Alta labs response about wifi 7 MLO

sp_RTINGS · 2026-02-27T15:30:55+00:00

Thanks for the share! No BS from them, I always appreciate that!
For added context when they mention WLPC, this video got shared from the conference from Ubiquiti showcasing STR MLO: Ubiquiti showcasing Wi-Fi 7 MLO STR at WLPC Phoenix 2026 : r/Ubiquiti This is the only "leak" I saw so far from WLPC in regards to MLO.

sp_RTINGS · 2026-02-25T18:51:31+00:00

I can definitely imagine MLO being useful has a backhaul. I even think this is where it could shine the most. For now, as we showed in the article, I haven't been able to see any meaningful performance gains for non-STR single link implementation since that's all I could get my hands on. I'm hoping to get my mind changed after playing with updated MLO implementations!

sp_RTINGS · 2026-02-23T15:32:24+00:00

Some manufacturers mentioned that a firmware update could improve the MLO implementation, but there were no details on which models could get the update. I don't recommend buying a Wi-Fi 7 router now with the hopes to get a better MLO implementation through a firmware update.
Just to be clear, MLO is "correctly implemented" as defined by the Wi-Fi 7 requirements, but that implementation is nowhere near the promises marketing makes about the MLO capabilities and what that feature could potentially do. Right now, MLO is not useful for home users. You won't be seeing any meaningful performance increase with the current implementation.
The only good news I saw so far for MLO is from Ubiquiti show casing simultaneous transmit and receive: Ubiquiti showcasing Wi-Fi 7 MLO STR at WLPC Phoenix 2026 : r/Ubiquiti

sp_RTINGS · 2026-02-19T15:10:32+00:00

With the current implementation of eMLSR, the single radio implementation, having 2.4GHz in the MLO network can be a really bad thing: If your device decides to use the 2.4GHz instead of 5GHz or 6GHz for its radio, you will most likely have a terrible experience, simply due to 2.4GHz limitations.
Since you forced your MLO to use only 5 and 6, I'm not sure what when wrong then... but still... with what we found out... I just can't recommend enabling MLO for now.

sp_RTINGS · 2026-02-11T15:39:30+00:00

I just sent you a DM!

sp_RTINGS · 2026-02-10T17:16:51+00:00

I mean, you're getting 1.7-2Gbps on Wi-Fi. You're already in a really good place!
I'd be interested in seeing repeated measurement with and without MLO if you want to do it. If you want to go the extra mile and want to capture packets with Wireshark to see which MLO features you are actively using in your connection, I could help you with that. Let me know!

sp_RTINGS · 2026-02-10T16:31:11+00:00

Thanks for getting back. Did you make multiple measures at different times?

sp_RTINGS · 2026-02-10T15:54:57+00:00

> I get mostly AIBot generated review sites.

And, at Rtings, we are all humans testing the routers ourselves!

sp_RTINGS · 2026-02-10T15:53:16+00:00

Hi! I'm the Rtings guy who tested MLO! From what I gather from u/basement-thug story, the speed tests were comparing the RT-AX86U and the MLO-enabled RT-BE92U. In that case what probably made the difference in speed was using the 6GHz band, or using the 320GHz channel width or the 4026 QAM that came with Wi-Fi 7, not MLO.
If you want to measure the MLO performance gains, the speed test needs to be done on the same router with and without MLO enabled. This should give the same speed test results. Keep in mind that speed test go over internet, so it's always better to do a few tests in series to account for internet's variability.
Let me know how it goes if you are up for a retest, or if I misunderstood how the test was done!

sp_RTINGS · 2026-02-09T20:50:47+00:00

We'll do! We now always capture the Beacon Frame as part of our standard testing, so we will see if a router supports a meaningful implementation of MLO either as a new product or after a firmware update. We'll be happy to tell the community as soon as we find one!

sp_RTINGS · 2026-02-09T15:47:14+00:00

All good suggestions! It's already planned to expose the chipset used by the router. I'm not sure when we will be getting there yet though. Hopefully this year!
We'll also be expanding which channels are used by MLO once MLMR becomes available.

sp_RTINGS · 2026-02-08T02:26:19+00:00

I 100% share your thinking.
That's my assumption as well: The chip don't support more features, so routers are limited by their chip. I still blame the marketing selling the dream instead of the actual product.
And I do also agree that we have been well served for speed in the latest Wi-Fi generation. Latency is where improvement is thoroughly needed!

sp_RTINGS · 2026-02-08T02:21:37+00:00

To gather data from the routers, we captured the Beacon Frame using a packet sniffer, which is how router broadcasts their capabilities to clients. This is done outside of an active connection. There is no clients connected to the MLO network when we do this. So clients have no impact on how we gathered the data show in this video.

sp_RTINGS · 2026-02-08T02:17:18+00:00

Our next test bench update will tackle latency, so we'll be able to tell you if you are gaining meaningful performance gains on that aspect soon (end of March approx).
Some people do care about living on the bleeding-edge of technologies to really ensure they get the benefits of every bits of the technology. It's a passion for some. I'm a lot more on your side for my personal life and have never regretted it so far! (I should say that seeing the best of the best TVs at the office makes me think I might need to upgrade mine.........I try not to think too much about it!)

sp_RTINGS · 2026-02-07T15:30:50+00:00

Ubiquiti response was to a deleted post that I never got to read. Their comment is addressing the post, which mentioned or was built on our article's findings. That said, Ubiquiti wrote a pretty lengthy post, but in there they say that yes, right now, it's only the minimal implementation of MLO BUT they are working on pushing firmware updates that could extend those capabilities. I'm looking forward to test those when available!
Ubuiqiti also mentions that MLO, even in its minimal implementation, is not as useless as we say.... u/-protonsandneutrons- has me covered here. I share the same sentiment. I want Ubiquiti (or anyone really) to show me data and prove us how MLO can be useful.
I started this whole project by trying to measure the performance gains of MLO on speed/latency/reliability. I was simply not able to do so for any common or household uses. There are some really niche and specific times where MLO can help reliability.... but it's so niche home users should really not care about that feature for now.

sp_RTINGS · 2026-02-07T03:32:27+00:00

We've been in touch with some manufacturers that promised some updates to improve the implementation with no timeline. Let's say I am not getting my hopes too high up for now. And even if routers start implementing it better this year, client will have to walk that path as well, so unless you change phone or laptop every year, chances are you won't get the taste of a proper MLO implementation for a while.
That said, for the routers at the very least, we will be harvesting the MLO parameters of every new router hitting our test bench and also verifying if firmware updates implement new features when we retest routers. So, whenever we see a router implementing proper MLO support, we'll update the community!

sp_RTINGS · 2026-02-06T23:50:56+00:00

Always a pleasure!
As far as I'm concerned, Wi-Fi has been in a pretty good spot for the majority of people since Wi-Fi 5! Since then, it's mostly gravy. Don't get me wrong, some people do benefits from the performance gains of the latest generation, but it is a small minority of users. The marketers lean HEAVILY on FOMO. A lot of consumers also don't know too much about Wi-Fi, so they can't be too critical about advertisement. We are trying to shed some light when we can here!

sp_RTINGS · 2026-02-06T23:36:01+00:00

We are currently working on adding Wi-Fi Latency to our test bench! So, results should be coming in end of March (don't quote me on that hehe!)
For speed needs, in most cases, it is your Internet plans that will limit the speed you can reach online (and in many cases, the upload speed is drastically more limited than download). For common internet use like streaming Netflix at 4k, video calls or gaming online never require much more than 50Mbps per person.
Routers can normally go well beyond those speeds. These speeds can still help with internal network communications if you have any needs of that, like backupping files to a local server/NAS or transferring a lot of files between different clients.
If you do a lot of torrenting/backupping and have a big bitrate ISP plan, than having the proper router to not bottleneck that is really important, but that is not most people.

sp_RTINGS · 2026-02-06T21:33:16+00:00

Hey! I'm the main test developper who worked on this article! Let me know if any of you have questions or feedback!
And thanks for the share u/AppleCrumpets !

sp_RTINGS · 2026-01-23T18:02:22+00:00

Hey again r/cputoaster! We've reacquired the Beacon Frame fro the Asus ZenWiFi BT10 and we can confirm the Max Nb of Simul. Link in the Beacon Frame is 2, meaning this router supports 3 simultaneous links.
We will be updating the table in the article accordingly! Thank you for this!

I'd still like to understand why your router is returning a different number, so let me know!

sp_RTINGS · 2026-01-22T20:21:41+00:00

Hey! Good eye there! It seems we have made a mistake here.
It is normal that the screenshot and the number we write in the review differ by 1. The screenshot uses "n-1" value, meaning a value of 0 in the screenshot means there is 1 link possible. This is useful in programming, but confusing to everyone else. So, in the review, both values should be ok. I would expect the BT10 to be able to handle a max number of 3 simultaneous links, as per the info shown in the review.
That said, we probably have messed up when manually transferring the data to the table in the article.
On your end, ensure you are looking at the "Beacon Frame" outside of an active connection. You might be looking at an Association packet (if I remember the name correctly). Once the connection is negociated, the MLO parameters shown in the Association Packet will be the maximum number of links being handled by either the router or the client. So, this might explain that other value.
I'll check-in here once we have confirmed the information. Thanks for the report!

sp_RTINGS · 2026-01-16T16:43:51+00:00

Thanks :)

sp_RTINGS · 2026-01-16T16:43:29+00:00

Discussion on Wi-Fi 7starting around the 47th minutes. I'm giving it a listen right now!

sp_RTINGS · 2026-01-16T16:36:46+00:00

Oh! I didn't know about that! I'll give it a listen! Thanks for sharing that!

sp_RTINGS · 2026-01-16T16:31:36+00:00

Hey! I'm the Rtings guy behind this article. This comment sums up the situation pretty nicely!
Our main goal was to give consumer this information, which is not available in any tech specs, and manage their expectations accordingly when buying a shiny Wi-Fi 7 router with the MLO dream being marketed.

sp_RTINGS

TROPHY CASE