I've been wanting an Eero for a long time, ever since it was first announced. The idea of having a mesh network just sounded so appealing. By the time that I finally got around to buying one, a couple of competitors had popped up. The most promising of them is the Luma. So, I actually bought both mesh routers and will proceed to review and compare them here (a copy of this review will be posted on both the Luma and the EERO product pages).

DESIGN
The Eero hardware is really awesome. As others have mentioned, it looks like something that Apple would design. Very glossy white and sleek looking. The routers are small squares that lie flat and have power and network cables coming out the back. There's also a USB, presumably for NSCs or printers. Eero also gave extra thought to maximizing radio antenna efficiency: the tops of the routers are modestly rounded to prevent users from putting glasses or other items on top of them (and thus obstructing strong signal).

The Luma hardware is pretty nice also. Actually, the honeycomb is pretty handsome on a bookshelf and I like that it comes in different colors. BUT, and this is a big bug, the Luma is meant to stand on edge. And, when the power and network cables are plugged in, it's unsteady. This doesn't matter too much if your first router is in the fiber closet, but it'll fall over somewhat often out in the open and look the eyesore.

Edge to Eero.

SETUP
I have Verizon FIOS fiber running at my home. Setup was pretty easy as I just plugged one end of a network RJ-45 cable into the ONT and then the other end directly into the "first" router. Luma apparently also allows for ethernet backhaul, but Eero doesn't at present. Regardlees, I don't use that feature so it's not relevent to me. Moreover, I doubt most buyers of this product will use it either. Anyway...

The Luma was set up first. Things went pretty smoothly. I downloaded the app from Android Play store and created an account with username and password. Remember to log into your old router and release the IP address for your ISP. Then I just followed the instructions on the app: powered down the old router, powered down the ONT (aka modem), plugged the network cable into the ONT and the Luma hub, and then plugged them both in. The Luma app on my Google Nexus 6P found the hub immediately, named it and asked me to sit patiently while it registered on the network. Sadly, that never happened. I tried one more time...no go. A quick search online revealed that some Android devices have difficulty. So, I tried setup with my Google Nexus 9 tablet and voila! It registered and I had wireless network. For the next two hubs, I used an old iPhone and things worked very smoothly also. So, perhaps it just didn't like my Nexus 6P. Small bug but no harm done.

The Eero set up was also smooth....after I figured out how to release my IP address on the Luma (see below). Basically, I had to power down the ONT and wait a couple hours. Once I did, setup with my Nexus 6P was quick this time round. Again, I downloaded the Eero app and created an account by entering my telephone number and then entering a 6 digit SMS code. The Eero hub was named, registered and had live internet. Good to go.

I'll call this a tie despite the Nexus 6P hiccup with Luma. But if you have a Nexus 6P and want to use a Luma, be prepared to need to try a different device for setup. If you're a stickler, edge to Eero.

THE APP INTERFACE
Right off the bat, both Eero and Luma apps are sparse. If you're used to configuring a wireless router in the past, you will be unpleasantly surprised by the absence of desired features, including dynamic DNS, QoS, IP release, etc. However, I recognize that these devices are supposed to be family friendly and that they are. Following the instructions in both apps is super easy and very efficiently and quickly gets the first wifi puck up and running. NOTE: I must emphasize that the Verizon FIOS ONT needs to release the IP address in order to switch routers. If you don't release it, then you need to sit around for 2 hours with it powered down until does so automatically. This shouldn't affect most users who just buy either the Luma or the Eero. But, if you are planning on testing a couple devices, it's wise to remember.

Anyway, at this point, both apps look very similar and clean with their router status view, upload and download speeds and devices attached tab. Furthermore, they let you add new routers to the mesh network easily, name them (although Eero allows for custom names), reserve IP addresses (in advanced settings menus), enable port forwarding, assign wireless devices to a user profile, UPnP, etc. Here's where they differ:

The Eero app allows devices to be nicknamed (a super nice feature), allows for a custom DHCP, and allows DNS config if you want to use Google or OpenDNS or whomever.

The Luma can't do any of those at present. However, it does allow for IGMP Snooping to be enabled or disabled. Luma also offers a rating filter for all or specified users. I don't know what the movie-like ratings mean but it would seem handy if I had young kids to whom I wanted to restrict content.

In the end, they are both pretty similar. If I had to give one an edge, it would be the Eero simply because it allows nicknames for device connections. I dig that.

Minor edge to Eero.

SIGNAL
Okay, a lot of words to get to the part that matters most. How is the signal? Alas, this is really hard to quantify. Basically, I walked around all of the rooms in my home with the Wifi Analyzer app and took readings. On average, the Eero was about 2-5 db better than the Luma in each room. Having read some reviews online, perhaps it has to do with the extra 5Ghz antenna. Who knows? But, it was a pretty minor discrepancy and may have had more to do with how the hubs hand off the connection to one another (or don't) than actually signal strength. I will say this, BOTH Eero and Luma very capably covered all corners and rooms of my home. That alone is a tremendous victory compared to my sad history with range extenders that just never satisfied us at all.

So, minor edge to Eero but very satisfactory marks to both.

THROUGHPUT
After writing the above, a big surprise here. No bones about it but the Luma just clobbered the Eero. I have no explanation for this, especially after Eero's signal advantage. Basically, my devices would connect to the Eero hubs admirably and all looked well, achieving 120% of my Verizon FIOS bandwidth. But, after an hour or so, throughput would just plummet to about 10-30%. Badly. It made me crazy. Browsing was bad. Streaming was very difficult. My wife (who doesn't care about these tests at all) would complain and ask what I was doing to the network. I ensured that I was running the latest version but it didn't seem to resolve anything. I power-cycled everything. No success.

The Luma, on the other hand, functioned well. It would test at 100-120% of my FIOS bandwidth and almost always stay there, even if I ventured to far corners of the apartment. It made streaming on multiple devices, browsing, downloading, and music MUCH nicer than I have ever had in the past. And, the wife didn't complain. All is not rosy though. With some music sources, Luma needs a little attention. Sonos (Pandora and TuneIn Radio) ran into buffering pauses every so often. I'm hopeful that they can resolve this soon.

So, I don't have a good answer for why this was the case...especially since a lot of other users have raved about Eero. Perhaps the signal just doesn't steer my devices to the faster frequency connection. Candidly, even the 2.4GHz shouldn't have an issue. It was just curious.

Edge to Luma. But remember that you might not have this experience and I wasn’t going to waste more than a weekend trying to nail down the issue.

PRICE
Because of the intro pricing for pre-ordering the Luma, it was $250 cheaper for me than the Eero. These devices are already pricey compared to traditional routers so it matters.

Edge to Luma.

FINAL RESULTS
Here's the rub, since Luma cost much less and functioned better, I just ended up keeping it. Yes, the little hexagons aren't as aesthetically pleasing but I can't have complaints about video quality on Netflix and Amazon Prime. Since we don't have cable, HD streaming is very important. So, while others have had good success with Eero, I just can't affirm their experiences. Unless you have extensive streaming requirements or network throughput needs, I think that Luma should suffice nicely. And for the price, it's a no brainer...even if it is only $100 less than the Eero now.

But, and it's a big but: both manufacturers really need to keep stepping it up in development. The apps and features are way too vanilla at present. Good signal and performance will only get you so far with more advanced users.

EERO (3 stars)
LUMA (4 stars)

It's now been a little over three weeks since I received my Luma system through Amazon; after hours of testing and sometimes daily communication with the company, I've decided to write an updated review. When I posted my initial results and impressions, I was disappointed by the disparity between the promises of Luma's marketing materials and the state of the product that I'd received; well, now that some time has passed and I'd like to take a few moments to revisit my earlier concerns. My hope is that this revision will be as helpful to you as my previous review was.

Initially I took strong exception to the apparent lack of security; I've since come to have a more thorough understanding of the product. Luma does employ a firewall that features stateful packet inspection however for the moment it is still a fully automated system, allowing for no user configuration. When I first began testing my system I discovered that the Luma firewall does not stealth ports but rather replies to a query with an 'open' or 'closed' response, this was frustrating because I repeatedly identified around 7 ports that had no business being open to the internet... This was a major issue for me. Since then we've had two firmware updates and while the firewall still does not stealth it's ports (it really should), the open port issue has been resolved. I admit it is entirely coincidental but that particular vulnerability was patched within two weeks of my initial conversation with Luma. Really, it's the series of conversations I've had with the company and my impression of it's character that is informing the review you're reading now. While there can be no doubt that it's important to be honest about the shortcomings of the system; I feel that without giving credit to the responsiveness of the company, you'll be getting an incomplete picture of the product and it's trajectory.

But, to continue on the topic of security... The parental features are obviously a draw to many and they appear to function adequately, I really had little practical use for them in my house so that was a feature I largely ignored. I was however surprised to discover that beyond parental controls, the rating system is actually critical to Luma's security strategy. It's only through enabling these account filters that Luma's security can perform as intended. Beyond simply functioning as a content restriction system, these filters are the means by which Luma's anti-malware functionality is activated and enforced; that was not at all clear to me in my early experiences with the product. I've also been told that Luma maintains it's own threat database currently containing over a million separate entries and through cloud based filtering, reporting, and analysis, that Luma claims to provide more immediate responsiveness than would otherwise be possible via a subscription-based model.

None of this is to say I don't still have issues with aspects of the system security... I think it is critical for the user to gain granular access to the firewall functions, including user specified blacklists. I'd also like clarification on the restriction range of each level within the ratings system, perhaps an option to enable malware blocking without having to employ content restrictions, and more explanation about the nature of the data collection and cloud analysis. As it stands, the specifics of Luma's security functionality are far too mysterious and opaque for my comfort. I'd like to see in greater detail what is being done, and how it's being done, instead of my relatively useless green 'Network Secure' screen. Perhaps an option to clear the 'Concerns Found' list would be nice too.

Now that I've addressed previous inaccuracies on the state of Luma security I'll revisit the concerns I listed in my first review.

1. Automatic Channel Management: Luma still does not dynamically allow for this. The channel is selected at the time of setup and will not alter throughout the course of normal operation. It is my understanding that to change the broadcast channel, the system must be completely rebooted. To me, this is a pretty big problem. I live in a townhouse surrounded by a great number of other signals so if the system cannot dynamically adjust to the best channel on it's own, I believe the user must be given the ability to select it manually.

2. Bandwidth Steering: Forgive me if I'm using incorrect terminology, what I'm referring to is the handoff from one node to another on the mesh network. Currently this seems problematic. I've noticed on more than a few occasions when moving to a different room or floor, my connection drops to 2.4GHz on the previous node rather than transferring to the 5GHz signal on a closer node. I have to assume that this is an evolving feature, as it stands, it could be more seamless.

3. Backhaul Functionality: This was originally a problem where my network actually seemed to slow down once the nodes were all physically connected to each other. This issue seems to have been fully addressed and I'm no longer experiencing any problems.

4. Wired Connections: Luma did not auto recognize wired connections during my initial rounds of testing. If you attempted to add or move a wired device you had to reboot the node it was connected to. I admit that I haven't tested this function as of the most recent update but as far as I'm aware the issue persists.

5. Reboot Time: It seems that the amount of time each Luma node requires to boot up is dependent on the complexity of the user's network. Mine contains a couple switches, two nodes, a hub, and a handful of wired devices; in my experience it can take several minutes to bring a node back online after it has been unplugged. At first it bothered me much more than it does now, primarily because of an update on my next point.

6. Network Redundancy: At first, if one node dropped, my entire network would drop. When I tell you this supremely annoying, I hope you'll believe that I'm being kind with my choice of words. Well, it no longer seems to be an issue. I still drop nodes, too frequently if I'm honest, but now instead of losing my connection it just slows down until I walk over an cycle the affected node.

7. Speed: I averaged a wi-fi download of 336Mbps at a range of six feet, unobstructed, with each node backhauled via Cat. 6 through a fully gigabit switch. While I do have (and pay for) a 1Gbps fiber connection, the speed via the mesh network appears almost identical to my single AC1900 solution. This is disappointing because on my primary laptop I'm running a high end MU-MIMO wireless adapter, which can functionally transmit and receive up to 867Mbps; I've personally been able to transmit internally at just over 700Mbps, so I know it's capable. I sincerely hope the speed improves, if not, it is certainly no worse than I had before and my network coverage is larger than it was. Still I would prefer to be able to utilize my available hardware and bandwidth more fully. Wired Speeds performed as expected, leaving no impression either way.

8. The App: I can only imagine the challenges involved with transferring the entirety of a router interface to a smartphone sized display, but honestly, the app is still the feature that I dislike the most. First, there is no IP based interface so the app is your only way to interact with the network. This means that in order to access your network, the app remotely connects to Luma's cloud where all of your settings are stored, rather than with the local Luma nodes in your home. My primary problem with this system is my own ignorance; how are my account settings secured? Are they encrypted to prevent being compromised directly in the cloud or intercepted in transit to my system? How is my personally Identifiable Information handled? Is the password stored in plain text on the device? These are questions I would very much like to be answered. This phone-home functionality also means that if you're having an issue, the app may or may not display current information; by way of example, I just looked at the app and it reports that my entire network is currently offline... Except that's not true, I'm fully connected to the internet. Additionally I've found myself bypassing the app entirely when there seems to be an issue and simply opening a command prompt to ping each node to locate the problem myself. I dislike this very much but without a local web interface, I'm not sure what can be done about it.

Recently, Luma pushed an update which opens the door to some advanced functionality. The new version allows you to statically assign a network address by customizing the fourth octet, or last three numbers, of the address. You can also enable port forwarding for a connected device, but you still cannot specify TCP or UDP connections. uPnP can now be toggled on or off and something called IGMP Snooping is available should you have a need for it. I have mixed feelings about the update, I would have liked to see more fundamental router controls made available before something extraneous like Multicast IPTV functionality. Again, that is a completely personal opinion, but I really need more access to my router functionality; being able to set a DMZ, specify my DNS servers, assign aliases for connected devices, etc... I have to expect these will be made available in a future update but I'm hoping these come sooner rather than later. I'd also really like the ability to reboot a node that's fallen offline through the app itself but since it only connects remotely, that probably isn't possible.

As in my last version of this review, I'm posting this overview of the product as it exists presently, not how it may develop in the future. I mentioned earlier that I think you should be aware of the character of the company that puts out this product, I have been surprised at the lengths Luma's employees have gone to address my concerns and respond to my observations. While it's easy to say that a successful company should be responsive to the feedback of it's users, I think you'll agree that it is often not the case. I think that the Luma system is still at a very early stage of its product development and was probably rushed to meet delivery deadlines, compromises were made, and the results are in many of the reviews you're seeing. You'll notice that these reviews share a common thread, namely that the early product literature portrayed a product with vastly more functionality than what we have currently received; on that point I can't disagree. Where I do differ is that I do not think the product should be given up on, and I do believe it will get to a point more in line with expectations sooner than some are expecting. As it stands, I've decided to tentatively upgrade my product rating from 1 star to 3 stars. I'm doing this solely because of my personal experiences with the company, not because I believe the system is ready for prime time; I'm not sure it is yet. My feeling is that with all the truly crap companies out there that we have to deal with every day; when you run into one that is as accessible and responsive as Luma seems to be, I'm inclined to want to support them and extend them the benefit of the doubt.

And so I will.