Is First-Generation Google Wifi Still Good Enough in 2026?
I have used first-generation Google Wifi for around ten years. It has worked much better in my home than the Wi-Fi bridges I used before it, and it still gives me relatively few connection problems.
However the equipment is getting old. I wanted to know whether I was missing out by keeping it, and whether a newer mesh system would make a noticeable difference.
I tested my internet connection beside each of my four Google Wifi points. The answer depends on the room: my existing system delivers the full connection near the primary point and in the master bedroom, but download speeds fall in the hall and living room.
My four-point setup
My internet service is Claro's Internet Fijo 100 Mbps download / 50 Mbps upload in Santo Domingo.
The Claro router's Wi-Fi is disabled. My Google Wifi setup consists of:
- A primary point connected to the Claro router by Ethernet.
- A second point in the hall, connected wirelessly.
- A living-room point which, as I understand my setup, connects wirelessly through the hall point.
- A master-bedroom point connected wirelessly to the primary point.
The living room has usually had the weakest mesh connection. Google Home often gives it an orange indicator, although it rarely causes actual connection problems.
My apartment has concrete walls, which make placement difficult. The points also sometimes end up behind photo frames or other objects: my wife understandably prefers them to blend into the room. A practical home network has to work where people are willing to keep the equipment.
My speed-test results
I used Speedtest.net over Wi-Fi beside each point, selecting a Claro Santo Domingo server. I also had an earlier result from a small PC connected by Ethernet.
| Test location | Download Mbps | Upload Mbps |
|---|---|---|
| Beside the primary wired Google Wifi point | 109 | 52.1 |
| Beside the hall wireless point | 78.6 | 48.5 |
| Beside the living-room point | 59.5 | 43.9 |
| Beside the master-bedroom point | 102 | 51.8 |
| Ethernet-connected PC, earlier test | 104.82 | 45.39 |
These are snapshots of performance in my apartment, rather than a controlled benchmark of Google Wifi's maximum capabilities. They measure internet speed through the connection available at each location; they do not measure the maximum speed of local transfers to my NAS.
The primary point and master bedroom both delivered roughly the full speed of my plan. The hall was slower, and the living room reached around 60 Mbps download.
The living-room download result was about 55% of the primary-point result. Upload speed fell less sharply, remaining close to 44 Mbps against a nominal 50 Mbps service.
The master-bedroom result is useful because it shows that a wireless mesh point is not automatically a major bottleneck at my current internet speed.
A mistake with my first tests
Initially, I ran Google Home's internet speed test while standing beside each point. The results were almost identical.
That did not demonstrate equal Wi-Fi performance throughout the apartment. Google Home's internet test measures the primary router's connection to Google's servers. Moving my phone to another room did not change the connection being measured.
Repeating the tests through Speedtest.net on the device using Wi-Fi revealed the room-to-room differences.
I also ran a separate mesh test. On that occasion, the master-bedroom point showed “Great connection”, while the hall and living-room points both showed “Good connection”, with green indicators.
The mesh test checks the connection between the primary point and additional points. A good mesh rating is useful, but it does not mean every device in every room will achieve the same internet speed.
Why the living room is slower
There are several plausible contributors: the concrete walls, the positions of the points, and the additional wireless hop in the layout I described above.
A wireless point needs a useful connection back through the mesh as well as a useful connection to the device beside it. Standing close to the living-room point does not remove limitations elsewhere along that path.
Google's placement guidance recommends keeping points in open positions and considering the obstacles between them. In my apartment, finding an ideal position is easier said than done.
My tests cannot tell me how much of the slowdown comes from each factor. I have not compared exposed and concealed placements under controlled conditions, or tested a replacement mesh system in these rooms.
What I can say is that the lower measured speed matches my experience of the living room having the weakest mesh connection, even though it generally remains reliable.
Would upgrading make my internet faster?
First-generation Google Wifi uses Wi-Fi 5 and has Gigabit Ethernet ports. Its AC1200 specification is a wireless speed class, not a promise of 1,200 Mbps internet speed on a single device.
My measurements show that it can handle my current 100/50 Mbps plan in favourable locations. A new router would not increase the speed of the service I buy from Claro.
An upgrade might help more of that existing connection reach the living room. It might also improve capacity or local wireless transfers with suitable devices. Those are possible benefits, rather than results I have demonstrated in my apartment.
If I upgraded my internet plan substantially, I would repeat these tests before deciding whether to replace the mesh. Performance at around 100 Mbps does not establish what the same layout would deliver on a much faster connection.
Wiring additional points is another option worth considering if a cable route becomes practical. Google Wifi supports Ethernet connections between points, so improving the connection between them does not automatically require replacing the whole system.
What would make me replace it?
The results give me no urgent performance reason to replace all four points simply because they are old. I would reconsider if:
- Connection problems started interrupting everyday use.
- A faster internet plan exposed a substantial Wi-Fi bottleneck.
- Local wireless transfers became slow enough to be inconvenient.
- I could improve the layout by wiring points or choosing equipment that fits better in usable positions.
- Security support or essential app functionality no longer met my needs.
Security support is a separate question from speed. These tests demonstrate performance; they do not establish how long Google will continue maintaining the original hardware.
What I would consider buying today
A friend recommended the TP-Link Deco X25, an AX1800 Wi-Fi 6 mesh system, and is very happy with it. That is his experience, rather than a system I have tested.
For a UK buying shortlist, I would also compare these two models. I have researched their specifications, but have not personally tested either in my home.
| System | Why I would consider it | What I would check |
|---|---|---|
| TP-Link Deco X50 | A dual-band AX3000 Wi-Fi 6 system with Gigabit Ethernet ports and Ethernet backhaul support. A candidate for a straightforward replacement. | Pack size, current price, security support and whether its placement options suit my rooms. |
| TP-Link Deco XE75 | A tri-band Wi-Fi 6E system whose additional 6 GHz band can participate in the wireless connection between units. Worth comparing if I continue relying on wireless backhaul. | Whether the added cost brings a useful benefit in a home with concrete walls. An extra band alone does not establish better coverage here. |
Check the TP-Link Deco X50 on Amazon UK
Check the TP-Link Deco XE75 on Amazon UK
Affiliate disclosure: If you buy through these links, I may earn a small commission at no additional cost to you. I only link to equipment that I genuinely use or consider relevant to the article. I have researched these two systems but have not personally tested them.
AX3000 and AXE5400 are advertised wireless speed classes, not the internet speeds I should expect from my Claro plan.
For now, my old Google Wifi system still does a useful job. The living room is slower, but it rarely causes problems. Any replacement needs to offer a practical improvement in that room to make the purchase worthwhile.