OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Routers Methodology v3.0
Routers Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Routers Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Routers Methodology v3.0

GL.iNet Mango GL-MT300N V2 review: 77 specs compared

Avg. price:~£25Wi-Fi version:Wi-Fi 4 (802.11n)Wi-Fi speed:300 MbpsLAN port speeds:100 MbpsMesh Wi-Fi:?

GL.iNet Mango GL-MT300N V2 Review: Compare 77 technical specifications, 7 expert and video reviews and 2 best-of lists to see how this product ranks in the Routers category and whether it is worth buying.

GL.iNet Mango GL-MT300N V2
7.5/10

Overall score

Score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 57% of models
Score components

40%

6.7

Technical score

25%

8.4

Reviews score

25%

8.2

List score

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 6.9, the mark of a weaker model in this category

▲Better than 57% of routers
8.3

Value for money

Value for money
8.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the router's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a router with a good balance between network performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 65% of models
Score components

70%

7.5

Overall score

30%

10

Price

▲Better than 65%
6.7

Technical score

Technical score
6.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 66% of models
Score components

26%

5.6

Wireless

20%

3.9

Ports

18%

9.3

Networking

14%

9.6

Security

12%

5.3

Hardware

10%

8.3

Management

▼Worse than 66%
8.4

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.7 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 68% of models

80%

8.4

Average grade

20%

8.3

Popularity

Grades by review (7)
4 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▲Better than 68%
8.2

List score

List score
8.2/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (2)
List score: in 2 of 84 lists (2%)
▲Better than 82%
  • glinet-mango-gl-mt300n-v2
  • glinet-mango-gl-mt300n-v2
  • glinet-mango-gl-mt300n-v2
  • glinet-mango-gl-mt300n-v2
  • glinet-mango-gl-mt300n-v2
  • glinet-mango-gl-mt300n-v2
  • glinet-mango-gl-mt300n-v2
  • glinet-mango-gl-mt300n-v2
  • glinet-mango-gl-mt300n-v2
glinet-mango-gl-mt300n-v2
glinet-mango-gl-mt300n-v2
glinet-mango-gl-mt300n-v2
glinet-mango-gl-mt300n-v2
glinet-mango-gl-mt300n-v2
glinet-mango-gl-mt300n-v2
glinet-mango-gl-mt300n-v2
glinet-mango-gl-mt300n-v2
glinet-mango-gl-mt300n-v2
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the GL.iNet Mango GL-MT300N V2

Based on 5 · 3

Reviewers love the tiny size, handy VPN and reliable connection, but dislike the single Wi-Fi band and weak power supply.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of router GL.iNet Mango GL-MT300N V2

Technical score
Technical score
6.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 66% of models
Score components:

26%

5.6

Wireless

20%

3.9

Ports

18%

9.3

Networking

14%

9.6

Security

12%

5.3

Hardware

10%

8.3

Management

6.7
Reviews score
8.4
List score
8.2
Value for money
Value for money
8.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the router's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a router with a good balance between network performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 65% of models
Score components:

70%

7.5

Overall score

30%

10

Price

8.3
Brand name
GL.iNet
Wi-Fi version
Wi-Fi 4 (802.11n)
This router uses Wi-Fi 4 (802.11n), which is less advanced than 65% of routers and equal to 32.7% of routers.
Wi-Fi bands
2.4 GHz
This router supports 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi bands, which are less versatile than 76% of routers and equal to 21.6% of routers.
Wi-Fi speed
300 Mbps
Market range: <0 Mbps – >6k Mbps
This router delivers 300 Mbps Wi-Fi speed, which is lower than 75.8% of routers and equal to 16.7% of routers.
Channel widths supported
20 MHz + 40 MHz
This router supports 20 MHz + 40 MHz channel width options, which is fewer than 63.7% of routers and the same as 31.2% of routers.
Show more
What reviewers say
Wi-Fi security protocols
?
DoS protection
yes
This router includes DoS protection. 9.8% of routers include DoS protection.
SPI intrusion protection
yes
This router includes SPI-based intrusion protection. 4.7% of routers include SPI-based intrusion protection.
MAC address filtering
yes
This router supports MAC address filtering. 1.7% of routers include MAC address filtering.
URL filter
yes
This router supports URL filtering. 2.6% of routers include URL filtering.
Show more
What reviewers say
IPv6 support
yes
This router supports IPv6. 8.8% of routers are IPv6-ready.
Dynamic routing
yes
This router supports dynamic routing. 54% of routers support dynamic routing.
Inter-VLAN routing
?
VLAN tagging
?
QoS
yes
This router includes QoS controls. 2.4% of routers include QoS controls.
Show more
N. of LAN ports
1
Market range: <0 – >5
This router has 1 LAN ports, which is fewer than 89.6% of routers and the same as 8.5% of routers.
LAN port speeds
100 Mbps
This router offers 100 Mbps on its LAN ports, which is slower than 74.5% of routers and on par with 25.1% of routers.
N. of WAN ports
1
Market range: <0 – >5
This router has 1 WAN ports, which is more than 0.8% of routers and the same as 89.4% of routers.
N. of USB ports
1
Market range: <0 – >5
This router has 1 USB ports, which is more than 40.1% of routers and the same as 41.5% of routers.
Power over Ethernet (PoE)
no
This router does not support Power over Ethernet (PoE). 1.7% of routers can be powered over Ethernet.
Show more
What reviewers say
Management interface
Web UI, App, CLI
This router uses Web UI, App, CLI for management, which is more advanced than 96.4% of routers and equal to 1.1% of routers.
Firmware upgrade method
Web UI, App
This router supports Web UI, App firmware update methods, which are more convenient than 62.3% of routers and equal to 8.4% of routers.
Traffic monitoring
yes
This router includes traffic monitoring. 13.9% of routers include traffic monitoring.
Guest Wi-Fi network
yes
This router offers a guest Wi‑Fi network. 7.3% of routers offer a guest Wi‑Fi network.
Captive portal
no
This router does not offer captive portal features. 22.4% of routers offer captive portal features.
Show more
CPU clock speed
0.58 GHz
This router runs at 0.58 GHz, which is slower than 76.9% of routers and on par with 1% of routers.
RAM capacity
128 MB
Market range: <0 MB – >1k MB
This router has 128 MB of RAM, which is less than 54% of routers and the same as 16.3% of routers.
Internal storage
0.015625 GB
Market range: <0 GB – >0.5 GB
This router has 0.015625 GB of internal storage, which is less than 55.2% of routers and the same as 13% of routers.
Hardware acceleration
?
N. of external antennas
0
Market range: <0 – >10
This router has 0 external antennas, which is fewer than 62.7% of routers and the same as 37.3% of routers.
Show more
What reviewers say

GL.iNet Mango GL-MT300N V2 vs the average router

246810TotalWirelessSecurityNetworkingPortsManagementHardware
  • Better management tools
    This router uses the management interface Web UI, App, CLI, while the average router uses Web UI, App.
    Web UI, App, CLI vs Web UI, App
  • Supports dynamic routing
    This router supports dynamic routing, while the average router does not. 46.1% of routers support dynamic routing.
  • 5.35 W lower power consumption
    This router uses less power than the average router (2.8 W vs 8.1 W). The average router uses 8.1 W power.
    2.75 W vs 8.1 W
  • 9.1% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.4/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.7 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 68% of models

    80%

    8.4

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (7)
    4 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.4 vs 7.7
  • 3.8x cheaper
    GL.iNet Mango GL-MT300N V2 is cheaper than the average router (£25 vs £95).
    £25 vs £95
  • 135 mm narrower width
    This router is narrower than the average router (58 mm vs 193 mm). The average router is 193 mm wide.
    58 mm vs 193 mm
  • 2 more internal antennas
    This router has more internal antennas than the average router (2 vs 0). The average router has 0 internal antennas.
    2 vs 0
  • 29 mm thinner design
    This router is thinner than the average router (25 mm vs 54 mm). The average router is 54 mm thick.
    25 mm vs 54 mm
  • 9.1% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.4/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.7 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 68% of models

    80%

    8.4

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (7)
    4 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.4 vs 7.7
  • 3.8x cheaper
    GL.iNet Mango GL-MT300N V2 is cheaper than the average router (£25 vs £95).
    £25 vs £95
  • Supports dynamic routing
    This router supports dynamic routing, while the average router does not. 46.1% of routers support dynamic routing.
  • Better management tools
    This router uses the management interface Web UI, App, CLI, while the average router uses Web UI, App.
    Web UI, App, CLI vs Web UI, App
  • 5.35 W lower power consumption
    This router uses less power than the average router (2.8 W vs 8.1 W). The average router uses 8.1 W power.
    2.75 W vs 8.1 W
  • 135 mm narrower width
    This router is narrower than the average router (58 mm vs 193 mm). The average router is 193 mm wide.
    58 mm vs 193 mm
  • 2 more internal antennas
    This router has more internal antennas than the average router (2 vs 0). The average router has 0 internal antennas.
    2 vs 0
  • 91.1% lighter weight
    This router is lighter than the average router (40 g vs 450 g). The average router weighs 450 g.
    40 g vs 450 g
  • 29 mm thinner design
    This router is thinner than the average router (25 mm vs 54 mm). The average router is 54 mm thick.
    25 mm vs 54 mm
  • 3 fewer LAN ports
    This router has fewer LAN ports than the average router (1 vs 4). The average router has 4 LAN ports.
    1 vs 4
  • Slower LAN ports
    This router has a lower LAN port speed than the average router (100 Mbps vs 1 Gbps). The average router has a LAN port speed of 1 Gbps.
    100 Mbps vs 1 Gbps
  • Older Wi-Fi version
    This router uses an older Wi-Fi version than the average router (Wi-Fi 4 (802.11n) vs Wi-Fi 5 (802.11ac)). The average router uses Wi-Fi 5 (802.11ac).
    Wi-Fi 4 (802.11n) vs Wi-Fi 5 (802.11ac)
  • Fewer Wi-Fi bands
    This router supports fewer Wi-Fi bands than the average router (2.4 GHz vs 2.4 GHz + 5 GHz). The average router supports 2.4 GHz + 5 GHz Wi-Fi bands.
    2.4 GHz vs 2.4 GHz + 5 GHz
  • 82.9% slower Wi-Fi speed
    This router has a lower Wi-Fi speed than the average router (300 Mbps vs 1,750 Mbps). The average router reaches Wi-Fi speed of 1,750 Mbps.
    300 Mbps vs 1,750 Mbps
  • No MU-MIMO
    This router does not support MU-MIMO, while the average router does. 54% of routers support MU-MIMO.
  • Lower CPU clock speed
    This router has a lower CPU clock speed than the average router (0.58 GHz vs 2x1 GHz). The average router has a CPU clock speed of 2x1 GHz.
    0.58 GHz vs 2x1 GHz
  • Narrower channel widths
    This router has a lower supported channel width than the average router (20 MHz + 40 MHz vs 20 MHz + 40 MHz + 80 MHz). The average router supports channel width of 20 MHz + 40 MHz + 80 MHz.
    20 MHz + 40 MHz vs 20 MHz + 40 MHz + 80 MHz
  • Older Wi-Fi version
    This router uses an older Wi-Fi version than the average router (Wi-Fi 4 (802.11n) vs Wi-Fi 5 (802.11ac)). The average router uses Wi-Fi 5 (802.11ac).
    Wi-Fi 4 (802.11n) vs Wi-Fi 5 (802.11ac)
  • Fewer Wi-Fi bands
    This router supports fewer Wi-Fi bands than the average router (2.4 GHz vs 2.4 GHz + 5 GHz). The average router supports 2.4 GHz + 5 GHz Wi-Fi bands.
    2.4 GHz vs 2.4 GHz + 5 GHz
  • 82.9% slower Wi-Fi speed
    This router has a lower Wi-Fi speed than the average router (300 Mbps vs 1,750 Mbps). The average router reaches Wi-Fi speed of 1,750 Mbps.
    300 Mbps vs 1,750 Mbps
  • No MU-MIMO
    This router does not support MU-MIMO, while the average router does. 54% of routers support MU-MIMO.
  • Narrower channel widths
    This router has a lower supported channel width than the average router (20 MHz + 40 MHz vs 20 MHz + 40 MHz + 80 MHz). The average router supports channel width of 20 MHz + 40 MHz + 80 MHz.
    20 MHz + 40 MHz vs 20 MHz + 40 MHz + 80 MHz
  • No band steering
    This router does not support band steering, while the average router does. 57.6% of routers support band steering.
  • No beamforming
    This router does not support beamforming, while the average router does. 62.1% of routers support beamforming.
  • 3 fewer LAN ports
    This router has fewer LAN ports than the average router (1 vs 4). The average router has 4 LAN ports.
    1 vs 4
  • Slower LAN ports
    This router has a lower LAN port speed than the average router (100 Mbps vs 1 Gbps). The average router has a LAN port speed of 1 Gbps.
    100 Mbps vs 1 Gbps
  • Limited firmware updates
    This router supports the firmware update methods Web UI, App, while the average router supports Web UI, App, Automatic.
    Web UI, App vs Web UI, App, Automatic
  • Lower CPU clock speed
    This router has a lower CPU clock speed than the average router (0.58 GHz vs 2x1 GHz). The average router has a CPU clock speed of 2x1 GHz.
    0.58 GHz vs 2x1 GHz
  • 87.5% less internal storage
    This router has less internal storage than the average router (0 GB vs 0.1 GB). The average router offers 0.125 GB of internal storage.
    0.015625 GB vs 0.125 GB
  • 2 fewer external antennas
    This router has fewer external antennas than the average router (0 vs 2). The average router has 2 external antennas.
    0 vs 2
  • 50% less RAM
    This router has less RAM than the average router (128 MB vs 256 MB). The average router has 256 MB of RAM.
    128 MB vs 256 MB
  • Fewer power options
    This router uses Micro-USB power input, while the average router uses DC barrel.
    Micro-USB vs DC barrel

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

7.0
EvoGrid
≈ estimated
21/03/2025
First look · Wi-Fi access point and VPN use
Verdict
GL.iNet Mango GL-MT300N V2 is still useful in 2025 for specific cases, but limited hardware and 2.4 GHz-only Wi-Fi hold it back.
7.0
JBT
≈ estimated
23/02/2023
Unboxing · first look at packaging and setup
Verdict
GL.iNet Mango GL-MT300N V2 is compact and good enough for travel at this price, though dated and limited to 2.4 GHz.
Overview video
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
zdnet.com
✓ explicit
23/03/2026
Hands-on test · Travel router
Verdict
The GL.iNet Mango is a tiny travel router with a built-in VPN for public Wi-Fi, best for people who already know basic networking.
10
pcguide.com
✓ explicit
17/06/2024
Lab test · Pocket travel router
Verdict
The GL.iNet Mango is a pocket travel router with many VPN options, but its Wi-Fi 4 2.4 GHz radio and 100 Mbps ports suit only light use.
9.0
the-gadgeteer.com
≈ estimated
15/04/2019
User review · Pocket travel router
Verdict
The GL.iNet Mango is a pocket travel router with a physical VPN switch and USB 4G support, but its modest processing power and Wi-Fi range suit light use.
9.0
zdnet.fr
≈ estimated
16/03/2026
Travel test · VPN router
Verdict
The GL.iNet Mango is a pocket router that keeps travel Wi-Fi private, though beginners may need to dig past a brief starter guide.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about GL.iNet Mango GL-MT300N V2

  • Pocket-sized at 40 grams for travel bags
  • OpenWrt firmware pre-installed and open source
  • OpenVPN client compatible with 30+ VPN providers
  • USB 2.0 port extends storage with an external disk
  • Powered over Micro-USB from a power bank
  • Very low price for a programmable router

What customers don't like about GL.iNet Mango GL-MT300N V2

  • Wi-Fi 4 only, a single 2.4 GHz band at 300 Mbps
  • LAN and WAN ports limited to 100 Mbps
  • Only one LAN port
  • Modest 580 MHz processor and 16 MB of flash
  • Internal antennas only

Verdict

Small enough to vanish into a jacket pocket, the GL.iNet Mango weighs just 40 grams. This travel router runs OpenWrt and includes an OpenVPN client ready for more than 30 VPN providers. Wireless is limited to Wi-Fi 4 on the 2.4 GHz band at 300 Mbps, and its two Ethernet ports, one WAN and one LAN, run at 100 Mbps. A 580 MHz processor with 128 MB of RAM and 16 MB of flash storage handles light traffic, and the USB 2.0 port can extend storage with a disk. Power arrives over Micro-USB, so a phone charger or power bank is enough. Speeds are modest and there is no 5 GHz band. For hotel rooms, tinkering and budget VPN use it is a cheap and capable gadget, but it cannot replace a home router.

Compare GL.iNet Mango GL-MT300N V2 with other routers

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of GL.iNet Mango GL-MT300N V2 and other routers

No results found