Kioxia Exceria Plus G2 (2TB) review: Convex and compact

Another “nice-enough” 10 Gbps drive

Kioxia Exceria Plus G2
(Image credit: © Tom's Hardware)

Tom's Hardware Verdict

Kioxia’s Exceria Plus G2 external drive is compact and feels premium, while delivering typical 10 Gbps SSD performance.

Reasons to buy

  • +

    Good sustained write performance

  • +

    Compact metal shell

  • +

    Two USB cables included+

Reasons to avoid

  • -

    Real-world performance doesn’t stand out-

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

Japanese memory manufacturer Kioxia doesn’t have the same kind of name recognition as its former parent company, Toshiba, which invented flash memory in the 1980s. But the spun-off company, renamed in 2019 as a combination of the Japanese word for ‘memory and the Greek word for ‘value,’ has remained a major player in cutting-edge solid-state storage, alongside Samsung, Micron / Crucial, SK hynix, and WD / SanDisk.

Kioxia largely sticks to selling flash, SSDs, and related technology to other companies, at least here in the United States. But when a representative from Kioxia Europe reached out about testing a consumer-focused external SSD, the Exceria Plus G2, I was curious to see what the drive was capable of and how it would stack up against the best external SSDs we’ve tested, despite the fact that this pocket-friendly drive isn’t officially available in the U.S.

As a 10 Gbps (USB 3.2 Gen2) SSD, I knew it wasn’t going to break any speed records, but how does this drive stand up against competing compact metal-shelled offerings like the SK hynix Beetle X31 and the various X9s and X10s from Crucial? Read on to see our benchmark results. But first, here are the specs for the Exceria Plus G2, direct from Kioxia:

Kioxia Exceria Plus G2 (2TB) specifications

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
TOPICS
Matt Safford
Managing Editor

After a rough start with the Mattel Aquarius as a child, Matt built his first PC in the late 1990s and ventured into mild PC modding in the early 2000s. He’s spent the last 15 years covering emerging technology for Smithsonian, Popular Science, and Consumer Reports, while testing components and PCs for Computer Shopper, PCMag and Digital Trends.

  • SunnyCloudyRainy
    Be aware that Kioxia has been using ultra-low bin NAND with only 82 P/E cycles in these
    https://i.imgur.com/Slh9weE.jpeg
    Reply
  • Mgsahin
    That screenshot does not represent the actual endurance of Kioxia BiCS5 TLC NAND. The ‘82 cycles’ shown in the Phison diagnostic tool is not from an official datasheet, but rather a debug/firmware placeholder value. According to Kioxia’s own documentation, BiCS5 TLC (112L) is rated around ~1,000 P/E cycles, which aligns with JEDEC and industry norms for TLC NAND. For example, the Kioxia CD8 Gen5 Data Center SSD datasheet guarantees endurance in terms of DWPD, fully consistent with JEDEC standards, and nowhere does it mention such a low number. TLC NAND by definition cannot be only 82 cycles – such a product would be commercially non-viable and would never pass OEM qualification.
    Reply
  • SunnyCloudyRainy
    Mgsahin said:
    That screenshot does not represent the actual endurance of Kioxia BiCS5 TLC NAND. The ‘82 cycles’ shown in the Phison diagnostic tool is not from an official datasheet, but rather a debug/firmware placeholder value. According to Kioxia’s own documentation, BiCS5 TLC (112L) is rated around ~1,000 P/E cycles, which aligns with JEDEC and industry norms for TLC NAND. For example, the Kioxia CD8 Gen5 Data Center SSD datasheet guarantees endurance in terms of DWPD, fully consistent with JEDEC standards, and nowhere does it mention such a low number. TLC NAND by definition cannot be only 82 cycles – such a product would be commercially non-viable and would never pass OEM qualification.
    It isn't very meaningful to use Kioxia's official datasheet as a reference in this case, since they only list the P/E cycle ratings for NAND chips that have passed all verifications and binning on the datasheet, not the down-binned ones that are probably used in this drive.

    Without any other sources that can prove otherwise, we can only trust the data that has been written into the firmware of the drive itself.

    Lastly, "such a product would be commercially non-viable and would never pass OEM qualification."Stares at WD green SATA/SN350/SN3000 and Crucial E100
    Reply
  • Mgsahin
    That’s a fair point about down-binned NAND, but even the lowest-binned BiCS5 TLC can’t realistically have endurance as low as 82 P/E cycles — that’s below even QLC specs. Such values are typically firmware placeholders used for calibration or debug purposes.

    For reference, teardown and validation reports (including CD8 and BG5 series) show BiCS5 TLC in the ~800–1200 P/E range. Firmware tools often read placeholder constants (e.g. 82, 255, 1023) from diagnostic tables that don’t reflect the actual NAND block wear limits.

    So while the drive may indeed use lower-binned NAND, the 82-cycle figure shouldn’t be taken as literal endurance data.
    SunnyCloudyRainy said:
    It isn't very meaningful to use Kioxia's official datasheet as a reference in this case, since they only list the P/E cycle ratings for NAND chips that have passed all verifications and binning on the datasheet, not the down-binned ones that are probably used in this drive.

    Without any other sources that can prove otherwise, we can only trust the data that has been written into the firmware of the drive itself.

    Lastly, "such a product would be commercially non-viable and would never pass OEM qualification."
    Stares at WD green SATA/SN350/SN3000 and Crucial E100
    That’s a fair point about down-binned NAND, but even the lowest-binned BiCS5 TLC can’t realistically have endurance as low as 82 P/E cycles — that’s below even QLC specs. Such values are typically firmware placeholders used for calibration or debug purposes.

    For reference, teardown and validation reports (including CD8 and BG5 series) show BiCS5 TLC in the ~800–1200 P/E range. Firmware tools often read placeholder constants (e.g. 82, 255, 1023) from diagnostic tables that don’t reflect the actual NAND block wear limits.

    So while the drive may indeed use lower-binned NAND, the 82-cycle figure shouldn’t be taken as literal endurance data.
    Reply