The MX200 was slower than the MX100 in all three of our file transfer tests – often quite a bit slower. Perhaps more surprising was the fact that the BX100 was only a fraction slower than the MX200. Our application tests also favored the MX100 over the new MX200, while the BX100 was as fast as the MX200. If we compare the pricing of the 500/512GB models, the MX100 and MX200 cost $210 and the BX100 is $185. With hardly any difference in price, we can see folks being sold on the idea of the MX200 lasts longer while the MX100 makes a strong case by being faster.
Things are more straightforward with 1TB models since there isn’t a 1TB MX100. At just $380 the BX100 is considerably cheaper than the $470 MX200, making the former an obvious better pick. That said, we would be inclined to spend slightly more on the $400 Samsung 850 Evo 1TB, which offers much better performance and endurance, not to mention AES-256, TCG Opal 2.0 and IEEE-1667 (eDrive) are also supported. It’s a similar situation for the 500GB models. The 850 Evo 500GB costs $210, the same price as the MX200, and again you get more performance with Samsung. Crucial seems to have missed the mark with the MX200, while the BX100 is useless in any size smaller than 500GB and neither seems competitive enough with the 850 Evo. It’s troubling that the MX200 was slower than the MX100 in the tests that matter most and given that Dynamic Write Acceleration technology is the only real difference we have to wonder what’s going on. Unfortunately, those hoping for the same magic delivered by the MX100 series will be sorely disappointed. On the bright side, the Crucial Storage Executive software is a welcomed addition, albeit one that was overdue. Cons: It was slower than the MX100 in our file transfer benchmarks and doesn’t hold up to Samsung’s 850 Evo regardless. Cons: The low-capacity BX100s seem slow enough to dismiss while the higher-capacity models are outshined by rivals.
