a standard retail NAS, which means buyers should treat it differently from an item sold through normal retail channels with established return policies and support expectations. LincPlus is not an unknown brand and has released other NAS and computing products, but crowdfunding still carries delivery, software maturity, and post-launch support risks, so any purchase decision should factor in the reduced consumer protections compared with conventional retail.
The LincStation E1 is a low-cost, compact 2-bay NAS that stands out mainly because it combines 2 x SATA bays and 2 x NVMe slots in a small ARM-based enclosure while still aiming to be a turnkey product rather than a DIY project, which makes it an appealing option for first-time NAS buyers or users who want a simple local backup/file server with low power draw and basic private cloud-style features; the hardware package is strong for the price category, the included accessories are unusually complete, and the overall design is practical for light home storage, media access, and phone backup use, but the key caveat is that the software experience (LincOS) is still developing, with the mobile app appearing more mature than the desktop and web interfaces and some expected security and usability features not yet fully in place in the reviewed build, so the E1 makes the most sense if it is judged as a budget-oriented NAS with good hardware value and a work-in-progress software platform rather than a polished replacement for established NAS ecosystems.
Very low entry price (crowdfunding positioning) for a turnkey NAS-class deviceCompact chassis with a small desktop footprint and low overall weightFlexible storage layout with 2 x SATA bays + 2 x M.2 NVMe slotsLow-power ARM platform that supports relatively modest power consumption in real use2.5GbE-class networking referenced in review testing (strong value if confirmed in final retail spec)Front USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-A port for faster external drive imports/backupsGood in-box accessory bundle (cables, screwdriver, screws, thermal pads, PSU)LincOS includes a broad feature set for entry users (SMB sharing, backups, remote access, media features, mobile app control)
Software maturity is still a concern, especially desktop and web UI polishCrowdfunding purchase model adds risk compared with normal retail buyingSingle LAN port only, so no link aggregation or failoverSome expected NAS security/admin features were missing or underdeveloped in the reviewed build (for example, 2FA)
| Where to Buy a Product | |||
|
|
|
|
VISIT RETAILER ➤ |
|
|
|
|
VISIT RETAILER ➤ |
The LincStation E1 uses a compact vertical desktop chassis with a plastic outer shell and a front panel that keeps visible hardware elements to a minimum. At 218.5 x 88 x 140 mm and 907 g, it is physically smaller and lighter than many conventional 2-bay NAS systems, which affects both placement and cooling design. The front panel includes status LEDs for the 2 SATA bays (S1, S2), 2 NVMe slots (M1, M2), network activity/status, and the power button LED, so users can check basic drive and network state at a glance without opening the software interface. There is no front display panel, and the clean exterior design is clearly focused on compactness and low manufacturing complexity rather than service indicators or advanced controls.
The primary storage section is built around 2 top-loading drive trays that support both 3.5-inch and 2.5-inch SATA HDD/SSD media. These trays are accessed from the top of the chassis and use integrated pull handles that sit relatively flush when closed, which helps reduce accidental snagging and keeps the top surface visually tidy. The supplied accessory pack includes mounting screws and a screwdriver, which is relevant here because 2.5-inch drives require screw mounting rather than tool-less insertion. The tray design is simple and functional, but there is no locking mechanism, no front latch key, and no hot-swap enterprise-style caddy system, so the emphasis is clearly on basic home use rather than secure or high-frequency drive replacement.
A secondary storage layer is provided by 2 underside M.2 ports, both supporting M.2 2280 NVMe SSDs. These slots are located under the bottom panel rather than on an internal motherboard tray accessed from the side, which means initial installation is straightforward but drive swaps are less convenient than the top SATA bays. The box contents include 2 thermal pads for SSDs of different thicknesses, which is a notable detail at this price point because it indicates the NVMe area was designed with at least basic thermal contact in mind rather than treating the slots as purely optional expansion. Functionally, these NVMe slots can be used for cache or as storage pools, which gives the system more deployment flexibility than a standard 2-bay HDD-only NAS.
The storage layout is technically more ambitious than many entry-level NAS devices because it combines 2 x SATA bays for bulk capacity with 2 x NVMe slots for faster storage tiers in a very small chassis. Based on the provided CPU/PCIe layout, the system is built around the RK3568 platform with PCIe and SATA resources split across NVMe and SATA connectivity, with the SATA side also involving a JMB575 SATA controller path for the drive bay implementation. In practical terms, this means the E1 is designed to support mixed workloads such as HDD-based backups plus SSD cache, or separate SSD-backed application/media indexing storage alongside larger mechanical drives. This is still a consumer NAS layout, but from a hardware planning perspective it gives more options than a basic ARM 2-bay design that only exposes SATA.
From a mechanical and thermal design perspective, the main compromise is internal space density, especially around the underside NVMe area and the airflow path shared across the enclosure. The chassis uses a single base-mounted fan and passive ventilation openings around multiple sides, with the SATA bays above and the NVMe slots below, so the internal airflow strategy is relatively simple and constrained by the compact dimensions. This approach is consistent with the low-power RK3568 platform and the intended use of 2 local drives plus optional NVMe, but it also means there is limited room for large heatsinks, cable routing, or internal upgrades beyond the defined storage slots. As a result, the E1 offers a technically flexible storage layout for its class, but it remains a tightly integrated, compact NAS design rather than a modular enclosure built for extensive hardware modification.
The LincStation E1 is built around the Rockchip RK3568, a quad-core ARM SoC (Cortex-A55 class) running at up to 2.0 GHz. This is a low-power embedded platform commonly used in compact network and edge devices, and it is a practical fit for a NAS that prioritizes basic file services, light media tasks, and low idle power over high parallel compute performance. In this system, the RK3568 is paired with 4 GB of embedded DDR4 memory, with no indication of user-upgradeable RAM, which places the E1 firmly in the entry-level category for multitasking and container-heavy workloads.
From an architecture standpoint, the E1’s hardware is more interesting than a typical low-cost 2-bay ARM NAS because it exposes both SATA and NVMe storage within a single compact design. The provided block layout shows the RK3568 distributing PCIe lanes across NVMe connectivity and additional controller paths, while the SATA bays are implemented through a JMB575 SATA controller stage. This matters because the system is not simply attaching 2 SATA drives directly to a minimal embedded board, but instead using a more layered I/O design to support 2 x SATA bays plus 2 x NVMe slots within the limits of the SoC’s available interfaces.
The hardware platform also includes a 2.5GbE network interface, HDMI 2.1 (TMDS) output, and a mix of USB connectivity, which indicates that the E1 is designed as more than a headless file box even if its primary role is NAS storage. The CPU/PHY layout also reflects the shared nature of resources in compact ARM systems, where PCIe, USB, and SATA connectivity are allocated carefully to balance cost and capability. In practical terms, the hardware specification is broad for the class, but users should still view it as a constrained embedded platform, not as a substitute for x86 NAS hardware with higher throughput ceilings or large virtualization headroom.
At a system design level, the internal hardware choices are clearly optimized around low power draw, compact thermals, and cost efficiency. The RK3568 platform, embedded memory, and compact board-level integration reduce complexity and help keep the device small, while the storage expansion is pushed into the defined SATA and M.2 bays rather than broader internal upgrade options. This makes the E1 a purpose-built appliance with a relatively fixed hardware profile: flexible in storage configuration, but limited in CPU and memory scalability once deployed.
The LincStation E1 provides a basic but functional I/O layout split across the front and rear panels. On the front, there is 1 x USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-A port, which is the highest-speed external USB connection on the unit and the most practical port for temporary storage imports, external backup drives, or direct file transfers. The front panel also includes the status LEDs for both SATA bays, both NVMe slots, network activity, and the power button with integrated LED, so operational state is visible from the main user-facing side of the device.
On the rear panel, the E1 includes 1 x RJ-45 LAN port, 2 x USB 2.0 Type-A ports, 1 x HDMI 2.1 (TMDS) port, a reset button, and a 12V/5A DC power input jack. The rear USB ports are limited to USB 2.0, which is sufficient for low-speed peripherals or occasional backup devices, but they are not ideal for sustained high-speed external storage workflows. The HDMI output is an important inclusion in specification terms because it expands potential use cases beyond standard NAS access, although the practical value of that port depends on software support and feature maturity.
In networking terms, the hardware specification lists 1 x Gigabit RJ-45, while the review transcript references 2.5GbE operation during testing and performance discussion, so this is an area where buyers should verify the final shipping specification and campaign listing before purchase. Regardless of the final Ethernet speed, the E1 only provides a single wired LAN port, which means no link aggregation, no failover path, and no dual-NIC network segmentation. The system does, however, also support Wi-Fi connectivity according to the review material, which may help with placement flexibility or initial setup, but wired Ethernet remains the primary connection for NAS use.
The LincStation E1 runs LincOS, which is positioned as an integrated NAS platform for file access, backup, remote connectivity, and media services rather than a bare system that requires users to install a third-party OS. Based on the provided feature overview, the core service set includes LincAccess for remote access without manual port forwarding, System Upgrade for background firmware updates, Secure Space for encrypted storage, Local Share over SMB, Backup Disk and Sync Disk for scheduled backup/sync tasks, Remote Download, Smart Album for local photo analysis/tagging, and Video Center for media browsing and playback. On paper, this gives the E1 a broad set of consumer NAS functions, especially for users who want a single interface for files, phone backups, and basic media management.
|
|
In practical use, the software experience appears to vary significantly depending on whether the system is accessed via desktop client, web browser, or mobile app. The review transcript describes the desktop client as functional but visually and structurally closer to a mobile-first interface, with some sections feeling sparse or less optimized for larger screens. The mobile application is described as the more mature experience, with better flow for common tasks such as file access, photo backup, service control, and SMB management. By contrast, the browser-based interface is described as much more limited, which is relevant because web UI access remains a standard workflow for many NAS users.
|
|
The main issue at the time of review is software maturity rather than feature absence alone. The transcript indicates that newer builds added functions that were missing in earlier testing, which suggests active development, but also confirms that the platform is still evolving and not yet fully polished. Specific concerns raised include weak desktop/web UX consistency, limited clarity in some backup/sync terminology for less experienced users, and missing or underdeveloped areas in security and administration workflows (for example, the absence of 2FA and other standard NAS security tooling in the tested build). As a result, the E1 software stack is best understood as a usable but still developing platform that may improve over time, but should not be evaluated as equivalent in maturity to long-established NAS operating systems.
|
|
|
|
Testing in the review focused on real-world NAS usage with 2 x 4TB Seagate IronWolf HDDs installed in the SATA bays and 2 x 1TB NVMe SSDs in the M.2 slots. In this configuration, the unit was used for file transfers, mobile backups, and sustained read/write activity to observe behavior under load rather than synthetic benchmark-only results. The review also notes that the NVMe slots were constrained in practical throughput relative to full higher-lane NVMe operation, with observed expectations around a capped transfer range consistent with the platform and lane allocation.
|
|
Acoustically, the measured noise level was reported at around 41 to 43 dB at idle, and remained in a similar 42 to 43 dB range under heavier activity. That indicates a relatively stable acoustic profile during testing, likely due in part to the inability (at the time of recording) to directly tune fan behavior in the software build initially tested. The result is not silent, and the plastic chassis plus compact internal layout may contribute to audible drive and airflow presence, but the unit also did not show a major noise spike during CPU and storage activity in the tested setup.
|
|
|
|
Thermally, the system was run for about 4 hours under sustained read/write activity, including transfers involving attached USB storage and mobile device backup traffic. Reported external surface temperatures were around 38 to 41°C on the chassis sides, with perforated ventilation areas reaching about 43 to 44°C. The hottest areas were around the underside NVMe region and between the installed drives, which is consistent with the compact internal layout and base-mounted cooling approach. With the 4TB HDDs used in testing, the reported drive temperature was around 51°C during this sustained activity period, while other external port-side areas remained around the low-to-mid 40°C range.
|
|
Power consumption results were in line with a low-power ARM NAS platform. With low CPU utilization (below roughly 15%) and drives/SSDs in idle or light activity states, the measured draw was around 12 to 12.2 W. Under heavier use, with CPU utilization above roughly 75% and simultaneous HDD/NVMe read/write activity, reported power draw increased to about 19.4 to 19.7 W. SMB transfer performance over the network was reported at roughly 180 to 200 MB/s on HDD-based access, while NVMe-backed activity was described as saturating the available network path in testing, which is broadly consistent with the stated Ethernet and storage configuration constraints.
The LincStation E1 presents a clear budget-focused NAS proposition: compact hardware, flexible storage options for its class, low-power ARM design, and a turnkey software stack that covers the main functions many entry-level users look for, including local sharing, backup, remote access, and media features. Its main hardware appeal is the combination of 2-bay SATA storage and 2 x NVMe support in a small enclosure, which is uncommon at this level. As a hardware platform for basic home storage and backup use, it is a practical design with a broader feature set than many similarly positioned entry NAS devices.
The main limitation is software maturity rather than core hardware capability. Based on the review material, LincOS is usable and actively improving, but the desktop and web experience still need refinement, and some security and usability expectations common in more established NAS ecosystems are not yet fully met. For that reason, the E1 is best evaluated as a low-cost NAS with strong hardware value and a developing software platform, rather than a fully polished alternative to long-established NAS brands at the time of review.
Want to Learn More about Lincplus Lincsation NAS Solutions? The N1, N2 and S1 all include an UnRAID Software License included:
|
| PROs of the Lincstation E1 NAS | CONs of the Lincstation E1 NAS |
|
|
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER Join Inner Circle Subscribe
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 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
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
|
|
|
Découverte du NAS UGREEN DH4300 Plus, équipé de 4 baies, de 8 Go de RAM, d'un processeur ARM avec 8 cœurs et d'une interface réseau à 2.5 GbE. Avis complet.
Le post Test UGREEN DH4300 Plus : un NAS 4 baies à moins de 400 euros a été publié sur IT-Connect.
La MAG CoreLiquid A15 360 est un Watercooling AIO équipé de trois ventilateurs de 120 mm promettant un look, des performance et un petit prix
Cet article Test MAG CoreLiquid A15 360 de MSI a été publié en premier par GinjFo.
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.
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.
$379 pricing is competitive for a turnkey 4 bay NAS with UniFi Drive included4 bay 2.5 inch and 3.5 inch SATA support for flexible capacity planning2 x M.2 NVMe slots for read and write SSD cachingPoE+++ support enables single cable power plus data deployment90W PoE+++ mains adapter included, so PoE infrastructure is optionalSimple click and load HDD trays with straightforward access for drive installs and swapsFront 1.47 inch color LCM display provides basic status and activity visibilityUniFi Drive software includes RAID options, snapshots, encryption, share links, and user management
Single 2.5GbE port limits throughput and provides no network redundancy or aggregationM.2 NVMe trays not included, adding cost to use SSD cachingUSB C port is currently limited in utility beyond basic external storage attachment
| Here are all the current UniFi NAS Solutions & Prices: |
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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!
| PROs of the UniFi UNAS 4 | CONs of the UniFi UNAS 4 |
|
|
| Here are all the current UniFi NAS Solutions & Prices: |
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER Join Inner Circle Subscribe
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 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
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
|
|
|
Cette semaine, le “petit” est à l’honneur. Mini-boîtiers, alimentations compactes, PC ultraportables… sans oublier un clavier mécanique carrément coupé en deux.
Cet article La sélection matos de la semaine (mini-PC, SFX musclées, périphériques gaming) a été publié en premier par GinjFo.
Avec son grand panneau en verre trempé courbé, ses ventilateurs aRGB et son support des GPU jusqu’à 420 mm, le Prime AP202 vise clairement les configurations gaming. Mais vaut-il vraiment le détour ?
Cet article Le Prime AP202 est-il le boîtier Micro-ATX aquarium pour le gaming du moment ? a été publié en premier par GinjFo.
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.
| If you are in a hurry – here is the TL;DR – the Slate 7 is $30-40 more, and for that you get a touchscreen LCD panel to allow for client-less configuration on the fly, it arrives with double the base memory (1GB, as opposed to 512MB) and a much more performance focused processor (a Qualcomm, rather than a Mediatek, which is much more widely supported and used in router applications and services). If you can spare the $30-40, get the Slate 7! |
|
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
|
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
|
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 |
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER Join Inner Circle Subscribe
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 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
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
|
|
|
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
| Where to Buy
UniFi Dream Router 7 (UDR7) – $279 HERE UniFi Express 7 (UX7) –$199 HERE UniFi Cloud Gateway Fiber (UCG-FIBER) – $249 HERE |
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER Join Inner Circle Subscribe
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 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
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
|
|
|
Performances PC de Resident Evil Requiem, tests de boîtiers haut de gamme, comparatifs stockage et astuces pour Windows 11 : le web tech a été particulièrement dense cette semaine, avec de nombreux dossiers publiés par les médias spécialisés
Cet article Resident Evil Requiem, boîtiers, SSD et Windows 11, tous les dossiers à ne pas manquer ! a été publié en premier par GinjFo.
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.
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.
Dual 5GbE networking provides higher aggregate and single client throughput than 2.5GbE when supported by the surrounding networkFour internal M.2 NVMe slots allow SSD caching, SSD storage pools, or mixed configurations without sacrificing SATA baysSolid metal chassis and metal drive trays provide durability and assist passive heat dissipationHDMI output with Asustor Portal enables direct media playback, VM interaction and local management without a client PCSupports both EXT4 and Btrfs, including snapshot functionality for basic data protection and recoveryPCIe expansion slot allows future upgrade to 10GbE, extending the usable lifespan of the systemFlexible storage configuration, including use of NVMe drives as independent storage pools rather than cache onlyHardware warranty remains valid when installing third party NAS operating systems, supporting advanced and DIY users
Intel Celeron N5095 is now dated relative to newer low power CPUs available at similar price points (eg N100, N150, N355, etc) right nowADM software is stable but lacks the depth, automation and flagship features found on some competing platformsPCIe slot is shared between NVMe carrier and expansion cards, forcing a choice without a compatible combo cardPricing 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 |
|
|
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.
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.
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.
|
|
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.
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.
| PROs of the Lockerstor 4 Gen 2+ NAS | CONs of the Lockerstor 4 Gen 2+ NAS |
|
|
Choosing the right data storage solution for your needs can be very intimidating and it’s never too late to ask for help. With options ranging from NAS to DAS, Thunderbolt to SAS and connecting everything up so you can access all your lovely data at the touch of a button can be a lot simpler than you think. If you want some tips, guidance or help with everything from compatibility to suitability of a solution for you, why not drop me a message below and I will get back to you as soon as possible with what you should go for, its suitability and the best place to get it. This service is designed without profit in mind and in order to help you with your data storage needs, so I will try to answer your questions as soon as possible.
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
[contact-form-7]
Join Inner Circle
Subscribe
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 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
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
|
|
|
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.
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.
| Here are all the latest UniFi Gateway, Routing and PoE+++ Solutions & Prices: |
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!
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
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
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.
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.
| Here are all the latest UniFi Gateway Network PoE Solutions & Prices: |
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!
| PROs of the UniFi Cloud Gateway Industrial | PROs of the UniFi Cloud Gateway Industrial |
|
|
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER Join Inner Circle Subscribe
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 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
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
|
|
|
Sur le segment des boitiers tours relativement compacts, Asus dégaine le Prime AP303. GinjFo a mis à l’épreuve l'édition Mesh
Cet article Test Prime AP303 d’Asus a été publié en premier par GinjFo.
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.
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 - 9/10PERFORMANCE - 8/10PRICE - 8/10VALUE - 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 misconfiguredNearby Control via AP mode enables direct point to point access without joining the surrounding network, useful for local BIOS work and isolated environmentsHDMI 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 client64 GB eMMC provides more room for ISO images and utility files than the 32 GB model, reducing how often media needs to be rotated3.69 in touchscreen makes on device setup and status checks less cramped than smaller panel implementationsMultiple remote access approaches are available (LAN, relay, and VPN style options like Tailscale and ZeroTier), allowing different trust and routing modelsLow 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 storageExternal storage expansion has caveats, including USB 2.0 limits, possible reboots, and inconsistent compatibility depending on the USB drive and power drawFailover 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: |
|
|
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.
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.
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.
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.
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: |
|
|
| Gl.iNet Comet 5G KVM Pros | Gl.iNet Comet 5G KVM CONs |
|
|
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER Join Inner Circle Subscribe
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 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
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
|
|
|
Cette troisième semaine de février 2026 se termine avec la publication de nombreux tests et dossiers. Voici le meilleur du Net Francophone.
Cet article Audio, carte graphique ou encore boitier, tous les dossiers à ne pas manquer ! a été publié en premier par GinjFo.
Connexion