Unpowered SSD data retention test shows promising results after six years — results show no data corruption on USB sticks, challenging conventional wisdom
Probably the biggest lesson is to not buy knock-off drives, and keep them stashed in decent conditions.
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
You are now subscribed
Your newsletter sign-up was successful
It's a key part of conventional IT wisdom to treat USB flash drives as disposable units and never entrust any important data to them. While this line of thinking often revolves around the fact that USB sticks are easy to lose and easy to break, it's generally understood that the NAND flash ensconced is expected to fail in a relatively short time span. Unpowered data retention is particularly concerning. An enterprising tech blogger and Redditor is doing a small-scale test, and the results are quite promising.
Back in the COVID-stricken days of the year 2020, Zachary Vance bought ten Kingston Digital DataTraveler SE9 32 GB USB 2.0 drives from Amazon and filled them to the brim with random data using direct block writes. He stashed them away, and planned to check data integrity on a minimum of one more drive than the year before. The test years follow the pattern of of +1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 15, 20, 27.
It's 2026 so we're now in test #5, and the results are the same as the previous years: zero bit rot so far, and a total of five drives tested. Vance's method is to test one additional drive for bit flips, and fully re-write any good drives. So far, all tested drives came out perfectly fine, adeptly challenging conventional wisdom that the data on a USB stick isn't expected to be readable after six months to a year, depending on who you ask.
Article continues belowAs far as we could find, there are no large-scale tests performed specifically about long-term data retention in consumer USB drives, and Vance's effort is close to the only one we could otherwise find. Commenters pointed out some limitations of Vance's methodology, chiefly the fact that all 10 drives are from the same make, model, and almost assuredly the same lot. He's also keeping the drives at "standard conditions", meaning a box in his closet, in presumably with some form of temperature control.
Vance's results are definitely promising, but drive make and temperature may well be the biggest factors in longevity. Redditor Carnildo performed a three-drive, one-year test recently, employing three lightly-used drives, one PNY and two Lexar of different models, all on "extreme discount" at Office Depot. He left one of the drives unpowered inside an attic without climatization, a space that "spent most of the winter in sub-freezing condition[s]." The second drive was unpowered, but in a standard-temperature room. The third drive was periodically read.
After one year, all three units displayed data corruption, and the one with the most failures was actually the unpowered indoor drive, while the "active" drive displayed the least. If anything can be gleaned from this conflicting set of limited results with small data sets, it's that the largest factors are probably the quality of the USB drive and how it's stored.
Although flash memory manufacturers are meant to follow the JEDEC JESD47 standard that requires that flash chips go through a sustained test meant to simulate 10 years at 55°C, the standard is not binding or enforceable in any form, short of business dealings. While vendor contracts, QVLs, and standards of industries where the cells are used (automotive, aeronautical, etc.) can explicitly demand compliance, there are no such checks for standard consumer USB sticks, particularly among off-brand offerings.
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
The best option, then, seems to always stick to higher-spec drives made by well-known vendors, and keep them at room temperature with controlled humidity... and always keep backups handy.
Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.

Bruno Ferreira is a contributing writer for Tom's Hardware. He has decades of experience with PC hardware and assorted sundries, alongside a career as a developer. He's obsessed with detail and has a tendency to ramble on the topics he loves. When not doing that, he's usually playing games, or at live music shows and festivals.
-
Gururu If charge retention is the operative principal behind these drives, then every test will have caveats particularly when it comes to environmental variables. I am not sure that anything can hold a charge reliably without intervention indefinitely.Reply -
nastastic "If anything can be gleaned from this conflicting set of limited results with small data sets ..." NO, NO, NO, PLEASE STOP THERE!Reply
Nothing should be gleamed from this, nothing; any gleaming will be pure conjecture. This is incredibly reckless to make or suggest inferences that cannot be supported with the technical and statistical rigor necessary when discussing charge movements in floating gate memory elements.
Please, I beg Tom's to do more to illustrate and educate readers on fundamental principals and not just re-write articles from random sources. -
Stomx Reply
Exactly. But that means to show positive as well as negative sides and such sites exist selling advertisement and afraid to mention even a slightest disadvantagesnastastic said:"If anything can be gleaned from this conflicting set of limited results with small data sets ..." NO, NO, NO, PLEASE STOP THERE!
Nothing should be gleamed from this, nothing; any gleaming will be pure conjecture. This is incredibly reckless to make or suggest inferences that cannot be supported with the technical and statistical rigor necessary when discussing charge movements in floating gate memory elements.
Please, I beg Tom's to do more to illustrate and educate readers on fundamental principals and not just re-write articles from random sources. -
dimar "SSD?? data retention test" shows promising results after six years — results show no data corruption on "USB sticks??" Maybe you could do this on several drives like Samsung T7, Corsair USB sticks, and a few other known SSDs and USB sticks 4x of each, then test for bitrot after 5/10/15/20 years.Reply -
bit_user Last year, I found myself needing more removable USB sticks and decided to try and find quality drives, after 3 out of 4 "Sandisk Ultra" drives I'd recently purchased arrived DoA (two different packages: one was a 3-pack, another was a single drive).Reply
I searched around for the best, most premium models, but couldn't find anything still in production - at least, that wasn't way bigger than I needed. Eventually, the choice pretty much seemed to narrow down to Samsung BAR Plus. They're not cheap, but at least Samsung is a 1st party NAND maker. I wish I knew whether they're TLC, but I fear QLC.
BTW, for refreshing drives, I recommend using the badblocks tool, on Linux. It has a -n option that reads the drive in chunks, tests the underlying flash, and then rewrites the original contents back in place. I'd also recommend using -b 4096 -c 512, which will test 2 MB at a time. If the drive supports it, run fstrim on it, first. Make sure the drive isn't mounted, when you do this, but I think it automatically checks that, for you. -
bit_user Reply
Indefinitely? No, nothing can do that. Even automotive-grade flash has a storage life of only like 10 years.Gururu said:I am not sure that anything can hold a charge reliably without intervention indefinitely.
Thanks to this and the rampant integration of firmware into pretty much all appliances now, most electronics will just randomly stop working after a decade or less. Their decaying flash is like a ticking time bomb, and I think most of the flash in older stuff won't self-refresh, so periodically powering it on and using it is probably no help.
True. Something like a decade ago, Anandtech used to have articles about SSDs and NAND that would delve into the lower level details of the technology. They also ran some endurance tests, back in the early days of client SSDs.nastastic said:Nothing should be gleamed from this, nothing; any gleaming will be pure conjecture. This is incredibly reckless to make or suggest inferences that cannot be supported with the technical and statistical rigor necessary when discussing charge movements in floating gate memory elements.
I think the only one at Toms who has the requisite depth is probably Anton, and he seems to write mostly just content for premium subscribers, these days.nastastic said:Please, I beg Tom's to do more to illustrate and educate readers on fundamental principals and not just re-write articles from random sources. -
Dav_Daddy Funny, personally I've heard about this but never experienced it with a USB drive. SD cards? Sure pretty much constantly.Reply
I just came across a 2GB USB stick from a no name manufacturer that I used to have plugged into my car stereo with a bunch of music on it. I know the data has to be over 10 years old because I sold that car back in 2015. The drive itself was far from new back then maybe 2010 vintage? Probably older.
I have no clue when it was last plugged in to power but I copied all the media off of it into my PC with no problem. This was about as cheap of a no name drive as you could buy at the time too.
Actually in that same box I found a few really old drives too. I'm talking 128mb models from around 2000. I didn't try any of them out just because I didn't think there would be anything useful on them if they worked at all? I think I'll go see if they are still alive at all though I doubt it.
If they are I'll report back.