Vivotek FGT-260P-370 vs Pelco SM24TAT2SA-NA: Specification Comparison
Both the Vivotek AW-FGT-260P-370 and the Pelco SM24TAT2SA-NA are 26-port Gigabit PoE+ switches sharing an identical port count — 24 PoE+ data ports plus 2 uplinks — and a 370 W aggregate power budget, placing them squarely in the same mid-size IP surveillance switching tier. The comparison turns on management capability, uplink medium, standards compliance, and ecosystem targeting: one unit is an unmanaged plug-and-play device, the other is a fully managed switch with VLAN, QoS, and fiber backbone support.
In This Guide
- How do the PoE power budget and port capacity compare between the FGT-260P-370 and SM24TAT2SA-NA?
- Which switch offers more network management capability and what uplink options does each provide?
- How do the two switches compare on regulatory compliance, ecosystem compatibility, and warranty coverage?
- Which should you choose: the FGT-260P-370 or the SM24TAT2SA-NA?
- Side-by-Side Specs
- FAQ
How do the PoE power budget and port capacity compare between the FGT-260P-370 and SM24TAT2SA-NA?
Both switches provide exactly 24 PoE+ ports and a stated 370 W aggregate power budget, so raw PoE headroom is identical at the top line. The Vivotek FGT-260P-370 specifies 30 W per port maximum (IEEE 802.3at), meaning the 370 W budget must be shared across simultaneous loads — a buyer running 24 cameras at full 30 W draw (720 W theoretical) will need to account for port-level versus aggregate limits.
The Pelco SM24TAT2SA-NA states 370 W aggregate across its 24 Gigabit PoE+ ports but does not specify a per-port maximum in the provided specs. Both units advertise IEEE 802.3at compliance. For deployments where precise per-port power allocation matters — PTZ cameras, multi-sensor units, or PoE-powered door controllers — the Vivotek's explicit 30 W per-port figure gives planners a confirmed ceiling; the equivalent Pelco per-port figure is absent from the supplied specification set.
Which switch offers more network management capability and what uplink options does each provide?
This is the sharpest differentiator between the two units. The Vivotek FGT-260P-370 is explicitly unmanaged (plug-and-play), providing no VLAN segmentation, no QoS prioritization, and no per-port configuration interface. This makes deployment fast and requires no network engineering knowledge, but eliminates traffic shaping and logical network separation.
The Pelco SM24TAT2SA-NA is a managed switch with documented support for VLAN configuration, QoS, and port-level management. For surveillance networks carrying mixed traffic — cameras, access control, VoIP, or corporate data on shared infrastructure — managed switching is a meaningful operational capability. On uplinks, the Vivotek provides 2 Gigabit Ethernet combo ports (copper or SFP), while the Pelco provides 2 dedicated SFP fiber ports. Fiber uplinks on the Pelco enable longer backbone runs and electrical isolation between network segments, which is a common requirement in multi-building or IDF-to-MDF wiring scenarios.
How do the two switches compare on regulatory compliance, ecosystem compatibility, and warranty coverage?
The Pelco SM24TAT2SA-NA carries an explicit NDAA Section 889 compliance designation in its specifications, which is a procurement requirement for U.S. federal, state, and many enterprise customers operating under government contract obligations. The Vivotek FGT-260P-370 specifications do not state NDAA compliance status; buyers with NDAA requirements should verify independently.
On ecosystem fit, the Pelco SM24TAT2SA-NA is specified as compatible with Pelco Camera Systems, positioning it as a validated component within Pelco's surveillance infrastructure stack. The Vivotek FGT-260P-370 is described as a general-purpose surveillance switch suitable for IP cameras broadly. Warranty coverage differs: Pelco specifies a 1-year limited warranty; the Vivotek specification set does not state a warranty duration — only a reference to a warranty policy document. Buyers requiring a confirmed warranty term should request the Vivotek policy document before purchase.
Which should you choose: the FGT-260P-370 or the SM24TAT2SA-NA?
Our take: The SM24TAT2SA-NA is the stronger choice when the deployment demands managed network control, fiber backbone uplinks, or NDAA Section 889 compliance. Three concrete spec deltas support this: first, the SM24TAT2SA-NA provides managed switching with VLAN and QoS versus the FGT-260P-370's unmanaged architecture — a binary capability gap for any multi-VLAN or QoS-dependent network; second, the SM24TAT2SA-NA's 2 SFP fiber uplinks enable long-haul and electrically isolated backbone runs that the FGT-260P-370's copper/combo uplinks cannot match over distance; third, the SM24TAT2SA-NA carries an explicit NDAA Section 889 compliance declaration absent from the Vivotek spec set. Conversely, the FGT-260P-370 is appropriate for standalone, single-VLAN camera networks where zero-configuration deployment speed is the priority and the explicit 30 W per-port ceiling simplifies power planning. Platform qualifier: Pelco-centric installs or government-adjacent projects should default to the SM24TAT2SA-NA; pure greenfield SMB camera closets with no managed-network requirement may find the FGT-260P-370 sufficient.
Side-by-Side Comparison
Spec-for-spec, from manufacturer data.
| Specification | Vivotek FGT-260P-370 | Pelco SM24TAT2SA-NA |
|---|---|---|
| Total Ports | 26 (24 PoE+ + 2 uplink) | 26 (24 PoE+ + 2 uplink) |
| PoE+ Data Ports | 24 | 24 |
| PoE Standard | IEEE 802.3at (PoE+) | IEEE 802.3at (PoE+) |
| Per-Port PoE Max | 30 W | — |
| Aggregate PoE Budget | 370 W (stated in SKU name) | 370 W |
| Uplink Ports | 2 Gigabit Ethernet combo (copper/SFP) | 2 SFP fiber |
| Management | Unmanaged (plug-and-play) | Managed |
| VLAN Support | — | Yes |
| QoS Support | — | Yes |
| NDAA Section 889 Compliant | — | Yes |
| Mount Type | Rack | Rack |
| Housing Color | White | White |
| Ecosystem / Compatibility | General IP camera use | Pelco Camera Systems |
| Warranty | Not stated in specs (policy doc referenced) | 1-year limited |
| Weight | 1.0 lbs | — |
| Datasheet | /content/product-datasheets/AW-FGT-260P-370.pdf | /content/product-datasheets/SM24TAT2SA-NA.pdf |
Frequently Asked Questions
Which should you choose: the FGT-260P-370 or the SM24TAT2SA-NA?
The SM24TAT2SA-NA is the stronger choice when the deployment demands managed network control, fiber backbone uplinks, or NDAA Section 889 compliance. Three concrete spec deltas support this: first, the SM24TAT2SA-NA provides managed switching with VLAN and QoS versus the FGT-260P-370's unmanaged architecture — a binary capability gap for any multi-VLAN or QoS-dependent network; second, the SM24TAT2SA-NA's 2 SFP fiber uplinks enable long-haul and electrically isolated backbone runs that the FGT-260P-370's copper/combo uplinks cannot match over distance; third, the SM24TAT2SA-NA carries an explicit NDAA Section 889 compliance declaration absent from the Vivotek spec set. Conversely, the FGT-260P-370 is appropriate for standalone, single-VLAN camera networks where zero-configuration deployment speed is the priority and the explicit 30 W per-port ceiling simplifies power planning. Platform qualifier: Pelco-centric installs or government-adjacent projects should default to the SM24TAT2SA-NA; pure greenfield SMB camera closets with no managed-network requirement may find the FGT-260P-370 sufficient.
Is the FGT-260P-370 or SM24TAT2SA-NA better for larger or multi-VLAN surveillance deployments?
The SM24TAT2SA-NA is the appropriate choice for multi-VLAN deployments. It is a managed switch with documented VLAN and QoS support, allowing traffic segmentation between camera, access-control, and corporate data networks. The FGT-260P-370 is unmanaged and cannot create or enforce VLANs, making it unsuitable for any deployment that requires logical network separation.
Can either switch be used on a U.S. government or federally-funded project?
The Pelco SM24TAT2SA-NA is explicitly listed as NDAA Section 889 compliant in its specifications, satisfying a common federal and state procurement requirement. The Vivotek FGT-260P-370 specifications do not include an NDAA compliance statement; its eligibility for government projects cannot be confirmed from the provided spec data alone.
Both switches show 370 W — does that mean they power the same number of cameras?
The aggregate 370 W budget is identical on both units across 24 PoE+ ports. The Vivotek FGT-260P-370 additionally specifies a 30 W per-port maximum (IEEE 802.3at), which means the per-port cap may limit high-draw devices before the aggregate budget is exhausted. The Pelco SM24TAT2SA-NA does not state a per-port maximum in the provided specifications, so that figure should be confirmed with Pelco before sizing high-wattage camera or device mixes.
More Network Switch Comparisons
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.