Like every other website on the planet, SmallNetBuilder uses cookies. Our cookies track login status, but we only allow admins to log in anyway, so those don't apply to you. Any other cookies you pick up during your visit come from advertisers, which we don't control.
If you continue to use the site, you agree to tolerate our use of cookies. Thank you!

Router Charts

Click for Router Charts

Router Ranker

Click for Router Ranker

NAS Charts

Click for NAS Charts

NAS Ranker

Click for NAS Ranker

More Tools

Click for More Tools

NAS Reviews

Performance

The TN-200 was tested with its factory-installed version 1.02 firmware using our standard NAS test process to run tests with RAID 0 and 1 volumes.

Windows File Copy tests in the Benchmarks summary below show read throughput 22% higher than write for RAID 0 (55 v.s 45.1MB/s) and also about 22% faster for RAID 1 (48.8 vs. 40.1 MB/s). Similarly for both read and write tests, RAID 0 held an edge over RAID 1 results. For read operations, RAID 0 was about 12% faster than RAID 1 (55.0 vs. 48.0 MB/s) and for write operations, the margin was about 15% (45.1 vs. 40.1 MB/s).

Intel NASPT File Copy Writes were slightly slower (1.4%) that the Windows File Copy for RAID 0 (44.5 vs 45.1MB/s) but were 37% faster than the Windows File Copy writes for RAID 1 (55.1 vs. 40.1MB/s).

TRENDnet TN-200 Benchmark Summary

TRENDnet TN-200 Benchmark Summary

To see how the TN-200 NAS fared against other dual drive NASes, I filtered the results for two-drive devices using a Marvell SoC and then generated charts for File Copy Read and File Copy Write performance. If you use the default sorting, ie, by throughput, the TRENDnet TN-200 doesn't do very well. It ranks 11/16 for File Copy Write Performance and 15/16 for File Copy Read Performance.

For Read, the TN-200's 55.0 MB/s is only about 54% of the top performing $150 Buffalo LS420, which turned in 101.3 MB/s. For Write, the TN-200 measured 45.1 M/s (53%) vs. the top performing $176 Thecus N2310's 85.7 MB/s.

However, since the TN-200 is the cheapest two-bay BYOD NAS on the market, I also sorted the results on price. The results were somewhat interesting. Looking at just file copy performance, you have to spend $140—40% more—before you pass the TN-200's read performance and $149 before you pass the TN-200's write performance.

File Copy Read and Write results for 2 drive Marvell-based NASes sorted by price
File Copy Read and Write results for 2 drive Marvell-based NASes sorted by price

Backup

The table below compares the backup performance of the four sub $150 two bay drive enclosures. Note that only the Buffalo LS421e has a USB 3.0 port. In addition, the TN200 shares relatively poky NTFS performance with the D-Link DNS320; not too surprising since both use the same processor.

Company TRENDnet TN200 Buffalo LS421E D-Link DNS320L Iomega ix2-dl
USB 2.0 FAT 19.0 19.2 15.3 12.4
USB 2.0 NTFS 6.8 20.0 6.1 14.9
USB 3.0 FAT NA 17.5 NA NA
USB 3.0 NTFS NA 20.8 NA NA
Network Backup 18.5 NA 15.5 18.6
Table 2: Backup Performance (MB/s)

Ranking

For Total NAS rank, which includes all products tested, the TN-200 ranked #47 out of a total of 71 products tested. The one area where the TN-200 excelled was in the Mixed Read/Write tests where it ranked #26 - well above its overall ranking of #47. Relatively low Windows File copy read and write results undoubtedly dragged down the overall ranking.

TRENDnet TN-200 NAS Ranking

TRENDnet TN-200 NAS Ranking

If you filter the NAS Ranker for two drive devices and SoC-1 class and sort by price, you'll see that the TN-200 has a lower (better) rank than the two next most expensive devices: the #56 ranked $118 D-Link DNS-320L and the #50 ranked $140 Iomega ix2-dl.

NAS ranker filtered for 2 drive systems sorted by price

NAS ranker filtered for 2 drive systems sorted by price

Closing Thoughts

For some consumers, a robust set of remote access and personal cloud features that support tight integration with Android / iOS mobile devices is very important. If that describes you, the TN-200 is not for you. As noted earlier, the TN-200's remote access is limited to FTP and WebDAV and it doesn't have dedicated apps for mobile platforms.

But for NAS buyers on a limited budget, the TN-200 could be the perfect product. For only $100 (and sometimes less), you get file sharing that works with all desktop and mobile OSes, media serving via DLNA and iTunes servers, RAID 1 fault tolerance and both attached and rsync network backup. Although it doesn't have chart-topping performance, the TN-200's throughput is more than adequate for simple backup, file sharing and media streaming.

The TN-200's strongest negative, however, is its fan and drive noise, which are definitely audible in a quiet environment. The fan still seems to run even in hibernate mode. But if you can live with or work around this, you'll get a surprisingly good NAS for the money.

More NAS

Wi-Fi System Tools
Check out our Wi-Fi System Charts, Ranker and Finder!

Support Us!

If you like what we do and want to thank us, just buy something on Amazon. We'll get a small commission on anything you buy. Thanks!

Over In The Forums

I have a RT-AX56U with an external HDD on the USB3 port.The WiFi file transfer rate with samba is at 18MB/s (download) and 7MB/s (upload).Using ftp I ...
Main goal of this release: additional boost of the router performance as I hope (slight boost ). I succeed to change GCC compiler from the version 9....
I have been using AiMesh on over many AiMesh models for the past year and I would like to share some thoughts on AiMesh. Opinions are my own. Discussi...
Asuswrt-Merlin 384.19 beta is now available (except for the RT-AX56U which won't be available for this release, due to outdated GPL code).Aug 9th: Bet...
There was a thread here by another poster. There were some disagreements and that thread was deleted. I found the script by @Martineau on Pastebin, bu...

Don't Miss These

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3