Comparison
The Kingston A400 120GB and Kingston A400 960GB are closely related 2.5-inch SATA SSDs built to replace slower mechanical hard drives. The 960GB model is the stronger all-round choice because it combines far more storage with higher performance and reliability scores, while the 120GB version is better suited to a compact, value-focused boot-drive upgrade.
#1 Overall Winner
Contender
Choose the Kingston A400 120GB for a low-capacity OS drive or a basic HDD replacement in an older machine. Choose the Kingston A400 960GB for a more complete desktop or laptop upgrade with room for applications, games, and files. For most buyers who can use the added capacity, the 960GB model is the more practical pick.
Overall winner
Depends on your needs
| Feature | Kingston 120GB A400 SATA 3 2.5-inch Internal SSD SA400S37/120G | Kingston 960GB A400 SATA3 2.5-inch Internal SSD SA400S37/960G | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capacity | 120GB | 960GB | Kingston 960GB A400 SATA3 2.5-inch Internal SSD SA400S37/960G |
| Quoted read speed | Up to 500MB/s | Up to 500MB/s | Tie |
| Quoted write speed | Up to 450MB/s | Up to 450MB/s | Tie |
| Overall score | 85 | 87 | Kingston 960GB A400 SATA3 2.5-inch Internal SSD SA400S37/960G |
| Performance score | 86 | 90 | Kingston 960GB A400 SATA3 2.5-inch Internal SSD SA400S37/960G |
| Speed score | 90 | 89 | Kingston 120GB A400 SATA 3 2.5-inch Internal SSD SA400S37/120G |
| Usability and setup | 92 usability; 93 setup | 88 usability; 90 setup | Kingston 120GB A400 SATA 3 2.5-inch Internal SSD SA400S37/120G |
| Reliability and durability | 72 reliability; 71 durability | 84 reliability; 83 durability | Kingston 960GB A400 SATA3 2.5-inch Internal SSD SA400S37/960G |
| Compatibility | 84 | 68 | Kingston 120GB A400 SATA 3 2.5-inch Internal SSD SA400S37/120G |
| Portability | 88 | 82 | Kingston 120GB A400 SATA 3 2.5-inch Internal SSD SA400S37/120G |
| Value score | 90 | 88 | Kingston 120GB A400 SATA 3 2.5-inch Internal SSD SA400S37/120G |
| Customer satisfaction | 4.7/5; 28,572 reviews | 4.8/5; 204,504 reviews | Kingston 960GB A400 SATA3 2.5-inch Internal SSD SA400S37/960G |
Both drives share quoted maximum speeds of up to 500MB/s read and 450MB/s write and are designed to make an HDD-based system feel more responsive. Reviews for each model cite faster booting, application loading, and general use after installation. The 960GB A400 has the higher performance score, 90 to 86, and is the better option when large-capacity everyday storage is part of the workload. The 120GB model has a slightly higher speed score, but the provided specifications do not show a quoted throughput advantage over the 960GB drive.
On quoted specifications, this is a tie: both drives list up to 500MB/s read and 450MB/s write. Both have strong review feedback about faster starts and loading versus mechanical drives. Product A's speed score is narrowly higher, 90 versus 89, while Product B's performance score is higher overall. Buyers should not expect a stated raw-speed advantage from one over the other; capacity and reliability are the clearer separators.
The 960GB A400 is the safer choice on the supplied reliability data, scoring 84 against 72 for the 120GB drive. Its aggregated reviews describe it as reliable, and individual feedback includes long-term use. The 120GB version also has positive reports of continued operation, but its review overview notes some failures in less than six months. As with any internal storage replacement, retain backups rather than treating either drive as the only copy of important data.
Product A leads on usability, 92 to 88, and both sets of reviews frequently describe fitting the drives and installing Windows as simple. The 120GB model is particularly suitable for a straightforward OS migration or clean system installation where storage needs are controlled. The 960GB model is still easy to install according to most feedback, but some buyers report recognition problems with their computers. For a smooth upgrade, verify SATA support and plan whether to clone an existing drive or perform a clean installation.
These are physically similar internal drives: both are 2.5-inch SATA SSDs listed at 3.94 by 2.75 by 0.28 inches and 0.09 pounds. The 960GB A400 has a small design-score lead, 80 to 78, but storage capacity is the practical design distinction. Product A's 120GB capacity supports a minimalist system-drive layout, while Product B's 960GB capacity supports a simpler one-drive setup for a broader collection of software and files.
Both A400 drives use flash storage with no moving parts, which the product descriptions associate with quieter operation, lower heat, and better shock and vibration resistance than a mechanical hard drive. The 960GB model has the higher build-quality score, 78 versus 74. This is a modest advantage rather than evidence of a radically different chassis, as both listings provide the same 2.5-inch dimensions and 0.09-pound weight.
Both drives benefit from flash storage without moving parts, with claimed shock and vibration resistance relative to mechanical hard drives. Product B leads on durability, 83 to 71, and has review feedback describing continued operation over years. Product A has positive long-term accounts too, but early-failure reports lower its durability confidence. The larger drive is therefore the stronger choice when long-term confidence is the priority in this comparison.
Both drives are equally compact on the listed physical measurements and weigh 0.09 pounds, making either easy to fit in a laptop or carry during an upgrade. Product A has the higher portability score, 88 versus 82. In practical terms, the decision is less about physical portability than storage portability: the 960GB drive can hold much more data in the same stated size.
Feature depth is limited and similar: both are basic 2.5-inch SATA SSDs designed for internal desktop and laptop storage, with no moving parts. The meaningful functional difference is capacity: 120GB for Product A and 960GB for Product B. Product A lists SATA Rev. 2.0 backward compatibility, while Product B is specifically described as intended for desktop and notebook workloads rather than server environments. Neither listing establishes advanced storage features beyond the core SSD upgrade role.
Product A wins setup scoring, 93 to 90. Customer feedback for the 120GB drive mentions quick Windows installation and drive migration, while Product B reviews also describe simple physical installation and fast Windows setup. Neither listing indicates bundled cables or mounting screws, and one 120GB review specifically notes that only the drive was included. Check the existing computer's hardware before beginning the upgrade.
Product A has the stronger compatibility score, 84 versus 68, and explicitly lists desktop and laptop compatibility plus SATA Rev. 2.0 backward compatibility. Product B is also listed for desktop and notebook computers, but some customers report that their systems did not recognize it. Both require a compatible 2.5-inch SATA installation. Product B should not be selected for server environments because its description states that it is not intended for them.
Both drives use SATA connectivity in a 2.5-inch internal format. Product A has the higher connectivity score, 82 to 72, and explicitly lists backward compatibility with SATA Rev. 2.0. Product B's listing specifies SATA connectivity as well, but its review summary includes mixed recognition experiences. Neither drive has wireless or smart connectivity; compatibility depends on the host computer having an appropriate SATA connection and physical bay.
Both products are flash-based SSDs described as cooler and quieter than mechanical hard drives. Product A has a small power-efficiency score advantage, 82 to 80. The provided information does not include measured power draw, battery runtime, or standby consumption, so this narrow scoring difference should not outweigh the capacity and reliability differences for most buyers.
Product A has the higher value score, 90 versus 88, and is a logical value choice for buyers who only need a compact boot drive. Its supplied price is also lower. Product B costs more but delivers eight times the capacity, better performance and reliability-related scores, and higher customer satisfaction. It is therefore the better long-term value for users who would otherwise need separate storage or quickly outgrow 120GB; the 120GB model is better value only when its capacity genuinely meets the need.
Both products come from Kingston, so there is no brand-versus-brand distinction. Product A has a slightly higher brand-trust score, 84 to 82, while Product B has much larger review volume and a slightly higher star rating. The supplied data does not provide a detailed comparison of support policies or update practices. Buyer confidence should therefore rest on the specific capacity, compatibility check, review patterns, and available retailer support.
Both drives have strong customer approval. The 120GB A400 is rated 4.7/5 from 28,572 reviews, with frequent praise for fast booting, easy installation, and revitalizing older computers. The 960GB A400 is rated 4.8/5 from 204,504 reviews and has the higher customer-satisfaction score, 96 to 94. Product B is praised for capacity, speed, and easy upgrading, though its aggregated feedback includes some system-recognition issues.
Product B has the higher warranty-support score, 62 versus 55. However, the supplied listings do not state warranty length, replacement terms, return policies, or direct manufacturer support details. This score difference provides only a limited indication; buyers should confirm the applicable warranty and return conditions with the seller before purchasing, especially when the drive will hold important system data.
The Kingston A400 960GB is the best overall option in this comparison. It has the higher overall score, a major capacity advantage, stronger performance, reliability, and durability results, and slightly better customer satisfaction. For most people upgrading an older desktop or notebook, those advantages make it the more versatile long-term HDD replacement.
The Kingston A400 120GB remains a sensible specialist choice rather than a general-storage alternative. It has the higher value, speed, usability, setup, compatibility, portability, and power-efficiency scores, and it is well aligned with an affordable operating-system-drive conversion. Its limited capacity and reports of some early failures are the reasons to be cautious. Buy the 120GB version when storage needs are genuinely small; otherwise, the 960GB A400 provides the more balanced upgrade, provided the computer supports a 2.5-inch SATA drive.
Overall winner
Depends on your needs
The Kingston A400 960GB is the stronger overall choice in the supplied scoring, leading 87 to 85. It also scores higher for performance, reliability, durability, build quality, and customer satisfaction. The 120GB model remains the more focused option for a low-capacity operating-system upgrade, with stronger usability, setup, portability, and value scores.
No material speed difference is stated in the supplied specifications. Both drives are quoted at up to 500MB/s read and 450MB/s write. The 960GB model has a slightly higher performance score, while the 120GB model has a marginally higher speed score, so capacity and reliability are more meaningful deciding factors here.
It can be enough for an operating system and essential applications, particularly on an older PC used for cloud-based work, documents, or general browsing. Review feedback specifically supports the 120GB version as an inexpensive boot-drive upgrade. Buyers needing room for games, media, many programs, or local files should favor the 960GB model.
The 960GB A400 is the better fit because its capacity is eight times larger than the 120GB drive. It gives more practical room for games, programs, photos, videos, and documents while retaining the same quoted SATA read and write speeds. Neither product should be evaluated as a server drive; the 960GB listing specifically says it is not intended for server environments.
Both are 2.5-inch SATA internal drives and both receive strong installation feedback. Product A has the higher setup score, 93 versus 90, and buyers describe Windows installation and migration as straightforward. Product B is also widely described as easy to fit, although some feedback notes that certain computers did not recognize it immediately.
The 960GB A400 has the better reliability score, 84 versus 72, and the better durability score, 83 versus 71. Its reviews include reports of years of continued use. The 120GB A400 has many positive reliability reports as well, but its aggregated feedback includes some reports of failure within six months.
Both listings identify desktop and laptop or notebook compatibility and use a 2.5-inch SATA format. The 120GB drive also lists backward compatibility with SATA Rev. 2.0. Before buying either model, verify that the computer has a compatible 2.5-inch SATA bay and the required mounting hardware or cables.
The 120GB A400 has the higher value score, 90 versus 88, and is well suited to a targeted HDD-to-SSD boot-drive conversion. The 960GB model costs more but offers substantially more storage and stronger reliability-related scores. The better value therefore depends on whether a small system drive is sufficient or broad local storage is required.
Check our rankings and expert guides to find the best electronics products for your goals.
