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

TRENDnet TEW-692GR review: 77 specs compared

Avg. price:~£130Wi-Fi version:Wi-Fi 4 (802.11n)Wi-Fi speed:450 MbpsLAN port speeds:1 GbpsMesh Wi-Fi:no

TRENDnet TEW-692GR Review: Compare 77 technical specifications and 8 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Routers category and whether it is worth buying.

TRENDnet TEW-692GR
6.4/10

Overall score

Score
6.4/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components

40%

5.9

Technical score

25%

5.9

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

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

â–¼Worse than 96% of routers
7.4

Value for money

Value for money
7.4/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components

70%

6.4

Overall score

30%

9.8

Price

â–¼Worse than 98%
5.9

Technical score

Technical score
5.9/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components

26%

5.2

Wireless

20%

5.4

Ports

18%

6.8

Networking

14%

8.3

Security

12%

4.6

Hardware

10%

5.2

Management

â–¼Worse than 93%
5.9

Reviews score

Reviews score
5.9/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models

5.9

Mark 7.7 is below the typical mark 8.1 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.6

Average grade

20%

8.4

Popularity

Grades by review (8)
6 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 2 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.
â–¼Worse than 96%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 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 (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • trendnet-tew-692gr
trendnet-tew-692gr
Where to buy
    N/A~ £130
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 TRENDnet TEW-692GR

Based on 5 · 2

Reviewers praise easy setup, solid range and decent speed, but criticise the USB ports, compatibility issues and clunky firmware.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of router TRENDnet TEW-692GR

Technical score
Technical score
5.9/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components:

26%

5.2

Wireless

20%

5.4

Ports

18%

6.8

Networking

14%

8.3

Security

12%

4.6

Hardware

10%

5.2

Management

5.9
Reviews score
5.9
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.4/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components:

70%

6.4

Overall score

30%

9.8

Price

7.4
Brand name
TRENDnet
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 + 5 GHz
This router supports 2.4 GHz + 5 GHz Wi-Fi bands, which are more versatile than 24.2% of routers and equal to 65.6% of routers.
Wi-Fi speed
450 Mbps
Market range: <0 Mbps – >6k Mbps
This router delivers 450 Mbps Wi-Fi speed, which is lower than 74% of routers and equal to 1.4% 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
WPA2, WPA/WPA2, WEP
This router supports WPA2, WPA/WPA2, WEP Wi-Fi security protocols, which are less advanced than 88.9% of routers and equal to 1.8% of routers.
DoS protection
no
This router does not include DoS protection. 90.4% 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
IPv6 support
no
This router does not support IPv6. 91.4% of routers are IPv6-ready.
Dynamic routing
yes
This router supports dynamic routing. 54% of routers support dynamic routing.
Inter-VLAN routing
no
This router does not support inter-VLAN routing. 24.5% of routers support inter-VLAN routing.
VLAN tagging
no
This router does not support VLAN tagging. 66.6% of routers include VLAN tagging.
QoS
yes
This router includes QoS controls. 2.4% of routers include QoS controls.
Show more
N. of LAN ports
4
Market range: <0 – >5
This router has 4 LAN ports, which is more than 34.2% of routers and the same as 59.3% of routers.
LAN port speeds
1 Gbps
This router offers 1 Gbps on its LAN ports, which is faster than 25.7% of routers and on par with 56.1% 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
0
Market range: <0 – >5
This router has 0 USB ports, which is fewer than 60.1% of routers and the same as 39.9% 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
This router uses Web UI for management, which is less advanced than 78.5% of routers and equal to 21.2% of routers.
Firmware upgrade method
Web UI
This router supports Web UI firmware update methods, which are less convenient than 75.5% of routers and equal to 23.9% of routers.
Traffic monitoring
yes
This router includes traffic monitoring. 13.9% of routers include traffic monitoring.
Guest Wi-Fi network
no
This router does not offer a guest Wi‑Fi network. 92.9% 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
What reviewers say
CPU clock speed
0.5 GHz
This router runs at 0.5 GHz, which is slower than 81% of routers and on par with 2.8% of routers.
RAM capacity
64 MB
Market range: <0 MB – >1k MB
This router has 64 MB of RAM, which is less than 70.5% of routers and the same as 13.3% of routers.
Internal storage
0.007812 GB
Market range: <0.0039 GB – >0.5 GB
This router has 0.007812 GB of internal storage, which is less than 68.4% of routers and the same as 18.6% of routers.
Hardware acceleration
no
This router does not offer hardware acceleration. 75.3% of routers offer hardware acceleration.
N. of external antennas
3
Market range: <0 – >10
This router has 3 external antennas, which is more than 57.9% of routers and the same as 11.8% of routers.
Show more

TRENDnet TEW-692GR vs the average router

246810TotalWirelessSecurityNetworkingPortsManagementHardware
  • 2.6x wider wireless coverage
    This router has wider wireless coverage than the average router (483 m² vs 186 m²). The average router offers wireless coverage of 186 m².
    483 m² vs 186 m²
  • Supports dynamic routing
    This router supports dynamic routing, while the average router does not. 46.1% of routers support dynamic routing.
  • Suitable for gaming
    This router is designed for gaming, while the average router is not. 37.9% of routers are designed for gaming.
  • 3 more internal antennas
    This router has more internal antennas than the average router (3 vs 0). The average router has 0 internal antennas.
    3 vs 0
  • 28 mm thinner design
    This router is thinner than the average router (26 mm vs 54 mm). The average router is 54 mm thick.
    26 mm vs 54 mm
  • 61.1% lighter weight
    This router is lighter than the average router (175 g vs 450 g). The average router weighs 450 g.
    175 g vs 450 g
  • 25.4 mm lower height
    This router is shorter than the average router (26 mm vs 51.4 mm). The average router is 51.4 mm tall.
    26 mm vs 51.4 mm
  • 1 more external antennas
    This router has more external antennas than the average router (3 vs 2). The average router has 2 external antennas.
    3 vs 2
  • 2.6x wider wireless coverage
    This router has wider wireless coverage than the average router (483 m² vs 186 m²). The average router offers wireless coverage of 186 m².
    483 m² vs 186 m²
  • Supports dynamic routing
    This router supports dynamic routing, while the average router does not. 46.1% of routers support dynamic routing.
  • Suitable for gaming
    This router is designed for gaming, while the average router is not. 37.9% of routers are designed for gaming.
  • 3 more internal antennas
    This router has more internal antennas than the average router (3 vs 0). The average router has 0 internal antennas.
    3 vs 0
  • 61.1% lighter weight
    This router is lighter than the average router (175 g vs 450 g). The average router weighs 450 g.
    175 g vs 450 g
  • 28 mm thinner design
    This router is thinner than the average router (26 mm vs 54 mm). The average router is 54 mm thick.
    26 mm vs 54 mm
  • 25.4 mm lower height
    This router is shorter than the average router (26 mm vs 51.4 mm). The average router is 51.4 mm tall.
    26 mm vs 51.4 mm
  • 1 more external antennas
    This router has more external antennas than the average router (3 vs 2). The average router has 2 external antennas.
    3 vs 2
  • Limited firmware updates
    This router supports the firmware update methods Web UI, while the average router supports Web UI, App, Automatic.
    Web UI vs Web UI, App, Automatic
  • 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)
  • No VLAN tagging
    This router does not support VLAN tagging, while the average router does. 66.5% of routers support VLAN tagging.
  • No IPv6 support
    This router does not support IPv6, while the average router does. 91.2% of routers support IPv6.
  • No hardware acceleration
    This router does not offer hardware acceleration, while the average router does. 75.2% of routers offer hardware acceleration.
  • 23.4% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.9/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models

    5.9

    Mark 7.7 is below the typical mark 8.1 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    8.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (8)
    6 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 2 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.
    5.9 vs 7.7
  • Lower CPU clock speed
    This router has a lower CPU clock speed than the average router (0.5 GHz vs 2x1 GHz). The average router has a CPU clock speed of 2x1 GHz.
    0.5 GHz vs 2x1 GHz
  • Weaker management tools
    This router uses the management interface Web UI, while the average router uses Web UI, App.
    Web UI vs Web UI, App
  • 23.4% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.9/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models

    5.9

    Mark 7.7 is below the typical mark 8.1 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    8.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (8)
    6 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 2 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.
    5.9 vs 7.7
  • 8.7% worse value for money
    TRENDnet TEW-692GR has worse value for money than the average router (7.43 vs 8.1).
    7.43 vs 8.08
  • 36.8% more expensive
    TRENDnet TEW-692GR is more expensive than the average router (£130 vs £95).
    £130 vs £95
  • 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)
  • No MU-MIMO
    This router does not support MU-MIMO, while the average router does. 54% of routers support MU-MIMO.
  • 74.3% slower Wi-Fi speed
    This router has a lower Wi-Fi speed than the average router (450 Mbps vs 1,750 Mbps). The average router reaches Wi-Fi speed of 1,750 Mbps.
    450 Mbps vs 1,750 Mbps
  • 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.
  • No DoS protection
    This router does not support DoS protection, while the average router does. 90.2% of routers support DoS protection.
  • No VLAN tagging
    This router does not support VLAN tagging, while the average router does. 66.5% of routers support VLAN tagging.
  • No IPv6 support
    This router does not support IPv6, while the average router does. 91.2% of routers support IPv6.
  • 1 fewer USB ports
    This router has fewer USB ports than the average router (0 vs 1). The average router has 1 USB ports.
    0 vs 1
  • Limited firmware updates
    This router supports the firmware update methods Web UI, while the average router supports Web UI, App, Automatic.
    Web UI vs Web UI, App, Automatic
  • Weaker management tools
    This router uses the management interface Web UI, while the average router uses Web UI, App.
    Web UI vs Web UI, App
  • No guest Wi-Fi network
    This router does not offer a guest Wi-Fi network, while the average router does. 92.7% of routers offer a guest Wi-Fi network.
  • No DLNA support
    This router does not support DLNA, while the average router does. 50.4% of routers support DLNA.
  • Less capable NAS services
    This router includes none NAS services, while the average router includes SMB, media server.
    none vs SMB, media server
  • No hardware acceleration
    This router does not offer hardware acceleration, while the average router does. 75.2% of routers offer hardware acceleration.
  • Lower CPU clock speed
    This router has a lower CPU clock speed than the average router (0.5 GHz vs 2x1 GHz). The average router has a CPU clock speed of 2x1 GHz.
    0.5 GHz vs 2x1 GHz
  • 93.8% 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.
    0.007812 GB vs 0.125 GB
  • 75% less RAM
    This router has less RAM than the average router (64 MB vs 256 MB). The average router has 256 MB of RAM.
    64 MB vs 256 MB
  • 8 years older release date
    This router is an older model than the average router (2011 vs 2019). The average router release year is 2019.
    May 2011
    2011 vs 2019
  • 1.5 W higher power consumption
    This router uses more power than the average router (9.6 W vs 8.1 W). The average router uses 8.1 W power.
    9.6 W vs 8.1 W

Video reviews

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

8.0
Geekanoids
≈ estimated
01/11/2012
First look · range and speed check
Verdict
Trendnet TEW 692GR delivers good range and speed, costs more than expected, but is well worth a look.
7.0
Rbmodsdotcom
≈ estimated
12/12/2011
Unboxing · packaging, build and included items
Verdict
Trendnet TEW 692GR is a solid-feeling unit overall, but its performance is not tested in this review.
Hands-on video, no verdict
Shop video

Third-party reviews

What customers like about TRENDnet TEW-692GR

  • High theoretical speeds with 450 Mbps on both 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands simultaneously
  • Fast throughput performance on the 5 GHz band, suitable for HD streaming
  • Includes Gigabit Ethernet ports for fast wired connections
  • User-friendly web management interface and clear printed manual
  • Easy initial setup process, often taking less than 15 minutes
  • Energy-saving GREENnet technology reduces power consumption on LAN ports
  • Features advanced security options like MAC address filtering and VPN passthrough

What customers don't like about TRENDnet TEW-692GR

  • Poor range performance and high throughput variation reported in several tests
  • Underwhelming 2.4 GHz performance compared to competing N900 routers
  • Lack of USB ports for storage or print serving
  • Dated, 'ugly' design with a glossy finish that attracts fingerprints
  • No physical power or Wi-Fi radio on/off switches
  • Unintuitive LED system (e.g., uses red lights for successful connections)
  • Incompatibility with popular third-party firmware like DD-WRT or Tomato
  • Reports of reliability issues, including connection drops and hardware failure after several months

Verdict

The TRENDnet TEW-692GR is a Wi-Fi 4 (802.11n) concurrent dual-band router that was the first to offer theoretical maximum speeds of 450Mbps on both the 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands simultaneously. It features a full Gigabit interface with one WAN and four LAN ports, utilizes a 3x3 MIMO antenna configuration (three external for 5GHz and three internal for 2.4GHz), and includes GREENnet technology to reduce power consumption by up to 70%. Main pros include its high theoretical throughput, fast 5GHz performance for HD streaming, and granular wireless setting controls. However, it lacks USB ports for storage or print serving, has no native wall-mounting option, and some users reported a dated administrative interface and inconsistent throughput stability during testing.

Compare TRENDnet TEW-692GR with other routers

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

Graphic comparison of TRENDnet TEW-692GR and other routers

No results found