The Best Routers 2018

[Julio Franco]

The need for a quality router has never been greater. In today’s connected world, virtually every household is packed with phones, computers, smart TVs, and many other devices, all fighting for bandwidth. It's a common scenario that the router that’s handed out by your ISP is average at best. If you want a router that offers better throughput, range, and features, check out our top picks.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/bestof/routers/

 

[fktech]

Recommendations for 8 port hub / switch to go along with the Asus ROG Rapture GT-AC5300???

 

[Squid Surprise]

Recommendations for 8 port hub / switch to go along with the Asus ROG Rapture GT-AC5300???

It has an 8 port hub/switch built in....

I'm interested in finding out how for best router, you gave honourable mention to the Netgear X6.... but nothing for the X10, wich is clearly a superior option...

It's selling for about $380 on Amazon now, which is cheaper than the Asus model... Is there something we should know?

 

[AIC1Drew]

Still rockin the Linksys E3000

 

[Capaill]

"while anything not dedicated to that most important of pastimes"
Respect.

 

[GreenNova343]

So...really? The "Best Router for Most People" category is pushing a $140 router? Sorry, but despite my love of gaming, my primary Internet usage falls under this category, yet I do not need most of the features on this router:

-- 600Mbps (2.4GHz band) or even 1500Mbps (5GHz band)? Sorry, but I'm going to run out of Internet speed (100Mbps connection from Spectrum) well before my WiFi devices hit that threshold. And the most bandwidth-using purpose any of my devices have is watching Netflix or Amazon Video (Roku stick/box). I don't transfer files in between our tablet/smartphones, our laptops, & our main desktop PC...& wireless printing (when we use it) to our inkjet doesn't come close to using the bandwidth.
-- Range? Seriously? Yeah, I understand that my 960 square foot house might be considered a bit on the slow side, but when they built it back in the 1950s they put a lot of metal inside -- metal reinforcing wires in the walls, all of the original interior doors are metal, etc. -- so a little stronger of a signal can be nice. But our current router gives me 2 out of 3 bars on my smartphone out to the detached garage (about 50-60 feet from the router), so I don't need more range than I already have. And neither do most people.

If anything, that Archer C7 would have been a better pick as the "router for most people"...because most people aren't going to be comfortable spending that much money for a router just so that they can avoid using their smartphone data plans at home.

 

[peas]

The Asus RT-AC68U does NOT have very good range. I bought it based off of recommendations, but it consistently underperformed cheap routers with internal antennas. I tested the stock antennas as well as larger 7 dBi antennas.

The best sub-$100 router I've found is the Linksys WRT1200ac. Great range even with the stubby stock antennas, and amazing range with larger high dBi antennas. Its bigger brother WRT1900ac is pricier, has more antennas, but range is comparable. The WRT1900ac seems to handle more devices at once, but for most homes that's not an issue. I also love that the WRT1200ac runs OpenWRT (aka LEDE) with no fuss.

For the super budget conscious, the TP-Link C1200 has amazing 5 GHz range. Its firmware is stable and fast. No OpenWRT support unfortunately, but it's rock solid so no need to modify it for the casual user.

 

[Slappy McPhee]

So...really? The "Best Router for Most People" category is pushing a $140 router? Sorry, but despite my love of gaming, my primary Internet usage falls under this category, yet I do not need most of the features on this router:

-- 600Mbps (2.4GHz band) or even 1500Mbps (5GHz band)? Sorry, but I'm going to run out of Internet speed (100Mbps connection from Spectrum) well before my WiFi devices hit that threshold. And the most bandwidth-using purpose any of my devices have is watching Netflix or Amazon Video (Roku stick/box). I don't transfer files in between our tablet/smartphones, our laptops, & our main desktop PC...& wireless printing (when we use it) to our inkjet doesn't come close to using the bandwidth.
-- Range? Seriously? Yeah, I understand that my 960 square foot house might be considered a bit on the slow side, but when they built it back in the 1950s they put a lot of metal inside -- metal reinforcing wires in the walls, all of the original interior doors are metal, etc. -- so a little stronger of a signal can be nice. But our current router gives me 2 out of 3 bars on my smartphone out to the detached garage (about 50-60 feet from the router), so I don't need more range than I already have. And neither do most people.

If anything, that Archer C7 would have been a better pick as the "router for most people"...because most people aren't going to be comfortable spending that much money for a router just so that they can avoid using their smartphone data plans at home.

Sorry to hear that you have a paltry 100MB link for your place. the bulk of the population out there now has at least 200+ if they have broadband and then there are those like me who have 1GB fiber to the door. You apparently do not understand the dynamics of wireless signal, backplane throughput, or other items that affect speed. It isn't only about what is exterior to your little bubble, but what is inside as well. Speed of a link and the actual throughput can be easily affected as well by the quality of the components used and also the software. I personally moved away from a consumer based offering years ago and have not looked back. Not having to worry about a vendor updating their firmware possibly breaking things or causing the damned box to have to be rebooted every week or couple weeks. When someone asks me what to do I simply tell them go with a pfsense box and a dedicated access point like the ones from Ubiquiti. Good luck getting solid support from TP-Link. I have used their various products as well as having to support friends that have them for years. If you want cheap and possibly the hassle of randomly needing to reboot, etc then go for it. You want solid, reliable, and well supported products for years to come then not so much.

Also why in the heck are you complaining anyway? They have provided solutions in the 3 major price points for people that want to spend up to $100, up to $200, and then the top end. Geesh.

 

[jimmy.j]

Would not the most important feature being upgraded security with most recent patches being push capable. Many or most of our routers have security flaws as you have published and patches are not coming fast enough. How do any or these rate on open port patches and other security flaws?

 

[Slappy McPhee]

The Asus RT-AC68U does NOT have very good range. I bought it based off of recommendations, but it consistently underperformed cheap routers with internal antennas. I tested the stock antennas as well as larger 7 dBi antennas.

The best sub-$100 router I've found is the Linksys WRT1200ac. Great range even with the stubby stock antennas, and amazing range with larger high dBi antennas. Its bigger brother WRT1900ac is pricier, has more antennas, but range is comparable. The WRT1900ac seems to handle more devices at once, but for most homes that's not an issue. I also love that the WRT1200ac runs OpenWRT (aka LEDE) with no fuss.

For the super budget conscious, the TP-Link C1200 has amazing 5 GHz range. Its firmware is stable and fast. No OpenWRT support unfortunately, but it's rock solid so no need to modify it for the casual user.

I can tell you that the 68R runs VERY well. The only reason why I abandoned it was for a better scheduling experience for our son and the fact that consumer grade devices are substandard compared to something like a pfsense build and dedicated access point. I bought my 68R when it launched back in I believe 2013 and sold it a few weeks ago for $100 still. I had been keeping it around for a rainy day if my pfsense build took a dump, but it has been tremendously solid. I would agree that your suggests are good ones if you are a fan of Linksys (I am not especially due to seeming to have to reboot too often), but just felt that I should comment about my experiences with the 68 line.

 

[Mike89]

To hell with high prices I say. For the cheapskate like me, I'm banging on the single band Asus RT-N12. I got it a year ago on Amazon when it was on sale for $20. My cellphone and tablets can't tell the difference. I'm using the wi-fi part of it with up to 4 or 5 cellphones, a couple of tablets and a laptop. Use it also wired to accommodate a couple of computers spread around my house. This thing never breaks a sweat. Not going to spend money on features I don't need.

 

[havok585]

Best router on price/performance ration that I've seen is C2 from tp-link, some peeps here dont know what they are smokin' about, I had them all, cisco, netgear, linksys, thomson, huwei, and I stopped at a measly $40 tplink after I got 1Gb fiber, didnt need anything more! ( sure I could go for an extremely expensive Asus for $ 400 that does the same thing as a router 10 times cheaper! the only difference being some features that regular folks will never use.

 

[regiq]

Would not the most important feature being upgraded security with most recent patches being push capable. Many or most of our routers have security flaws as you have published and patches are not coming fast enough. How do any or these rate on open port patches and other security flaws?

I wanted to ask the same... Which makes have the best support/updates for the longest time?

 

[infiltrator]

What really annoys me about these manufactures is the fact, that they never launch an adapter capable of matching those throughputs. They engineer all these expensive high end WiFi routers, but can't even engineer an WiFi adapter capable of taking advantage of those speeds.

Don't get me wrong, I love having super fast, high end wifi routers, but what good will they be, if there's no way for me to take advantage of those speeds?

 

[tipstir]

When you review routers leave them on 24/7 either place a temp probe on them or use a temp gun meter and see what temp is in F or C. Report that on your next review. That's more important too me. Because if the router gets to hot it will not perform as well as you think. Quad core more RAM all that adds up to more head. Keeping these routers chilled would make more sense. I know the 1900AC or better does give you better rate if your still on 802.11n. 450/450 dual band 2.4GHz/5GHz 802.11n

 

[STbob]

I am frightened to buy Asus. I bought a tablet and their update corrupted the machine and they could not would not help me with the tablet so I am left with a tablet that they damaged and could not/would not compensate me with.

I would never recommend Assus to anyone. their name gives them away: *** us!

The Asus RT 66U or the 1900, AC68 are the best routers for the money. I have 5 of them and zero issues. They just work, you don't have to fiddle with them. Put in Merlin Firmware and they are even better.

Remember this is about Routers not some other non related Asus product. Get it? You may have been wronged about another Asus product and all shook up about it but that is not a router. Different product.

The USB 3.0 HD ports are sort of a joke though, they don't give full speed. You can get the 1900 used for like 50.00.

 

[regiq]

You can always build your own PC based router:
https://www.pfsense.org/
https://www.ipfire.org/

Pretty satisfying.

 

[Deathcall666]

Netgear X10 is the best gaming router money can buy , not that 8 antena overpriced Asus. The X10 is one of the few routers to come with the AD standard , which is much better and stable than AC.

 

[Musician]

Orbi’s working well for me for close to a year now. It’s probably one of the few pieces of tech that requires very little attention in my house. Setup and forget.

 

[Nobina]

Make sure to buy gaming desk lamp and gaming speakers next to that gaming router.

 

[dirtyferret]

Make sure to buy gaming desk lamp and gaming speakers next to that gaming router.

I have a gaming eXtreme Cat 6 Ethernet cable with RGB lighting that upscales my throughput by 50% making my gaming router (built with military grade parts) faster then anyone's here.

On a side note I mostly use Asus AC66u B1 (identical hardware as the Asus AC68U) and Netgear R6700v3 routers (broadband based) and strongly recommend them. I've used the AC68U and found the 66U and Netgear r6700 offer the same or better results depending on radio frequency in use.

Also if you have an old N or AC router, just get powerline adapters and put the old router in AP mode. You create a mesh network with a better back haul then anything out there.

 

[BrianMontanye]

So...really? The "Best Router for Most People" category is pushing a $140 router? Sorry, but despite my love of gaming, my primary Internet usage falls under this category, yet I do not need most of the features on this router:

-- 600Mbps (2.4GHz band) or even 1500Mbps (5GHz band)? Sorry, but I'm going to run out of Internet speed (100Mbps connection from Spectrum) well before my WiFi devices hit that threshold. And the most bandwidth-using purpose any of my devices have is watching Netflix or Amazon Video (Roku stick/box). I don't transfer files in between our tablet/smartphones, our laptops, & our main desktop PC...& wireless printing (when we use it) to our inkjet doesn't come close to using the bandwidth.
-- Range? Seriously? Yeah, I understand that my 960 square foot house might be considered a bit on the slow side, but when they built it back in the 1950s they put a lot of metal inside -- metal reinforcing wires in the walls, all of the original interior doors are metal, etc. -- so a little stronger of a signal can be nice. But our current router gives me 2 out of 3 bars on my smartphone out to the detached garage (about 50-60 feet from the router), so I don't need more range than I already have. And neither do most people.

If anything, that Archer C7 would have been a better pick as the "router for most people"...because most people aren't going to be comfortable spending that much money for a router just so that they can avoid using their smartphone data plans at home.

I would think you just described your usage as not the same as "most people". I think a lot more people use the features you are scoffing at than you think. You could have skipped that whole TLDR bit by just saying " I guess it's not for me".

 

[MaXtor]

I got fed up of having random issues over the years with every store bought router I've owned, cheap ones to expensive ones. They're all basically very low powered computers, they run low on memory or max out processing power very easily with my 1gbps internet connection. So late last year I bought a mini pc from AliExpress, I installed Untangle on it, and I've been super happy since. It can probably handle over a hundred devices, I only have (I think) 12. Mind you most of my home is hooked up via 1gbps ethernet, and my previous router is setup as the wireless hub.

 

[Dosahka]

So...really? The "Best Router for Most People" category is pushing a $140 router? Sorry, but despite my love of gaming, my primary Internet usage falls under this category, yet I do not need most of the features on this router:

-- 600Mbps (2.4GHz band) or even 1500Mbps (5GHz band)? Sorry, but I'm going to run out of Internet speed (100Mbps connection from Spectrum) well before my WiFi devices hit that threshold. And the most bandwidth-using purpose any of my devices have is watching Netflix or Amazon Video (Roku stick/box). I don't transfer files in between our tablet/smartphones, our laptops, & our main desktop PC...& wireless printing (when we use it) to our inkjet doesn't come close to using the bandwidth.
-- Range? Seriously? Yeah, I understand that my 960 square foot house might be considered a bit on the slow side, but when they built it back in the 1950s they put a lot of metal inside -- metal reinforcing wires in the walls, all of the original interior doors are metal, etc. -- so a little stronger of a signal can be nice. But our current router gives me 2 out of 3 bars on my smartphone out to the detached garage (about 50-60 feet from the router), so I don't need more range than I already have. And neither do most people.

If anything, that Archer C7 would have been a better pick as the "router for most people"...because most people aren't going to be comfortable spending that much money for a router just so that they can avoid using their smartphone data plans at home.

Sorry to hear that you have a paltry 100MB link for your place. the bulk of the population out there now has at least 200+ if they have broadband and then there are those like me who have 1GB fiber to the door. You apparently do not understand the dynamics of wireless signal, backplane throughput, or other items that affect speed. It isn't only about what is exterior to your little bubble, but what is inside as well. Speed of a link and the actual throughput can be easily affected as well by the quality of the components used and also the software. I personally moved away from a consumer based offering years ago and have not looked back. Not having to worry about a vendor updating their firmware possibly breaking things or causing the damned box to have to be rebooted every week or couple weeks. When someone asks me what to do I simply tell them go with a pfsense box and a dedicated access point like the ones from Ubiquiti. Good luck getting solid support from TP-Link. I have used their various products as well as having to support friends that have them for years. If you want cheap and possibly the hassle of randomly needing to reboot, etc then go for it. You want solid, reliable, and well supported products for years to come then not so much.

Also why in the heck are you complaining anyway? They have provided solutions in the 3 major price points for people that want to spend up to $100, up to $200, and then the top end. Geesh.

+1 on the Ubi, since I installed one AP AC Pro Wave 2, my next door neighbours complaining that their smart devices can't connect to their wifi even from 10 feet and I'm just standing there playing dumb and acknowledging their words about one particular wifi (which actually has the same name as the Virgin Media default SSID)...and laughing inside me that it's my AP which stomping on your £30 router.

Just to confirm, there is no such thing as 'Gaming over wifi'.

 

[GreenNova343]

So...really? The "Best Router for Most People" category is pushing a $140 router? Sorry, but despite my love of gaming, my primary Internet usage falls under this category, yet I do not need most of the features on this router:

-- 600Mbps (2.4GHz band) or even 1500Mbps (5GHz band)? Sorry, but I'm going to run out of Internet speed (100Mbps connection from Spectrum) well before my WiFi devices hit that threshold. And the most bandwidth-using purpose any of my devices have is watching Netflix or Amazon Video (Roku stick/box). I don't transfer files in between our tablet/smartphones, our laptops, & our main desktop PC...& wireless printing (when we use it) to our inkjet doesn't come close to using the bandwidth.
-- Range? Seriously? Yeah, I understand that my 960 square foot house might be considered a bit on the slow side, but when they built it back in the 1950s they put a lot of metal inside -- metal reinforcing wires in the walls, all of the original interior doors are metal, etc. -- so a little stronger of a signal can be nice. But our current router gives me 2 out of 3 bars on my smartphone out to the detached garage (about 50-60 feet from the router), so I don't need more range than I already have. And neither do most people.

If anything, that Archer C7 would have been a better pick as the "router for most people"...because most people aren't going to be comfortable spending that much money for a router just so that they can avoid using their smartphone data plans at home.

I would think you just described your usage as not the same as "most people". I think a lot more people use the features you are scoffing at than you think. You could have skipped that whole TLDR bit by just saying " I guess it's not for me".

Actually, in my circle of friends, family, & acquaintances, I am the one most likely to be downloading large files from the Internet, needing low pings for online gaming, or any of the other uses I mentioned where I would "need" a faster ISP to match the faster speeds of this router.

And no, streaming Netflix/Amazon Prime doesn't require a lot of bandwidth. Even with 4 devices connected, a 100Mbps connection has more than enough bandwidth for everyone to be streaming simultaneously. So, no, when even many gamers don't need Gigabit speeds, you're going to see that the vast majority of consumers don't need it either. So these are niche routers for niche users...not routers for mainstream users.