Product comparison · 2 wireless routers

D-Link DSL-G804V wireless router vs NETGEAR KIT Modem Router MIMO + USB Wireless MIMO

Add a product
  • 20specifications compared
  • 10differ
  • 10identical
  • 19known for one product only

Key differences

  • Security algorithms
    • DSL-G804V wireless router:WPA
    • KIT Modem Router MIMO + USB Wireless MIMO:WEP, WPA-PSK, WPA2-PSK
  • Operating relative humidity (H-H)
    • DSL-G804V wireless router:20 - 95%
    • KIT Modem Router MIMO + USB Wireless MIMO:10 - 90%
  • Weight
    • DSL-G804V wireless router:270 g
    • KIT Modem Router MIMO + USB Wireless MIMO:500 g
  • Dimensions (WxDxH)
    • DSL-G804V wireless router:193 x 118 x 31 mm
    • KIT Modem Router MIMO + USB Wireless MIMO:223 x 153 x 31 mm
  • Maximum data transfer rate
    • DSL-G804V wireless router:0.1 Gbit/s
    • KIT Modem Router MIMO + USB Wireless MIMO:0.108 Gbit/s
  • Power requirements
    • DSL-G804V wireless router:12VAC 1.2A
    • KIT Modem Router MIMO + USB Wireless MIMO:12V DC, 1.0A

Side by side

Differences highlightedShow differences only (on)
Comparison of DSL-G804V, KIT Modem Router MIMO + USB Wireless MIMO
39 specifications
Network1 differ
Networking standardsKnown for oneIEEE 802.11gUnknown — not stated by the source
VPN supportDiffersIPSec, PPTP IKE DES, 3DES, AES MPPE L2TP + IPSec L2TP/PPTP/IPSecWPA2-PSK, WPA-PSK, WEP, WPA-802.1x, WPA2-802.1x
DSL features1 differ
DSL specificationDiffersANSI T1.413 2, ITU G.992.1, G.dmt) Annex A, ITU G.992.2 (G.lite) Annex A, ITU G.992.3 (G.dmt.bis) Annex A,ITU G.992.4 (G.lite.bis) Annex A, ITU G.992.5 Annex A/L, ITU G.994.1 (G.hs)T1.413, G.DMT, ADSL 2+, ITU Annex A
Management featuresidentical
Quality of Service (QoS) supportKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
Reset buttonKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
Security1 differ
Security algorithmsDiffersWPAWEP, WPA-PSK, WPA2-PSK
Firewall securityKnown for oneIP Spoofing, TCP SYNUnknown — not stated by the source
FilteringKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
MAC address filteringKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
System event logKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
DoS attack preventionKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceYes
Protocols1 differ
Supported network protocolsDiffersNAT, RIP v.1, v.2, UPnP, DDNS, Virt Ser, DMZ, SNTP, DNS, IGMP, POP3TCP/IP, PPTP, UDP/IP, L2TP, ICMP/IP, PPPoE, PPPoA
Poweridentical
Power over Ethernet (PoE)Known for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
Operational conditions1 differ
Operating relative humidity (H-H)Differs20 - 95%10 - 90%
Storage temperature (T-T)Known for one-20 - 70 °CUnknown — not stated by the source
Weight & dimensions1 differ
WeightDiffers270 g500 g
Other features4 differ
Dimensions (WxDxH)Differs193 x 118 x 31 mm223 x 153 x 31 mm
Downstream data rateKnown for one24 Mbit/sUnknown — not stated by the source
Maximum data transfer rateDiffers0.1 Gbit/s0.108 Gbit/s
Networking featuresDiffersFast EthernetIEEE 802.11b, IEEE 802.11g, 802.11 Super G
Power requirementsDiffers12VAC 1.2A12V DC, 1.0A
Upstream data rateKnown for one1 Mbit/sUnknown — not stated by the source
WLAN data transfer rates supportedKnown for one54 Mbit/sUnknown — not stated by the source
Electromagnetic emissionsKnown for oneFCC Part 15 Class B, CE (EN55022/EN55024/EN300 328/EN301 489Unknown — not stated by the source
I/O portsKnown for one1 x ConsoleUnknown — not stated by the source
BandwidthKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source2.4 GHz
Compatible operating systemsKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceUNIX, Apple MacOS, Linux, Microsoft Windows 98/ME/NT/2000/XP
Filtering descriptionKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceURL
Certificatesidentical
CertificationKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceCE, FCC Class A, C-Tick, cUL, EN 60950, IEC950, UL 1950, EN55024, EN50082-1, FCC Part 15

A dash means the value is not stated by the source. Unknown values are never counted for or against a product, and there is no overall score.

More wireless router comparisons

All wireless router comparisons