As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (Also includes AliExpress and Coupang affiliate links; Coupang: 이 포스팅은 쿠팡 파트너스 활동의 일환으로, 이에 따른 일정액의 수수료를 제공받습니다.)
QNAP TS-133 vs QNAP TS-233
The quick verdict
- Lower power drawQNAP TS-133draws 7.32 W, 3.5 W less than the TS-233
- Spec leadeach leads on 3 of 6 differing specs
- Best forTS-133 for anyone running it 24/7 on little power
Rankings and scores come from the specs alone and are not affected by affiliate commissions.
Spec ruler
In short
Bottom line. Of the 6 specs that differ, the QNAP TS-133 leads on 3 (weight, volume, and operating power) and the QNAP TS-233 on 3 (drive bays, boost clock, and USB ports). On our small-office file server index, the TS-233 scores 18/100 against 11/100.
Using the 12 specs published on QNAP's official hardware specification pages, here is how the QNAP TS-133 and QNAP TS-233 compare. Drive bays: the TS-233 at 2 bays versus 1 bay for the TS-133, 1 bay more (2.0x). Among 219 QNAP models, the TS-233 ranks in the bottom 11% and the TS-133 in the bottom 3%. The TS-233 leads on boost clock, 2 GHz to 1.8 GHz. Among 201 QNAP models, the TS-233 ranks in the bottom 27% and the TS-133 in the bottom 20%. On USB ports, the TS-233 posts 3 ports and the TS-133 2 ports, a gap of 1 port. Among 219 QNAP models, the TS-233 ranks in the bottom 27% and the TS-133 in the bottom 9%. Weight: the TS-133 at 0.97 kg versus 1.69 kg for the TS-233, 0.72 kg lower (1.7x). Among 212 QNAP models, the TS-133 ranks in the top 2% and the TS-233 in the top 10%.
Key differences 3
Drive baysTS-233 leads
- TS-233 2 bays vs the TS-133 at 1 bay
- the TS-233 has 2.0x the drive bays
- among 219 QNAP models: TS-233 in the bottom 11%, TS-133 in the bottom 3%
With 8 TB drives: 16 TB vs 8 TB raw
WeightTS-133 leads
- TS-133 0.97 kg vs the TS-233 at 1.69 kg
- the TS-133: 0.72 kg lighter
- among 212 QNAP models: TS-133 in the top 2%, TS-233 in the top 10%
USB portsTS-233 leads
- TS-233 3 ports vs the TS-133 at 2 ports
- the TS-233 has 1.5x the USB ports
- among 219 QNAP models: TS-233 in the bottom 27%, TS-133 in the bottom 9%
1 more USB for drives or a UPS
Key specs at a glance
| Spec | TS-133 | TS-233 |
|---|---|---|
| Drive bays | 1bottom 3% | 2WINbottom 11% |
| Weight | 0.97 kgWINtop 2% | 1.69 kgtop 10% |
| USB ports | 2bottom 9% | 3WINbottom 27% |
| Operating power | 7.32 WWINtop 1% | 10.8 Wtop 2% |
| Volume | 1.94 LWINtop 1% | 2.69 Ltop 4% |
| Boost clock | 1.8 GHzbottom 20% | 2 GHzWINbottom 27% |
Show every spec
| Spec | TS-133 | TS-233 |
|---|---|---|
| Drive bays | 1bottom 3% | 2WINbottom 11% |
| CPU cores | 4top 22% | 4top 22% |
| Boost clock | 1.8 GHzbottom 20% | 2 GHzWINbottom 27% |
| Base RAM | 2 GBbottom 14% | 2 GBbottom 14% |
| Max RAM | 2 GBbottom 6% | 2 GBbottom 6% |
| Max LAN speed | 1 Gbpsbottom 22% | 1 Gbpsbottom 22% |
| LAN ports | 1bottom 8% | 1bottom 8% |
| USB ports | 2bottom 9% | 3WINbottom 27% |
| Weight | 0.97 kgWINtop 2% | 1.69 kgtop 10% |
| Volume | 1.94 LWINtop 1% | 2.69 Ltop 4% |
| Operating power | 7.32 WWINtop 1% | 10.8 Wtop 2% |
| Warranty | 2 yrbottom 35% | 2 yrbottom 35% |
| Metric (0–100) | TS-133 | TS-233 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance percentile | 5.7 | 6.2WIN |
| Lightness percentile | 98.6WIN | 90.5 |
| Compactness percentile | 99.5WIN | 96.8 |
| Small office fit | 11 | 18WIN |
| 10GbE video editing fit | 1 | 1 |
| Low-power compact 24/7 fit | 90WIN | 86 |
The details
How to choose
- Weight matters most → the TS-133 (0.97 kg vs 1.69 kg)
- Drive bays matters most → the TS-233 (2 bays vs 1 bay)
More TS-133 leads
- Operating power: 7.32 W vs 10.8 W
- Volume: 1.94 L vs 2.69 L
More TS-233 leads
- Boost clock: 2 GHz vs 1.8 GHz
Combined metrics
- Total built-in LAN bandwidth (sum of port speeds): 1 Gbps on both
- Operating power per bay: TS-233 5.41 W vs 7.32 W
Combined metrics
- Weight per bay: TS-233 0.85 kg vs 0.97 kg
- Memory headroom (max minus base): 0 GB on both
Same on both
- CPU cores 4, base RAM 2 GB, max RAM 2 GB
- max LAN speed 1 Gbps, LAN ports 1, warranty 2 years
Use-case scores
- Small-office file server: TS-233 18 vs 11
- Low-power compact 24/7 use: TS-133 90 vs 86
Use-case scores are Specotomy's own index, computed by fixed rules from official manufacturer specs; they are not manufacturer scores.
FAQ
- Which has more drive bays, the QNAP TS-133 or the QNAP TS-233?
- The TS-233, with 2 bays against 1 bay for the TS-133.
- Which draws less power, the QNAP TS-133 or the QNAP TS-233?
- The TS-133, with 7.32 W against 10.8 W for the TS-233.
- Which is lighter, the QNAP TS-133 or the QNAP TS-233?
- The TS-133, with 0.97 kg against 1.69 kg for the TS-233.
- Which use cases suit the QNAP TS-133 and the QNAP TS-233?
- Low-power compact 24/7 use: the TS-133. (based on our own use-case index)