Related Articles

If you look at the first set of results, you can see that the Linksys leads easily in the performance of the intranet transfers. The UMAX Ugate 3000 trails by a bit, while the CNet and the Macsense routers come in consistently at the end. Note however that the difference in times are actually quite small. In the 54MB file transfer the Linksys leads by a mere 2 seconds. In the large 670MB directory transfer, the Linksys is still only leading by about 14 seconds, which is hardly a significant difference when you consider the transfer is past a quarter hour in length. However, it does show that the Linksys internal switched hub is more efficient than those of the others. For reference, we did the exact same transfer tests using a CNet 16 port CNSH-1600 hub and we got results around 30-40% faster than the routers (for instance, the 670MB directory transfer averaged 10:14 compared to the Linksys EtherFast’s 15:45). I am assuming this indicates that real world office level switched hubs are even more efficient J

When we take a look at the WAN-LAN transfers, things do a complete switchover. All of a sudden the Linksys is the worst performing member of the group, while CNet, Macsense and Ugate dominate the crowd. Of note is the Asante router, which gives middle of the road performance in both the WAN-LAN and LAN-LAN tests. The WAN-LAN transfer test is significant because most of you won’t find the LAN-LAN throughput to be the bottleneck, in fact, the theoretical limit of our office connection is somewhere around 3-4Mbps, while the network intranet “limit” is supposed to be 100Mbps.

I didn’t use the numbers we got to calculate the final throughput numbers, because the two are not compatible. If you’ve ever started several download streams before on the net, you’ll notice you can probably achieve 5-10 streams each of 300-400Kbps each. From experience, no single download on the net ever takes up your entire theoretical bandwidth.

Conclusion

The five routers that we reviewed here essentially share the same basic features, though they also try to differentiate themselves with different implementations of more advanced functions and by including features that are more commonly found in more expensive high end networking solutions. Features like DMZ, a built-in DHCP server, port forwarding, PPPoE support and a browser based administration system are all standard in each of the routers. Only the Linksys and Ugate routers had the added security of disabling port replies, which essentially masks your firewall from any port probes. All of the routers function on a NAT (network-address-translation) principle, so they don’t need any special network client software configuration, and are inherently “safe” forms of shared internet access, but the routers which didn’t include a port stealth feature would always report their ports as closed, which enables someone to “see” your computer.

Access controls also differed greatly between the routers. The Linksys Etherfast router had the most basic, and least flexible access control system of all the routers, and as such it fails to deliver an access rights solution that would meet the demands of a larger network (though the beta firmware does allow more complete access controls). If tight control over internet access is a priority, the beautifully executed system presented by the Ugate 3000, or the painfully powerful solutions from Macsense and Cnet, offer the most bang for your buck. As far as the advanced features go, Ugate and Linksys round out the list with features like static routing and RIP protocol support.

From a performance standpoint, our tests show that the built in hubs themselves differ little from router to router. The Linksys edges out just barely in the LAN-LAN transfers, but then falls sharply behind in the WAN-LAN transfer. I would put more emphasis on the WAN-LAN transfers, so the Ugate UMAX 3000, CNet Single Point, and Macsense Xrouter MIH130 Pro basically tie for performance excellence in that department.

Based on all these, I would venture that the CNet, Ugate, and Macsense offerings are all top knotch and offer a combination of good access control and performance. The Ugate and Macsense edge out thanks to their advanced features, but the CNet is a good consideration because of its strong security. The Linksys router will always be a good buy because of its knockout price, so really, each of these routers offer something to someone.

Some Closing Remarks

I just wanted to close by stressing that the broadband router market is one of the fastest moving sectors right now in the business. During the writing of this article several companies have come out with new firmware revisions, which forced us to redo some tests and change some comments. Other companies are also coming out with their own router products, and new information is constantly being unearthed. The important thing to realize is that some of the security options and router features I mention in the article may become less and less relevant as companies continue to improve on their firmware. This is a GREAT thing!