Hanwha X530L-18GHXM-90 vs Allied Telesis AT-x530L-18GHXm-10: Specification Comparison
Both the Hanwha HV-X530L-18GHXM-90 and Allied Telesis AT-x530L-18GHXm-10 are 1U, 16-port multi-gigabit PoE++ managed switches targeting enterprise surveillance and IoT deployments. Each delivers a 720W PoE budget, 200 Gbps switching fabric, 148.8 Mpps forwarding rate, and dual 10G SFP+ uplinks across an identical port count. The comparison focuses on three decision-critical dimensions: PoE port allocation and power flexibility; physical build, thermal, and power envelope; and uplink, stacking, and management architecture.
In This Guide
- How do the two switches differ in PoE port allocation and per-port power flexibility?
- How do the switches compare on physical footprint, weight, thermal output, and total power consumption?
- Which switch offers stronger uplink, stacking, and network management capabilities?
- Which should you choose: the X530L-18GHXM-90 or the AT-x530L-18GHXm-10?
- Side-by-Side Specs
- FAQ
How do the two switches differ in PoE port allocation and per-port power flexibility?
Both switches provide 16 PoE-enabled multi-gigabit ports (100M/1G/2.5G/5G) and a shared 720W PoE budget. The HV-X530L-18GHXM-90 specifies 90W per port across all 16 ports under its rated configuration, meaning the full Class 8 (802.3bt) envelope is available at every port simultaneously subject to the 720W total budget.
The AT-x530L-18GHXm-10 publishes a tiered per-port ceiling table: all 16 ports support up to 30W (PoE+); 12 ports can run at 60W (PoE++ Class 6); and only 8 ports can simultaneously operate at the 90W maximum (PoE++ Class 8). This tiered constraint is a meaningful distinction for deployments that need more than 8 simultaneous 90W devices — such as multi-sensor or high-wattage PTZ cameras — where the AT model would require load balancing across ports.
For installations with 9 or more 90W devices, the HV-X530L-18GHXM-90's published per-port spec presents a less restrictive ceiling, though real-world simultaneous draw on either unit remains bounded by the shared 720W total budget.
How do the switches compare on physical footprint, weight, thermal output, and total power consumption?
The two units share identical installed dimensions of 17.36 x 10.07 x 1.73 in (W x D x H), confirming both occupy a standard 1U rack slot at the same depth. The HV-X530L-18GHXM-90 lists an unpackaged weight of 13.89 lb. The AT-x530L-18GHXm-10 lists an unpackaged weight of 9.48 lb (4.3 kg) and a packaged weight of 13.18 lb (5.98 kg) — so the Hanwha-branded unit is approximately 4.4 lb heavier when unpackaged.
Maximum power consumption is specified only for the AT-x530L-18GHXm-10 at 970W, with a corresponding maximum heat dissipation of 3,317 BTU/h and an audited noise level of 42 dBA. None of these figures — max power draw, heat dissipation, or acoustic rating — are present in the HV-X530L-18GHXM-90 specifications provided, making a direct thermal or acoustic comparison impossible from available data.
The HV-X530L-18GHXM-90 specifies wall-mount and rack-mount options; the AT-x530L-18GHXm-10 specifies rack-mount only. The Hanwha unit also carries explicit NDAA and TAA compliance declarations; no equivalent compliance statement is present in the AT model's provided specs.
Which switch offers stronger uplink, stacking, and network management capabilities?
Both units provide dual 1G/10G SFP+ uplink ports. Latency figures are identical across all shared speed tiers: 8.35µs at 100 Mbps, 7.96µs at 1G, 7.72µs at 2.5G, 5.23µs at 5G. The AT-x530L-18GHXm-10 additionally specifies 2.56µs latency at 10G on the uplink ports; no 10G latency figure is provided for the HV-X530L-18GHXM-90.
The AT-x530L-18GHXm-10 specifies 2 dedicated stacking ports, enabling daisy-chain clustering and unified management across multiple units. No stacking ports or stacking capability are listed in the HV-X530L-18GHXM-90 specifications. For larger deployments requiring switch clustering or centralized stack management, this is a material architectural difference.
The HV-X530L-18GHXM-90 specifications reference EPSRing (Ethernet Protection Switched Ring) as a resilience technology and cite RFC 3956 under encryption, suggesting Layer 3 multicast and ring-topology redundancy features; however, full management software feature sets are not enumerated in the provided specs for either unit. The AT model's management feature set beyond stacking is also not detailed in the provided specifications.
Which should you choose: the X530L-18GHXM-90 or the AT-x530L-18GHXm-10?
Our take: The HV-X530L-18GHXM-90 is the stronger choice when deploying 9 or more simultaneous 90W PoE++ devices and when NDAA/TAA regulatory compliance is a procurement requirement. Its published spec allows 90W at all 16 ports (within the 720W shared budget), whereas the AT-x530L-18GHXm-10 caps simultaneous 90W delivery at 8 ports and 60W delivery at 12 ports — a concrete constraint for high-density Class 8 loads. The HV unit also adds wall-mount flexibility absent from the AT model. Conversely, the AT-x530L-18GHXm-10 is the better fit for multi-switch deployments: it is the only unit with specified stacking ports, it is 4.4 lb lighter, and it publishes thermal and acoustic data (970W max draw, 3,317 BTU/h, 42 dBA) that facilities teams require for data-center provisioning. Buyers aggregating more than one switch into a managed stack, or running in a thermally constrained rack environment, should favor the AT model.
Side-by-Side Comparison
Spec-for-spec, from manufacturer data.
| Specification | Hanwha X530L-18GHXM-90 | Allied Telesis AT-x530L-18GHXm-10 |
|---|---|---|
| Device Type | Managed PoE++ Switch | Managed PoE++ Switch |
| PoE-Enabled Ports | 16 | 16 |
| Port Speeds | 100M / 1G / 2.5G / 5G | 100M / 1G / 2.5G / 5G |
| PoE Standard | 802.3bt (PoE++ Class 8) | 802.3bt (PoE++ Class 8) |
| Total PoE Budget | 720W | 720W |
| Max PoE Per Port (simultaneous) | 90W across all 16 ports (spec) | 90W (8 ports) / 60W (12 ports) / 30W (16 ports) |
| Switching Fabric | 200 Gbps | 200 Gbps |
| Forwarding Rate | 148.8 Mpps | 148.8 Mpps |
| Uplink Ports | 2x 10G SFP+ | 2x 10G SFP+ |
| Stacking Ports | — | 2 |
| Latency at 5G | 5.23µs | 5.23µs |
| Latency at 10G | — | 2.56µs |
| Form Factor / Mount | 1U Rack + Wall | 1U Rack only |
| Unpackaged Weight | 13.89 lb | 9.48 lb (4.3 kg) |
| Max Power Consumption | — | 970W |
| NDAA / TAA Compliant | Yes (both) | — |
Frequently Asked Questions
Which should you choose: the X530L-18GHXM-90 or the AT-x530L-18GHXm-10?
The HV-X530L-18GHXM-90 is the stronger choice when deploying 9 or more simultaneous 90W PoE++ devices and when NDAA/TAA regulatory compliance is a procurement requirement. Its published spec allows 90W at all 16 ports (within the 720W shared budget), whereas the AT-x530L-18GHXm-10 caps simultaneous 90W delivery at 8 ports and 60W delivery at 12 ports — a concrete constraint for high-density Class 8 loads. The HV unit also adds wall-mount flexibility absent from the AT model. Conversely, the AT-x530L-18GHXm-10 is the better fit for multi-switch deployments: it is the only unit with specified stacking ports, it is 4.4 lb lighter, and it publishes thermal and acoustic data (970W max draw, 3,317 BTU/h, 42 dBA) that facilities teams require for data-center provisioning. Buyers aggregating more than one switch into a managed stack, or running in a thermally constrained rack environment, should favor the AT model.
Can either switch power 16 cameras that each draw 90W simultaneously?
Neither switch can deliver 90W to all 16 ports at the same time — the shared 720W PoE budget caps simultaneous full-power delivery at approximately 8 ports at 90W regardless of model. The HV-X530L-18GHXM-90 specifies 90W as the per-port ceiling across all 16 ports, but the 720W total budget is the binding constraint. The AT-x530L-18GHXm-10 additionally imposes a simultaneous-port ceiling: only 8 ports can operate at 90W concurrently per its published spec table. For loads above 8 simultaneous 90W devices, both units require load management, but the AT model's tiered ceiling is a harder architectural limit.
Is the HV-X530L-18GHXM-90 or AT-x530L-18GHXm-10 better for a multi-switch deployment where I need to manage everything from a single interface?
The AT-x530L-18GHXm-10 is the only unit in this comparison with specified stacking ports (2 ports). Stacking allows multiple switches to present as a single logical unit for unified management, firmware updates, and configuration. The HV-X530L-18GHXM-90 does not list stacking ports or stacking capability in its provided specifications, so it cannot be confirmed to support this topology based on available data.
Which switch is compliant for U.S. federal or government-funded projects?
The HV-X530L-18GHXM-90 explicitly specifies both NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) and TAA (Trade Agreements Act) compliance, with a Country of Origin listed as Singapore (SG). No NDAA or TAA compliance declaration appears in the provided specifications for the AT-x530L-18GHXm-10. Buyers with federal, state, or grant-funded procurement requirements that mandate NDAA/TAA compliance should select the HV-X530L-18GHXM-90 or independently verify the AT model's compliance status before purchase.
More Network Switch Comparisons
- Vivotek GEL-205A-260 vs TP-Link SL1218MP
- Vivotek GEL-205A-260 vs Allied Telesis AT-x530L-18GHXm-10
- Vivotek GEL-205A-260 vs Ubiquiti USW-LITE-16-POE
- Vivotek GEL-205A-260 vs Ubiquiti USW-16-POE
- TP-Link SL1218MP vs Allied Telesis AT-x530L-18GHXm-10
- TP-Link SL1218MP vs Ubiquiti USW-LITE-16-POE
Network Switch Buying Guides
Get a Second Opinion on Your Camera Choice
Share your site layout, coverage goals, and budget. Our team will validate the camera selection, flag anything we would change, and recommend products that match the use case.