The cheapest way to put a camera in a room, and the subject of a breach in which thousands of customers briefly saw into other people's homes. Consumer Reports found flaws that went unfixed for three years.
This entry is written from the 4 sources listed at the bottom of the page. The numbers are our editorial estimates drawn from that material, not measurements, and no statistical sample sits behind them.
The pattern in the sources is regret. Only 44% of owners say they would buy it again, and satisfaction falls from 8.2 to 5.8 out of 10 by the two-year mark.
It still works and it is still cheap. The question the incidents raise is who else can see it, and that question does not resolve.
The security record is the dominant long-term concern. Subscription creep has changed what the cheap camera does. Support quality is what you would expect at the price.
Worth it for: Watching a garage, garden or pet where privacy is not at stake; People who accept the security record knowingly; The lowest possible cost. Think twice if: Bedrooms, bathrooms or children's rooms; Anywhere a stranger seeing the feed would matter; You want a clean security record.
Our reading of how sentiment moves across an ownership period, drawn from the sources below. It is an editorial estimate, not tracked longitudinal data.
| At purchase | 8.1 / 10 |
|---|---|
| First week | 8.2 / 10 |
| One month | 6.5 / 10 |
| Six months | 6.0 / 10 |
| One year | 5.9 / 10 |
| Two years or more | 5.8 / 10 |
Owner reviews move this score. The researched figure stays visible next to it, so you can always see what the sources said before anyone voted.
Leave a review on the live pageEvery complaint and every piece of praise above traces back to these. The summaries are ours; nothing is quoted, and no link, quote or username anywhere on this site is invented.
Independent investigation into unfixed security flaws.
Reporting on the scale of the breach.
Coverage of repeated incidents.
Security-site assessment for existing owners.