Cloud backup services are the OG of online storage. Long before internet bandwidth allowed you to work online, there were services dedicated to providing that all-important third copy in the backup triad: the original data, a copy of the data, and a copy of the data in a remote location. The hallmark of these services are client apps that upload (and restore if necessary) data to from the remote server farm.

Most people are already using a cloud backup service, though they may not think of it that way. Google Drive, iCloud, and OneDrive all serve as backup repositories for Android, Apple, and Microsoft products, respectively. Even if you don’t use them, they’re there.

What we look for in cloud backup services

Our basic goal when reviewing a cloud backup service is to determine its suitability to the task, ease of use, and compatibility across platforms. As to what specific criteria we apply….

Backup and sync

All services we classify as cloud backup provide local apps that handle the backup chore, often one-way sync. If they don’t, we cover them under the umbrella of online storage.

Versioning and retention policies

If a cloud backup service offers one-way sync for backup, it should be keeping older versions of changed files. How many, and for how long can be a major factor in our rating — it’s not always forever.

Capacity

Obviously, you want the most room you can get for your data, depending on the size of your stash of course. However, users such as yours truly, working with large multimedia files, may need a lot more. For instance, the unlimited storage offered by Backblaze and Sync.com. We look for tiers that will suit any data scenario, which brings the discussion to…

Price

We could’ve listed price as number one given that how much you pay for the amount of space you need factors heavily into our ratings. All things being equal, the cheaper the gigabyte (free being the best!), the higher the rating. Things are not always equal.

Online editing

Storage services such as OneDrive/Microsoft 365 and Google Drive/Docs offer full-blown office suites that allow users to work online. We’re not expecting that from a dedicated cloud backup provider, but it’s nice when it occurs.

Online preview

With services that offer limited or no online editing, there’s usually a preview feature. How many file types are supported, and how well they display (video is often problematic) is something we check.

Operating system integration

Carbonite‘s client with its Windows Explorer integration is one of our favorite cloud backup clients. So much so, we wish it could be used with other storage and services. We don’t count clients such as Dropbox, Google Drive, OneDrive, iCloud etc. that integrate as folders or drives, but don’t provide dedicated backup functions.

Of course you can still use these storage services for backup, but only by moving your data onto the integrated folder or drive. The distinction is fine, but you can find coverage of these services in our online storage reviews.

Further reading: Best online backup services

Geographical location and redundancy

Where a cloud backup service’s storage farms are located can effect the speed of transfers. As the internet infrastructure has matured, this is less of an issue than it once was, but it can still occasionally be a bottleneck. We also award brownie points to services that have several farms in different geographical locations to ward off data loss due to natural or unnatural disaster.

Company history and story

A company that’s been around for a while is more likely to garner our trust than one that just started. That said, some newer concerns actually leverage storage from older companies such as Dell EMC — much as smaller cellular companies use larger companies’ wireless infrastructure. Basically, we check to make sure a company isn’t likely to disappear overnight, along with your data.

Device support

With so many photos and video found on phones these days, it’s a plus if a service provides an app that will back up your phone multimedia to its servers. This isn’t a huge deal as Google Drive is integrated into Android, and iCloud into iPhones, but it’s a nice perk.

Web access

When it comes to computers, nearly all cloud backup services allow you to access your files via a web browser. If they don’t, that’s a major hit on the rating. That said, we’ve yet to come across one that doesn’t offer this functionality.

Integration with other online storage services

At least one service, FileShadow, will even connect to and back up your other online storage accounts. This is a definite plus, and generally quicker than using a cloud manager to copy from one service to another.

Further reading: 5 tools that integrate your cloud storage into Windows File Explorer

How we test cloud backup services

During our evaluation, we test every feature a service provides: upload, downloads, sync, backup, restore, editing of files, preview of files, client software and apps, file retention, the web interface, etc. If it all works, it passes muster. However, ease of learning and use are also factored in.

As to speed….Generally speaking, we’re not overly concerned with performance. There are simply too many variables that can impact each user’s speed experience, such as the quality of the internet infrastructure between a user’s device and the service. We do note performance and discuss it, we just don’t put a lot of weight behind it unless something unusually great or bad happens.

How we rate cloud backup services

How many of the above boxes a service ticks, plus its ease of use, reliability, and performance are the primary considerations in rating a cloud backup solution. Price is always paramount as in terms of backup, all the services we’ve tested to date handle that chore just fine.

Best Prices Today: NTI Backup Pro 7

NTI Backup Pro 7 is what one might refer to as the whole enchilada. It offers file backup, imaging/drive backup, continuous backup as well online backup to NTI Cloud (powered by Microsoft Azure). It backs up to and from networks, and is one of the rare backup programs that supports optical discs.

I was psyched at the feature list and assumed that in the 10 years since I last visited NTI’s flagship backup program, it would be finely honed and bullet-proof. In the end, everything worked as advertised, but there were glitches of various types.

Further reading: See our roundup of the best backup software to learn about competing products.

What are NTI Backup Pro 7’s features?

As I mentioned, NTI Backup Now Pro 7 offers file and folder backup, drive and partition image backup, continuous backup, and cloud backup. Continuous backup is file and folder backup where changes are backed up as they occur. Cloud backup is also file and folder backup, but to NTI’s online storage.

The plain file/folder, image, and online backups are stored in proprietary container files (single large files with all the data contained inside), while the continuous backup is a browsable plain file backup. i.e., files are copied as you would using Windows Explorer. Older revisions of files are kept in a separate folder.

The Backup Now Pro 7 interface is very straightforward, though unlike the EZ version, there’s no hand-holding when it comes to selecting data to back up. No biggie, but it could be just a tad friendlier.

The just-mentioned NTI EZ Backup Now 7.5 (which is $10 less per license) has a slightly more intuitive workflow, though the interface is not one of the prettiest. It lacks the Pro version’s continuous backup, but is otherwise roughly feature equivalent.

Back to Pro… There’s granular scheduling (in addition to the continuous, of course) available, as well incremental backups to save space, and automatic maintenance of destination storage by purging older files when necessary. Encryption and password protection are also provided.

An NTI Backup Now Pro 7 feature that I absolutely love is the ability to choose multiple local destinations (a secondary internal drive plus external drive, etc.) for a backup job. It would be nice if you could combine local with network locations and the NTI Cloud, but hey, it’s a start

And yes, the program will back up both to and from network locations. As well as to FTP. And, as mentioned up top, Backup Now Pro 7 even supports optical discs.

How much does NTI Backup Pro 7 cost?

At the time of this writing NTI Backup Now Pro 7 was on sale for $40, down from the normal $60 retail price. The EZ version without the continuous backup was $30, $20 off of full list. The continuous backup-only NTI Shadow program is also $30 on sale.

NTI Cloud (required for cloud backup) is free for one-month of 16GB, $5 a month for 32GB, $10 monthly for 64GB, $20 a month for 128GB, $40 per month for 256GB, $100 a month for 640GB, and $200 a month for 2TB. My OneDrive subscription is $70 per year for 1TB and includes Office 365.

The math is rather obvious, but OneDrive is less than anything but NTI’s 16GB plan. Google Drive offers 15GB for free. Spelling it out, the NTI Cloud is very pricey and as it’s the only online storage supported, that feature is considerably less attractive than it might be.

Note that you can use just about any backup program with nearly any online storage service by employing a cloud storage manager.

How well does NTI Backup Pro 7 perform?

I ran into issues with NTI Backup Pro 7 right off the bat, with the interface scaling incorrectly on my 4K display. It took a trip to the program file’s Properties/Compatibility/Change DPI settings to select “Program DPI” before the text and icons were large enough that I could use the program. There was more visual sloppiness in spots, which always gives me pause when it comes to software.

The program was also slothful at presenting files and folders. Seemingly, it doesn’t query the file system pre-emptively as is common practice. While all these idiosyncrasies may seem picayune, they add up, and do nothing to reassure me that the actual backup functionality will be bullet proof. As it turned out…

While file/folder and continuous backups to local media went off without unusual glitches, imaging proved an issue — as it turns out, because we remote control the test beds using Microsoft Remote Desktop. Backup Now Pro 7 didn’t like this, cancelling every image job before it was five seconds old.

After over a week of back and forth, and hours of troubleshooting, NTI explained this as a security “feature.” However, the logic behind it escapes me, and it’s hard to consider it a feature when no other program exhibits the same behavior. R-Drive Image, Acronis Cyber Security Home Office, Aomei Backupper, Macrium Reflect Home all backed up without a fuss.

I checked NTI’s EZ Backup Now 7.5 (see above) to see if it suffered the same ‘feature,” and while it failed initially, on the the second try it imaged a partition correctly. Apparently, a partial implementation of said “feature.”

Another annoyance was that choosing to stop a 7GB cloud backup job at 30 percent didn’t stop the backup. I waited a full 10 minutes, then killed the process to cancel the job. Perhaps I was impatient, or perhaps the stop request wouldn’t have been processed until the current 7GB container file was completed — i.e., at 100 percent.

A smaller online backup of the documents, desktop, and downloads folders proceeded without incident, as I’m sure the larger one would have too, if I hadn’t needed to cancel.

On another positive note, creating a recovery disc went without a hitch and booted on both test beds. Restoring the image I was finally able to create was successful as well.

Should you buy NTI Backup Pro 7?

In the end, NTI Backup Pro 7 worked as advertised, but the annoyances I encountered and the super-high cost of the cloud storage left me not completely enthusiastic about the program. Give it a spin and see if it’s right for you, but do the same for the competition.

How I test software

All software is installed on an AMD Ryzen 3700X system utilizing an MSI MEG X570 motherboard with 64GB of Kingston DDR4 memory, and several PCIe 4 NVMe SSDs. The operating system is Windows 11 21H2, to which only security updates are applied to maintain a level playing field over time. The test bed is largely kept off the Internet unless testing the software demands it. All pertinent features are tested and the program rated for stability, suitability to task, ease of use, and feature set.

Should issues arise, all possibly conflicting applications are uninstalled, and if that doesn’t fix the problem, Windows is reinstalled. And as off this writing, controlling the test bed remotely will be checked.

Modern external computer data storage technologies (DAS, or Direct Attached Storage) run the gamut from USB hard drives, to optical discs (yes, still), to USB thumb drives, to the latest, greatest NVMe SSDs in high-speed Thunderbolt or USB 4 enclosures.

PCWorld has been reviewing external storage since the 1980s and the era of floppy drives, though these days we stick with SSDs and the occasional hard drive. Everything else seems, well… quaint. Not to mention, drearily slow.

What does PCWorld look for in an external storage device?

Capacity

Generally speaking, more capacity is better, but determining capacity takes no effort on our part — it’s generally written plainly on the box. Capacity by itself doesn’t score a lot of points unless it’s a jump from the norm, however…

Price

…the cost per gigabyte counts heavily in our evaluations. That said, the star rating is weighted more toward the quality of the product, not how much it costs. But all things being equal, the cost per gigabyte can tip the scales.

Performance

Basic performance obviously depends on the technology involved: HDDs, SSDs, USB, Thunderbolt, etc… We run benchmarks and perform real-world operations to determine its speed relative to others of the same ilk. Performance relative to a device’s peers as well as in the grand scheme counts greatly in the final rating. There’s far more granular info on our testing methodology and consideration below.

Durability

Of course, speed is nothing if a device gives up the ghost in six months. HDD failure has become progressively rarer since the bad old days when up to 15 percent of hard drives failed per year. Early SSDs also had their issues, but the only problem we’ve heard of recently was with the SanDisk Extreme Pro line. Every SSD we’ve tested is still going strong, as are all the hard drives from the last five years or so.

That said, SSDs are still a relatively young technology, and NAND blocks/cells can only be written to so many times. We make special note of the TBW ratings for SSDs. That’s an acronym for terabytes written, or the number of terabytes that may be written before a drive runs out of replacements (overprovisioning) for worn-out cell blocks.

MTBF (mean time before failure) ratings for HDDs are a guess at best, and rarely accurate or provable, so we generally don’t pay attention them.

Seagate Ultra Touch HDD

Seagate Ultra Touch HDD

Seagate Ultra Touch HDD

Given the limited time we have between testing and publication, 100 percent accuracy on long-term reliability is impossible. We keep our test units in service, but it can take years for a problem to crop up.

One thing we can check is how well an external device sheds heat — the general enemy of electronics. If the temperature of an SSD gets too high, the controller will slow down/throttle operations to reduce said temperature to avoid damage to the components.

We also check the quality of construction and the materials used. With SSDs, shock mounting and shock resistant silicone covers are plusses, but with HDDs they’re an absolute must.

Many devices are IP rated — i.e., designed and tested to ward off dust and liquids. We’ll always discuss this with any ruggedized device, and it does score brownie points.

Portability

When it comes to portability, smaller is obviously better. Thumb drives are generally the smallest and most portable. Their integrated Type-A or occasionally Type-C connector eliminates the need for an additional USB/Thunderbolt cable or power adapter, which takes up space and which you must remember to bring with you. If a device is designed to be portable, the overall ease of transport is obviously considered.

Jon L. Jacobi

Jon L. Jacobi

Jon L. Jacobi

Devices designed for your desktop might be portable to a degree, but a bit of size and heft is in order. Anyone who’s ever inadvertently sent a small, light drive flying across the table (or room) understands. It’s especially true for 2.5-inch external hard drives, which can’t absorb nearly as many G’s as an SSD. With desktop drives, we also rate such stability — i.e., we check for non-skid feet, etc.

Power requirements

AC adapters are required with 5.25-inch hard drives (still the only way to get more than 8TB in a single unit!), and with very large-capacity USB 3.x SSDs. Single, external 2.5-inch hard drives rarely require an AC adapter; however, some RAID units with more than one drive will. At least non-Thunderbolt types.

Jon L. Jacobi

Jon L. Jacobi

Jon L. Jacobi

Speaking of which, both USB 4 and Thunderbolt deliver more power over their connections than older USB 3.x, which is why you generally won’t need external power unless, as mentioned, there’s more than one drive in the enclosure.

One exception to this is when using Thunderbolt generational adapters (Thunderbolt 2 to Thunderbolt 3/4), which may not pass through power. In that case, external power, or a dock with power, may be required.

How does PCWorld test external storage?

Connectivity/bus speed considerations

Connectivity, i.e. the transport protocol or bus type, is the essential indicator of expected performance and compatibility and obviously the first thing we consider. Highly compatible 5Gbps USB SSDs will max out somewhere south of 500MBps, while also highly compatible 10Gbps USB SSDs top out at around 1GBps.

20Gbps USB 3.2×2 drives can reach 2GBps, but only on the still somewhat-rare 3.2×2 connector or USB 4. But even that’s not a given. While Macs (and many PC Thunderbolt ports) support USB 4 20Gbps, they only support 10Gbps when using USB 3.2×2 SSDs. Why? Don’t know. USB 4 and Thunderbolt 3/4 SSDs can operate at 40Gbps, or around 4GBps.

In USB 4 and Thunderbolt 3’s case, it’s not actually specified that they support anything greater than 20Gbps. Yeah, it’s a mess of a “standard,” but we always test drives on their native bus at their highest possible speed. Note that the Thunderbolt 4 ports on our test bed also support all flavors of USB, including USB 4.

All USB drives are backwards compatible to at least USB 2.0, but they’re always limited to the speed of the bus they’re on.

Generally speaking, though faster is always better, we compare external storage devices with their technology peers: 10Gbps USB to 10Gbps USB, Thunderbolt 3 to Thunderbolt 3, hard drive to hard drive, etc.

Internal technology considerations

The technology inside a device (SATA, NVMe) also has a lot to do with its expected performance. For instance, a SATA SSD will never go much faster than 500MBps even across USB 4 or Thunderbolt 3/4. SATA HDDs rarely top 250MBps (3.5-inch) or 120MBps (2.5-inch).

NVMe on the other hand is fast enough that the bus is a major limiting factor. For example, the fastest internal PCIe 5.0 NVMe SSD we’ve tested clocked almost 15GBps, while the fastest Thunderbolt SSD could muster only 4GBps.

All HDDs to a small degree, and SSDs to a large degree write slower as they fill up so the benchmark numbers we publish are best case. Drive slowdown is why we recommend that you always buy at least twice the SSD capacity that you might think you need. This is not generally necessary with HDDs, but a good idea.

Again we generally compare similar internal technologies in our reviews: SATA vs. SATA, 20Gbps USB vs. 20Gbps USB, etc.

NAND and SSD design considerations

When it comes to testing, SSDs have “special needs.” Mostly because of the way they cache data to achieve and maintain best performance. Primary caching is either done with onboard DRAM, which offers the fastest random performance, or in the case of cheaper Host Memory Buffer (HMB), your device’s system memory. Recent implementations of the latter have turned in startlingly good numbers with sequential transfers.

But the primary cache is generally a relatively small amount. A couple of gigabytes with DRAM and 58/64MB with HMB. Hence SSDs use another method as secondary caching.

A controller can write 3-bit (Triple Level Cell/TCL) or 4-bit NAND at either their native bit depth or, far faster, as on/off 1-bit SLC. This single-bit writing is used for secondary caching. Data is later rewritten at the greater bit depth to reclaim the lost space.

The reason writing at greater bit depths is slower is due to the error-checking required to determine if the correct voltage (one of 8/16 levels with TLC/QLC) was written to a cell, rather than the simple charged/not charged binary of 1-bit SLC.

How vendors handle this secondary caching technique mostly affects performance during very long writes. Some fix the amount of NAND that can be used for secondary caching, while some allocate it dynamically. We often have to rewrite the 450GB file several times, depending on the capacity of the SSD, before the drive will drop to its native 3-bit/4-bit write speed, which can vary anywhere from 150MBps (slow QLC) to nearly 1GBps (faster TLC).

Note that as a drive fills up, performance may suffer as there is less NAND available to allot as secondary cache. We test with empty drives but warn users that performance may degrade over time. It’s also why we recommend that you overbuy in terms of capacity.

Many NMVe SSDs use DRAM for primary caching and some use your computer’s own memory as cache (Host Memory Buffer/HMB). The former greatly improves random performance, while the latter can actually improve sequential performance.

The number of chips on an SSD can also affect performance, as the more chips there are, the more data paths there are to shotgun data over. This is, again, why we warn you in each review that our results apply only to the capacity SSD we tested.

All these factors must be accounted for and inform our modus operandi when it comes to testing SSDs.

Further reading: Best external drives

What tests does PCWorld run to determine how fast an external storage device is?

Benchmarks

NVMe SSDs, as they have matured, have broken the nearly 1:1 ratio of benchmark to real-world transfer performance that existed right up through SATA SSDs — drastically, when it comes to internal SSDs, and to a lesser, but still noticeable extent with bus-constrained external SSDs.

The benchmarks aren’t errant, they simply use their own I/O, which has matured to take advantage of NVMe’s unique capabilities such as multiple threads and queues.

Operating systems, and the vast majority of software have not. For example, Windows Explorer never uses more than a single queue or thread. Hence our test transfers proceed at a far slower pace than what’s actually possible, and spoken of by the benchmarks. A drive capable of reading at 15GBps in benchmarks, will barely manage 4GBps under Windows.

We benchmark using CrystalDiskMark 8 and AS SSD 2.0. There are other perfectly valid benchmarks, but these are two whose results have consistently matched the level of the technology involved over the years.

Also, we have a huge set of results from years past to compare. On occasion, at vendor request we will run other benchmarks such as ATTO or IOmeter to simulate a particular workflow that a drive has been optimized for.

Real-world tests

To augment the benchmarks and give users an idea of what they’ll actually see under Windows, we perform a series of real-world transfers. Firstly, a 48GB folder full of smaller files and folders, and a single 48GB virtual hard drive (VHD) written to and read from the device. The second drive is actually a 58GB RAM disk that is faster than the fastest NVMe SSD we’ve tested to date. But it’s getting to be a close contest, so we may have to come up with other means in the near future.

Our final test is writing a single 450GB VHD file to the drive. This is not to measure performance as such, but to test the secondary caching. See above.

Note that both our 48GB and 450GB VHD files are filled with data, to minimize the impact of any compression techniques. Some controllers can compress all zeros with lighting speed, which throws a monkey wrench into the results.

What hardware does PCWorld use to test external storage devices?

We test all storage products on a dedicated X790 (PCIe 5.0) motherboard/i5-12400 CPU combo with two Kingston Fury 32GB DDR5 modules (64GB of memory total). The Intel integrated graphics are used as well as Windows 11 (22H2) 64-bit. The 48GB transfer tests utilize an ImDisk RAM disk taking up 58GB of the 64GB total memory. The 450GB file is transferred from a Samsung 990 Pro 2TB, which also contains the operating system.

Jon L. Jacobi

Jon L. Jacobi

Jon L. Jacobi

On occasion, should any aberrations arise on the main test bed, we also test on our older AMD test bed. This consists of an MSI MEG X570 motherboard socketing an AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 8-core CPU and 64GB of Kingston DDR4. The same software is used as on the Intel platform. This machine is also the software test platform.

For Mac-oriented products or those tested for Macworld, a first-gen Mac Studio M1 Max with 32GB of memory and a 1TB internal SSD is employed. This system has the aforementioned interesting limitation common to all Apple Silicon Macs — it supports USB 4 20Gbps, but does not support USB 3.2 2×2 20Gbps. Sigh.

How does PCWorld determine an external storage device’s rating?

As noted, our overall ratings reflect a lot of factors, but the performance/cost ratio carries by far the most weight. And with only a 10-level system (five full stars, five half stars), the star ratings aren’t particularly nuanced.

Therefore, it’s important to actually read the reviews for the particulars, and at least the pros/cons to see the major strengths and weaknesses when trying to decide which storage device you want to buy.

At a glance

Expert's Rating

Pros

• Super-low price per terabyte
• Up to 24TB total capacity
• Good looking
• Twice as fast as 2.5-inch external HDDs

Cons

• Slow compared to SSDs
• Requires AC adapter

Our Verdict

When you need more room for your digital stuff than an SSD can provide, the Seagate Expansion Desktop delivers up to 24TB of capacity at an affordable price point. It also delivers twice the sustained transfer rate of 2.5-inch external hard drives.

Best Prices Today: Seagate Expansion Desktop

Hard drives may not be sexy anymore (they actually were once!), but an external HDD like the Seagate Expansion Desktop reviewed here is the only way to get up to 24TB in a single unit, and for far less per terabyte than any SSD.

The kicker? Performance isn’t nearly as slow as you might think — our 16TB test unit read and wrote at close to 280MBps.

Further reading: See our roundup of the best external drives to learn about competing products.

What are the Seagate Expansion Desktop’s features?

The Seagate Expansion Desktop is an external, 3.5-inch USB 3.0 hard drive available with up to 24TB of space — three times the largest single SSD currently available.

The rather handsome enclosure measures approximately 7-inches long, by 4.9-inches wide, by 1.65-inches thick and weighs around 2.5-pounds. It’s black with plenty of ventilation grating, and diagonal grooves spicing up significantly what would otherwise be a bland countenance.

On the rear of the Expansion Desktop are the SuperSpeed Micro-B USB port and a power jack. The drive requires an AC adapter — 3.5-inch HDDs use a fair amount of juice.

Jon L. Jacobi

Jon L. Jacobi

Jon L. Jacobi

One of the edges of the unit sports two anti-skid feet, so the drive can be stood up lengthwise. However, there’s no way I’m sitting a hard drive up in this orientation unless it’s sandwiched between two items that will prevent it from being knocked over.

While not as sexy, it might have been better to put the feet on one of the broader “sides” to encourage users to lay the unit flat. I highly recommend you do this — hard drives do not like sudden g-forces and Murphy says it will eventually get knocked over if not otherwise fixed in place.

How much does the Seagate Expansion Desktop cost?

The Seagate Expansion Desktop is available in a variety of capacities, but pricing on both Seagate’s website and its Amazon store were rather inconsistent. Many capacities were seemingly unavailable with some very heavily discounted.

The retail pricing is:

• 4TB for $120 ($30 per TB)
• 6TB for $160 ($26.67 per TB)
• 8TB for $160 (yes, the same as the 6TB, $20 per TB)
• 10TB for $270 ($27 per TB)12TB for $300 ($25 per TB)
• 16TB for $330 ($20.63 per TB)
• 18TB for $350 ($19.44 per TB)
• 20TB for $450 ($22.50 per TB)
• 24TB for $540 ($22.50 per TB)

As to those heavy discounts on Seagate’s own site, they are:

• 6TB/$110 ($18.33 per TB)
• 8TB/$150 ($18.75 per TB)
• 12TB/$170 ($14.17 per TB)
• 16TB/$230 ($14.38 per TB)
• 20TB/$350 ($17.50 per TB)

The 12TB and 16TB are currently the sweet spot in terms of price per terabyte, and overall, we’re talking one-third to one-quarter the price of an external SSD. Those currently cost around $70 per TB, with a maximum single-unit capacity of 8TB.

SSDs are, of course, a lot faster, though some of the cheaper ones can drop to HDD-like speeds during super-long writes. For more on that, check out the 450GB write results below.

How fast is the Seagate Expansion Desktop?

The short answer to this question is, way faster than you might think. Instead of the rather slothful 120- to 140MBps its smaller 2.5-inch cousins read and write at, the Expansion Desktop manages almost 280MBps. Some external SSDs using QLC will slow to that pace and even slower during long writes.

Compared to a 2.5 inch external hard drive, the Expansion Desktop’s CrystalDiskMark 8 numbers look pretty darn good.

It’s almost not worth posting hard drive random write numbers as they are pathetically slow compared to SSDs. This is one test where you’ll get slightly better results from 2.5-inch hard drives. However, it’s not nearly enough to to offset their far weaker sequential transfer performance.

The Expansion Desktop’s 48GB transfer numbers are a vast improvement over those of 2.5-inch hard drives. They are, however, not even ballpark compared to SSDs.

I included two of the slowest external SSDs in the 450GB write chart to show that there are worse options for long writes than an external 3.5-inch hard drive. Fast SSDs, on the other hand are around 10 times faster.

While it’s not fast compared to an SSD, the Expansion Desktop is workable for streaming and background operations, is far faster than 2.5-inch external HDDs, and you sure as heck can’t beat the capacity.

Note that the copious ventilation makes the Expansion Desktop rather noisy. Much noisier than the HDDs in my NAS boxes. On the other hand, heat buildup is minimal. Given the choice, I’ll opt for the noise.

If you buy it, back it up!

HDDs have become far more reliable in recent years, but they’re still mechanical entities with all the risks that entails. The reason for my small rant regarding drive orientation on your desktop is that any sudden shock may damage the drive.

Another issue with large capacity hard drives is that they can lull users into putting all their data-eggs in one basket by being so capacious, and thus the only easy way to keep them backed up is to run the drive in a mirrored pair or other RAID configuration.

And yes, as Seagate doesn’t make a consumer RAID box, we just basically told you to buy two of these drives, which comes close to ruining the HDD price advantage. Unless of course, you intend it as the local copy in a backup strategy, in which case, one drive is fine.

Should you buy the Seagate Expansion Desktop?

If you deal with large amounts of data, you can’t beat a high-capacity hard drive for gathering it into one place. The Expansion Desktop is an excellent performer for the breed, offers excellent value, particularly at the sale prices, and highly recommended. Just heed our backup advice.

Note, that we can’t vouch that the Expansion Desktop’s performance will be consistent across all capacities (read the next section’s caveat).

How we test

Storage tests currently utilize Windows 11, 64-bit running on an X790 (PCIe 4.0/5.0) motherboard/i5-12400 CPU combo with two Kingston Fury 32GB DDR5 4800MHz modules (64GB of memory total). Both 20Gbps USB and Thunderbolt 4 are integrated to the back panel and Intel CPU/GPU graphics are used. The 48GB transfer tests utilize an ImDisk RAM disk taking up 58GB of the 64GB of total memory. The 450GB file is transferred from a 2TB Samsung 990 Pro which also runs the OS.

Each test is performed on a newly NTFS-formatted and TRIM’d drive so the results are optimal. Note that in normal use, as a drive fills up, performance may decrease due to less NAND for secondary caching, as well as other factors. This is less of a factor with the current crop of SSDs with their far faster NAND.

Caveat: The performance numbers shown apply only to the drive we were shipped and to the capacity tested. SSD performance can and will vary by capacity due to more or fewer chips to shotgun reads/writes across and the amount of NAND available for secondary caching. HDD performance may also vary may also vary according to capacity due to the number of platters used, or in the case of external types–the actual drive used for a particular capacity. Vendors also occasionally swap components. If you ever notice a large discrepancy between the performance you experience and that which we report, by all means, let us know.

Best Prices Today: WD My Passport, Works with USB C

Retailer

Price

$99.99

View Deal

Price comparison from over 24,000 stores worldwide

Product

Price

Price comparison from Backmarket

Full confession. I still use hard disk drives for archiving data despite having a boatload of SSDs. Why? Because HDDs, such as the one in this review, offer a lot of capacity in a single unit for less than half the price-per-terabyte of SSDs.

Alas, I hate to be the one to break the spell created by WD’s tortuously (for writers) long-winded name, but the My Passport, Works with USB-C isn’t a Type-C drive, as might be surmised by a quick glance of the package.

It actually sports the traditional SuperSpeed Micro-B connector and WD bundles a Type-A to Type-C adapter (hence the “works with”) for the Micro-B to Type-A cable.

What are the WD My Passport’s features?

For simplicity, let’s call it the My Passport going forward. The drive is a 5Gbps, external 2.5-inch USB hard drive that’s available with up to 6TB of capacity. It measures approximately 4.2-inches long, by 2.95-inches wide, by 0.8-inches thick, and weighs 7.7 ounces sans cable.

I’ll now point out that a Type-A to Type-C adapter costs around $4 and will make any drive “Work with USB-C.” If you’re looking for a true Type-C HDD from WD, look for “Ultra” in the name. But really, WD? SEO with product titles?

The drive is a great deal, nevertheless, and a good performer for its ilk, and while I’m giving WD a hard time about the awkward name, it’s not a lie, just possibly misleading.

How much does the My Passport cost?

The My Passport is available in 2TB/$85 ($42.50 per TB), 4TB/$135 ($33.75 per TB), 5TB/$150 ($30 per TB), and 6TB/$185 ($30.83 per TB) flavors. That makes the 5TB model the sweet spot in price per terabyte, but unlike with some of WD’s pricier external HDDs, just barely. Go for the 6TB.

By way of comparison, current pricing for even the cheapest external SSD is around $65 to $70 per terabyte, and performance with those can drop to almost HDD-like speed during long writes. Also, note that the WD My Passport Ultra series with actual Type-C ports is no faster than this drive, and a bit pricier.

How fast is the My Passport?

As mentioned, the My Passport hard drive is a 2.5-inch model. While 3.5-inch hard drives can sustain transfers at around 250MBps, 2.5-inch models, especially those in external USB enclosures, generally deliver about half that. You want speed? Get an SSD. You want cheap capacity, get an HDD and live with the performance you see documented below.

All three of the drives in the chart are WD 6TB units, hence the almost identical scores, though 2.5-inch external HDDs in general read and write between 110MBps and 140MBps.

The G-Drive ArmorATD displayed a slight advantage in all the tests, but not enough to concern yourself about. On the other hand, it’s ruggedized and IP65-rated.

The 4K random reads weren’t actually zero, but so slow (0.3MBps to 0.4MBps) that they rounded down to that non-number. CrystalDiskMark 8 is slanted towards modern SSDs, but still valid for HDDs.

The My Passport was faster than the My Passport Ultra for Mac, but fell behind the G-Drive ArmorATD in the 48GB transfers.

The story was much the same with the 450GB write, though the difference is minimal: All three took 75 minutes plus a few seconds. This is why we recommend using HDDs for background tasks.

In the end, the My Passport is nearly as fast as the true Type-C G-Drive ArmorATD and faster than the Type-C My Passport Ultra for Mac by a very slim margin, and noticeably cheaper.

Should you buy the My Passport, Works with USB-C?

I say why not? If you need a lot of portable space for backup, or storing a multimedia collection, where speed of transfer isn’t that important, then you won’t find a better deal than the My Passport, Works with USB-C.

As to my confession up top… The HDDs I use primarily are 16TB 3.5-inchers in my NAS boxes, with 2.5-inch USB types hanging off the back of the NAS for backup. Occasionally, however, I do back up my main computer using 2.5-inchers. I do it overnight — it takes a while.

How we test

Storage tests currently utilize Windows 11, 64-bit running on an X790 (PCIe 4.0/5.0) motherboard/i5-12400 CPU combo with two Kingston Fury 32GB DDR5 4800MHz modules (64GB of memory total). Both 20Gbps USB and Thunderbolt 4 are integrated to the back panel and Intel CPU/GPU graphics are used. The 48GB transfer tests utilize an ImDisk RAM disk taking up 58GB of the 64GB of total memory. The 450GB file is transferred from a 2TB Samsung 990 Pro which also runs the OS.

Each test is performed on a newly NTFS-formatted and TRIM’d drive so the results are optimal. Note that in normal use, as a drive fills up, performance may decrease due to less NAND for secondary caching, as well as other factors. This is less of a factor with the current crop of SSDs with their far faster NAND.

Caveat: The performance numbers shown apply only to the drive we were shipped and to the capacity tested. SSD performance can and will vary by capacity due to more or fewer chips to shotgun reads/writes across and the amount of NAND available for secondary caching. Vendors also occasionally swap components. If you ever notice a large discrepancy between the performance you experience and that which we report, by all means, let us know.

We’ve tested a lot of internal SSDs over the last decade or so, and the improvement to the technology has been astounding. The ongoing advancements in SSDs keep us on our toes and our testing methodology has evolved accordingly. Here’s how it stands at the moment.

What hardware does PCWorld use for testing internal storage?

Our current test platform features all of the latest transport technologies: USB 3.2×2 (20Gbps), Thunderbolt 4, PCIe 5.0. There is no discrete USB 4 port, so we test that using the Thunderbolt 4 ports, which do support that protocol.

The operating system is Windows 11 (22H2) 64-bit (updates are disabled) running on an X790 (PCIe 5.0) motherboard/Core i5-12400 CPU combo with two Kingston Fury 32GB DDR5 modules (64GB of memory total). Intel integrated graphics are used rather than a discrete GPU card.

An ImDisk RAM disk using 58GB of the 64GB total system memory is used for the 48GB transfer tests and is allotted 58GB of the 64GB total system memory. The operating system runs off of a Samsung 990 Pro 2TB, which is also the source for larger test files.

While we rarely cover internal hard drives these days, when we do, the same basic test methodology is employed.

What tests does PCWorld run on internal SSDs?

The synthetic benchmarks we consistently employ are CrystalDiskMark 8 (64GB data set) and AS SSD 2 (10GB data set). These have delivered the most consistent results over the years, plus we have a huge library of results that can be directly compared. However, we will also run ATTO and/or IOmeter to check vendor claims of optimization for certain workloads.

The issue with synthetic benchmarks is that, as of late, the numbers they spit out far outstrip anything you’ll see in the real world. That’s not to throw shade on these worthy tools; it’s simply that they do their own I/O. In real life you’re stuck with what Windows provides — which is comparatively primitive in not taking advantage of NVMe’s advanced features such as multiple queues.

So, to mirror what users will see in the progress bars while copying data, we transfer a 48GB set of files and folders as well as a single 48GB file to and from the drive we’re testing. The aforementioned RAM disk is employed as the source for writes and the destination for reads to minimize lag impact on the results.

Alas, NVMe SSDs are approaching the point where they’re almost as fast as main memory, so how much longer a RAM disk will be useful is a concern.

We also write a much larger 450GB file; that’s to see how the SSD behaves when it runs out of cache. That my friends, requires a bit of explaining.

How does SSD technology affect PCWorld’s testing?

To comprehend why testing SSDs isn’t as straightforward as kicking the tires of traditional HDDs, tape, optical, etc., you need to understand a bit about the medium.

All SSDs use NAND non-volatile memory to store data. This started as simple on/off SLC (Single-Level Cell) NAND with only one voltage level per cell (charged, not charged). However, to increase storage density, NAND evolved to MLC (Multi-Level Cell/2-bit) with four possible voltage levels, then TLC (Triple-Level Cell/3-bit) with eight possible voltage levels, and now sometimes QLC (Quad-Level Cell/4-bit) with 16 possible voltage levels.

The issue with multiple voltage levels is that it takes far longer to make sure the correct voltage was indeed written. This error checking makes denser NAND slow if you write at its native bit depth.

To circumvent this performance road block, SSD controllers will instead allot (fixed or on the fly) a certain portion of NAND to be written as on/off SLC. The SLC blocks are later rewritten natively to other NAND as MLC/TLC/QLC when the drive has time.

How this secondary caching (many drives use DRAM, and more recently system memory, as primary caching) is handled determines how well an SSD will perform under a heavy load.

As mentioned, this is the reason we write a 450GB file to the SSD — to run it out of secondary cache, or see how well it allots more on the fly. If the write rate never drops during the 450GB write, we’ll write another 900GB file immediately after to get to the actual native write rate.

This is somewhat of a tempest in a teapot for the average user who will rarely write enough data to experience the slowdowns we’re talking about. But it is a key differentiator for users who bang hard on their SSDs all day long, such as videographers and the like.

Comparisons and ratings

Generally, our charts will feature the drive being reviewed, and a few carefully chosen competitors with similar components. However, we do maintain a master spreadsheet with the results of every drive we’ve tested on the current test bed. Our overall rating is derived from a combination of a drive’s placement in the benchmark (CrystalDiskMark and AS SSD) and real-world transfer results, weighted slightly towards the latter.

We only publish AS SSD results if there’s an aberration with CrystalDiskMark 8. This is for brevity and consistency so readers can compare results across reviews more quickly and easily.

As we rate on only a 10-point system (half stars up to 5), it’s not always possible to differentiate between a great product and an almost-great product using that alone. Therefore, you should take a look at the actual results charts, and read the review in its entirety before making a buying decision.

Or, you can just look for the Editors’ choice label, which indicates what we’d buy — all things being equal. Often price will be your deciding factor among the SSDs that receive a 4.5 or higher rating.

At a glance

Expert's Rating

Pros

• Handsome, IP65-rated design (dust-proof, water-resistant)
• Good 20Gbps performance
• Nice flat Type-C USB ribbon cable

Cons

• USB port plug tether is difficult to reinsert.

Our Verdict

The PNY RP60 might just be the best looking and best weatherized USB SSD we’ve tested. Performance is great in the grand scheme, but middle of the pack for 20Gbps

Best Prices Today: PNY RP60 20Gbps USB SSD

My first impression of the PNY RP60 and its unusual ribbon-like Type-C cable was… Wow, nice looking drive! Fortunately, my hands-on testing showed that there’s more to this book than its cover, making me feel just a tad less shallow. A tad…

Further reading: See our roundup of the best external drives to learn about competing products.

What are the PNY RP60s features?

The PNY RP60 is a USB 3.2×2, 20Gbps SSD that’s weatherized to the tune of an IP65 rating — i.e., it’s dust-proof and can keep out jets or sprays of water, rain. etc.

Measuring approximately 3.9-inches long, by 2.35-inches wide, by 0.4-inches thick, the RP60 weighs in at roughly 2 ounces. That’s very light given the size.

As I more than hinted at in the opening paragraph, I consider the PNY RP60 to be one of the better-looking external SSDs I’ve laid my hands on. It’s jacketed in black silicone with geometrically styled grooves, sports a bold white logo, and offers a large hole for a lanyard. That jacket makes for a very firm grip, not to mention a pleasant tactile sensation.

The Type-C port on one end of the RP60 is covered by a captive plug, which no doubt contributes to the IP65 rating. Given the plug, you might even get away with the 3-foot submersion that an IP67 rating would allow.

I did have an issue with the plug, however. The tether is so flexible that it’s very difficult to guide it back into its receptacle. I had to grab it at the base using a pair of needle nose pliers to accomplish the task. Tweezers would also do, and if you have longer fingernails, you might have an easier time. A tiny drop of lubricant also helped.

The downside to soft silicone is that it tends to collect micro-schmutz. So much so that I had to retouch these photos to make them palatable close up. From a distance, you likely won’t notice the harvested detritus.

PNY warranties the RP60 for three years, but didn’t provide us with the TBW rating that limits it — TBW is the terabytes that may be written before worn out cells can’t be replaced. Most TLC NAND SSDs these days are rated for around 600TBW per terabyte of capacity. As you’ll likely never touch that in a mere three years, don’t sweat it.

On the plastic tray in which the RP60 ships is a download code for Acronis True Image OEM, which you can grab when you register the drive at the company’s website. Admittedly, registration is a nuisance, but the software is a nice perk to facilitate backup chores.

How much does the PNY RP60 cost?

The PN60 is available in 1TB and 2TB capacities, for $100 and $180, respectively. The drive just arrived on the market so you may find it lower than that in a wee bit.

How fast is the PNY RP60?

Pretty darn fast would be the answer to that question. In some tests, the 1TB version that PNY sent us gave the mighty Crucial X10 Pro, a 2TB SSD, a run for its money.

The PNY RP60 was a little behind the X10 Pro in the 4K tests, though it did manage to better the latter’s strange dip in the 32-queue read test.

The RP60 fell well off, 45 seconds, the X10 Pro’s pace in the 48GB transfers. But so have most other external SSDs.

The RP60 lagged several minutes behind the X10 Pro in our 450GB write, but didn’t fall flat on its face as the Adata SD810 did. No doubt at least part of the difference was the RP60’s 1TB capacity while the Crucial X10 Pro was a 2TB drive. The latter simply had more NAND for caching.

Below you can see exactly where the RP60 ran out of juice (cache). The initial dip was to around 900MBps, then to 539MBps. Drops during this test are a common phenomenon and show why we recommend as much capacity as you can afford. Two times as much as you think you’ll need, in fact.

In total, the RP60 turned in an admirable performance. There’s no shame in losing to the number one SSD, though of course, you need to price compare when you go to purchase.

Should you buy the PNY RP60?

I like the size, I like the looks, I like the feel, and I like the weatherizing (other than the fiddling plug). The RP60’s also a good performer and probably even better in its 2TB iteration. Either way, nice job, PNY.

How we test

Storage tests currently utilize Windows 11, 64-bit running on an X790 (PCIe 4.0/5.0) motherboard/i5-12400 CPU combo with two Kingston Fury 32GB DDR5 4800MHz modules (64GB of memory total). Both 20Gbps USB and Thunderbolt 4 are integrated to the back panel and Intel CPU/GPU graphics are used. The 48GB transfer tests utilize an ImDisk RAM disk taking up 58GB of the 64GB of total memory. The 450GB file is transferred from a 2TB Samsung 990 Pro which also runs the OS.

Each test is performed on a newly NTFS-formatted and TRIM’d drive so the results are optimal. Note that in normal use, as a drive fills up, performance may decrease due to less NAND for secondary caching, as well as other factors. This is less of a factor with the current crop of SSDs with their far faster NAND.

Caveat: The performance numbers shown apply only to the drive we were shipped and to the capacity tested. SSD performance can and will vary by capacity due to more or fewer chips to shotgun reads/writes across and the amount of NAND available for secondary caching. Vendors also occasionally swap components. If you ever notice a large discrepancy between the performance you experience and that which we report, by all means, let us know.

Best Prices Today: Sabrent Rocket Nano 2242 SSD

While M.2 slots are universally 22mm wide, they can very in length. Most of the time, they’re either 80mm (your average desktop/laptop) or 30mm (Steam Deck and other gaming handhelds).

But there are devices, most notably the Lenovo Legion Go and Thinkpads, that measure 42mm from the contacts to the rear mounting screw. To secure a 2230 SSD in such a slot you’d need a slightly kludgy adapter. A more elegant solution is a real 2242 SSD like the Sabrent Rocket Nano 2242 reviewed here.

Further reading: See our roundup of the best SSDs to learn about competing products.

What are the Rocket Nano 2242’s features?

The copper and blue decorated Sabrent Nano 2242 is, again, designed specifically for devices such as Lenovo’s Legion Go and Thinkpads. It will, however, work perfectly well in other computing devices that sport a 2242 (22mm wide, 42mm long) M.2 slot. As discussed above, its raison d’etre is an adapter-free fit.

A single-sided, PCIe 4.0 x4, NVMe SSD, the Rocket Nano 2242 is a DRAM-less design, using system memory (Host Memory Buffer/HMB) for primary caching duties. The NAND is 162-layer TLC (Triple-Level Cell/3-bit) and the controller is a PhisonE27T.

The Rocket Nano 2242 is warrantied for five years (after registering) but Sabrent didn’t provide a TBW (terabytes that may be written) rating. The industry standard is around 600TBW per 1TB of capacity for TLC drives, so figure around that.

The odds of you writing that much in five years are slim to none. If you want TBW reassurance, look to Seagate, though that company doesn’t currently market a 2230 or 2242 SSD that we’re aware of.

How much is the Rocket Nano 2242?

The Rocket Nano 2242 is currently available only in a 1TB capacity for $100. However, the company says that 2TB and 4TB terabyte capacities are coming soon.

The 2TB Sabrent Rocket 2230 is $220, so I’d guess close to that for the 2242 model, and around $450 for the 4TB, which will likely carry a slight you-want-more-capacity-you-pay-extra premium. I mean it when I say guess — don’t hold me to it.

How fast is the Rocket Nano 2242?

Though not the fastest small form-factor SSD (the other three in the charts are 2230), the Rocket Nano 2242 is certainly competitive. You can see that from the CrystalDiskMark 8 sequential tests below.

Note that both the WD SN770M and the Corsair MP600 Core Mini were 2TB units, while the Sabrent Rocket 2230 we tested was a 1TB SSD, like this Rocket Nano 2242.

The Sabrent Rocket Nano 2242 was also quick in CrystalDiskMark 8’s 4K small read/write tests.

Where the Sabrent Rocket Nano 2242 did fall off was in our real-world transfers, but only by a hair in the 48GB tests.

The gap expanded in the 450GB write, which is not on par with the other SSDs in the chart. The drive started off sprightly enough at 3GBps, but dropped about 12 percent into the write, to 1.25GB per second.

Again, the two non-Sabrent drives had the advantage of twice as much NAND to tap for secondary SLC caching — i.e., writing data first as on/off Single Cell Level.

Overall, while not the fastest small form-factor SSD I’ve tested, the Sabrent Rocket Nano 2242 is certainly close enough for rock ‘n’ roll. The 450GB write time will no doubt improve somewhat on the 2TB/4TB.

Should you buy the nano or 2242?

If you want to upgrade the storage in a device that sports a 2242 M.2 slot, then the Sabrent Rocket Nano 2242 is a very elegant solution. It’s a good performer, decently affordable, and I like the copper-hued styling.

How we test

Internal drive tests currently utilize Windows 11, 64-bit running on an X790 (PCIe 4.0/5.0) motherboard/i5-12400 CPU combo with two Kingston Fury 32GB DDR5 4800MHz modules (64GB of memory total). Both 20Gbps USB and Thunderbolt 4 are integrated to the back panel and Intel CPU/GPU graphics are used. The 48GB transfer tests utilize an ImDisk RAM disk taking up 58GB of the 64GB of total memory. The 450GB file is transferred from a 2TB Samsung 990 Pro which also runs the OS.

Each test is performed on a newly NTFS-formatted and TRIM’d drive so the results are optimal. Note that in normal use, as a drive fills up, performance may decrease due to less NAND for secondary caching, as well as other factors. This is less of a factor with the current crop of SSDs with their far faster NAND.

Caveat: The performance numbers shown apply only to the drive we were shipped and to the capacity tested. SSD performance can and will vary by capacity due to more or fewer chips to shotgun reads/writes across and the amount of NAND available for secondary caching. Vendors also occasionally swap components. If you ever notice a large discrepancy between the performance you experience and that which we report, by all means, let us know.

At a glance

Expert's Rating

Pros

• Very good 20Gbps performance
• IP66 weatherized and ruggedized
• Good looking and svelte

Cons

• Pricey

Our Verdict

Lexar’s 20Gbps Armor 700 USB SSD is a good performer, as well as being weatherized and ruggedized to an IP66 rating.

Best Prices Today: Lexar Armor 700

Lexar continues to impress me with its storage devices. This time it’s their IP66-rated Armor 700 external SSD. I like its looks and I like the way it’s ruggedized and weather-proofed. It’s a clear choice if you want a performance drive that handle the rigors of being out in the field.

What are the Lexar Armor 700’s features?

The Armor 700 is a svelte, good-looking portable 20Gbps (USB 3.2×2) SSD measuring 3.4-inches long, by 2.15-inches wide. It’s just over a half inch thick and weighs just under 3 ounces.

The drive is protected from shock by a rubberized sleeve (black on my test unit, but also available in blue) for up to a 3-meter fall, and is rated to IP66. That is, Ingress Protected against dust and jets of water. Immersion resistance isn’t claimed (that would be IP67).

You might think the lack of immersion resistance is because of the open Type-C port shown below, but we’ve reviewed IP67 devices with open ports, so they can be sealed against the weather.

The protective cover provides a nice grip and tactile sensation, in addition to shock protection (albeit, SSDs aren’t anywhere near as susceptible as HDDs).

The drive itself is silver as you can see from the end caps. One end of the drive is home to the Type-C USB connector and status light (shown above), while the other sports embossed information about the unit (shown below) .

Lexar didn’t specify the components, but given the performance on and off cache, we’re assuming the internals are NVMe, and the NAND is TLC.

The company warranties the drive for five years, which is no doubt limited by the amount of data written, though Lexar doesn’t post a rating. The industry norm is 600TBW (terabytes that may be written), and it’s extremely unlikely you get close to that with an external drive in five years.

How much is the Lexar Armor 700?

The Lexar Armor 700 is currently available in $150/1TB and $255/2TB capacities, with an as yet un-priced 4TB version in the works.

How fast is the Lexar Armor 700?

The Armor 700 is on par for a 20Gbps USB drive performance-wise. A shade faster in a couple of tests, a shade slower in others, and fifth overall among all the 20Gbps SSDs we’ve tested.

Only the Crucial X10 Pro was appreciably faster (in real-world transfers), and it suffers a couple of performance peccadilloes as well. Right-click and select “Open image in new tab” to see the charts full size.

The Armor 700’s CrystalDiskMark 8 random performance is right up there with the best 20Gbps SSDs.

Though it couldn’t keep pace with the mighty Crucial X10 Pro in our 48GB transfers, the Armor 700 was in line with the other competitors — Lexar’s own SL500 and the Samsung T9.

Jon L. Jacobi

Jon L. Jacobi

Jon L. Jacobi

The Armor 700 turned in a nice 450GB write time, if not quite in the same league as the #1 Crucial X10 Pro’s. But neither were the SL500 or T9 in the same league.

Overall, the Lexar Armor 700 delivers very good 20Gbps performance. No complaints, though of course, there’s X10 Pro elephant in the room.

Note that while Apple supports 20Gbps USB4, it doesn’t support USB 3.2 X 2 20Gbps. Therefore, you will only get 10Gbps performance from the Armor 700 on a Mac.

Should you buy the Lexar Armor 700?

The Lexar Armor 700 is a worthy contender for your high-performance, external storage dollar. It’s fast, IP66-rated, good looking, and very portable. My recommendation is only hedged by the fact that the Armor 700 is quite pricey compared to even more capable rivals, such as Crucial X10 Pro.

How we test

Storage tests currently utilize Windows 11, 64-bit running on an X790 (PCIe 4.0/5.0) motherboard/i5-12400 CPU combo with two Kingston Fury 32GB DDR5 4800MHz modules (64GB of memory total). Both 20Gbps USB and Thunderbolt 4 are integrated to the back panel and Intel CPU/GPU graphics are used. The 48GB transfer tests utilize an ImDisk RAM disk taking up 58GB of the 64GB of total memory. The 450GB file is transferred from a 2TB Samsung 990 Pro which also runs the OS.

Each test is performed on a newly NTFS-formatted and TRIM’d drive so the results are optimal. Note that in normal use, as a drive fills up, performance may decrease due to less NAND for secondary caching, as well as other factors. This is less of a factor with the current crop of SSDs with their far faster NAND.

Caveat: The performance numbers shown apply only to the drive we were shipped and to the capacity tested. SSD performance can and will vary by capacity due to more or fewer chips to shotgun reads/writes across and the amount of NAND available for secondary caching. Vendors also occasionally swap components. If you ever notice a large discrepancy between the performance you experience and that which we report, by all means, let us know.

Backing up your essential data is the only way to be sure it’s safe. And while there have been no major online storage disasters to date, it behooves you to maintain a local backup of your digital stuff even if you work exclusively in the cloud.

Some data, such as multimedia collections are definitely better stored locally, and should be backed up as well. As Murphy has proven time and again, redundancy is your friend.

There are many free and pay-to-play contenders to take hold of your backup operations, but not all are created equal. Here’s what we look for in our quest for the back backup software and how we evaluate backup programs.

What are the main features we look for in backup programs?

There are a host of programs, services, storage repositories, and methods for backing up your system and data. Hence, a good portion of our initial evaluation is devoted to perusing the methods a program supports.

The more types of backup a product supports, the more versatile it is and, generally speaking, the better a value it is. Value contributes to our rating though not as significantly as reliability. How bullet-proof a backup program makes backing up and restoring data reigns supreme in our ratings.

There are two primary types of backup: system backup, where everything, including your operating system, applications, and data are backed up; and data-only backup, where only your essential files are saved to safe locations. (Plural because you should have an original copy, a local copy, and a copy off-site).

System backup

The advantage of a system backup is that, in case of a system or drive failure, you can use it to quickly restore your operating system, applications, and data to the state they were in when you backed them up, in one fell swoop. This is also known as disaster recovery.

The disadvantage to a system backup is that the backups themselves are generally more time consuming. At least initially.

There are programs that perform only system backup such as the free Backup and Restore (Windows 7), but more common are products such as Acronis Cyber Protect Home Office (nee True Image), Aomei Backupper, and R-Drive Image that offer both system backup and data-only backup.

System backup programs generally use images (byte-for-byte copies of a disk or file system), or large proprietary container files. During the restore phase, these are read off the backup media and written back to your computer after you boot to the program that created them, using recovery media — CD, USB stick, etc.

best backup software overall

R-Drive Image

Read our review

Best Prices Today: $44.95 at R-tools Technology

Data backup

The advantage to backing up only your data is speed. Corollary to speed is the ability to back up more frequently. With some programs this happens in real time — meaning as files change. The more frequent the backup, the less chance of you losing work.

Shown below is Windows File History, which is a bit hard to configure if you want to include folders from other locations, but a great and very free way to keep your data backed up. That’s right, you don’t really need third-party solutions, though you may want them as some are demonstrably better.

The downside to data-only backup is that, in the case of a system crash, you’ll have to reinstall the operating system and applications (possibly including the program used for backup) before you can restore your data. Then you’ll have to reconfigure everything to your liking. Re-configuration can actually be the most time-consuming part of the operation in this age of super-fast SSDs.

Sync

Sync, in its purest form, is mirroring data across multiple locations. It’s not true backup as files can be changed in any location and those changes reflected throughout the ecosystem. Want to revert to an older version? Sorry, outta’ luck.

However, many sync programs offer one-way sync (source to destination) with version retention, which is functionally the same as pure data backup. It all depends on how many older versions are retained and for how long. It’s not always permanent.

The broader the support for these three types of backup, the better you can tailor your backup plan to your specific needs and the higher we’ll rate this aspect of the product.

The more granular features we look for in backup programs

After weighing how many backup MOs a program supports, we then peruse the finer aspects of each, such as…

System backup types

To save space, system backups back up everything the first time (full), then either use incremental (fast backup/slower restore — all changes since the last backup) or differential (slower backup/faster restore/easier to manage — all changes since the first backup) after that to save space. Incremental is a must, but offering both incremental and differential is a plus. There are many others that would take quite a while to explain, as you can see below.

Space management

Most users have only a finite amount of space for backups, and action is required when it starts to fill up. This can be anything from a simple message telling you it’s time to start over or change media, to the ability to automatically cull older backups. Another advantage of differential backup is that the first and latest backups contain all current data you need and you can delete everything in between.

Scheduling

This runs the gamut from the aforementioned real time (files are backed up as they change), to continuous (every few minutes or so — sometimes better as it can grab temporary files), hourly, daily, weekly, monthly. The more options the better.

Compression and containers

The way data is stored in the destination of a backup can range from uncompressed plain files, to a compressed ZIP archive or other container file, to image files and virtual hard drives. Again, the more choice the more brownie points.

Data security

We like to see options for both encryption and/or password protection. The former actually requires the latter, or a separate key.

Boot/recovery media

Restoring a system backup requires booting from removable media, most often a USB stick these days, but optical as well. We like programs to support both Windows PR (Pre-install Environment — the disc Windows itself installs from) and Linux-based boot media.

Why both? Because we’ve had better luck with Linux recovery media over the last decade. Some programs seemingly have a difficult time correctly creating Windows PE media.

Network support

If you have a NAS box or other computer on your network it’s a great place to store backups, or data. We favor programs that allow you to back up to and from a network location. Quite a few freebies do not support backing up from network locations.

Device and operating system support

With so many phone-centric users these days, support for Android and iPhone is important, even if they’re being backed up to Google Drive or iCloud. Linux and macOS compatibility is down the list, but still nice perks.

Online storage support

Some backup programs such as Acronis Cyber Protect Home Office connect to their own proprietary cloud storage, some connect to the more common services such as Dropbox, Google Drive, and OneDrive, but very few support the myriad other, often cheaper services such as Amazon S3.

Online storage support garners points, but the advent of cloud storage managers that will integrate many services, including cheap S3-compatibles, into Windows Explorer has lessened our emphasis on this feature.

Cloud storage managers not only let you work with online files as if they were stored locally, they allow you to use any backup software you choose. Want to use the command line with xcopy or Windows File History to backup online? With a cloud storage manager, you can.

Note that many online storage vendors offer backup services and clients, but we generally review these under the heading of online backup or storage services, not backup software. The distinction is growing fainter by the day.

Further reading: Best online backup services

Other options

There are myriad other small options, conveniences really, that we like to see. These include the ability to run other programs pre- (disk checkers, etc.) and post-backup (cleanup utilities, etc.), notification upon completion of tasks or errors (generally email), system shutdown post-completion (so you can run a backup last thing and save electricity by shutting down the system), etc.

Best backup software with malware protection

Acronis Cyber Protect Home Office

Read our review

Best Prices Today: $49.99 at Acronis

There can also be added security features like malware protection (Acronis Cyber Protect Home Office) or ransomware protection (Retrospect Solo), which could be a nice value-add for someone who lacks that protection otherwise.

Interface and ease of use

No matter the breadth of features, if a backup program isn’t easy to use, users won’t take to it. If users don’t take to it, data doesn’t get backed up. That’s a bad thing.

Sadly, there’s nothing available for Windows that’s as easy and slick as macOS’s Time Machine. Vendors try, but it’s sometimes apparent that the interfaces are designed by programmers. Being a former programmer who designed his own interfaces, I know that skill in one discipline doesn’t directly translate to the other.

Equally sadly, the genre is infamous for user experiences that suffer from needlessly abstracted concepts, terse language, poor organization, poorly written help files, etc. Some assume far too much knowledge on the part of users, and a few are, I hate to say it, just plain ugly.

Because we don’t want users baffled or making mistakes, the GUI, workflow, and documentation are areas that we place more emphasis on than you might think.

It had better work all the time (operational reliability)

Having witnessed the emotional distress that data loss can invoke, the ability to create a backup and restore it without issue is the number-one factor in our ratings. Nothing else comes particularly close. With some of backup programs being decades old, and the basic functionality a well-worn concept, you might think backup would be dead compatible and reliable. Alas, such is not always the case.

Part of the issue is Windows itself. It’s less than optimally programmed and documented, throws a lot of hurdles at developers seeking low-level file and disk access, and must support a huge variety of hardware. Poorly written drivers for this hardware can ruin any program’s day.

But we’ve seen errors from a number of backup programs that were obviously self-inflicted. More than we’d like. Even reliable programs such as R-Drive Image can have issues when they introduce new features.

Additionally, picayune as it might seem on the surface, we look for interface glitches. If an interface is sloppily programmed, that sloppiness might affect something important, like the backup itself.

How PCWorld tests backup software

Testing backup software is like testing any other software, we try all the features and see if and how well they work. Seems simple, but media complicates the issue. We back up and restore from local SSDs, external SSDs, network locations, and if the program supports it — online storage and optical media (DVD+RW).

As speed is invariably reliant upon, and will vary drastically according to the type of media involved, it’s a second-tier criteria in our evaluation. We tend to report only glitches, stalls, or something unusually slow, as backing up to an internal PCIe 5.0 NVMe SSD will obviously be faster than to a network location (our test network is only 2.5Gbps), 10Gbps SSD, or DVD+RW.

What we do check is that the program doesn’t slow your computer or other operations down, something almost unheard of with modern computers and devices. Even Acronis Cyber Protect Home Office with it’s dozen background processes doesn’t adversely affect the subjective performance of our test beds.

Boot media is also created and tested, because if you can’t boot to the program that created your system backup, you might as well have never backed up.

Note also that as we’ve been testing for well over two decades, we do count a program’s historical reliability (or lack thereof) in our evaluation.

How PCWorld rates backup software

While more features are generally better, we reiterate that by far the most important aspect of backup software is how reliably it works. Followed by how easy it is to use. A dead-reliable, one-trick pony is better than an umbrella suite that misfires.

All backup software is awarded a verdict of between 0 and 5 stars, with the top-rated programs being considered for our list of best backup software. Backup is about trust and we recommend the programs that have earned that.

Best Prices Today: Teamgroup PD20M

Retailer

Price

$88.99

View Deal

Price comparison from over 24,000 stores worldwide

Product

Price

Price comparison from Backmarket

While being a decent 20Gbps USB SSD with light workloads, the Teamgroup PD20M is not the drive for writing large data sets on a continual basis. The parsimonious 20GB of cache on our 1TB test unit had it dead last overall in our performance ratings.

That’s a shame, because it’s also one of the lightest and most attractive SSDs we’ve tested — i.e., it travels well, especially with the handy carrying case that Teamgroup bundles.

Further reading: See our roundup of the best external drives to learn about competing products.

What are the Teamgroup PD20M’s features?

The PD20M is a 20Gbps USB 3.2×2 external SSD sporting a thin, but squarish profile measuring 2.45-inches wide, by 2.75-inches long, by a mere 0.32-inches thick. The top is rounded, while the bottom is perfectly flat.

Unusually, there’s no anti-skid material on the bottom of the unit, but it makes perfect sense: The PD20M weighs a mere 1.1 ounces on its own, and only 1.3 ounces with the Type-C cable that plugs into one edge. With so little heft for gravity to effect, you’d have to use semi-adhesive tape to secure this featherweight puppy in place.

The large upside is that if you’re looking for an SSD you can dangle off of a port without damaging it, this is it. Performance concerns aside, that is. Just be careful that you don’t forget it’s in your pocket and put it through the wash!

Teamgroup warranties the PD20M for three years, but no mention is made of the warranty’s TBW (terabytes that may be written) rating. Given the drives slow write rate when cache runs out, which was rather early on the 1TB version we tested, you should never have to worry about writing so much data that the company considers it unfair usage.

How much does the Teamgroup PD20M cost?

The PD20M is available in 1TB and 2TB capacities, which retail for $110, and $165, respectively. Given the performance, that’s a tad pricey. Indeed, when we checked Amazon, the mighty 1TB Crucial X10 Pro, a far superior SSD, was available for $100. Hopefully, the PD20M will drop in price significantly in short order.

How fast is the Teamgroup PD20M?

In our initial testing, the Teamgroup PD20M turned in a far lower (364MBps) CrystalDiskMark 8 sequential write number than the 2GBps claimed on the box. It finally wrote at 1.8GBps, but only after I reduced the size of the 64GB data set I normally use four-fold to 16GB.

Ie’ve included both the 64GB and 16GB results to illustrate exactly how important cache, and the lack thereof can be.

Note again, that the PD20M we tested was a 1TB drive. The Corsair EX100U on the charts, which experienced similar slowdowns at one point or another, was a 2TB drive. If Teamgroup has sent us the 2TB version, it likely would’ve outpaced the Corsair.

The Crucial X10 Pro is a much faster drive, and given that it’s currently $10 less for 1TB, and only $10 more than the PD20M for 2TB, there’s little reason to opt for latter other than weight.

The parsimonious caching again showed up in our real-world transfers. While the PD20M was not the slowest external SSD we’ve tested (there are four or five slower 10Gbps units), it was easily the slowest 20Gbps SSD we’ve seen.

Below you can see where the PD20M ran out of cache — at around the 20GB mark.

The story was no better in the 450GB write, which basically proceeded at 364MBps from the relative get go. Slow.

In truth, few users write even 48GB at a time, so like the Corsair EX100U, the RD20M will do the job the majority of the time when writing — and all of the time when reading.

Should you buy the Teamgroup PD20M?

The PD20M is fine for light duties, but the write slowdowns occur far to early, at least on the 1TB model, for me to recommend it for anything other than a light-duty drive. Also, compare prices. At least at the moment, there are numerous 20Gbps SSDs, some of them far more consistent performers, for less.

How we test

Drive tests currently utilize Windows 11 (22H2) 64-bit running on an X790 (PCIe 5.0) motherboard/i5-12400 CPU combo with two Kingston Fury 32GB DDR5 modules (64GB of memory total). Intel integrated graphics are used. The 48GB transfer tests utilize an ImDisk RAM disk taking up 58GB of the 64GB total memory. The 450GB file is transferred from a Samsung 990 Pro 2TB, which also contains the operating system. For external drives, the motherboard’s dedicated Thunderbolt 4 and 20Gbps USB ports on the rear panel are used.

Each test is performed on a newly NTSF-formatted and TRIM’d drive so the results are optimal. Note that as any drive fills up, performance will decrease due to less NAND for secondary caching, and other factors.

The performance numbers shown apply only to the drive we were shipped as well as the capacity tested. SSD performance can vary by capacity due to more or fewer chips to read/write across and the amount of NAND available for secondary caching (writing TLC/QLC as SLC). Vendors also occasionally swap components.

If you ever notice a large discrepancy between the performance you experience and that which we report (systems being roughly equal), by all means—let us know.

At a glance

Expert's Rating

Pros

• Super-small, handsome profile
• Very good day and night 1440p captures
• Voice commands/alerts and phone connectivity
• Integrated GPS

Cons

• No room for a display

Our Verdict

if you want a small dash cam that takes good captures, then the Viofo VS1 competes well with the Garmin Mini 2, upping the resolution ante. It even has the GPS that the Garmin Mini 2 lacks.

Best Prices Today: Viofo VS1 Mini 2K

Viofo makes capable dash cams, but the $140 VS1 Mini 2K, notable for its diminutive size, is easily the best that the company has asked me to review. It’s super small, good looking, and voice controlled, with phone connectivity and voice alerts,. And best of all, it takes very good 1440p captures day and night. It even has GPS, though it won’t watermark such.

With GPS and better resolution, it’s an attractive alternative to the 1080p GPS-less Garmin Dash Cam Mini 2, or would be if the GPS had actually worked in my testing. More on that in a bit.

Further reading: See our roundup of the best dash cams to learn about competing products.

What are the VS1 Mini 2K’s features?

The VS1 is very small, measuring 1.3 inches wide by 1.18 inches thick by approximately 2.85 inches tall. It’s styled nicely in black with tastefully minimal accents. The right side of the unit is home only to the Type-C USB power port. The left side sports the microSD slot (a 32GB card is included) as well as the microphone on/off button.

The back of the camera is home to the power indicator, microphone, video save/Wi-Fi button (short/long press), and status light. There’s nothing on the front other than the lens, which, unlike many cameras, does not protrude. Despite that seeming disadvantage, the VS1 produces very good captures.

The Mini 2K uses a semi-permanent adhesive mount that the unit slides on and off of. The camera swivels vertically on the mount, but that’s it, so be careful when you affix the mounting plate to the windshield.

Use the live view to orient it properly. Also, truth be known, if you don’t press too hard when you first affix it, you can pull it off and try again. Too many attempts, however, will ruin the adhesive. There’s an extra pad in the box, as with most dash cams.

As someone who’s prone to forgetting where his phone is, I’m not a huge fan of display-less dash cams. Of course, any screen on a dash cam this small would be near impossible to read anyway.

Also, the VS1’s plentiful voice commands (“Turn on/off audio,” “Turn on Wi-Fi,” etc.) help compensate, and there’s of course the app shown below.

The VS1 connects to your phone via Wi-Fi and the Viofo app found the camera quickly. Such is not always the case. I also found the app easy to navigate and use.

One other note: Viofo provides a standalone cigarette-lighter adapter with two Type-A ports — one for charging, and another free. Nothing bugs me more than adapters with only one port, especially for dash cams that require a phone to configure. I recommend that you switch to an OBDII adapter to power the dash cam anyway as it makes for less obtrusive cable runs.

How are the VS1 Mini 2K’s captures?

To be honest, I was not expecting the VS1 to perform as well as it did. Viofo dash cams generally produce better-than-average video, but not as good as what we saw from the VS1.

I was especially impressed with the night video. Headlight flare was handled wonderfully, and California’s bright white license plates were still quite readable when my own headlights lit them up.

This daylight capture shows very good detail, and the color is accurate for a gray day in San Francisco. This is the San Francisco DMV parking lot, if you were wondering — and I’m driving by, not into it.

You can see the proof of my claims about the VS1’s night captures below. This is significantly improved from the recently reviewed Viofo A119 Mini 2.

As I’ve already said, the VS1’s captures are top-notch — in the running for best 1440p I’ve seen. The processing really makes a difference.

You may have noticed that while the VS1 sports GPS, there’s no watermark in the captures. That’s because the GPS on the first unit I was shipped, which the captures are from, was faulty. Viofo shipped a replacement and the GPS was fine. I only mention this so that if you purchase a VS1 — and you might want to — you test the GPS immediately to make sure you didn’t get one of a bad batch..

Should you buy the VS1 Mini 2K?

The VS1 bests the Garmin Dash Cam Mini 2 (our former favorite tiny model) in both resolution and by providing GPS. It’s a couple bucks more and slightly larger, but the superior captures give it the win.

Our PC storage drives won’t last forever and that’s why it’s always a good idea to use backup software to keep your data safe. The best Windows backup software can keep us covered when our primary drive finally croaks.

While Apple’s Time Machine provides users with an effective, set-it-and-forget-it recovery system, Microsoft users aren’t so lucky. Instead, users are stuck deciding the best way to keep their data safe with a patchwork system of restore points, recovery discs, and file backups. Thankfully, a number of great third-party backup options have cropped up in recent years to help solve the woes of Windows users.

Why you should trust us: It’s in our name: PCWorld. Our reviewers have been testing PC hardware, software, and services for decades. Our backup evaluations are thorough and rigorous, testing the promises and limitations of every product — from performance to the practicalities of regular use. As PC users ourselves, we know what makes a product stand out. Only the best online backup services make this list. For more about our testing process, scroll to the bottom of this article.

Also, check out PCWorld’s roundup of best external drives for recommendations on reliable storage options — an important component in a comprehensive backup strategy. Alternatively, if you’d prefer to keep your data on the cloud or need the flexibility of data storage for different operating systems, then check out our list of best online backup services.

Updated May 23, 2024: See our recent review of Aomei Backupper Pro. Like our two top picks below, Aomei now integrates cloud storage with its local backup offerings, making it a complete backup solution capable of preserving your important data both locally and remotely, as any good backup strategy should do.

PROMOTION

Backup software powered by AI – EaseUS Todo Backup

EaseUS Todo Backup covers everything you need for backups. With AI smart backup, automate your backup tasks on schedule, run to make copies, do realtime protections, and restore everything instantly. No extra effort is required. Also, get 250GB cloud storage for free.

Now 25% OFF Exclusive Code: PCWORLD25

Free Download

Get It Now | 25% off

R-Drive Image – Best Windows backup overall

Pros

• Super-reliable, fast, disk and partition imaging with replication
• File and folder backup with differential copies
• Dropbox, Google Drive, and OneDrive support
• Lean-and-mean Linux and WinPE boot media

Cons

• Minor interface quirks
• No support for S3-compatible online storage

Best Prices Today: $44.95 at R-tools Technology

R-Drive Image has long been a favorite of ours—a low-resource-consuming product that’s unparalleled in its reliability. Its ability to back up disks, partitions, folders, and files made it a one-stop shop for data preservation and recovery.

Now, with version 7.2, R-Drive Image goes even further with direct support for online storage services, so you can not only back up to a local drive, but also to your preferred cloud storage, be it Google Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive, etc. You can also replicate images across multiple destinations, adding redundancy that’s so critical to a good backup strategy.

It’s hard to think of anything R-Drive Image is lacking, other than support for S3-compatible online storage. But given its track record of continuous improvement to an already-good thing, we wouldn’t be surprised to see that in the future.

Read our full R-Drive Image review

Acronis Cyber Protect Home Office – Best Windows backup with malware protection

Pros

• Imaging, backup, and disaster recovery
• Actively protects against viruses and ransomware
• Integrated cloud storage available

Cons

• Heavy installation footprint

Best Prices Today: $49.99 at Acronis

Acronis well established itself as a trusty stalwart of backup software many years back with its renowned Acronis True Image program. The program’s name might have changed a few years back to Cyber Protect Home Office but it’s reputation as a capable, flexible, and rock-solidly reliable backup solution continues. Indeed, it’s easily the most comprehensive data safety package on the planet.

While Cyber Protect Home Office doesn’t offer the same support for third-party cloud storage as R-Drive Image, it does allow you to back up to local, networked, or its own cloud storage (available at select tiers). Besides offering unparalleled backup functionality that’s both robust and easy to navigate, it integrates security apps as well, which protect against malware, malicious websites, and other threats using real-time monitoring. 

As our reviewer said, “If you’re looking for a comprehensive, set-it-and-forget-it data-safety solution, I know of nothing better, or comparable for that matter.”

Read our full Acronis Cyber Protect Home Office review

Retrospect Solo – Best for added ransomware protection

Pros

• Easy to use (once learned)
• Copious feature set
• Good performance
• New anti-ransomware backup protection

Cons

• Somewhat steep learning curve

Best Prices Today: $49 at Retrospect

The latest version (18.5) of this stalwart Windows backup program is every bit as feature-packed as we’d expect. It even adds an interesting pre-backup file scanning to root out anomalies before overwriting your previous backup—a nod to the emergence of ransomware as a concern. It’s got a bit of a learning curve, but once familiar, Retrospect Solo delivers the goods.

Read our full Retrospect Solo review

Fbackup 9 – Best free Windows backup

Pros

• Easy, friendly interface
• Backs up local files as well as files on Dropbox and Google Drive
• Rock solid performance
• Supports versioning

Cons

• Some advertising nags
• Doesn’t support other online destinations.
• Backs up to, but not from network locations

Best Prices Today: Free at Softland

Fbackup 9 provides you with excellent backup options at no cost, and there’s no better price than free. Fbackup 9 is both more stable and easier to use than many of the premium options for Window’s backup software. It allows you to back up files to or from any local storage, to network locations, and to Google Drive or Dropbox. It does have some ads that you’ll need to put up with, but fortunately they are generally kept out of the way while using the software. Most users looking for an easy and free way to securely store their important data need look no further.

Read our full Softland FBackup 9 review

Windows File History backup – Best free Windows backup runner-up

Pros

• Excellent continuous data protection with versioning
• Easy, timeline browsing of backed-up files
• Integrated into Windows
• Backs up user-created libraries

Cons

• Easy “Add folder” function removed from Windows 11

Among the free programs we tested, Windows File History backup is one of the easiest continuous data protection software for Windows. It’s unfortunate that the latest version removed the “add folder” function from File History, but otherwise it continues to improve upon an already solid backup program. Also, it provides many of the features and functions of other third-party paid backup programs, all for free. And you can’t argue with free. It would’ve taken the top spot for free options if not for the fact that FBackup offers more versatility in terms of where you can back up your data, such as cloud storage.

Read our full Windows File History backup review

Arcserve ShadowProtect SPX – Best Windows backup for SMBs

Pros

• Fast and reliable continuous data protection
• Super easy restores to real or virtual hard drives
• Handy timeline overview
• Excellent disaster recovery

Cons

• Slightly daunting login dialog
• Image-based backup only
• Pricey for end users

Best Prices Today: $99.95 at StorageCraft

If you are looking for something more robust than just file and folder backup for your business, then Arcserve ShadowProtect SPX has you covered. It comes loaded with a full feature-set that allows you to quickly and easily restore your data and it has support for third-party virtual hard drives. It is also an excellent choice not just for Windows users, but also Linux users or those in mixed Windows/Linux environments. ShadowProtect is a bit pricey, but it is an extremely reliable backup software with foolproof continuous data protection.

Read our full Arcserve ShadowProtect SPX Desktop review

How we test

We run each program through the various types of backups it’s capable of. This is largely to test reliability and hardware compatibility, but we time two: an approximately 115GB system image (two partitions), and a roughly 50GB image created from a set of smaller files and folders. We then mount the images and test their integrity via the program’s restore functions. We also test the USB boot drives created by the programs.

How to pick a backup software

As with most things—don’t over-buy. Features you don’t need add complexity and may slow down your system. Additionally, if you intend to back up to a newly purchased external hard drive, check out the software that ships with it. Seagate, WD, and others provide backup utilities that are adequate for the average user.

File backup: If you want to back up only your data (operating systems and programs can be reinstalled, though it’s mildly time- and effort-consuming), a program that backs up just the files you select is a major time-saver. Some programs automatically select the appropriate files if you use the Windows library folders (Documents, Photos, Videos, etc.).

Image backup/imaging: Images are byte-for-byte snapshots of your entire hard drive (normally without the empty sectors) or partition, and can be used to restore both the operating system and data. Imaging is the most convenient to restore in case of a system crash, and also ensures you don’t miss anything important.

Boot media:  Should your system crash completely, you need an alternate way to boot and run the recovery software. Any backup program should be able to create a bootable optical disc or USB thumb drive. Some will also create a restore partition on your hard drive, which can be used instead if the hard drive is still operational.

Scheduling: If you’re going to back up effectively, you need to do it on a regular basis. Any backup program worth its salt allows you to schedule backups.

Versioning: If you’re overwriting previous files, that’s not backup, it’s one-way syncing or mirroring. Any backup program you use should allow you to retain several previous backups, or with file backup, previous versions of the file. The better software will retain and cull older backups according to criteria you establish.

Optical support: Every backup program supports hard drives, but as obsolete as they may seem, DVDs and Blu-Ray discs are great archive media. If you’re worried about optical media’s reliability, M-Disc claims its discs are reliable for a thousand years, claims that are backed up by Department of Defense testing.

Online support: An offsite copy of your data is a hedge against physical disasters such as flood, fire, and power surges. Online storage services are a great way to maintain an offsite copy of your data. Backup to Dropbox and the like is a nice feature to have.

FTP and SMB/AFP: Backing up to other computers or NAS boxes on your network or in remote locations (say, your parent’s house) is another way of physically safeguarding your data with an offsite, or at least physically discrete copy. FTP can be used for offsite, while SMB (Windows and most OS’s) and AFP (Apple) are good for other PCs or NAS on your local network.

Real time: Real-time backup means that files are backed up whenever they change, usually upon creation or save. It’s also called mirroring and is handy for keeping an immediately available copy of rapidly changing data sets. For less volatile data sets, the payoff doesn’t compensate for the drain on system resources. Instead, scheduling should be used.

Continuous backup: In this case, ‘continuous’ simply means backing up on a tight schedule, generally every 5 to 15 minutes, instead of every day or weekly. Use continuous backup for rapidly changing data sets where transfer rates are too slow, or computing power is too precious for real-time backup.

Performance: Most backups proceed in the background or during dead time, so performance isn’t a huge issue in the consumer space. However, if you’re backing up multiple machines or to multiple destinations, or dealing with very large data sets, speed is a consideration.

At a glance

Expert's Rating

Pros

• As fast as you’ll find
• Available in up to 4TB
• Optional heatsink/cooler

Cons

• Expensive

Our Verdict

The Corsair MP700 Pro SE came within a whisker of capturing the NVMe SSD performance crown — missing by a difference not worth mentioning. A true short-lister of a PCIe 5.0 drive.

Best Prices Today: Corsair MP700 Pro SE PCIe 5.0 NVMe SSD

The MP700 Pro SE that Corsair sent us for review truly is a “special edition,” and not just a marketing opportunity, as many are. Thanks to a NAND upgrade, the SE’s benchmark performance blows the doors off its slightly older sibling, a very worthy drive in its own right.

In fact, the MP700 Pro SE paced itself into a virtual tie with the mighty Crucial T705 for fastest consumer NVMe SSD we’ve ever tested.

Further reading: See our roundup of the best SSDs to learn about competing products.

What are the Corsair MP700 Pro SE’s features?

The MP700 Pro SE is a 2280 form factor, PCIe 5.0 x4, NVMe SSD utilizing the latest TLC NAND. The upgraded 2,400MT/s (megatransfers/second) NAND (the older Pro is only 2,000MT/s) is the main difference in this latest Special Edition. Both drives use the same Phison PS5026-E26 controller and 2GB of DRAM per terabyte of NAND.

The company warranties the MP700 Pro SE for five years, or 750TBW (terabytes to be written) per 1TB of capacity. That’s greater than the norm, which is around 600TBW per TB of NAND.

Corsair offers its SSD Toolbox for download, which lets you see S.M.A.R.T info, wipe the drive, and TRIM the drive. As a reviewer courtesy, the company provides the component level tech specs to us, not hiding them as some other vendors do. Good on ya’, Corsair!

How much does the Corsair MP700 Pro SE cost?

The 4TB Corsair MP700 Pro SE I tested retails for $625. It will also be available with a heatsink cooler, and if pricing follows the norm, those SKUs will cost $10 to $20 more. Pricing for the heatsink SKUs wasn’t set at the time of this writing.

The MP700 Pro SE is priced a bit on the high side, even for a 4TB PCIe 5.0 SSD. But it’s not outrageous given the performance and generous TBW rating. In all likelihood, you’ll find it online at a price nearer that of the like-performing competition when it finally ships.

Jon L. Jacobi / Foundry

Jon L. Jacobi / Foundry

Jon L. Jacobi / Foundry

No pricing was available for the plain 2TB version of the drive; however, the reviewer’s guide also made mention of a Hydro X series in a 2TB capacity for $355.

How fast is the Corsair MP700 Pro SE?

Long story short, the 4TB MP700 Pro SE I kicked the tires on is very, very fast. In fact, while being the second-fastest drive I’ve tested, it only fell short by a gnat’s eyebrow to the Crucial T705.

And I mean a gnat’s eyebrow — less than one-hundredth of a percent. That’s absolutely within the margin of error and nothing to concern yourself about. Take a gander at the CrystalDiskMark 8 sequential results and see for yourself.

Jon L. Jacobi

Jon L. Jacobi

Jon L. Jacobi

Random performance in CrystalDiskMark 8 was also very good, although slightly behind that of the Adata legend 970, which isn’t as fast in the CrystalDiskMark 8 sequential test above, but does well in the real world.

Our real-world transfers also had the MP700 Pro SE in a photo finish with the Crucial T705. The other drives weren’t far behind.

Jon L. Jacobi

Jon L. Jacobi

Jon L. Jacobi

In the 450MB write, the corsair MP700 Pro SE was again right in the mix. A 3-second difference in a 450GB write is a mere bagatelle. However, you may notice that there’s not a lot of difference between the top drives and the cheaper competitors in either real-world test. Remember that when it’s time to purchase.

When I finally wrote enough data to exhaust the initially allotted secondary cache, performance waffled between 750MBps and 1.3GBps. It’s likely that the faster NAND and smart/temporary allotment of more secondary cache kept the pace reasonable.

The MP700 Pro SE is so close to the Crucial T705 in performance, that with a slight variance in testing it indeed could have been number one. Judge it accordingly.

Should you buy the Corsair MP700 Pro SE?

The Corsair MP700 Pro SE is a fantastic NVMe SSD, though it faces stiff competition from the Crucial T705. If every ounce of performance is your desire, you’ll be happy with either. Buy whichever you get the best price on.

How we test

Drive tests currently utilize Windows 11, 64-bit running on an X790 (PCIe 4.0/5.0) motherboard/i5-12400 CPU combo with two Kingston Fury 32GB DDR5 4800MHz modules (64GB of memory total). Both 20Gbps USB and Thunderbolt 4 are integrated to the back panel and Intel CPU/GPU graphics are used. The 48GB transfer tests utilize an ImDisk RAM disk taking up 58GB of the 64GB of total memory. The 450GB file is transferred from a 2TB Samsung 990 Pro which also runs the OS.

Each test is performed on a newly NTFS-formatted and TRIM’d drive so the results are optimal. Note that in normal use, as a drive fills up, performance may decrease due to less NAND for secondary caching, as well as other factors. This can be less of a factor with the current crop of SSDs with far faster late-generation NAND.

Caveat: The performance numbers shown apply only to the drive we were shipped and to the capacity tested. SSD performance can and will vary by capacity due to more or fewer chips to shotgun reads/writes across and the amount of NAND available for secondary caching. Vendors also occasionally swap components. If you ever notice a large discrepancy between the performance you experience and that which we report, by all means, let us know.

At a glance

Expert's Rating

Pros

• Fastest external storage we’ve tested (at 40Gbps)
• Affordable for the ilk
• Stylish enclosure
• Available up to 4TB
• Also fast on the Mac

Cons

• Pricier than USB 3.2×2 (20Gbps)

Our Verdict

Adata’s handsome and unique USB 4 SSD is the fastest we’ve tested at 40Gbps, and is also relatively affordable. Recommended.

Best Prices Today: Adata SE920 EX USB4 SSD

The Adata SE920 is our second look at a 40Gbps USB 4 SSD and to be blunt, we like what we see. It’s handsome, stunningly fast, and has a clever enclosure featuring a micro-fan you can turn on and off according to need. Cool stuff.

What are the Adata SE920’s features?

I’ll get to the specs in a second, but the SE920 has one of the more unique features I’ve run across — half of the latched, spring-loaded outer shell slides out about half an inch to activate an internal fan. Said fan was very quiet, so I opted to leave the drive in the open position the majority of the time. You can see it in the open position in the photo up top and closed in the image below.

Beyond that, the SE920 is a USB 4 (40Gbps) external SSD that weighs about 7 ounces and measures 4.13-inches long by 2.52-inches wide by 0.62-inches thick — closed. Sliding the case/switch open ups the length to 4.82-inches. Either way, it’s quite a bit thinner than the finned OWC 1M2 — another very fast USB 4 SSD.

Further reading: See our roundup of the best external drives to learn about competing products.

Judging from the huge fins on the 1M2, and the micro-fan inside the SE920 — USB 4 generates almost as much heat as Thunderbolt. At least at the full 40Gbps. As you know, heat is unavoidable with electronics, but getting rid of it is essential to stability and longevity.

Adata provides a five-year warranty for the SE920. It’s a limited warranty, which means it’s mitigated by the amount of data written to the drive as well as physical abuse. The amount of data written can’t exceed a reasonable amount, which is likely 600TBW per 1TB of NAND if Adata follows the industry standard.

How much is the Adata SE920?

According to Adata, the 1TB SE920 will cost $140, the 2TB model will run $200, and the high-capacity 4TB is $380. More than 20Gbps USB SSDs, but not significantly, and miles cheaper than the OWC 1M2 — the only other external USB 4 SSD we’re aware of.

One thing I should point out is that being USB 4, rather than USB 3.2×2, you’ll get excellent performance on a Mac as well. Apple, for some unknown reason supports only 10Gbps with USB 3.2, meaning 3.2×2 20Gbps SSDS are constrained to half their potential. Nice one, Apple.

Not to let the USB Forum off the hook — there’s actually a 20Gbps mode for USB 4 in addition to the one for USB 3.2×2, and apparently the twain shall never meet in Apple land. Sigh.

How fast is the Adata SE920?

It wasn’t a blow out, but the Adata SE920 took the title of “Fastest external drive we’ve tested” from the OWC 1M2. At least at 40Gbps in synthetic benchmarks. At 20Gbps (using USB 3.2×2), under the synthetics, the opposite proved true — by about an equal margin.

As you buy USB 4 for the 40Gbps (or should), we weighted our judgement accordingly. Note that you can see the charts in larger format by right-clicking over them and selecting “View in new tab.”

In the end, however, the performance differences between the two USB 4 drives aren’t really worth worrying about. Subjectively, you’d never notice in a million years. This is demonstrated again below.

The SE920 again fell behind the 1M2 in the 48GB transfers at 40Gbps, but only just, and well within the margin of error for this particular test. The 1M2 again pulled away significantly at 20Gbps.

Where the SE920 really came into its own was in the long 450GB write. Speed after secondary cache ran out was quite good as well — around 850MBps. It took writing another 900GB of data immediately following the 450GB to reveal this.

Note that the 1M2 was a 1TB drive with less secondary cache, though it didn’t exhaust what it had in this test.

All in all, it’s a toss up between the 1M2 and the SE920 in terms of 40Gbps performance. And, if you’re wondering about the effectiveness of the fan… It helps — the SE920 didn’t run as hot during testing with the outer shell in the open position and said fan engaged.

Note that I had to turn on Better performance (caching) under Drive Management for the SE920 or writes were about ten times slower. Yup, 300MBps.

Should you buy the SE920?

If you want an uber-fast external SSD, then the SE920 is likely what you want. The OWC 1M2 was faster in some tests and significantly so on the 20Gbps bus, but the SE920 is a whole lot cheaper and easier to carry around. Good job, Adata.

How we test

Drive tests currently utilize Windows 11, 64-bit running on an X790 (PCIe 4.0/5.0) motherboard/i5-12400 CPU combo with two Kingston Fury 32GB DDR5 4800MHz modules (64GB of memory total). Both 20Gbps USB/Thunderbolt 4 are integrated to the back panel and Intel CPU/GPU graphics are used. The 48GB transfer tests utilize an ImDisk RAM disk taking up 58GB of the 64GB of total memory. The 450GB file is transferred from a 2TB Samsung 990 Pro which also runs the OS.

Each test is performed on a newly NTFS-formatted and TRIM’d drive so the results are optimal. Note that in normal use, as a drive fills up, performance may decrease due to less NAND for secondary caching, as well as other factors. This is less of a factor with the current crop of SSDs with their far faster NAND.

Caveat: The performance numbers shown apply only to the drive we were shipped and to the capacity tested. SSD performance can and will vary by capacity due to more or fewer chips to shotgun reads/writes across and the amount of NAND available for secondary caching. Vendors also occasionally swap components. If you ever notice a large discrepancy between the performance you experience and that which we report, by all means, let us know.

Best Prices Today: Thinkware Q200 dash cam

Thinkware has brought a number of innovations to the dash cam market, such as driver aids and phone connectivity. The Q200 reviewed here, features those handy extras, but it’s a bit pricey for external GPS and the cam’s capture quality, which is good, but not the best we’ve seen.

Further reading: See our roundup of the best dash cams to learn about competing products.

What are the Thinkware Q200’s features?

The Thinkware Q200 is a $200 two-channel, front/rear dash cam combo that carries on with the company’s phone-centric tradition. In other words, settings are done via an app on your phone. This makes for a cleaner appearance (minimal buttons), but also means you need your phone handy. The front camera is 1440p (Omnivision OS04C20), while the rear is 1080p (HK Optical HK-8308J-009-1-M12-PT). Both have a 125 degree field of view.

The front camera is rectangular, measuring approximately 3.9-inches long by 0.9-inched thick by 1.3-inches tall, and styled in dark silver and black. The front of the is home to the short lens neck, while the rear is occupied by the record on/off and Wi-Fi buttons as well as their status lights.

The right side of the unit offers only venting, while the left has the jacks for the rear camera and GPS. The power jack is on top of the unit to which attaches a proprietary 3.5mm TS (Tip/Sleeve) cable with a captive auxiliary power adapter. Generally speaking, we prefer Type-C to Type-A cables with a separate auxiliary adapter, ideally featuring two ports so you can power or charge another device simultaneously.

The rear camera rotates vertically, 360 degrees, and connects to the front camera via a 20-foot cable featuring TRRS (Tip/Ring/Ring/Sleeve) 3.5mm plugs. This cable is thinner and more pliable than most, which is nice for maneuvering.

Both the front and rear cameras use semi-permanent adhesive mounts, and the front slides off for safekeeping. The rear camera is not made to be removable, however — inadvertently tugging too hard had it popping out. I wouldn’t recommend doing this on a regular basis, as the retaining grooves will likely bust or wear out eventually. But in a pinch….

I mentioned the GPS jack. While the Q200 features GPS, it’s implemented by way of a rather large external unit (shown in the picture above) that must also be affixed to the windshield. Along with the rear camera, this makes for quite a nest of wires, not to mention adding to any blind spot the dash cam creates. To limit this blind spot, take a read through our dash cam installation guide.

Thinkware was one of the first companies to provide bad-driver aids such as collision warnings, lane departure, traffic camera alerts (safety cameras, my patootie!), etc. These are of course, present in the Q200 and you can hear various beeps and alerts if you enable the functions. While I turn off the bad-driver aids, I do like the traffic and speed camera alerts. Don’t ask.

Alas, unlike some of Thinkware’s products, the Q200 doesn’t respond to voice commands. Why, I can’t say, but with no display, they would be very handy.

Of course, there’s the phone app, Dash Cam Link (see above). Thinkware saves you the hassle of entering a Wi-Fi password by connecting via Bluetooth, then switching to Wi-Fi when you want to use the live view mode. Live view requires more bandwidth than Bluetooth provides, hence the Wi-Fi.

The app also allows you to easily adjust the time, date, and time zone as well as other settings. For some reason, it rates only 1.7 stars out of 5 on the Google Play Store, but that must reflect past issues or some anomalies that I didn’t experience. It was easy to use and worked perfectly in my testing.

Note that you must hit the “Dash Cam Registration” button to connect to the camera. Perhaps not the most intuitive initial instruction ever, but 1.7 stars? If you experience any issues, let me know.

How are the Thinkware Q200’s captures?

The Q200’s captures overall are average, with the best being the daylight front captures — par for the course. The rear captures were adequate, but somewhat lacking in detail during the day, and even weaker at night.

The low-light capture below isn’t full night; however, it is considerably darker than it appears in the image. Ambient light in the immediate area is essentially the same. Detail is good, and headlight flare is handled well by the Q200.

The rear captures sport rich colors, but detail isn’t particularly obvious as you can see from the license plate in the image below. There’s also a fair amount of fish-eye. Not bad, but not great.

Again, at night (late evening really), the issue with the rear captures is detail. You’ll get the big picture on events, but likely not the license plate number.

In total, the Thinkware Q200’s front captures are more than workable, while the rear camera’s will suffice, but could use improvement. I do wonder if some of the detail is being lost in compression. By default, the Q200’s 1440p generates only 127MB per minute, and the 1080p 70MB per minute. Most cameras will generate around 150MB per minute for 1440p.

A quick note on capture quality — it’s the result of a combination of resolution, optics, and processing. If any one of these is weak, quality suffers. By way of comparison, the 2160p from the recently reviewed Rove R2-4K was significantly worse than the Q200’s 1440p, while the 1440p from the upcoming Viofo VS1 Tiny 2K was quite a bit more detailed.

The upshot? Don’t buy on specs (especially resolution) alone; read the reviews and comments.

The Q200 employs a super capacitor to power the camera when the power is cut off. This allows the Q200 to save any recordings in progress, but it doesn’t run the camera long enough to capture any more action.

Should you buy the Thinkware Q200?

Though a bit pricey, the Thinkware Q200 is a good dash cam combo. For those who need or want them, the red light and speed camera alerts are the stand-out selling point. That said, we’d like to see internal rather than external GPS, and as there’s no display, voice control should also be included. Put it on the list, but shop around.

Best Prices Today: SanDisk Desk Drive 10Gbps USB SSD

SanDisk’s new 10Gbps USB Desk Drive is all about capacity. In fact, it ships only in larger 4TB and 8TB flavors, for $250 and $700 MSRP, respectively — demonstrating a real commitment to a marketing strategy that frames the product as a hard drive replacement.

The Desk Drive is also on the large side for an external SSD and requires external power to function, which while not unheard for an external USB drive of this capacity is a bit unusual for a drive that is only 10Gbps. Perhaps SanDisk is trying to make hard drive transitioners more comfortable?

Further reading: See our roundup of the best external drives to learn about competing products.

What are the Sandisk Desk Drive’s features?

I’ve already spilled some of the beans on this subject — however, as to its size, the Desk Drive measures a rather solid 3.9-inches wide and long, and about 1.5-inches between the slightly concave top and anti-skid bottom. It’s colored in SanDisk’s familiar dark gray, with orange piping encircling the unit near the vertical mid-point of the enclosure.

The back of the Desk Drive has the Type-C USB port, AC adapter jack, and a Kensington lock port. And yes, the drive requires an external power source which the company provides. We did try to use the drive without it, and no dice.

SanDisk apparently learned from its own Extreme Pro whose data-wiping issues may have stemmed from a lack of power, and Seagate’s FireCuda Gaming SSD 20Gbps SSD, which would only perform at 10Gbps on some systems, likely due to the same issue (although thermal throttling could have been the culprit). Note that I have tested many a 10Gbps and 20Gbps SSD that performs just fine using only bus power.

How much does the Desk Drive cost?

Though I already covered pricing up top, it’s helpful to discuss the Desk Drive’s price in relation to what it’s intended to replace — a hard drive. At the time of this writing you could find a name brand external 8TB hard drive for $150 — around 21 percent of the $700 (MSRP) 8TB Desk Drive. Of course, the hard drive provides only around 10 percent of the performance.

So the equation remains roughly the same when it comes to HDDs and SSDs: The former are significantly cheaper per gigabyte, while the latter are far faster, less delicate, and more reliable. That said, HDD reliability is much better than it used to be.

Buy according to need. If your backup is firing off in the middle of the night when speed doesn’t matter as much, go HDD and get a couple for redundancy. If you’re constantly banging on your external storage for work when seconds, minutes, or hours count, pony up the extra bucks for an SSD.

How fast is the SanDisk Desk Drive?

As a 10Gbps USB SSD, the 8TB Desk Drive I tested is of course light years faster than a hard drive and held its own in our testing against its 10Gbps rivals. That said, it’s no match for 20Gbps or 40Gbps SSDs, which generally double the benchmark results and halve the transfer times.

CrystalDiskMark 8 rated the Desk Drive as very facile in sequential transfers for a 10Gbps USB SSD as you can see below. It wasn’t the fastest in every test, but overall it performed quite well.

Jon L. Jacobi

Jon L. Jacobi

Jon L. Jacobi

The results were more mixed in the random 4K operations. The Desk Drive was fastest in two tests and below average in the other two. As you may notice, this is not unusual for external SSDs — a couple of the other drives are inconsistent as well.

The SanDisk Desk Drive is a hair behind the curve in 48GB transfers, but not enough to significantly impact your buying decision.

Jon L. Jacobi

Jon L. Jacobi

Jon L. Jacobi

Being an 8TB drive, I wasn’t expecting the Desk Drive to slow down at all in in our 450GB write — it didn’t. Once I threw another 2TB at the drive, performance wavered a bit — waffling between 250MBps and 900MBps. This was undoubtedly some smart secondary caching going on with varying degrees of success.

There’s little distinction performance-wise between the SanDisk Desk Drive and its competitors. This puts the buying decision down to price and form factor. All its rivals in the charts above are smaller and more portable.

Should you buy the SanDisk Desk Drive?

If you’re looking for high-capacity, high-speed upgrade from external hard drives, then the Sandisk Desk Drive will do the job nicely. It also looks good next to your PC, in my opinion. That said, there’s a lot of competition out there, especially at the 4TB capacity. Shop carefully.

How we test

Drive tests currently utilize Windows 11, 64-bit running on an X790 (PCIe 4.0/5.0) motherboard/i5-12400 CPU combo with two Kingston Fury 32GB DDR5 4800MHz modules (64GB of memory total). Both 20Gbps USB/Thunderbolt 4 are integrated to the back panel and Intel CPU/GPU graphics are used. The 48GB transfer tests utilize an ImDisk RAM disk taking up 58GB of the 64GB of total memory. The 450GB file is transferred from a 2TB Samsung 990 Pro which also runs the OS.

Each test is performed on a newly NTFS-formatted and TRIM’d drive so the results are optimal. Note that in normal use, as a drive fills up, performance may decrease due to less NAND for secondary caching, as well as other factors. This is less of a factor with the current crop of SSDs with their far faster NAND.

Caveat: The performance numbers shown apply only to the drive we were shipped and to the capacity tested. SSD performance can and will vary by capacity due to more or fewer chips to shotgun reads/writes across and the amount of NAND available for secondary caching. Vendors also occasionally swap components. If you ever notice a large discrepancy between the performance you experience and that which we report, by all means, let us know.

At a glance

Expert's Rating

Pros

• Fast like an external SSD
• Decently affordable
• Small form factor
• Captive Type-A USB connector

Cons

• Costs more than the common thumb drive

Our Verdict

SK Hynix’s Tube T31 looks like a standard Type-A USB thumb drive, but performs more like the external SSD it actually is. Fast, portable, universally connectable. Nice.

Best Prices Today: SK Hynix Tube T31 USB SSD stick

Retailer

Price

$79.99

View Deal

Price comparison from over 24,000 stores worldwide

Product

Price

Price comparison from Backmarket

SK Hynix is nothing if not creative with naming. Witness the previously reviewed scarab-shaped Beetle, and now the Tube T31. The Tube T31 is, in fact, a Type-A USB stick, aka thumb/flash drive or “tube” if you will — at least in shape and design.

Internally, however the T31 features NVMe and 10Gbps USB and performs more like the cable-attached external 10Gbps USB SSDs we review — i.e., it’s fast.

Note that while we distinguish between what’s commonly referred to as a thumb drive and external SSDs, the former is in fact a type of the latter. The major difference being that a commodity thumb drive generally uses older, slower technology such as SATA and USB 5Gbps.

Further reading: See our roundup of the best external drives to learn about competing products.

What are the SK Hynix Tube T31’s features?

The Tube T31 is a Type-A USB 3.2, 10Gb/s SSD that weighs around 1.2 ounces and measures approximately 3.6-inches long, by 1.17-inches wide, by 0.54 inches thick. While SK Hynix wasn’t specific about the internals, the performance tells me the internal transport is NVMe and the NAND is likely QLC.

As you can see from the images, the Tube T31 is black, with the only styling flourishes being the silver of the logo and, when the cap is removed, the Type-A connector.

SK Hynix warranties the T31 for three years. The warranty is limited, as all warranties are, so overuse (writing too much data) and physical abuse will give the company the option to ignore a claim.

No mention is made of the T31’s TBW rating (terabytes that may be written), but it’s likely around the industry average of 600TBW per 1TB of NAND. That’s a lot of data and more than you’re likely to write in a decade, let alone three years.

How much is the SK Hynix Tube T31?

The 1TB Tube T31 is currently available on Amazon for $100, while the 512MB capacity is $80. That’s pricey if you think of it as a thumb drive, but quite reasonable if you compare it with other high-powered external SSDs, such as SK Hynix’ aforementioned Beetle.

How fast is the Tube T31?

As discussed, the Tube T31 is very fast for a thumb drive. Easily the fastest we’ve tested — neither the Teamgroup C212 nor the PNY Pro Elite V2 thumb drives could keep up. Note that the Kingston XS1000, which did keep up in some tests, is a Type-C cable attached SSD, not a thumb drive, but is actually a tad smaller overall than the Tube T31. It’s priced similarly so we threw it in the ring.

As you can see above, CrystalDiskMark 8 rated the Tube T31 as very fast at transferring large files. It also ruled the roost among the three drives in random 4K performance, as shown below.

You wouldn’t think the T31 was a thumb drive looking at the 48GB transfer results below. It is, though obviously not garden variety.

While middling for an external 10Gbps SSD, the T31’s 450GB write time is fantastic, again, for a thumb drive.

The PNY Pro Elite V2 from the previous charts is not included here as its 256MB capacity didn’t allow for a 450GB write.

I mentioned up top that QLC is the likely type of NAND involved. This is largely based on the write rate dropping to around 255MBps when secondary cache was exhausted. And it was exhausted at around the 95 percent mark of the 450GB write, which added quite a few seconds to the Tube T31’s time. This type of write is not something most users will ever perform, so don’t weigh this result heavily in your buying decision.

Should you buy the SK Hynix Tube T31?

If you want the speed of an external SSD, but the convenience of a captive Type-A connector and a svelte form factor, the Tube T31 is what you seek. It’s the one I’ll be keeping in my pocket, which is indeed — a recommendation.

How we test

Drive tests currently utilize Windows 11, 64-bit running on an X790 (PCIe 4.0/5.0) motherboard/i5-12400 CPU combo with two Kingston Fury 32GB DDR5 4800MHz modules (64GB of memory total). Both 20Gbps USB/Thunderbolt 4 are integrated to the back panel and Intel CPU/GPU graphics are used. The 48GB transfer tests utilize an ImDisk RAM disk taking up 58GB of the 64GB of total memory. The 450GB file is transferred from a 2TB Samsung 990 Pro which also runs the OS.

Each test is performed on a newly NTFS-formatted and TRIM’d drive so the results are optimal. Note that in normal use, as a drive fills up, performance may decrease due to less NAND for secondary caching, as well as other factors. This is less of a factor with the current crop of SSDs with their far faster NAND.

Caveat: The performance numbers shown apply only to the drive we were shipped and to the capacity tested. SSD performance can and will vary by capacity due to more or fewer chips to shotgun reads/writes across and the amount of NAND available for secondary caching. Vendors also occasionally swap components. If you ever notice a large discrepancy between the performance you experience and that which we report, by all means, let us know.

Best Prices Today: Rove R2-4K Pro dash cam

Retailer

Price

$129.99

View Deal

Rove

$129.99

View Deal

Price comparison from over 24,000 stores worldwide

Product

Price

Price comparison from Backmarket

I’ve reviewed a whole lot of dash cams, but Rove is new to me. Nice to meet you! The company’s R2-4K Pro dash cam sports a robust feature set, including phone connectivity, as well as good captures.

Further reading: See our roundup of the best dash cams to learn about competing products.

What are the Rove R2-4K Pro’s features?

The Rove R2-4K Pro is a single-channel dash cam capable of 2160P captures. It’s black and about average in size at 2.91-inches wide, by 2.35-inches tall, by 1.43-inches thick at the lens body.

The R2-4K Pro ships with a vacuum mount that’s adjustable right/left and vertically, but you’ll need pay a bit of attention to the rotational angle. Placing the suction-breaking pull tab at around 11 o’clock will get you pretty close. This is true of most suction mounts. Once you have it set, the camera easily detaches from the mount.

On the back of the Rove R2-4K Pro is a 2.4-inch color display, with five buttons below it for navigation: Menu, up/mute, emergency lock/Wi-Fi, down/LCD off, and OK. On the right is the Type-C power jack, while on the left are the MicroSD card slot and power button.

The power to said Type-C jack comes from the auxiliary connector. Rove supplies an auxiliary adapter with a single Type-A port.

On top of the camera are the TV/video-out and GPS module. Yes, there’s integrated GPS and it connects very quickly — unlike some. Note that the time zone and time must be set manually regardless.

Rove of course provides an app to connect via the Wi-Fi. The app offers a live view and allows you to adjust the rather copious number of settings. You can even switch between h.264 and h.265 video (space-saving). The onscreen interface is nicely rendered, and logically laid out.

As with all dash cams, I recommend that you spend a few minutes with the interface before you start driving. That way, you can find the button or setting you need before the light turns green and everyone behind you starts honking. Just sayin’.

What I didn’t care for with the R2-4K Pro is that you must create a Rove account to use the app. No one should be forced online in order to use one of a product’s main features. Of course, you can configure the dash cam using the display, but… Note that Rove is not the only vendor that does this, though that doesn’t make it any easier to swallow.

How much does the Rove R2-4K Pro cost?

On Rove’s site, the R2-4K Pro is available for $129.99, marked down from a stated MSRP of $169.99. That’s a pretty good bargain.

How are the Rove R2-4K Pro’s captures?

I assumed the Rove R2-4K Pro would default to 2160p (4K UHD), but instead it came set to 2K (1440p), so my initial testing was at that lesser resolution. I suppose this is to save space. Oddly, though, the 2K was set to h.264 compression, while the 4K I reset it to for further testing (that’s what it’s billed as, after all!) defaulted to HEVC/h.265.

As a result, there was only a difference of about 30MB per minute (225MB/h.264/1440p, 250MB/h.265/2160p). This would make h.265 seem like a no-brainer. It’s when it comes to saving storage, however, that h.265 playback also requires more processing power. Not all CPUs offer h.265 acceleration and as a result, h.265 playback on some low-power and older devices can be jerky.

The R2-4K Pro’s captures at 4K are quite good, while the 2K captures are middling at best and suffered some minor stabilization issues. As you can see below, the daytime captures are more than passable, though I’d like to see just a bit sharper detail.

Night captures aren’t quite as good. Overall detail is good, but minutiae is lost on bright surfaces when headlights hit them (see below). This could be a key factor in the case of a nighttime accident. Note that the streaking you see is largely due to my windshield, though I did clean it beforehand. Apparently, just not well enough!

The R2–4K Pro uses a super-capacitor that will power the dash cam for a couple of seconds once main power is removed. This will save the current file, but not capture subsequent events. Note, however, that super capacitors are good for far more cycles than batteries and perform better in cold climates.

Overall, the R2-4K Pro’s captures are more than adequate during the day, and workable, if not optimal, at night. In the dark, you’ll get the big picture, but perhaps not the license plate number.

Should you buy the Rove R2-4K Pro?

At $130 or less (on sale) with GPS, the Rove R2-4K Pro is a very fetching proposition. There’s some competition, but we’d still put it on the short list.

This article was edited on May 23, 2024 to correct the name and some discussion to the R2-4K Pro which is the camera we actually tested.

At a glance

Expert's Rating

Pros

• PCIe 5.0
• Up to 4TB in capacity (soon)
• Second-fastest SSD we’ve tested overall

Cons

• Not particularly cheap

Our Verdict

The Teamgroup Z540 is a worthy competitor for the PCIe 5.0 performance crown. It’s not cheap, but it’s extremely fast.

Best Prices Today: Teamgroup Z540 PCIe 5 NVMe SSD

Retailer

Price

$142.99

View Deal

Price comparison from over 24,000 stores worldwide

Product

Price

Price comparison from Backmarket

Teamgroup’s most excellent Z540 SSD narrowly missed taking the top performance spot among PCIe 5.0 NVMe drives. It’s also priced competitively against the PCIe 5.0 competition. All told, it’s a worthy contender for your storage bucks.

Further reading: See our roundup of the best SSDs to learn about competing products.

What are the Teamgroup Z540’s features?

The T-Force Z540 (T-Force TM8FF1002T) is a 2280 (22mm wide, 80mm long) form factor, NVMe 1.4, four-lane (x4) PCIe 5.0 SSD. It utilizes a Phison PS5026-E26-52 controller to move data to and from its 232–layer, 3D NAND via 2GB of DRAM cache per terabyte of NAND.

Teamgroup warranties the Z540 for five years, or 600TBW (terabytes written) — whichever comes first. That’s about average these days for a high-end NVMe SSD.

How much is the Teamgroup Z540?

The 1TB version of the Z540 retails for $150. The 2TB version is $260. A 4TB version is $470.

How fast is the Teamgroup Z540?

The short answer to the question posed above is: very. Though, overall, it fell just behind the Crucial T705, as you go through the charts below, you won’t see a whole lot of difference. The same applies to the also very capable Adata Legend 970 and Corsair MP700 Pro.

Though very fast in CrystalDiskMark 8’s sequential tests, the Z540 lagged most significantly compared to the Crucial T705 when queues were involved. Note that there is not a lot of software (including Windows) that uses queues, so place more weight on the single-queue tests.

The Z540’s random 4K performance was on par for a modern PCIe 5.0 NVMe SSD, only beaten significantly in the 32-queue write by the Adata Legend 970 — by far the fastest writing drive with queues that we’ve tested.

The Z540 was very good in the 48GB transfers, if not the best of the four drives compared. Note that for some reason, cheaper Host Memory Buffer (HMB) drives seem to ace our real-world transfers.

There’s not a lot to choose from in the 450GB writes. The scores for the four drives compared are basically within statistical variance of each other. The actual record of 133 seconds for this test was set by Crucial’s T500, a significantly less expensive drive. Go Figure.

The only area where I noticed any lag was in formatting the Z540. For some reason, it was rather slow at this, taking up to 20 seconds. Yes, that’s the point were at — a 20 second format is reason to complain. My how things have changed in 10 years.

Overall, the Z540 (I keep wanting to say Datsun or Nissan — LMK if you ken that), is an excellent performer that deserves a spot on your short list if speed rather than price is of paramount importance.

Should you buy the Teamgroup Z540?

The Teamgroup T-Force Z540 is a fantastic performer that will deliver the goods at a reasonable (for a PCIe 5.0 SSD) price. Unless you find one of its like-performing competitors for significantly less, have at it.

How we test

Drive tests currently utilize Windows 11, 64-bit running on an X790 (PCIe 4.0/5.0) motherboard/i5-12400 CPU combo with two Kingston Fury 32GB DDR5 4800MHz modules (64GB of memory total). Both 20Gbps USB and Thunderbolt 4 are integrated to the back panel and Intel CPU/GPU graphics are used. The 48GB transfer tests utilize an ImDisk RAM disk taking up 58GB of the 64GB of total memory. The 450GB file is transferred from a 2TB Samsung 990 Pro which also runs the OS.

Each test is performed on a newly NTFS-formatted and TRIM’d drive so the results are optimal. Note that in normal use, as a drive fills up, performance may decrease due to less NAND for secondary caching, as well as other factors. This can be less of a factor with the current crop of SSDs with far faster late-generation NAND.

Caveat: The performance numbers shown apply only to the drive we were shipped and to the capacity tested. SSD performance can and will vary by capacity due to more or fewer chips to shotgun reads/writes across and the amount of NAND available for secondary caching. Vendors also occasionally swap components. If you ever notice a large discrepancy between the performance you experience and that which we report, by all means, let us know.