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

Features

The RN202 is running an updated version of ReadyNAS OS6.2. I reviewed ReadyNAS 6.0 when it was originally released in mid-2013 and again last December when Version 6.2, a major upgrade, became available. The Version 6.2 review drills down into the latest features and is worth checking out. To give you a feel for ReadyNAS, here's a screenshot from my RN104.

I updated the firmware with the latest version available for this model, but it appears to be slightly behind the version tested on the RN202. NETGEAR explained the key difference between 6.2.4 and 6.3.4 is the newer kernel series needed to support the RN202 hardware. NETGEAR said it eventually plans to migrate to a common firmware version for all ReadyNASes.

ReadyNAS Landing page on my RN104

ReadyNAS Landing page on my RN104

Performance

We tested using two WD Green 1 TB (WD10EZRX) drives NETGEAR supplied with the product. Power consumption was measured at 21 W in active mode and 13 W in power save mode. Fan and drive noise was rated as low. Performance tests were run using our Revision 5 NAS test process on two-drive unencrypted RAID 0 and RAID1 volumes with a 1 Gbps LAN connection. The firmware installed was ReadyNAS OS6.3.4.

The comparative benchmark summary below shows the NETGEAR RN202 (left), the ASUSTOR AS5002T (center) and the QNAP TS-251 (right). All three products had very similar results for File Copy Write and Read results for both RAID 0 and RAID 1. Likewise, NASPT results for RAID 0 and 1 were also very similar, with different products scoring better on one test and poorer on another test, but all within a fairly limited range.

Only the RN202 and the AS5002T have eSATA ports, so those backup tests couldn't be run on the QNAP. The AS5002T easily bested the RN204 on both FAT and EXT3 tests, but tied for NTFS. The RN202 has only USB 3.0 ports, so USB 2.0 tests weren't run. For USB 3.0 backup tests, both the ASUSTOR and the QNAP outperformed the RN202 for FAT and EXT3 formats, but it came in second behind the QNAP for NTFS backups. For iSCSI, the RN202 turned in poorer performance than either the AS5002T or the TS-251 for both the iSCSI write and iSCSI read tests. You'll see the impact of these results in the NAS Ranker Performance summary below.

Comparative Benchmark Summary

Comparative Benchmark Summary

NAS Ranker

To see how the NETGEAR RN202 stacked up against other RAID 1 NASes, I filtered for RAID1 class and Test Method Revision 5. The RN202, with a Total NAS score of 3.5, tied for #3 ranking with the QNAP TS-251. The ASUSTOR AS5002T, with a Total NAS score of 2.2 was ranked #2. The top performer was the ASUSTOR AS5102T, a sibling of the AS5002T, but with a beefier J1900 processor. The image below shows the RAID1 NAS ranker sorted by rank (left) and by price (right).

RAID 1 NAS rankings (left) and sorted by price (right)

RAID 1 NAS rankings (left) and sorted by price (right)

For a more detailed look at comparative performance, I created the composite Ranker Performance summary below showing the NETGEAR RN202 (left), the ASUSTOR AS5002T (center) and the QNAP TS-251 (right). The RN202 had its best category performance for Mixed Read Write where it was ranked #1, ahead of the #2 ranked TS-251 and the #4 ranked AS5002T. It had similar high-ranking category performance for Read Benchmarks where it ranked #2, just behind the #1 ASUSTOR. But category rankings for Write benchmarks (#5), Backup (#5) and iSCSI (#6) pulled the overall ranking for the RN202 down to #3. It's interesting to note that the QNAP TS-251, tied at #3 had different rankings for every category, but still managed a tie.

NAS Ranker Performance Comparison for the NETGEAR RN202 (left), the ASUSTOR AS5002T (center) and the QNAP TS-251 (right)

NAS Ranker Performance Comparison for the NETGEAR RN202 (left), the ASUSTOR AS5002T (center) and the QNAP TS-251 (right)

Closing Thoughts

It's rare to review a NAS and have two competing products with such similar performance and pricing. Often a large difference in performance or price makes the purchasing decision very easy. But as I write this, prices of the three compared products were separated by only $2. It's worth noting that prices on Amazon can, and often do, change daily. For example, when I started this review, the QNAP TS-251 was priced at $287. By the time I finished, it jumped from being the cheapest in this comparison to being the most expensive at $307.

Since neither price nor performance is going to drive a purchasing decision among these three products, the decision is going to come down to features. If you're interested in connecting your NAS directly to your HDTV for video playback, only the QNAP and the ASUSTOR have HDMI and audio out ports. Similarly, only the RN202 and the AS5002T have eSATA ports for backup. But for backup, I think that the NETGEAR RN202, with its snapshot technology enabled by the BTFRS file system provides the widest range of backup options.

No matter which of these you choose, you'll be getting a good performing, feature-packed two-bay NAS that's likely to meet your needs.

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

Split-horizon DNS, split-view DNS, split-brain DNS, or split DNS is the facility of a DNS implementation to provide different sets of DNS information ...
Hi,Is it possible to do inbox replace/upgrade to any newer QNAP or any other DIY NAS version?I would like to replace the h/w with the better one and u...
Hello, been reading for a long time, got 6x RT-AC68U with 384.17No problems but an annoying issue, so lets jump in at the deep end. 4g providers are m...
Since today I get the "curl: (60) SSL certificate problem: certificate has expired" error on one site:Code: # curl -v https://www.myip.ms/files/black...
I'm in a special situation and any idea might help me a lot.I have an EA2750 router (I don't remember the exact firmware version, but it's one of the ...

Don't Miss These

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3