I wanted to know how much difference a cheap set of SMA standards makes at 4 GHz compared with the Agilent standards. The fourth measurement is actually a comparison of the calibration standards that come with the nano vs. For both VNA's I used the Agilent SOLT standards for the first three comparisons, ie the Agilent standards were used to calibrate both the FieldFox and the nanoVNA. Prior to each measurement, I calibrated both VNA's for the specific frequency range to be tested. The FieldFox at my work QTH also has an upper frequency limit of 4 GHz and was perfect for comparing the S21 performance of the nanoVNA. Like most hams, I don't need to measure anything at 4 GHz but I do want the increased accuracy (hopefully!) that comes from increased dynamic range. It is primarily due to the increased dynamic range that I bought this VNA. 20dB more dynamic range than earlier nanoVNA's.Beefier controls for slewing the cursor and markers.A charge status indicator for the battery & charging from a computer's USB jack.An internal 18650 Li-Ion battery (not included due to shipping restrictions).

The nanoVNA 2 Plus4 differs from the previous versions in several ways. Today I finally had the opportunity to put the diminutive piece of test equipment on the bench to get a real idea of its performance. But their performance has been incredibly accurate, so I ordered and had high expectations of the new VNA. It was around $170 and I would not have spent that if the prior nanoVNA's hadn't given me the confidence to do so.

After a three week transit, my nanoVNA 2 Plus4 arrived in my mailbox.

Nanovna v2 plus4