GL.iNet Flint 2 review

Design and Configuration

The verified configuration is a single Black Flint 2 with a US power adapter. Its conventional horizontal body and four antennas need a little shelf space. At 761 grams, it is substantially heavier than the original 445-gram Flint, although that matters less for a home router than for a device carried between locations.

The internal hardware includes 1 GB of RAM and 8 GB of storage for the operating system and additional software. That gives an interested owner room to customize the router. I would still begin with the features needed for the household and add more deliberately, rather than install services simply because there is space.

Connectivity

The two faster ports are the most practical reason to consider the Flint 2. In the normal arrangement, one connects to the modem or upstream network and the other can connect a 2.5-gigabit computer, network drive or switch. The remaining four Gigabit ports leave useful room for consoles, televisions and other wired equipment.

The second fast port can instead become another WAN connection. That suits a home office with two Internet services, but uses the port that would otherwise provide the faster LAN connection. Multi-WAN also supports other connection methods, including compatible USB tethering. A backup service and its data allowance remain separate purchases.

Compared with the original Flint, you gain a sixth Ethernet port and move two connections beyond Gigabit. Those are concrete improvements for someone with a faster broadband plan or local storage. If your existing router already handles a slower service and your devices well, the port upgrade alone may not change everyday use.

Wireless Performance

Flint 2 uses 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz radios. Its AX6000 label combines advertised radio rates; it does not mean one laptop downloads at 6 Gb/s. Compatible clients, channel width and placement all affect the connection, and there is no 6 GHz band to provide another option in a busy building.

In CNX Software’s January 2024 test, a Khadas Mind running Ubuntu connected over Wi-Fi at a 1,200 Mb/s link rate and transferred roughly 890–943 Mb/s in opposite directions.¹ That is a useful example of the difference between a radio rating and an actual client connection.

Current GL.iNet documentation lists Flint 2 for EasyMesh from firmware 4.10. Supported peers can use wired or wireless backhaul, with shared management. A wired connection avoids using Wi-Fi airtime for the link between routers; wireless mesh does not add a third radio to this dual-band hardware. Check the firmware and peer compatibility before planning an expansion.

VPN

A router-level VPN can cover devices that cannot run your preferred VPN application themselves. Policy routing lets you choose which traffic uses the tunnel, while server mode provides a way to reach the home network remotely when the Internet connection permits it. These are useful controls for a household with a specific remote-access or routing need.

GL.iNet rates client performance at up to 900 Mb/s for WireGuard and 880 Mb/s for OpenVPN with DCO support, using local-network tests. The OpenVPN condition matters: the figure should not be applied to every ordinary OpenVPN configuration. The manufacturer also says server-mode speeds are lower.

CNX Software approached 900 Mb/s in its local WireGuard client test. Server testing reached about 888 and 834 Mb/s in opposite directions with wired Gigabit clients, after the reviewer changed a client that would not remain connected reliably.¹ This supports the router’s potential, while also showing why the intended server, client and network need checking together.

Software and Security

The GL.iNet interface handles ordinary setup and exposes useful controls without requiring an immediate dive into OpenWrt. LuCI remains available for more detailed changes. The appeal is being able to grow into the software as needs develop, although it brings more decisions than a very simplified household mesh system.

AdGuard Home adds DNS filtering, while WPA3 and encrypted DNS provide further configuration choices. The current parental-control guide covers schedules and content filters from firmware 4.9. Firmware matters here: older product material describes a different parental-control arrangement, so use the instructions matching the installed version.

Some features interact. GL.iNet warns that network acceleration can interfere with client traffic statistics and speed limits. If accurate limits or monitoring matter, check that configuration rather than assuming every maximum-performance setting can remain enabled. Core local administration and VPN protocol support are included; external VPN and cloud services can have separate plans.

Storage

A USB drive can make occasional file sharing convenient without a separate network-storage box. The router supports common sharing methods, but the USB connection alone does not establish how quickly a particular drive and file system will work.

CNX Software copied a large file from an EXT4 USB hard drive to an Ubuntu laptop over Gigabit Ethernet at about 31.3 MB/s in its early test.¹ I would treat storage as a useful extra and choose a dedicated NAS when sustained transfer speed, drive management or backup features are central to the purchase.

Alternatives

The Flint 3 adds Wi-Fi 7, a 6 GHz radio and five 2.5-gigabit ports. Those changes make sense for compatible wireless devices or several faster wired devices. It has one fewer Ethernet port overall, and a newer Wi-Fi generation is not by itself a reason to expect every VPN configuration to run faster.

An existing Flint can remain sufficient for a simpler Gigabit network. Flint 2 is a more purposeful upgrade when its faster ports, additional capacity or VPN capability solves a current limitation. For a large home with difficult coverage, plan access-point placement or a compatible mesh setup before choosing solely by the radio speed label.

Verdict

Flint 2 is still an appealing router for a home user who values network control and has a reason to use its faster wired connections. It is less compelling as an automatic upgrade for an uncomplicated network that already works well. I would choose it for the combination of connections and configurable software, with time set aside to establish and maintain the settings that matter.