Attention buyers: TP-Link Archer A5 advertises high speeds, but details suggest otherwise.
Attention buyers: TP-Link Archer A5 advertises high speeds, but details suggest otherwise.
I recently purchased this router for a friend, but I returned it within 25 minutes after opening the box. The device claims support for wireless AC and speeds above 867 mb/s. With a gigabit connection, I usually experience around 500mb/s throughout my home on Wi-Fi. I intended to install it at my place and test it out. To my surprise, even close to the router—just 5 feet away—I couldn’t reach speeds over 90 mb/s. I was expecting higher performance given its advertised capabilities. I assumed the LAN ports were limited to 10/100, so a WAN port only supporting 10/100 wouldn’t be able to deliver the claimed speeds. That assumption was wrong. This router doesn’t even feature a gigabit WAN port. It seems this product isn’t realistic. If it truly offered gigabit WAN, it would likely rank among top-rated options. The only way to approach the advertised throughput would be through direct Wi-Fi to Wi-Fi transfers, like using it as a repeater or for file sharing between devices. I think my oversight in skimming the specifications played a role here. It appears such a device shouldn’t exist. If it could deliver gigabit speeds, it would probably cost only a few dollars more than similar models. I returned it, but I’m leaving this note to warn others against buying this router.
The product functions well. Many users lack 100mbit internet since most plans offer only 50mbps or less, so it should still work for them. Whether it's truly AC Wi-Fi depends on testing actual data transfers between two Wi-Fi devices.
It’s clear you have some strong points about the product. The advertised specs don’t match what you saw on the TP link site, and a more advanced router with gigabit WAN is only marginally pricier. Your view on internet speeds is valid too—many areas still struggle with reliable connections, and you’re right that better options exist nearby. I wouldn’t recommend this router due to the misleading information, even if speeds are modest; there are definitely cheaper alternatives in the same range.
Haha, right. I’m also in the US, and based on what you mentioned, it seems like you’re probably near a bigger city.
WiFi performance promises are often overstated, as actual speeds depend on theoretical limits rather than real-life usage. Second, the wan port can slow things down significantly—only noticeable when connected to a high-speed internet connection (>100mbit), which isn’t typical in most regions. Third, this device might suit certain users; for instance, someone with a low wan connection but heavy LAN/WLAN use and a NAS for legal BluRay rips could benefit. Ultimately, making an informed decision depends on understanding the product’s capabilities and your specific needs.
I’m not very near a city, but I’m still within reach. Being on the west coast means I’m familiar with the area’s strong internet connections compared to other places.
I've never visited the United States, but I understand that internet access can be very limited in certain remote regions. The motivation behind Google's effort to offer cheaper internet via balloons and the numerous low-Earth orbit satellites from SpaceX is clear.
The listing mentions a WAN port at only 10/100 Mbps on one side of the device, which is clearly stated in the title as well. This isn’t something TP-Link is trying to conceal. It seems they didn’t make it more obvious. Were you hoping for a prominent warning? Those wireless speeds usually match the LAN speeds, just like the LAN ports reflect LAN performance. Even though my TP-Link Archer A6 has a 1 Gbps WAN port, that doesn’t guarantee a 1 Gbps internet connection. It remains at around 50 Mbps whether you’re using wired or wireless connections. In most everyday situations across the US, there’s no noticeable gap. FastMetrics data shows no state averages above 100 Mbps—Virginia tops the list at 76 Mbps. The 10/100 LAN ports are frustrating because they restrict LAN speeds to wired devices, which is typically ideal for heavy transfers, but if your setup is mostly wireless and your internet stays under 100 Mbps, this product works just fine.
Absolutely understood. I see no issues if they clearly mention the limited speed instead of being transparent. Perhaps my concern is with Amazon or the seller who put up the listing, since the product description doesn’t specify the actual WAN capabilities and the graphics suggest a higher external connection speed than 100 Mbps. Thanks for bringing this to light.
Only a small portion of the network is connected via LAN, while some routers offer gigabit WAN with limited LAN speed. It’s important to do proper research before purchasing, as this responsibility lies with me. A less experienced person might struggle to understand it fully.