What benefits does the vmb5000 have over the vmb4000r2

[Boomer_1]

I am trying to see what benefits the vmb5000 has over the vmb4000r2  base station. I have Arlo Pro 4 cameras. I see that the vmb5000 offers 2.4ghz as well as 5ghz.

How are you able to select which one to use, and is this based on your router networks or within the vmb5000 hub?

I see it also has local recording to a micros. Will it record to that as well as to the cloud similar to the Arlo Go?

Are you able to play back locally directly from the microsd?

How many cameras are supported per hub?

Is there any range benefits to these over the base station?

I see references to this smart hub having Zigbee and Zwave support? Where would that come into play? Maybe to work with Smart home apps?

Also, does anyone have any experience with just connecting the Arlo Pro 4 cameras directly to their wifi router? How well does that work out?

Thanks.

[StephenB]

---

@Boomer_1 wrote:

How are you able to select which one to use

---

No.  Like all Arlo bases, this is a closed WiFi network just used by the cameras.  And the only cameras that have a 5 gHz radio are the Ultra/Ultra 2.  So the 5 gHz band in the VMB5000 won't be used at all with the Pro 4.

---

@Boomer_1 wrote:

I see it also has local recording to a microsd. Will it record to that as well as to the cloud similar to the Arlo Go?

Are you able to play back locally directly from the microsd?

---

If you have a subscription for the Pro 4 cameras, you will get recordings both to the cloud and to the local storage.  Otherwise, you just have recordings to local storage.

Unlike the VMB4000, both the VMB4540 and the VMB5000 allow you to play back local recordings in the Arlo app.  There are several limitations - personally I think the subscription is a better path (still using local storage as a backup), but there are quite a few people who just use the direct access to local storage, w/o a subscription.

• https://kb.arlo.com/000062337/What-is-Direct-Storage-Access-and-how-do-I-use-it-for-Arlo-video-recor...

FWIW, the limitations include

• Access to recordings is only in the app (not the browser)
• Access to recordings is only from the primary account (not friend accounts)
• No ability to make manual recordings or snapshots
• No thumbnails
• Remote access requires router settings that some find difficult (and which don't work with some internet providers - for example, Starlink and T-mobile Broadband).

---

@Boomer_1 wrote:

How many cameras are supported per hub?

---

There isn't a strict limit, but the hubs (including the VMB4000) only support 5 simultaneous video streams.

---

@Boomer_1 wrote:

Is there any range benefits to these over the base station?

---

No.  

---

@Boomer_1 wrote:

I see references to this smart hub having Zigbee and Zwave support? Where would that come into play?

---

It doesn't.  While it has the radios, Arlo never added any features that use them.

---

@Boomer_1 wrote:

Also, does anyone have any experience with just connecting the Arlo Pro 4 cameras directly to their wifi router? How well does that work out?

---

Getting the cameras onboarded to your home wifi is sometimes difficult.  Once onboarded, in my experience they work well either way.  Power use can be a bit more when connected to your wifi router. 

Some have reported issues with the cameras not re-connecting to your wifi when there is a power interruption.  I haven't seen that (and FWIW, while I've tried direct connection to my home network, that was really just to see how well it worked - in general I connect to the VMB5000s).

Operationally - with a base, you have modes that control all cameras connected to the base simultaneously.  When connected to home wifi, you control each camera separately (including schedules).  Which is better depends on how you use the cameras.

[Boomer_1]

Thanks for the info. This is helpful. A couple of other questions. I already have the Pro4 Cameras and I have the connected to the the 4000 hub. I also have a subscription. My rational was I wasn't sure how well some of the other features would work directly connected to wifi so I went with the hub. I figured that it should work at least as well as my Arlo GOs do, but also reduce the battery life. 

A couple more questions. Since I already have a subscription can it coexist with playing things locally or do you have to have one or the other?

If you want to setup a vpn or port  forwarding can that be done without a subscription or not? I already have port forwarding implemented on some other remote access items so that would not be a big deal for me, but I might go the vpn route instead.

Most likely if the local playback and subscription would coexist I would probably just implement the local playback as a benefit when I am at home.

Thanks.

[Boomer_1]

One other question I forgot to mention. When you say a friend can't access the local recordings, does that mean if you have a "shared user", they will not be able to access the local recordings?

Thanks.

[StephenB · Accepted solution]

---

@Boomer_1 wrote:

A couple more questions. Since I already have a subscription can it coexist with playing things locally or do you have to have one or the other?

---

Yes.

---

@Boomer_1 wrote:

If you want to setup a vpn or port  forwarding can that be done without a subscription or not? I already have port forwarding implemented on some other remote access items so that would not be a big deal for me, but I might go the vpn route instead.

---

Either a VPN  or port forwarding should work for remote access to the local storage.

A while back there was a problem with getting a VPN to work with the Android app. I think the VPN issue with Android is now resolved (but have no way to test that, since I am currently using an iPhone).

There are some ISP networks where you simply can't make an inbound connection, so neither technique works.  These are using carrier-grade NAT (or equivalent) for ipv4.  While you'd think that ipv6 could still be used to make an inbound connection, generally the ISPs using CGNAT aren't allowing that either.

---

@Boomer_1 wrote:

Most likely if the local playback and subscription would coexist I would probably just implement the local playback as a benefit when I am at home.

---

That's what I do.

---

@Boomer_1 wrote:

When you say a friend can't access the local recordings, does that mean if you have a "shared user", they will not be able to access the local recordings?

---

Correct.

[Boomer_1]

Thanks much. That takes care of all my questions. Most likely I will just use it locally for viewing. I like keeping a local copy as well. I have already ran down the cgnat rathole and have that solved. I can forward whatever is necessary with a few exceptions. It appears that the ipv4 address you get is actually shared amount many users almost simultaneously so there is no way to forward anything back in. I also think they would just convert to ipv6 and resolve on this nonsense. This information is what I needed. I appreciate the additional detail.

[StephenB]

---

@Boomer_1 wrote:

It appears that the ipv4 address you get is actually shared amount many users almost simultaneously so there is no way to forward anything back in. 

---

Correct.  That is the essence of CGNAT ("carrier grade NAT").  It's used because there simply aren't enough IPv4 addresses to go around.

---

@Boomer_1 wrote:

I also think they would just convert to ipv6 and resolve on this nonsense. 

---

Yes, but I think many aren't forwarding inbound requests with ipv6 either.  One aspect is that it is easier to maintain network security if you simply don't allow unsolicited inbound traffic.

FWIW, I think the right solution is for Arlo to route the traffic through their cloud (as they are already doing when you livestream the camera).  But I don't think direct access is a feature they really care about.

[Boomer_1]

I actually don't want any of my traffic going thru the cloud that I can avoid. For these cameras they are on may property too far away to easily get power and cabling to so they serve a purpose. Any other security devices I have are running on my own server with no cloud connections. Would rather not rely on some company to be responsible for my data security. It is becoming more difficult to avoid cloud applications altogether, but that is one factor when I select something. The Arlos are just a nitch product for me that serves a useful purpose.

[Boomer_1]

Have you been able to determine if you get battery throughput using the vmb5000 vs vmb4000s on the Arlo Pro4s. The reason I ask is I originally had Arlo Po2 cameras which came with the VMB4000s. When I purchased the Arlo Pro4 cameras they did not require a hub, but I prefer to have them on a hub just for manageability and more general network organization. I have noticed they do seem a bit sluggish as compared to the Arlo Pro2s.  I  thought it may be due to the fact they are 2K cameras and the throughput isn't as good. I have 4 cameras on one hub and 3 on the other. I notice especially when I collect alerts from the cloud they are slower to load than with the Arlo Pro2s . My internet speeds are fine here.

Thanks, Larry

[StephenB]

---

@Boomer_1 wrote:

Have you been able to determine if you get better throughput using the vmb5000 vs vmb4000s on the Arlo Pro4s.

I haven't used a VMB4000 for some years now (I was using smarthubs by the time the Pro 4 was launched).

So I have no comparison on how the throughput might compare.