I ordered a router. Then the Pro version launched on early bird. I bought that one too. That's how this channel started.
This video is an experiment: does VPN obfuscation actually fix the problems a VPN creates? I took the same 100 websites — randomly selected across 10 categories — and tested them on two WiFi 7 travel routers: the GLiNet Slate 7 (GL-BE3600) and the GLiNet Slate 7 Pro (GL-BE10000). Same VPN provider. Same connection. One router, then the other.
The Slate 7 runs standard OpenVPN or WireGuard. GL.iNet does not ship VPN obfuscation on that model — their comparison chart marks it as Pro-only. The Slate 7 Pro adds built-in stealth obfuscation. That is the only deliberate variable between the two test runs.
// Hardware
Slate 7 · GL-BE3600 · test run A
Dual-band Wi-Fi 7 travel router. OpenVPN-DCO up to 385 Mbps, WireGuard up to 490 Mbps (GL.iNet client-mode figures). 30+ VPN providers. Touchscreen, dual 2.5G ports, OpenWrt.
No VPN obfuscation. Standard encrypted VPN — all 100 sites tested on this router first.
Slate 7 Pro · GL-BE10000 · test run B
Tri-band Wi-Fi 7 — adds 6 GHz. OpenVPN-DCO up to 1,000 Mbps, WireGuard up to 1,100 Mbps with obfuscation (GL.iNet figures). Built-in stealth obfuscation and integrated DPI.
Obfuscation enabled. Same 100 sites, same VPN provider — tested on the Pro second.
Sources: GL.iNet product pages for Slate 7 and Slate 7 Pro, May 2026.
On the Slate 7, 26 sites out of 100 had problems — CAPTCHAs, Cloudflare blocks, broken pages. On the Slate 7 Pro with obfuscation on, 4 did. Twenty-two sites that failed on the Slate 7 worked on the Pro. The 4 that still failed on the Pro failed on both routers. Most blocks on the Slate 7 trace back to deep packet inspection flagging standard VPN traffic patterns.
// Results
The conclusion is not that obfuscation is magic. The difference between the two routers — same sites, same VPN — is 26% failure versus 4%. If you own a Slate 7, that gap is what the Pro buys you.