Truth Lab Test #001
Mobile Link Bonding Comparison
Truth Lab results are based on controlled laboratory testing conducted by IP Access International using specific hardware, software versions, configurations, and network conditions at the time of testing. Results are intended to provide insight into relative system behavior under defined conditions and may not reflect performance in all real-world environments. Actual performance will vary based on network conditions, configurations, applications, and deployment scenarios. Truth Lab testing is informational in nature and does not constitute a performance guarantee.
Executive Summary
Mission-critical connectivity isn’t defined by peak speeds or feature lists—it’s defined by how networks behave when conditions change unexpectedly.
To better understand real-world performance, IP Access International launched The Truth Lab, a controlled testing environment designed to evaluate connectivity technologies under repeatable, measurable conditions. The goal is simple: move beyond theoretical claims and observe how blended and bonded networks actually perform when stressed.
Truth Lab Test #001 examined a foundational question in mobile and distributed operations:
What happens to real application traffic when one network path suddenly fails?
Using identical connectivity, default configurations, and controlled lab conditions, this evaluation compared how two widely deployed mobile link bonding platforms respond to link loss, recover traffic, and utilize available bandwidth. Rather than focusing on peak throughput—rarely achievable in mobile environments—the test emphasized efficiency, recovery behavior, background overhead, and application stability.
The results revealed meaningful differences in how each platform balances speed, efficiency, and operational trade-offs. In particular, the test highlighted the importance of default behavior, the hidden cost of background overhead, and how efficiently bandwidth is translated into usable application performance.
This evaluation does not declare a winner. Instead, it provides transparent insight into how different architectural approaches behave under stress—giving agencies and enterprises the data they need to make informed, mission-aware decisions.
Truth Lab Test #001 is the first in an ongoing series of independent evaluations focused on real-world connectivity behavior—not marketing promises.
Mobile Link Bonding Comparison
What Happens When a Network Link Fails?
In critical operations, connectivity isn’t measured by peak speed alone—it’s measured by what keeps working when conditions change.
That’s why IP Access International launched The Truth Lab: a controlled testing environment designed to evaluate how connectivity technologies actually behave under stress. Not in theory. Not on spec sheets. But in measurable, repeatable scenarios.
Our first Truth Lab test focused on a deceptively simple question:
What happens to real traffic when one network path suddenly fails?
Why This Test Matters
Blended and bonded connectivity solutions are widely used across public safety, aviation, utilities, healthcare, and enterprise operations. These environments rely on multiple network paths—terrestrial fiber, cellular, and satellite—to maintain continuity.
But not all link bonding and blending technologies behave the same way when a path drops.
Some prioritize speed.
Some prioritize redundancy.
Few are evaluated on efficiency, recovery behavior, and real application impact—which is exactly what this test set out to measure.
Test Overview: Controlled, Fair, Repeatable
To eliminate external variables, all testing was conducted entirely within the Truth Lab environment:
- Minimal Internet traffic dependencies (to minimize external fluctuations)
- Identical WAN connectivity delivered via Gigabit Ethernet
- Same virtualization environment for hub-side reassembly
- Default, documented settings only—no hidden tuning or advanced tweaks
- Devices tested:
Tests were conducted between December 1–8, 2025
Truth #1: Overhead Is Not Free
Every link bonding solution introduces overhead—the background traffic required to maintain awareness across multiple paths.
What surprised us wasn’t that overhead exists—but how dramatically it can grow depending on how failure detection is handled.
What We Observed
- Peplink SpeedFusion enables faster link failure detection by increasing health-check frequency
- At its most aggressive (sub-second) detection setting, background overhead increased to approximately 364 MB per day
- Dejero Smart Blending achieved sub-second recovery without requiring increased health-check traffic or tuning, resulting in negligible background overhead by comparison
Why It Matters
Over time, overhead consumes data plans, reduces usable bandwidth, and increases operating costs—especially in satellite or other metered environments.
Fast recovery is critical—but fast recovery with minimal waste is even more important.
Truth #2: Blended Efficiency Beats Peak Speed
Initial testing with two unrestricted 1Gbps WAN links showed that neither platform could deliver a full 1Gbps of combined usable throughput.
That wasn’t a failure of the test—it was a reality check.
Rather than focus on unrealistic peak scenarios, we shifted testing to smaller, asymmetric, and constrained link speeds that more accurately represent real-world mobile environments such as cellular and satellite.
The Results
Under these more representative conditions:
- Dejero Smart Blending utilized 94.83% of available capacity
- Peplink SpeedFusion utilized 87.3% of available capacity
That difference represents real, usable bandwidth left on the table.
Why It Matters
In mobile operations, bandwidth is finite, expensive, and often shared.
Efficiency determines how much of what you pay for actually reaches your applications.
Truth #3: Default Settings Should Be Mission-Critical Safe
We then tested what happens when one WAN link fails completely—without pulling cables or triggering obvious “link down” events.
Default Behavior Results
- Peplink (default settings): recovery interruptions of approximately 16–24 seconds
- Peplink (Extreme detection mode): sub-second recovery, achieved via a one-time configuration change that increases health-check traffic
- Dejero (default settings): sub-second recovery across all test methods, without adjustment
Why It Matters
To be clear: Peplink’s Extreme setting is a valid option and is easily enabled.
However, it introduces a deliberate trade-off between faster recovery and increased overhead.
Mission-critical environments benefit from solutions that behave predictably and safely out of the box, without requiring operators to decide between recovery speed and data efficiency.
Truth #4: Stability Is the Real Performance Metric
The Truth Lab intentionally used test methods that were highly sensitive to interruption, including:
- Persistent TCP sessions
- Rapid ping intervals
This was by design.
If connectivity survives these conditions, it will perform even better in real-world applications such as:
- CAD systems
- Voice and video
- Telemetry
- Cloud-based operations platforms
What This Means for Real Operations
This test wasn’t about declaring a winner.
It was about validating how blended connectivity behaves under stress.
The Truth Lab revealed that:
- Efficient blending matters more than peak speed
- Sub-second recovery should not require excessive overhead
- Default behavior is just as important as maximum capability
Why The Truth Lab Exists
IP Access International works across multiple connectivity technologies—LTE, LEO, GEO, private wireless, and SD-WAN. We believe customers deserve validated answers, not marketing claims.
The Truth Lab exists to:
- Test before deployment
- Validate assumptions
- Provide transparency into how networks actually behave
Coming Next:
Our next Truth Lab evaluation will examine these same platforms in degraded and rapidly changing connectivity environments—including in-motion scenarios and disaster conditions where networks fluctuate constantly.
This was Truth Lab Test #001—and it’s just the beginning.
More results coming soon.