Portal Wi-Fi review: Don't be fooled by its looks, this little router rocks!

The real problem of slow Wi-Fi

The Portal is a new router by a young company called Ignition Design Labs. The company was formed by engineers who have worked together for over a decade and have came up with designs on which hundreds of millions of Wi-Fi devices today are based on.

Ignition Design Labs came about because a group of engineers became disgruntled with the state of the home networking industry. They say that networking brands are not solving the real problems that were making Wi-Fi slower and less reliable. In addition, they also wanted to make Wi-Fi easier to setup for everyone. These are the two main tenets that guide Ignition Design Labs.

So what is the real problem behind troublesome Wi-Fi? According to Ignition Design Labs, the answer is congestion. If you live in a typical apartment, you might find that your home is actually surrounded by many Wi-Fi networks. Even in my office and from my desk, my Mac now tells me that there are 9 separate Wi-Fi networks that I can connect to. 

That’s bad news because more Wi-Fi networks mean more congestion. And it is especially bad if your neighbor happens to be using the same Wi-Fi channel as you. Of course, you could maximize performance by downloading a Wi-Fi scanner and making sure that you set your own Wi-Fi to a channel that isn’t used by your neighbors. However, how many of you reading this know or even have the time to do that?

Portal is a specially designed router that can avoid congestion thanks to its Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS) feature. But how does it work?

DFS, FastLanes, Mesh-capable

Play

Portal distinguishes itself from other routers because of its DFS capability and FastLanes technology. These two features combine to allow the Portal router to use 5GHz channels that are typically reserved for radar use by the military and weather services.

The thing with 5GHz channels is that a good portion of it is reserved for radar use. Typical consumer-grade routers can’t touch this spectrum. It is not that they aren’t allowed to, but it is because there are strict requirements in place for routers who do choose to use this restricted spectrum. For example, they must be able to detect when a radar is nearby, and when it is, the router must vacate the spectrum.

Obviously, this constant scanning adds overhead to the router and also requires specialized hardware, which adds to complexity and cost. As a result, few consumer-grade routers have this capability.

In a nutshell, the Portal allows users to use Wi-Fi channels that other regular routers can’t touch. This frees it from congestion and should, in theory at least, result in better overall performance.

But bear in mind that you need client devices that support DFS to be able to take advantage of this capability. The good news, however, is that most products released in the past two years will support DFS. There's a small list of devices that don't and Ignition Design Labs has a list of them here.  Having said that, note that this list is not exhaustive and there might be other devices that don't support DFS and isn't listed here.

The Portal is capable of forming a mesh network too with a second Portal router. This lets users expand their Wi-Fi coverage using a single SSID. However, this feature is limited in the sense that you can only expand coverage once by adding a second Portal router. You cannot expand coverage further by adding a third router. That said, Portal claims that a single router can blanket an area of 3,000 ft² or 280 m², so two Portal routers should be enough for most homes.

However, note that because the Portal is only a dual-band router it doesn’t have a dedicated network for backhaul communications between the two routers. This means it has to use the same network that users use, so users should expect to see some drop in performance when using the Portal as a mesh network.

The Portal Wi-Fi router

The Portal router comes in a glossy white enclosure with curved edges. A simple Portal logo adorns the top panel and there are no external antennas. It is a simple and clean design that should look good in most homes. It is fairly wide though, so you will need a good amount of space to position it. For users who are handy with tools, the Portal has wall-mount slots, so wall-mounting is possible.

Ports are all located on the back. There are four Gigabit Ethernet LAN ports and a single Gigabit Ethernet WAN port. This is standard stuff for most routers, so no surprises there. There are also two USB 2.0 ports. Two USB ports are great, but what’s not so great is that they are rated for USB 2.0 speeds only. For folks who want to attach an external storage device to it for file-sharing, this could mean slower transfer speeds. Perhaps they are betting on people who really need network storage might be using NAS systems instead.

Inside, the Portal is powered by a Qualcomm QCA9563 SoC that runs at 750MHz. Both 2.4GHz and 5GHz radios are also from Qualcomm. Maximum data transfer rates on the 2.4GHz and 5GHz networks are 600Mbps and 1,734Mbps respectively. This makes it an AC2400-class router.

However, for those networking-savvy readers, you might have noticed that I mentioned that the Portal has nine antennas. If the 2.4GHz network accounts for three and the 5GHz network accounts for four, what about the remaining two antennas? 

Those two antennas are responsible in detecting for radar presence. If it detects radar use in the proximity, it switches out of the restricted spectrum. Thanks to a dedicated Qualcomm “SpectrumBoost” co-processor, the switch from restricted to unrestricted channels is purportedly seamless, meaning users do not experience a catastrophic cut in connection that requires them to reconnect to their Wi-Fi network.

Set-up and usability

Setting up the Portal was pretty straightforward and easy. Like most modern routers, the Portal can be configured using an app. The Portal WiFi Router app is available for both iOS and Android devices. Simply follow the onscreen instructions and you are set. Traditionalists can also setup and configure the router using the web setup interface. The web interface is welcoming and easy to use. It also has all the features most users would want from a router such as parental controls, QoS, VPN, Dynamic DNS, network file sharing, and port forwarding.

Unfortunately, having the app and web setup interface can be a little confusing, that is because the app can do some things that the web interface cannot, and likewise the web interface can do some other things that the app can’t. It can be quite confusing and frustrating in the initial phase. For instance, adding another Portal router to create a mesh network can only be done using the app. On the other hand, parental controls and QoS settings can only be tweaked using the web interface.

Test Setup

To test these new breed of mesh networking systems, we are changing our test environment, but our test setup remains relatively unchanged. We have two notebooks, one acting as a host machine and the other as a client device. The router, or in this case, node, acts as a gateway. Since mesh networking systems typically manage channel settings on their own, we will leave it that way. For systems where manual settings are possible, a channel bandwidth of 40MHz is selected where applicable, while 80MHz or more is used for the 5GHz AC band.

The client device is a 2015 13-inch MacBook Pro, which is one of the few client devices in the market to come with a 3x3 Wi-Fi receiver, allowing it to achieve wireless speeds of up to 1,300Mbps.

To evaluate, we will be measuring the time and calculating the speed achieved when transferring a 1GB zip file. We will do multiple tests with different setups and different distances to simulate use around a typical single story flat and in a multi-story home. 

Here are the test distances we used and what they represent:

• 2m - Right beside the router
• 5m - In an adjacent room
• 10m - In a room that is farther away
• 15m - To simulate extreme distances (e.g. master bedroom toilet)
• Second story - One floor above
• Third story - Two floors above

Here are the different Portal setups we used:

• A single Portal router
• Two Portal routers over a single floor
• Two Portal routers over two or more floors

And to clarify, in tests where nodes were placed on the second or third floor, the measurement would be taken with the client device about two meters away from the node. Also, the Portal router was using DFS channels for the tests as seen in the wireless network configuration screenshot. 

Single node performance

In this test, we will be looking at the performance of a single Portal router in a single-story (using the differnt distance markers) and multi-story home. All other competitive mesh networking system results are also that of a single node setup.

The Portal router impressed us in this test with its impressive range. The most telling finding from this test is that it was the only router that was capable of transmitting and receiving data to our client device when it was on the second floor. Even on the second floor, it could comfortably manage speeds of over 100Mbps, which is quite something especially when you consider that it handily beat the powerful Linksys EA9500. Its overall speeds weren’t shabby too. Download speeds were a little low, but its upload speeds, particularly at closer ranges, were very good.

That said, it couldn’t get a good signal at the 15-meter mark, which continues to be a problem area that has affected every router we have tested in this environment. Also, while its performance from the second floor was good, going up to the third floor was a stretch even for the Portal router and its supposedly congestion-free DFS channels.

Mesh performance at 15 meters

In this test, we placed a second Portal router and created a mesh network to get signal to the problematic 15-meter mark. We did the same for other mesh networks to see how their performance would compare.

With a second Portal router working as a mesh networking in between the original Portal router and the 15-meter mark, we were finally able to get a working signal at the problematic 15-meter point.

Here, the Portal compares favorably with the Singtel AirTies Air 4920. In fact, it was nearly twice as fast in both download and upload speeds. However, it was outpaced by the Velop. The Velop mesh system was about 17% faster overall, likely because it has a dedicated network for backhaul communications.

Mesh performance on 2nd floor

In this test, we placed a second Portal router and created a mesh network to expand Wi-Fi coverage on the second floor. We did the same for the other mesh networks to see how their performance would compare.

With a second router in place, the results we saw were quite interested. Download speeds actually dipped by about 10%, which was something we were not expecting. Our guess is that since the signal was already quite strong to begin with, adding a second Portal router might have added some overhead since there's no dedicated backhaul communications channel. That said, upload speeds improved dramatically by around 55%.

The results of the Portal was superior to that of the AirTies Air 4920 mesh networking system. The Portal also bested the Velop in terms of downloads speeds but lost out slightly when it came to upload speeds. However, do take note that the Velop setup consisted of 3 nodes (with the third node positioned on the third floor), but our client device was still positioned next to the second node at the second floor.

Mesh performance on 3rd floor

In this test, we placed a second Portal router on the second floor to see if we can expand coverage to the third floor. We did the same for other mesh networks to see how their performance would compare. However, do note that the Velop setup consisted of three nodes, with one node placed on each floor. This should give the Velop an advantage.

With a second Portal router on the second floor, we were able to get a decent connection even from the third floor. Here, download speeds were just over 100Mbps and upload speeds were about 55Mbps. The Portal mesh system handily beat the AirTies Air 4920, but not by much. However, performance was mixed against the Velop. The Velop lost out marginally in terms of download speeds but posted vastly superior upload speeds. Even so, it is quite impressive how much coverage two Portal routers can provide. Judging from these results, we think that it should be enough for most typical apartments.

A rockin’ little router

The Portal router might be small, but it delivers a pretty big punch in terms of performance. Overall performance is definitely competitive and the compact Portal was capable of challenging the Linksys EA9500, especially at farther ranges, which showcases the effectiveness of its DFS capability. Plus, the good thing about DFS is that, unlike MU-MIMO, support for it is much wider. It works with more devices and users can more readily get the best out of the router.

Perhaps more importantly, it is a refreshing take on the age-old problem of poor Wi-Fi coverage in homes. As opposed to making larger routers with more powerful amplifiers and supporting higher speeds, why not take advantage of unused Wi-Fi spectrum?

The ability to expand Wi-Fi coverage by creating a mesh networking with a second Portal router is really helpful since a single router these days might not necessarily be sufficient depending on your home and your environment. Nevertheless, the Portal isn’t really a mesh networking system. If you have a larger home, you will want to look at proper mesh networking solutions like the Linksys Velop and ASUS Lyra, just to name a few. It is better to think of the Portal as a really capable router that happens to have mesh networking capability.

The Portal is not without its shortcomings, but there aren’t that many. Though support for DFS is considerably widespread, some users with older devices will encounter problems. The workaround for this can be a little cumbersome as users need to mindfully connect older or non-compatible devices to the slower 2.4GHz network of the Portal router so as not to slow down the faster 5GHz network. 

Router management is a sore point of this router as its mobile app and its web UI are not consistent with what it can or cannot do, which can be confusing as some features can only be accessed through the web UI and vice versa. Additionally, we would really have liked to see a faster USB 3.0 port, which would have improved its network attached storage performance when attaching external storage devices to the router for file-sharing.

Nevertheless, the Portal’s shortcomings are easily overlooked in favor of its strengths. It is fast, easy to setup, and has some really useful features that routers in its class lack like DFS and mesh networking capability. Furthermore, at S$249, it is reasonably and quite attractively priced, especially when you consider its talents and its competitive landscape.

Overall, the Portal is a great little router that will serve the needs of most users well and comes highly recommended.

Our articles may contain affiliate links. If you buy through these links, we may earn a small commission.