As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (Also includes AliExpress affiliate links.)
QNAP TS-351 vs QNAP TS-462
The quick verdict
- Lower power drawQNAP TS-351draws 26.2 W, 6.2 W less than the TS-462
- Leads on more specsQNAP TS-4625 of 8 differing specs (drive bays 4, boost clock 2.9 GHz)
- Best forTS-351 for anyone running it 24/7 on little powerTS-462 for small offices sharing files
Rankings and scores come from the specs alone and are not affected by affiliate commissions.
Spec ruler
In short
Bottom line. Of the 8 specs that differ, the QNAP TS-351 leads on 3 (weight, volume, and operating power) and the QNAP TS-462 on 5 (drive bays, boost clock, max RAM, and 2 more). On our home media server index, the TS-462 scores 96/100 against 84/100.
Using the 13 specs published on QNAP's official hardware specification pages, here is how the QNAP TS-351 and QNAP TS-462 compare. Drive bays: the TS-462 at 4 bays versus 3 bays for the TS-351, 1 bay more (1.3x). Among 219 QNAP models, the TS-462 ranks in the bottom 35% and the TS-351 in the bottom 12%. The TS-462 leads on boost clock, 2.9 GHz to 2.58 GHz. Among 201 QNAP models, the TS-462 ranks in the top 39% and the TS-351 in the bottom 46%. On max RAM, the TS-462 posts 16 GB and the TS-351 8 GB, a gap of 8 GB. Among 219 QNAP models, the TS-462 ranks in the bottom 48% and the TS-351 in the bottom 25%. Max LAN speed: the TS-462 at 2.5 Gbps versus 1 Gbps for the TS-351, 1.5 Gbps higher (2.5x). Among 219 QNAP models, the TS-462 ranks in the bottom 48% and the TS-351 in the bottom 22%.
Key differences 3
Max LAN speedTS-462 leads
- TS-462 2.5 Gbps vs the TS-351 at 1 Gbps
- the TS-462 is 2.5x faster
- among 219 QNAP models: TS-462 in the bottom 48%, TS-351 in the bottom 22%
100 GB copy: about 5 min vs about 13 min (theoretical)
Max RAMTS-462 leads
- TS-462 16 GB vs the TS-351 at 8 GB
- the TS-462 has 2.0x the max RAM
- among 219 QNAP models: TS-462 in the bottom 48%, TS-351 in the bottom 25%
Upgradable to 16 GB later
WeightTS-351 leads
- TS-351 1.64 kg vs the TS-462 at 2.88 kg
- the TS-351: 1.24 kg lighter
- among 212 QNAP models: TS-351 in the top 8%, TS-462 in the top 19%
1.24 kg lighter (about 1 1.5 L bottles)
Key specs at a glance
| Spec | TS-351 | TS-462 |
|---|---|---|
| Max LAN speed | 1 Gbpsbottom 22% | 2.5 GbpsWINbottom 48% |
| Max RAM | 8 GBbottom 25% | 16 GBWINbottom 48% |
| Weight | 1.64 kgWINtop 8% | 2.88 kgtop 19% |
| Drive bays | 3bottom 12% | 4WINbottom 35% |
| USB ports | 3bottom 27% | 4WINtop 35% |
| Operating power | 26.2 WWINtop 15% | 32.4 Wtop 23% |
Show every spec
| Spec | TS-351 | TS-462 |
|---|---|---|
| Drive bays | 3bottom 12% | 4WINbottom 35% |
| CPU cores | 2bottom 9% | 2bottom 9% |
| Boost clock | 2.58 GHzbottom 46% | 2.9 GHzWINtop 39% |
| Base RAM | 4 GBbottom 47% | 4 GBbottom 47% |
| Max RAM | 8 GBbottom 25% | 16 GBWINbottom 48% |
| Max LAN speed | 1 Gbpsbottom 22% | 2.5 GbpsWINbottom 48% |
| LAN ports | 1bottom 8% | 1bottom 8% |
| M.2 slots | 2top 4% | 2top 4% |
| PCIe slots | – | 1top 49% |
| USB ports | 3bottom 27% | 4WINtop 35% |
| Weight | 1.64 kgWINtop 8% | 2.88 kgtop 19% |
| Volume | 5.54 LWINtop 15% | 6.35 Ltop 22% |
| Operating power | 26.2 WWINtop 15% | 32.4 Wtop 23% |
| Warranty | 2 yrbottom 35% | 2 yrbottom 35% |
| Metric (0–100) | TS-351 | TS-462 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance percentile | 8.3 | 20.6WIN |
| Lightness percentile | 92.4WIN | 81 |
| Compactness percentile | 85.2WIN | 77.8 |
| Home media server fit | 84 | 96WIN |
| Small office fit | 33 | 64WIN |
| 10GbE video editing fit | 18 | 40WIN |
| Low-power compact 24/7 fit | 68WIN | 61 |
The details
How to choose
- Weight matters most → the TS-351 (1.64 kg vs 2.88 kg)
- Max LAN speed matters most → the TS-462 (2.5 Gbps vs 1 Gbps)
More TS-351 leads
- Operating power: 26.2 W vs 32.4 W
- Volume: 5.54 L vs 6.35 L
More TS-462 leads
- Drive bays: 4 bays vs 3 bays
- USB ports: 4 ports vs 3 ports
- Boost clock: 2.9 GHz vs 2.58 GHz
Combined metrics
- Total built-in LAN bandwidth (sum of port speeds): TS-462 2.5 Gbps vs 1 Gbps
- Operating power per bay: TS-462 8.1 W vs 8.74 W
Combined metrics
- Weight per bay: TS-351 0.55 kg vs 0.72 kg
- Memory headroom (max minus base): TS-462 12 GB vs 4 GB
Same on both
- CPU cores 2, base RAM 4 GB, LAN ports 1
- M.2 slots 2, warranty 2 years
Use-case scores
- Home media server: TS-462 96 vs 84
- Small-office file server: TS-462 64 vs 33
Use-case scores
- 10GbE video editing: TS-462 40 vs 18
- Low-power compact 24/7 use: TS-351 68 vs 61
Use-case scores are Specotomy's own index, computed by fixed rules from official manufacturer specs; they are not manufacturer scores.
FAQ
- Which has the faster built-in LAN, the QNAP TS-351 or the QNAP TS-462?
- The TS-462, with 2.5 Gbps against 1 Gbps for the TS-351.
- Which takes more RAM, the QNAP TS-351 or the QNAP TS-462?
- The TS-462, with 16 GB against 8 GB for the TS-351.
- Which has more drive bays, the QNAP TS-351 or the QNAP TS-462?
- The TS-462, with 4 bays against 3 bays for the TS-351.
- Which draws less power, the QNAP TS-351 or the QNAP TS-462?
- The TS-351, with 26.2 W against 32.4 W for the TS-462.
- Which use cases suit the QNAP TS-351 and the QNAP TS-462?
- A home media server: the TS-462. A small-office file server: the TS-462. Low-power compact 24/7 use: the TS-351. (based on our own use-case index)