Performance Testing

This section will continue to evolve and change depending on how it is received and whether I manage to get our hands on some useful tools that will help better measure the performance of routers and other Wi-Fi systems in general. As it stands today, a combination of the excellent, freely available iPerf3 on my Win 10 desktop PC, my laptop, and even an iPerf3 Android app was used to measure throughput for the Nighthawk M5, with a ruler or tape measuring the distance from it and a Wi-Fi analyzer using my phone's or laptop's Wi-Fi antenna and connection to measure signal attenuation as I moved from right on top of the router to further and further away inside my residence. Please note that signal attenuation depends heavily on a number of factors apart from just distance, including any physical barriers and other devices operating in the bands (2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, etc). With a common test location, the variable being tested is the router and Wi-Fi itself, and it would as such be valid to compare results to other products tested thus.


The mobile nature of the Nighthawk M5 means performance of the modem and WiFi antennas depends a lot on whether it is in battery saver mode, performance mode, or even charging and connected to AC mains. The chart above shows how the antennas cope with clients connected at various distances in two extreme cases. The client was positioned at varying distances in a 3D space, with the shortest distance measurement taken between the two. Given the nature of the supported bands, this test was conducted for Wireless N at 2.4 GHz and Wireless AX (WiFi 6) at 5 GHz to best replicate end-user applications. Note the different scales on the Y-axis, which shows that signal loss is heavier for the 5 GHz network than the 2.4 GHz network and is as expected. There is a minor decrease in signal strength in both cases as you move only slightly away from the router, and signal strength drops more drastically the further away, even more so in battery saver mode. Note that I added a data point with a drywall—typical in many modern residences today—between both devices. If your residence has walls out of brick or wood, signal loss will likely be higher, so you may want to position the router in your primary hub of activity—a home office or living room, for instance.


By removing the actual internet speed variable from the equation, a TCP throughput test done at these same spots from the router paints a more useful story, while also helping with a comparison of those numbers across test residences by having the X-axis as the signal's attenuation instead of distance from the router. This is a weird test for the Nighthawk M5 since it is rated for a maximum of 1.8 Gbps downlink, but those are ideal numbers based on band aggregation, let alone the usual sum of individual WiFi band throughput, and extremely carrier dependent. It is also less than the equivalent for the older Nighthawk M2 that is also limited to Wireless AC, so Nighthawk M5 throughput is "nerfed" comparatively. Given it's not designed with pure performance in mind, and in the interest of the limited time on the nano SIM card, I tested the Nighthawk M5 in its more typical scenario of portability in default battery mode. A quick test revealed that performance mode was not changing throughput at a given attenuation anyway; performance mode is more beneficial with a stronger signal transmission from the router, and consumes more battery life. The slowest server—router in this case—and client will dictate overall traffic speed as well, and here, the maximum downlink throughput was 201, 725, and 1041 Mbps for Wireless N at 2.4 GHz, Wireless AC at 5 GHz, and Wireless AX (WiFi 6) at 5 GHz respectively. Values remained close to the maximum for a while, especially on the 2.4 GHz Wireless N network, following which a large drop down to, respectively, 45, 112, and 165 Mbps occurred. Uplink speeds are merely offset by 5–8 dB more attenuation, so they are not reported separately. As such, we clearly see how the form factor and portable nature of the Nighthawk M5 compromises performance as a home router—it definitely should not be bought for use as one.


Here is where all the data above comes together for comparisons, and I chose a distance of 5 m from the router and charted the throughput from various routers on wireless N at 2.4 GHz and wireless AC and AX where applicable on the 5 GHz band. As such, note the four WiFi 6 products showing up twice in the second chart, which shows that NETGEAR has made it so that those who are not stepping up to WiFi 6 clients will be better served with the older, less expensive Nighthawk M2 mobile router. That's disappointing, but you are getting the Nighthawk M5 for WiFi 6 and 5 G support, with the latter showing significant improvement in those areas. It's still going have the dubious honor of the lowest numbers in each class, but does give you stronger signal strength than the other mobile router and a higher valid throughput in ideal scenarios. In the future, as and when more entries come in, I will separate the wireless AX comparisons into a third chart.


The power-draw comparison chart identifies whether specific routers are vastly different from others, which turns out to be the case here. A Brand Electronics 4-1850 power meter was put between the power adapter for the router unit and, subsequently, any satellite units and wall socket as applicable. Simple Kill-A-Watt units are good for basic checks, but not reliable enough for tests in my opinion. Each product was set up for a minimum of 24 hours of use across multiple days, and power consumption was averaged across a period of idle (inactivity at night) and normal operation (during the day). Note that the Nighthawk M2 and Nighthawk M5 have different battery modes, including a battery-only operation, which does throw things off somewhat. Regardless, it's evident that this is a mobile router first and foremost with portability and day trips in mind, consuming far less power when charging and even less on the battery, though it does support quick charging if needed in an emergency. Battery life is on the order of 10–13 hours depending on usage and settings, and charging takes about 3–4 hours.


The results thus far have all focused on how the router performs when isolated from the source of internet, which is the best way to test such a unit. However, we saw above how you can easily get better-performing home WiFi solutions, so the primary reason to go with the Nighthawk M5 mobile router is if you want a portable hotspot you can take with you to, say, a hotel, or camping. Realistically, there are better reasons in many parts of the world where wired connectivity is still woefully lacking. In the UK, for example, there are still a good number of households without a fully fiber-wired connection, and many more yet are making do with download speeds that barely hit 2 Mbps, let alone the 24 Mbps the UK defines as super-fast broadband. There is the goal of full fiber to every household by 2025, which I doubt will happen. I have been lucky to live in large cities all my adult life, so figuring out that as much as 14% of Western Europe and more in the US have it worse was an eye-opener.


This is why all those throughput results matter for little on mobile routers without testing the actual internet source first, which is where the Nighthawk M5 leaves a compelling impression. WiFi performance with the same nano SIM card, tested on the same day on a WiFi 6 client at the same distance from all the routers not only shows my poor wired internet connection compared to many other regions, but also why these mobile routers are getting so popular, especially in Europe, where 5G networks are fairly reliable in most towns and cities and unlimited data plans are very reasonably priced. In fact, I can see a future for myself where I have such a device feeding into a switch or stronger WiFi system through the Gigabit Ethernet port—that we don't get, say, 2.5 Gigabit Ethernet on mobile devices is not a big deal.