Balance 20 supports Dual-WAN connectivity, seamlessly switching between 2 WAN links.
Balance 20X features 1 Ethernet WAN, 1 Embedded LTE Modem, 1 USB Interface, and 1 FlexModul Mini slot.
(2) Dual-band Wi-Fi
Balance 20 comes equipped without Wi-Fi to comply with strict security standards.
Balance 20X supports both 2.4GHz and 5GHz frequencies simultaneously, which provides more flexibility and reduces interference.
(3) Throughput
Balance 20 has a maximum throughput of 150 Mbps whereas Balance 20X offers a routing throughput of 900 Mbps, both are ideal for Small Businesses and Branches.
(4) PrimeCare Model
Balance 20X PrimeCare model comes bundled with InControl, Warranty, SpeedFusion license upgrades, and FusionHub Licenses at very affordable pricing under a subscription service.
Is there a module with a ethernet third wan , or would you use a usb to ethernet adapter?
If it had both RJ45 or SFP+ in the module that would be great!
Hi, I understand that Balance 20X offers one of the WAN through a single Ethernet connection, but would it be possible to expand it to 2 WAN using one of the LAN ports? I wont be using LTE.
I have two internet connection and I wanted to use the Balance 20X for load balancing.
I know I can buy the Balance 20 for that which by the I currently own for two of my location.
And correct me If I am wrong the 20x model is a much newer model which has been upgraded with new internal/hardware and spec offering a much higher throughput and this is why I wanted to buy the 20x this time.
Can you please share your thoughts on this? Thanks and hope to hear from you guys soon.
Well, I can’t speak for @Alex but I think I can answer your question.
While you can’t (so far as I know) use a LAN port for WAN you can use the USB port for the 2nd WAN via an inexpensive adapter, as discussed here and elsewhere on the Forum. And, yes, the 20X is significantly different than the Balance 20 in many respects. Personally? I think the 20X is very definitely a “sweet spot” in Peplink’s line-up. (You may not want LTE today but it’ll be there if you change your mind in the future.)
I’m curious why the Balance 20x didn’t have an altogether different name. It’s very clearly a dramatically different device than the Balance 20.
But Pep seems to have had a problem with this all along. I’ve been far too confused by all the different specs and capabilities between the different hardware versions of a device that otherwise has the same model number. Wouldn’t it be better for the customer to just have new model numbers for the updated devices?
Here at Peplink, we have a wide product range suitable for wide range of applications and scenarios. If we would have only 5 models, I suppose there would be no confusion with naming. However, since this is not the case, we do try to find the best balance between naming and product application.
To make things a bit easier, we made comparison table were you can select up to three models for comparison (Link). We are also working on a similar table for the MAX series as well.
Hi Giedrius-GM,
I’m sure that it’s challenging, and probably in ways that I don’t even imagine, to handle the wide range of Peplink products. But based on your reply I’m not sure if you understand what my comments were about. For instance, I think I’m suggesting that you should have more models rather than fewer.
I’ll try to clarify…
Comparing your current products doesn’t seem to be harder than with most technology companies. Yes, I think there should be more resources for the uninitiated to learn about how some of your various features work. For instance, I researched and bought a UBR-LTE without realizing its significant limitation wrt to throughput, both stateful firewall AND pepVPN speeds. I didn’t realize (and probably don’t fully understand yet) the relationships between the various throughput capabilities and how that relates to real world usage. But, my previous comment was about comparing products that have the same name but have changed over time.
Your comparison tool is pretty good for current models but what if I have an old Balance 30 on the shelf and I’m wondering how it compares to a new model 20? I’ve been searching far and wide on the Interwebs for info about the real specs of the early hardware versions of the Balance 30 (and a bunch of other models). It’s been very challenging to find ways to determine which hardware version is being referenced in a particular piece of documentation.
I’ve noticed that the latest version of the Surf SOHO are designated mk3. This is very helpful to differentiate them from the previous versions. Of course, I have two units that are supposed to be mk3s sitting on my desk right now but there is no “mk3” printed on the label with the model and serial numbers. So, I’m not yet sure what they are. I will have to do more research. [It seems that the mk3 designation might be from your resellers rather than something that Peplink has initiated??]
Ultimately, I think you need to use mk(x) designations for your models, have the mk(x) printed clearly on the label, in the comparison tool and other marketing materials AND have documentation with specifications for every mk version on your website. The fact that you don’t have this right now makes me wonder what other surprises I’ll encounter further down the road with your products…
thanks for your feedback. This does make sense and additional information about the HW versions would be helpful.
Starting from 2018 we started adding a HW version on the label (I have added a picture below), but not sure if this is the case with your Surf SOHO or other models you have. If they were purchased before that date, then most likely this information will not be available.
In any case, I agree, it would be great to have this information at in least in the datasheet to know the differences between HW revisions. We will discuss with the team on how to improve it.
