Which make/model of nanoVNA to buy - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / rf-microwave

author: Wilson__
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2025, 01:13:19 pm
content: Which one you have good experience.There are many variants from many factories. Many thanks

author: qbpm
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: March 13, 2025, 07:43:15 pm
content: I use the NanoVNA-H4 made by Zeenko (Hugen), and the LiteVNA64 for measurements above 1 GHz also from Zeenko (Hugen).These devices have firmware still under development and have not been abandoned as other manufacturers do. Both devices are cloned/counterfeit, so I recommend looking for the manufacturer's shop.If measurements up to 900 MHz are enough for you, then it is not worth buying the LiteVNA as it will not be any better in these ranges and is much more sensitive to ESD. The H4 as such also measures frequencies above 900 MHz, but there is already a fair amount of noise, so for occasional measurements it will still suffice up to 1.4 GHz.

author: Wilson__
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2025, 04:04:29 pm
content: many thanks

author: Solder_Junkie
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 08:23:45 am
content: As you are in the UK, buy from the official UK source:https://www.mirfield-electronics.co.uk/I have a H4 model, which can also be loaded with alternative phase frequency analyser firmware to turn it into a TinyPFA. You can easily reverse the process by re-loading NanoVNA firmware. Both instruments use the same hardware, so you can have two instruments for the price of one.SJ

author: nanopico
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 11:31:34 am
content: If you plan to sort a lot of quartz crystals, H4 seems like the best choice.TinyPFA is actually a vector voltmeter, it measures the vector of each input and outputs the angle difference when requested to measure the phase.Unfortunately the displayed dBm value is not level calibrated, neither absolute nor relative. So only the phase difference measurement is accurate.

author: Solder_Junkie
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 11:44:37 am
content: Quote from: nanopico on March 16, 2025, 11:31:34 amIsn't the clue in the name? It is a phase frequency analyser, so measurement of dBm doesn't seem relevant to me.Using a TinyPFA (whether PFA firmware on a NanoVNA H4, or a TinyPFA) enables you to measure with amazing accuracy the difference in frequency between two oscillators. Using free TimeLab software you can easily measure down to a few parts in 10^11 (1 part in 10^11 is 1 Hz in 100 GHz)The attached image shows the comparison between a home made GPSDO and a commercial Leo Bodnar one, both referenced to a rubidium oscillator. The home made one is shown as the red trace.It is a bit off the original topic, but my measurements and experiments show just how capable these low costs instruments are.SJ

author: nanopico
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 12:29:53 pm
content: TinyPFA as hardware does not exist. It is just a firmware that can only be installed on the NanoVNA H4 platform.

author: Solder_Junkie
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 12:31:41 pm
content: Quote from: nanopico on March 16, 2025, 12:29:53 pmhttps://www.mirfield-electronics.co.uk/tiny-pfa-freq-phase-analyser/SJ

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 05:06:04 pm
content: Quote from: qbpm on March 13, 2025, 07:43:15 pmFor the H4, it appears older mixers used in the original NanoVNA out perform what is supplied today. I ended up hacking up two H4s using mixers from the our original units and added TVSs to the front end. All of the LiteVNAs we have purchased were supplied with TVS's.Once you get above 300MHz, H4 uses harmonics and performance suffers. For narrow band and sub MHz use, the original NanoVNA using old mixers was king. Now, H4 with old mixers and added caps out performs it.As far as which to buy:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/rf-microwave/which-nanovna/

author: Wilson__
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 12:12:13 am
content: My application is for testing and choosing 868MHz IOT (chip and wrip) antenna.Also, hold the case around human hand position to see how much it de-tunes and drop in performance.What is the story about the (cheaper version) hardware is originally for 300MHz. Harmonic tricks were use go higher freq with degraded spec. on lesser less dB numbers.Will less dB still ok for my use case of ant checking resonant freq, return loss (VSWR) on S11 configuation.4 inches screen is better for older eyes.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 01:04:02 am
content: 868MHz is above the 300MHz switch point, which again I would use the LiteVNA.Attached graph showing the dynamic range of my original NanoVNA (RED) and my unmodified H4 (BLACK). Lower is better. At 900MHz, my H4 would out perform my original NanoVNA by 10dB. Now compare that to my hacked up H4 with the swapped mixers and added caps. I modified two of these and obtained similar results.***If it was not clear, my original NanoVNA, H & H4 all use harmonics above 300MHz where the LiteVNA supports harmonics above 6.3GHz. If you want to see how the LiteVNA compares with the others for dynamic range, you can search here, or just download a copy of my software users manual (dropbox link in signature).

author: Wilson__
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 05:40:13 pm
content: Will the cheaper NanoVNA-H4 with 4 inches screen and 'native non harmonic range of 300MHz"fit my use case?For over 300MHz, is "Harmonic tricks"(I do not yet read what that mean)reliable and repeatable for 868 MHz antenna measurement range of says, 24 dB or better?VSWR is 1.5 on data sheet of the intended chip antenna.https://www.everythingrf.com/rf-calculators/forward-and-reflected-power-to-vswr-calculatorhttps://www.everythingrf.com/tech-resources/vswrstate that at VSWR of 1.5, 4% power is reflected and return loss is 14 dB.============AI also states same numbersThe Voltage Standing Wave Ratio (VSWR) of 1.5 corresponds to a reflection coefficient (Γ) which determines the fraction of power reflected back from the load. The reflection coefficient is calculated as:$$\Gamma = \frac{\text{VSWR} - 1}{\text{VSWR} + 1}$$For a VSWR of 1.5:$$\Gamma = \frac{1.5 - 1}{1.5 + 1} = \frac{0.5}{2.5} = 0.2$$The power reflection coefficient, which is the fraction of power reflected, is obtained by squaring the reflection coefficient:$$\text{Reflected Power Fraction} = |\Gamma|^2 = (0.2)^2 = 0.04$$This means **4% of the power is reflected** when the VSWR is 1.5. Let me know if you'd like more details or related calculations!The return loss (RL) is a measure of how effectively power is transmitted, and it is related to the reflection coefficient (Γ). It is calculated using the formula:$$\text{Return Loss (dB)} = -20 \cdot \log_{10}(|\Gamma|)$$From the previous calculation, we know the reflection coefficient (Γ) for a VSWR of 1.5 is 0.2. Plugging this into the formula:$$\text{Return Loss} = -20 \cdot \log_{10}(0.2) = -20 \cdot (-0.69897) \approx 13.98 \, \text{dB}$$So, the **return loss for a VSWR of 1.5 is approximately 14 dB**. A higher return loss indicates better impedance matching and lower reflected power. Let me know if you'd like to dive deeper into this topic!

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 05:50:19 pm
content: Quote from: Wilson__ on March 17, 2025, 05:40:13 pmYes, these are going to be OK to measure antenna reflection.24dB sounds like a bit of a stretch goal for antenna matching, I'm typically happy with 15dB. I have the LiteVNA.After all, at those frequencies, even the tolerance of the passive parts are going to change the measured value. Just calculate the impedance of a 5pF cap at those frequencies, and then calculate that +/-5% how much that changes. So even if you perfectly match it, you get different values in your production.But that's OK. Imagine 1% deviation in reflected power, it's only going to change your RF range by 1%. And typically not even that, it's just that your RSSI will be slightly larger ort smaller.

author: Wilson__
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 05:55:19 pm
content: Can I "certify/verify" a NanoVNA-H4 is reading correctly by1. putting a75 ohms terminator at S11 port2. set to 868MHz3. itshould read VSWR at 1.5 and return loss at 14 dB=========AI saysVSWR (Voltage Standing Wave Ratio) measures impedance mismatch in a transmission line system. To calculate VSWR when a 75-ohm terminator is used in a 50-ohm system, you can use the formula:VSWR = (1 + |Γ|) / (1 - |Γ|)Where Γ (reflection coefficient) is given by:Γ = (Z_load - Z_system) / (Z_load + Z_system)Substituting the values:Zload=75 ΩZ_{load} = 75 \, \OmegaZsystem=50 ΩZ_{system} = 50 \, \OmegaΓ = (75 - 50) / (75 + 50) = 25 / 125 = 0.2Now, calculate VSWR:VSWR = (1 + 0.2) / (1 - 0.2) = 1.2 / 0.8 = 1.5So, theVSWR is 1.5. This indicates a moderate mismatch between the 75-ohm terminator and the 50-ohm system.===========Return Loss measures how well the load impedance matches the system impedance. It is expressed in decibels (dB) and calculated using the formula:Return Loss = -20 * log10(|Γ|)Where Γ (reflection coefficient) is:Γ = (Z_load - Z_system) / (Z_load + Z_system)Using the same values as before:Zload=75 ΩZ_{load} = 75 \, \OmegaZsystem=50 ΩZ_{system} = 50 \, \OmegaΓ = (75 - 50) / (75 + 50) = 25 / 125 = 0.2Now calculate Return Loss:Return Loss = -20 * log10(0.2)Find the logarithm:log10(0.2) ≈ -0.69897Substitute this value:Return Loss = -20 * (-0.69897) ≈ 13.98 \, \text{dB}So, theReturn Loss is approximately 14 dB. This indicates a moderate amount of power is being reflected due to the impedance mismatch.

author: Wilson__
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 06:06:09 pm
content: I aim for VSWR of 1.5 that is the official number on data sheet.If the to-be-purchased test instrument is 10dB, one order of magnitude, better than required, it would be within 'safe margin' of classical text book

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 07:13:53 pm
content: Showing the original NanoVNA being used to measure various resistors.https://youtu.be/mKi6s3WvBAM?t=2167Keep in mind, this was using the ideal model for the standard (treating them as perfect). You can see how the error is kicking up as we use higher and higher harmonics. Not great but may be good enough for you.QuoteSeemed like you were actually making a board and were wanting to do a lot more than measure some antennas VSWR.If there is something specific you would like me to test before you settle on a product, feel free to ask. I had moved the new H4's mixers to the original NanoVNA which would be a good test case on the poor performance side. Also have the modified H4 and the latest LiteVNA.

author: DaneLaw
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 07:18:34 pm
content: Certainly been a lot of models over the years.Finally took the plunge around a year back, after years of uncertainty on which model would fit my general needWent for these two models, around a year back, one from Sysjoint that supports 1Mhz to 6.3GHz (based on 2x MAX2870 synth chips) and one from Deepelec 10K to 2.7Ghz with rotary side-encoder. .For both units, I went for models with alucasing/shielding and with a decent 4.3" screen size (800x480p)As far as I could tell, they both had their advantages and would cover the span up to a tad over 6GhzWere also quite expensive, at around 260USD in total for both (incl. 25%EUVAT & delivery) both purchased from China.The UI on the V3 [1M to 6.3 GHz] is more intuitive, you can click and to an extent drag values around, highlight traces, scale-values etc, instead of having to go through the menu.Do like the ability that I can compare one to the other, and seems more and more RF communication, not least on consumer tech will target frequency values up above 5GHz.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 08:13:35 pm
content: Quote from: DaneLaw on March 17, 2025, 07:18:34 pmI've had people ask if my software will work with these before. Do they support the same protocol as the LiteVNA or original NanoVNA? Is Dislord maintaining the firmware for them?

author: DaneLaw
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 09:47:07 pm
content: Quote from: joeqsmith on March 17, 2025, 08:13:35 pmWould be great if it did, will give it a try, and see how far I get.DeepElec seems to highlight the following PC & MAC software as support for their DeepVNA101 (301p)NanoVNA-App_v1.1.215 (Support NanoVNA，DeepVNA，LiteVNA)and also VNA Saver, and an Android APP.https://deepelec.com/support/Sysjoint (V3-6G) who also makes NanoVNA-F V2 (50K to 3G) and the bigger 7" models like SV6301A (1M-6.3G) and SV4401A (50k-4.4G) and some older models that is now disc. NanoVNA-Fhttps://www.sysjoint.com/index.php?tpl=product&pid=11&uid=17&sno=1&list=2&list2=1&lang=enThey don't list any PC support software on their main page as far as I can tell under download' even though they are still optimising software for NanoVNA-F V3 (1M-6.3G) with a new firmware 3 days ago [14-3-2025] after 1½ years pause since NanoVNA-F V3 FW release.https://www.sysjoint.com/index.php?tpl=service&pid=12&uid=19&sno=2&list=1&list2=1&lang=enIt seems thirdparty-party sellers do list "VNA Saver by Sysjoint" under some of their salelistings for NanoVNA-F V3 (6G)Not sure if its a modded version since "NanoVNA saverby Sysjoint" figures in the software naming

author: Wilson__
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 10:39:39 pm
content: Is your home made GPSDO use more than one frequencies and in a good site to see many satellites from multiple sat systems?The LB seems consider 'standard' and been around for some time and quoted on multiple serious projects.https://www.leobodnar.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=107&products_id=393&zenid=51bc42e42d41f684d72e179b028e1f18

author: Fflint
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 05:44:54 am
content: I make it a point of importance to buy from the official stores. For Nanovna H4 V2 the list is here.https://nanorfe.com/nanovna-v2.htmlZeenko on Aliexpress is the only "official" Aliexpress store. Likewise for Tinysa ultra. These two devices should be in everyone's toolkit if the work with rf.

author: qbpm
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 01:07:01 pm
content: Quote from: Fflint on April 04, 2025, 05:44:54 amYou've mixed something up. NanoVNA-H4 is NanoVNA V1, manufactured by Zeenko since forever. Here's a list of where to buy it from Zeenko:https://nanovna.com/?page_id=121Of course, you can also buy a (cheaper) clone, which can be just as good, or much worse, depends on how you hit.V2 are different devices, they are not H4. They operate on a different principle than H4. "It is a new from-scratch design by HCXQS/NanoRFE not based on the earlier edy555 V1 design." The V2 has the advantage of higher operating frequencies, but it also has disadvantages that were not present in the V1.

author: Fflint
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 08:46:14 pm
content: Quote from: qbpm on April 04, 2025, 01:07:01 pmYes. I confused H4 with V2 plus 4..thats the one I actually have and one I meant as being happy with.... I somehow saw 4 and I thought it was that.What are the disadvantages of v2 (including plus 4) as compared with the original ? I thought it was a kind of linear progression of later models being better, but it seems it is a bit more complex.I've read the statement earlier in this thread if all your work is under 900mhz one should choose V1. I assume it is better parameter wise, but by how much ? As a hobbyist I can never guarantee my interest will stay within a certain frequency range. A good example was when after buying my nanovna v2 plus 4 I then had a bunch of 5.4GHz fpv antennas I made... I had to use my huge "poor man's vna" that consists of an 1980s made Tektronix spectrum analyzer with a tracking generator, directional couplers and such instead of the nanovna. My point being it's almost always better to have ability to go higher in frequency (that's why my Tektronix SA is equipped with mixers up to 74GHz, but connecting to them is another matter).However, it all depends how much one has to give up in terms of performance at the lower end.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 09:09:33 pm
content: I have not used the V2Plus4 since the LiteVNA was first released. The LiteVNA's firmware was far more stable and supported. Dislord added some features that I use.QuoteInability to make narrow band measurements. Performance suffers at lower frequencies. They are cheap, so just get them both.

author: DaneLaw
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2025, 10:00:56 pm
content: Also, the conclusion I came to from following along on the sideline for years.. both got their advantagesGot the latest NanoVNA v3 based on 2x MAX2870 chips, but it won't go lower than 1MHz, but up to 6.3GHz.. 801 scanpointss.And for measurement in the lower span.. took the DeepElec NanoVNA, which will do a max 301 points and from 10 KHz to 2.7Ghz.both with a decent size screen 4.3" (IPS 480x800) & metal enclosures.Also looked at the LiteVNA64 as in the bigger 3.95" screen size vers. (TFT 320x480) as pricewise was around the same as the latest NanoVNA-F V3 (around 150 to 200$ incl. 25%VAT)... though that LiteVNA64 unit seems to be centered around a single MAX2871E chip.Has anybody been able to compare these two +6G able handheld VNA's and pro & cons between in actual use??Checked YT, nada..

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2025, 01:36:40 am
content: I am still curious if they support the same protocols and the original NanoVNA and LiteVNA.

author: DaneLaw
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2025, 02:04:32 am
content: Quote from: joeqsmith on April 06, 2025, 01:36:40 am'Of the two launchers in the Solver64 folder.*Solver64.exe = LiteVNA64/V2Plus4*Solver64H4.exe = NanoVNA/H4As far as I can tell, the LiteVNA64/Solver64 app doesn't seem to happy to work with either of these relatively new models, but there is a big chance that it's down to an error40.While the other NanoVNA/H4 solver64H4-launcher seems to work with both units..NanoVNA-F V3 (1MHz-6.3GHz model)DeepElec DeepVNA (10K-2.7G model)

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2025, 03:31:23 am
content: Thanks for checking. That's good to know that they both use the old protocol.The V2Plus4 was locked out for 3rd party firmware which is party why it is so poor. Dislord really improved that LiteVNA. I wonder if yours are lock out as well?

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2025, 04:45:50 pm
content: I wonder in your attached screen captures, the first shows Solver with a transfer relay attached along with the stepper motors. You then show some sort of antenna sweep. Do you actually have a transfer relay and if you have assembled a 2-axis rotor for antenna characterization, I would like to see some photos of it.The last attachment you have disabled the rotor and transfer relay. This is what I would expect. Odd it shows incomplete data for CH1_Z. There should be the same amount of data in all three columns. Maybe they decided to do something close to the same protocol but with their own unique twist.Do they claim to be protocol compliant with the H/H4?

author: DaneLaw
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2025, 09:01:00 pm
content: As far as I can tell the Solver64H4 launcher seems to connect to both.DeepVNA ]From DeepElec] (seems to work well)NanoVNA-F V3 [From Sysjoint] (Response data seems to choke at times)On the unit from DeepElec it gives this modelfeedback below as the Solver64H4 labels the models somewhat correctly.Solver64H4 model info: "NanoVNA-F" from DeepElec DeepVNA, so I guess this DeepVNA (unit with the side potentiometer and 301 points 4.3" IPS screen 10K to 2.7Ghz)Its the model second downhttps://deepelec.com/products/This DeepVNA does seem to work well with the limited variant of Solver64 (H4).It states the firmware on this DeepVNA unit is fromBH5HNU1.0.5While the Solver64H4 "info" on this exact model refers to this Github sourcehttps://github.com/ttrftechWhile this NanoVNA-F V3 [1M to 6.3Ghz 801p] from Sysjoint.. will connect to Solver64H4 but it doesn't seem stabile with continuous reponsedata.. I often need to toogle the selection-bar on mainpage to get new data..The Solver64H4 app are able to label it correctly as a "NanoVNA F V3" and gives this feedback, though worth noting that the "50KHz" ain't correct, as these NanoVNA-F V3 (MAX2870) starts from 1M to 6.3Ghz.Perhaps there are an older NanoVNA_V3 that went down to 50K Hz ? Yep, it seems there is a NanoVNA V3 from NanoRFE that went down to 50Khttps://nanorfe.com/nanovna-v3.htmlSo wonder if the program thinks its that unit, but that ain't a NanoVNA-F as that "F" is Sysjoint model & production-line, but it seems the maker "Sysjoint" is licensing their NanoVNA-F models to other vendors that then can push up on it' under their name... like you also see with fx "Hugen"."Sysjoint" who is the main vendor of many of these NanoVNAs in the 4.3" and 7" models.https://www.sysjoint.com/index.php?Under Software, the only PC program they list is "NanoVNAsharp"https://www.sysjoint.com/index.php?tpl=service&pid=12&uid=19&sid=37&sno=2&list=1&list2=3.I'm wondering if there are certain limitations.on Solver64H4 when I try to adjust with 1M to 6.3Ghz and 801points in Solve64H4.I notice that the NanoVNA-F V3 on its own display suddenly shows [1M to 2.147etc Ghz] even though I have set it to [1M to 6.3GHz] on both PC app & device.. wonder if the Solver64H4 app have issues with a span to 6.3Ghz & 801 points as most of the other NanoVNA models.. was way below that span, but at times it does work..Even though the response rate seems to choke at times, and will suddenly start working again when adjusting the mode-bar on the main page.The more advanced variant of Solver64 for LiteVNA.. that app I sadly cant get to connect with either.. it will make the green-accept status marking when connecting, but upper display on Solver64 says "unknown protocol" and no green circle in "link". (it could be something as simple as me' not setting it up correctly.. I do recall that LiteVNA62/64 is based on a single MAX2871E synth-chip as I can see listed under Solver64 LiteVNA "output-power" option, while these latest NanoVNA-F V3 is based on 2x MAX2870 synth-chips.Reached out to Sysjoint [support@sysjoint.com]Response:Quote

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2025, 01:22:17 am
content: Just because a device is on USB, does not suggest that the high level protocol would be the same. The old units like you have can be talked to with a standard ASCII terminal program. The newer ones are binary. That's just one difference. There are also hardware differences requiring different commands.Solver for the LiteVNA is never going to talk to an older VNA like you have. They are totally different devices. That is why there are two versions of Solver.As for reaching out to Sysjoint and their response. Not having my source code is hardly an excuse. The protocol for the LiteVNA64 is available on-line for free. That is all they need. You can't expect them to write all new firmware for one user. If you want a LiteVNA64, just buy one.QuoteFinding stable firmware for the H4 and original NanoVNA was a nightmare. With it being open sourced, you had a lot of people making changes to the firmware that probably should not be touching the code. I am not surprised that you would have problems trying to get them to work.Indeed, Solver does not care what limitations the hardware has. I expect the user to know what they are doing. If you want to set your 1GHz VNA to 20GHz to see how well it performs at those frequencies, Solver will not try to protect you from yourself. I've had people write me about doing just that.From your description, there may be timing difference between your firmware and what I have with the original NanoVNA and H4. You can trim them if needed.***I'll point it out again as I guess I was not clear. You are telling my software that you have three devices all attached to one serial port. If you do not have a transfer relay and stepper motors, these should not be selected. At a minimum, you should know they would all have unique ports. Again, the software is not going to protect you from doing such things if this is what you want to do.Of course, there is always the manual, videos, large thread in EEVBLOG forum with lots of information on how to use the software. I suggest making use of these resources.