Balance 30 LTE Throughput Confusion

The web page for the Balance 30 LTE shows it with a throughput of 400Mbps: (the actual HTML title shows 200Mbps!)

However, the datasheet shows only 200Mbps:

Which is it for revision HW3?

The throughput for Balance 30 LTE is 200Mbps.

1 Like

Ok, you guys fixed it then after I notified you. It has been showing 400Mbps since I’ve been looking at it (over the weekend).

Alright, here is another goof I found that shows the 30 LTE as 400Mbps throughput:

I’m wondering if this device was originally 400Mbps and then Peplink artificially limited it to 200Mbps in order to create more space for more expensive models.

The datasheet shared by Biggen is outdated. To avoid confusion in the future, we deleted it from our server.

Please check the most latest spec under the product page OR see the comparison table with this link.


1 Like

I deleted my earlier posts on this topic just to be very clear about my questions, and I would like Peplink to please address them, here. I purchased a Balance30LTE about two years ago specifically because I thought it would give me some “future proofing” while handling my then-current needs. Earlier this year, I was deciding between sticking with Peplink or switching over to Ubiquiti/Unifi as I needed to add additional access points.

BECAUSE I THOUGHT I ALREADY HAD A ROUTER THAT COULD HANDLE 400 MBPS, I stuck with Peplink and ordered two AP One AC units and two AP One Minis, which are now installed. So, am I to now understand that the Balance 30 LTE does only 200 mbps? I, and clearly others, thought we had a router that did twice that speed. Peplink said in an earlier post that the spec sheet posted by another user was “outdated”, so they “removed it from our servers”. But if they previously HAD a spec sheet that stated those specs, and customers who purchased the Balance 30 LTE relied upon that spec sheet, then either we are owed compensation or a unit that DOES perform at that level. WE RELIED UPON YOUR ADVERTISING STATEMENTS TO MAKE PURCHASE DECISIONS!

So, please clarify this. I’ve been a strong Peplink supporter who has made multiple purchases based on information that now appears to be faulty. I absolutely thought I had a router that could perform at twice the speed I’m now being told it can handle, and I stayed with Peplink in large part because of that. Saying a previous spec sheet is now “outdated” just won’t cut it, and I WANT AN EXPLANATION. Thank you.

It looks like it got changed at some point this year to say it was a 400mbps router. It was advertised as a 200Mbps router last year on the same page, and in 2019 it was advertised on the older website as a 200Mbps router. When it was advertised 2 years ago it was a 200Mbps advert.
From last year :
from 2019:


Thanks- That’s helpful.

I think it must have been that way for months. It has definitely left me with a sour taste in my mouth.

I’m guessing someone at peplink accidently updated the wrong page earlier this year (possible mixed up with the balance 30 pro) and it didn’t get noticed for a while. If someone brought one on that understanding then I’m sure that if they explain it to their partner they will be able to return it for a full refund. Wayback machine website is a good way of seeing what a site looked like in years/months gone by including the advertised specs at time of purchase.
If it was purchased a few years ago then it was advertised correctly at the time of sale.



I’m guessing someone at peplink accidently updated the wrong page earlier this year (possible mixed up with the balance 30 pro) and it didn’t get noticed for a while. @james.webster1

Your observation is correct. After the internal investigation, we discovered a Peplink teammate accidentally updated the wrong specification for B30 LTE (in the comparison table) around February 2021. And the team discovered this wrong specification and fixed it in July 2021.

Here, I would like to make a sincere apology to @Madcodger, and to anyone who is affected. To prevent such accidence happened again, we have reviewed the internal process and made some measures to prevent it.

Again, sorry for the inconvenience caused.


Thanks, Cassy (and Peplink). I appreciate the forthright admittance of the mistake. We’re “even”, and I want nothing more.

I did look at those specs when making a purchase decision for other equipment, and it did play a role in that decision, leading me to purchase four additional Peplink APs instead of moving to another supplier favored by my IT consultant. But those APs have performed well, as has my Balance 30 LTE. It will need to be upgraded in a year or two, I suspect, and I’ll make a new decision then. Admitting a mistake and correcting it, as you have done, will go a long way toward that being in Peplink’s favor, in the future. Thanks for that.