How do the PoE port count, power budget, and per-port delivery compare?

Both variants provide 8 PoE+ ports operating at the 802.3at standard (up to 30W per port) plus 2 dedicated gigabit uplink ports. Port speed on both is 10/100/1000 Mbps auto-negotiating.

The critical differentiator is total power budget: SKU GV-APOE0811-140 explicitly specifies a 140W total PoE power budget in its specs. SKU GV-APOE0811 does not document a total power budget figure — installers cannot confirm the chassis watt ceiling from the available spec data alone.

For a deployment with 8 ports each drawing near-maximum 802.3at load (e.g., PTZ cameras with heaters), the 140W ceiling on the -140 variant becomes a hard constraint to plan against. The absence of a stated budget on the base SKU is a spec gap that requires datasheet verification before deployment.

Do the physical build, weight, and mounting options differ between the two variants?

Dimensions are identical on both units: 12.00 x 8.00 x 3.00 in. Housing color is White on both.

Weight differs slightly: the base GV-APOE0811 is listed at 4 lb, while the GV-APOE0811-140 is listed at 3.75 lb — a 0.25 lb difference that is unlikely to be operationally significant but does indicate these are distinct physical units or production runs.

Mounting options show a documented difference: GV-APOE0811-140 specifies wall or rack-mount capability, while GV-APOE0811 is described as rack/shelf mountable. The -140 variant's explicit wall-mount option may matter for camera-closet or on-wall enclosure installs where rack infrastructure is absent.

Which variant offers stronger management features and third-party integration documentation?

Both variants share a common management baseline: VLAN, QoS, and port mirroring. The base GV-APOE0811 additionally documents link aggregation (LACP or static — specific protocol not specified) in its spec data; the GV-APOE0811-140 does not list link aggregation.

VMS and standards compatibility is only documented for the GV-APOE0811-140, which lists ONVIF Profile S compliance. The base GV-APOE0811 carries no VMS compatibility or ONVIF notation in its available specs.

Cable category classification differs: GV-APOE0811 is filed under 'Accessories,' while GV-APOE0811-140 is filed under 'IPPTZCam,' suggesting the -140 variant is positioned and validated specifically for PTZ camera power and integration use cases. The -140 also carries an explicit 'Compatibility: Yes' field, though the spec does not enumerate specific third-party NVR or VMS platforms beyond ONVIF Profile S.

Which should you choose: the APOE0811 or the APOE0811?

Our take: The GV-APOE0811-140 is the stronger choice when the deployment involves PTZ cameras, requires a documented total power budget, or demands confirmed ONVIF Profile S compatibility. The -140 variant is the only one with a stated 140W PoE power budget — a critical planning figure when sizing multi-camera installs — and it alone documents ONVIF Profile S support and explicit wall-mount capability. The base GV-APOE0811 counters with a documented link aggregation feature absent from the -140's spec sheet and weighs 0.25 lb more, which may reflect minor hardware differences. Both carry a 3-year warranty and identical port counts. Choose GV-APOE0811-140 for PTZ-heavy, power-budget-sensitive, or ONVIF-dependent installations; revisit GV-APOE0811 if link aggregation to an upstream core switch is required and total PoE wattage can be confirmed via its separate datasheet.

Side-by-Side Comparison

Spec-for-spec, from manufacturer data.

Frequently Asked Questions

Related Resources

• Geovision APOE0811 product page — full specs and to add to a quote
• Geovision APOE0811 product page — full specs and to add to a quote