Does the GL-AXT1800 still have poo poo firmware?

One other place you could look - though this has problems of its own - is Mikrotik. RouterOS can be its own dumpster fire, but it’s pretty feature rich and the price is right. And the updates are frequent.

The nice thing about OpenWrt is the community is larger & more knowledgeable - UI is less user friendly, but as a result there’s lots of sysadmins etc. who can help resolve any issues that aren’t already answered. That’s the reason they don’t support most GL-iNET products - closed source drivers make you dependent on their devs. I’m about to take the dive into OpenWrt myself, just bought one of these for a Pi CM4 I had lying around:
Raspberry Pi Compute Module 4 IoT Router Carrier Board Mini - DFRobot
Two Tiny Dual-Gigabit Raspberry Pi CM4 Routers | Jeff Geerling

1 Like

If you solely want device isolation without manually configuring VLANs yourself - guest Wi-Fi modes on most routers will do that. Tailscale is more for people who want to remotely access their devices, if you’re additionally wanting to have your traffic invisible to your ISP then you’ll want something like Mullvad - a license covers 5 devices for ~£5/month so you may not even need it on a router. GL-iNET routers work well with the basic features, it’s mainly rushed out features causing issues - I’m just a bit neurotic about security. Better off with an x86 as jdub said.

@jdub I know it’s been a while but I wanted to ask if you’re still active here? Thanks

I agree completely. pfSense on x86 is fantastic and has been my go-to for my primary networking for well over a decade. The beauty of the GL stuff is their ease of use and portability for mobile and low-power applications; pfSense has a $200 appliance but it’s rather lackluster and badly needs a hardware upgrade to 2023+ standards now. But if you’re running on a decent x86 box it is certainly the most robust and feature-rich way for the power user to manage their network.

I love Tailscale and use it too but I agree that trying to rush and add all these new “features” in to the newer firmwares appears to be causing a lot of issues all around; I would prefer they focus on stability and keeping the OpenWRT current and updated against the latest code branches and security fixes, as opposed to rolling out niche features and making things “heavier” with all the added code and so forth. Just my humble opinion.


I’m not even sure what a ‘x86 box’ is in terms of self made routers. Is it a stripped down router like gl inet or is it an actual computer like a laptop that is being used for network control? Stupid question I know

I’m referring to running pfSense on a computer (“x86”). So not directly comparable to a GL box size or power wise. But also more powerful and robust. Different tools for different use cases/purposes etc and all that =)

1 Like

Having read through the posts on this forum I figure I ought to explain some things that you seem to have general questions about.

  1. I agree that the original launch firmware for the gl-axt1800 wasn’t great but I don’t have complaints about the current firmware.
  2. I don’t know of a better option for a better deal than what GL-iNet offers with Flint AX and Slate AX (and presumably Beryl AX but I don’t own that one). Especially if you want an easy to use VPN router.
  3. GL-iNet has built their user interface over top of a firmware called OpenWRT. OpenWRT is more customizable which also means you need to be more knowledgable about how it works. It is more difficult to work with but does exactly what you tell it to (for better or for worse).
  4. You can run OpenWRT and other router firmwares like OPNsense, pfsense, or DD-WRT on supported routers or so-called “x86 boxes”. x86 boxes are computers. x86 is a CPU architecture, compared to many router CPUs which are based on ARM (like your cell-phone).
  5. x86 is typically more power-hungry but more powerful. For example, a low powered x86 CPU might require 15-40 watts to run just the CPU, not counting the rest of the computer, whereas an ARM based router like the Slate AX uses at most 20 watts for the whole system.
  6. The extra power DOES mean you get extra performance. For example I have used an old Dell Optiplex computer running OpenWRT on it and was able to do 1gigabit WireGuard VPN traffic AND 1gigabit Cake SQM at the same time. Slate AX is only able to do roughly half gigabit of one of those at a time.
  7. I think based on the level of knowledge and experience you have I’d recommend getting either the Slate AX or the Beryl AX, I don’t think you’ll notice a difference in daily use. If it is only ever going to stay in your home you might consider the Flint AX option, I find that the wireless range is larger and slightly more stable in my experience.

Thank you for the detailed explanation, it is much appreciated

I was hoping that upgrading would make a noticeable improvement in overall network speeds so something unnoticeable is certainly not an appealing prospect

It would be for purely at home use without any need for portability. Its a difficult position because some people are saying the Slate AX would be best but others say Flint AX so I would have to gamble. The Slate AX sounds more reliable and I’m only in a small house so range isn’t much of a concern, with that in mind would you still recommend the Flint AX over the Slate AX?


Yes, I should have put that as #1. None of the GL solutions will offer you a full Gigabit (let alone 2.5 or more) and with Wireguard or other processing on the packets…forget it. You need x86 for that yet. Eventually these portable travel routers WILL be capable of it as the chips are rapidly advancing, but we’re not quite there yet. Still - I consider the 600Mbps (give or take) of the AXT1800 with Wireguard and several other options to be extremely good and most people don’t need more than that.


I was hoping that upgrading would make a noticeable improvement in overall network speeds so something unnoticeable is certainly not an appealing prospect

I meant that between the Beryl AX and Slate AX I don’t think you’ll notice a difference in day-to-day use. They are both sufficiently powerful routers and have most of the same features.

Summary: I use a Flint router in my home and I’m very pleased with it. I think that you’ll be happy with any one of the routers we’ve discussed. If it’s just going to stay in your home as a home router I suspect you’d be happiest with the Flint.

I do think you’re wrestling over choice where you don’t necessarily need to. I’ll go over the differences of each router just so you can make a more informed opinion. The Flint and Slate AX routers have the same internal components so their performance will be the same. The differences are the following.

Flint: 4 external antenna (should mean better range, but likely does not matter all that much) :white_check_mark:
Slate: 2 external antennas

Ethernet ports:
Flint: 4 lan ethernet ports (is better for connecting wired devices without needing an additional network switch) :white_check_mark:
Slate: 2 lan ethernet ports

Power adapter:
Flint: Uses a round connector to deliver 12V power to the router
Slate: Uses USB-C connector (in a pinch you could use a charger for another device as long as it delivers 20 watts of power) :white_check_mark:

Network storage:
Flint: 1 USB 3.0 port
Slate: 1 USB 3.0 port and Micro SD card slot (more storage opportunity) :white_check_mark:

The Slate also has a function toggle that can be programed to different router functions like turning on/off a VPN or Adguard Home. The Flint does not have this.

The Beryl AX router is similar to the Slate, but it has one less lan ethernet port, the CPU has two cores instead of 4 but each core is faster, and it has no SD card slot. It technically is slower for Wireguard VPN but still fast enough for day-to-day use. The main benefit is that it has better wifi speeds (in practice, not by much. Think 220-300).

1 Like

Still - I consider the 600Mbps (give or take) of the AXT1800 with Wireguard and several other options to be extremely good and most people don’t need more than that.

Very much this!

For a long time I chased a router/wifi setup that could do a million different things all at gigabit speeds. I did it, it cost me around $1,000.00 but then immediately I discovered that almost nothing I could do would actually USE the gigabit speed. Even my local Steam server wouldn’t let me download faster than 600Mbps and that was for short bursts. Same with Xbox’s servers, except they wouldn’t let me go past 500 Mbps.

I have downgraded several things in my home to just be adequate, including dropping my internet speed to the lowest fiber speeds they offered because we just don’t use enough data sustained to make it worthwhile. I’m currently running a GL-iNet router over a pure OpenWRT or OPNsense box because of power efficiency and niceness of the UI for most stuff I want to do (plus GoodCloud is pretty cool).


That is understandable and fortunately I’m not really looking to ever get a full 1gig out of the routers since my home ISP subscription is capped to a maximum of 500mbps. The approximate best of 600 on the AXT1800 would still be 100mbps than I could actually get which isn’t a bad thing I suppose, better to be 100 over than 100 under?

Ah my mistake sorry I misunderstood.

That is usually how I go about most things haha; I’ve been putting off making the actual purchase for a while now in case it doesn’t work out as hoped.

From the points given and info on Amazon I feel like agreeing that the Flint AX1800 is the best option in my case. The 4 antennas should be better than 2, I don’t yet own a device with a LAN port but I guess having 4 is better than 2. I would have to use one of them to wire the ISP router together as well. Router storage space isn’t much of a concern either really as I only intend on installing required updates and all the config VPN files which doesn’t total much.

I don’t know if I’m perhaps misunderstanding (again :upside_down_face:) but from the Amazon listings it says the Flint AX1800 has 5 ports rather than 4 and the Slate AXT1800 has 3 rather than 2. Links below.

Thank you both for your replies its greatly appreciated.

This is why I have humbled myself with a 500mbps limit which I also imagine few content providers will be able to make full use of but its at least good to know I will have hardware capable of delivering such to the few sources who can. Its easy to accidentally shoot yourself in the foot with trying to hit maximum all the time, its like athletes who take steroids. :joy:

I got this response in another thread but hopefully it was based off client device issues rather than the router itself.

You’re correct about the Ethernet ports. One is for WAN (your outbound internet connection) and 4 (or two in the case of the Slate) are for LAN (your local network)


That person talking about the slow downs is absolutely right. It’s just not surprising.

Without a VPN what routers do takes very little processing power. Adding in a VPN or some other process and it eats up the processing power available.

The Slate and Flint can handle gigabit routing normally, but if you add a wireguard protocol VPN it drops to around 500-600 Mbps


I’m aware that adding VPN will obviously slow things down but it just sounds peculiar as to how the Flint has the expected reduction yet the Slate doesn’t. Shouldn’t it be the same result across both?

The Slate and the Flint have the same expected speeds while using the same VPN protocols. The reason is they have the same CPU.

In my own testing they can easily maintain a stable 400 Mbps on a speed test while a Wireguard VPN was running (400 Mbps is my ISP speed, so my own internet connection is the bottleneck). And over 700 Mbps while CAKE SQM was running (it uses similar processing power to Wireguard) during a local network iperf3 test.

1 Like

The person quoted has seen differently

He is saying the Flint with VPN provides half the speed of Slate with the same VPN on the same connection, which as you say shouldn’t be happening, but is?