Which NanoVNA?

[clansd99]

Hi all,

To preface this - I've already done a lot of digging into the different "types" of NanoVNA out there (original, V2, Lite, etc.), but still unsure what the best options are.

I am currently learning RF electronics in school and would like to pick up a VNA to experiment with at home to go along with my coursework.

The LiteVNA 64 seems to be just what I want: high frequencies at a low cost, but I can't find much info on it and want to know more before pulling the trigger.
Is it compatible with other NanoVNA software? Who designs/develops it? Where can I buy one knowing that I won't get a knock-off?
Is it really better than the original and V2?

Thanks for helping a newbie out,
-Chris

[Bud]

Why do you want high frequencies? To learn S-Parameters concept and how different types of RF circuits behave a 50 MHz VNA is all you need. This also will MUCH simplify requirements to calibration standards and cabling.

[clansd99]

I'm interested in microwave engineering and would like to go down that path once I get the basics down on RF. Already have some projects in mind and figure it's better to spend on a higher frequency VNA now than a second one down the line.

[Bud]

OK. But just remember- there is nothing theory-wise different between an RF VNA vs microwave VNA. They both measure the same type of parameters for a DUT ( device under test). The difference is in mechanical and electrical toletances those devices have. With a microwave VNA you spend more money on quality of physical construction and quality and characterisation  of the reference (calibration) standards and quality of (usually coaxial) cabling that you will need to perform repeatable measurements. If you want price reference, a microwave phase stable cable jumper will cost a few hundred dollars. You heard that right, several hundred dollars just for one coax cable.

[clansd99]

OK. But just remember- there is nothing theory-wise different between an RF VNA vs microwave VNA. They both measure the same type of parameters for a DUT ( device under test). The difference is in mechanical and electrical toletances those devices have. With a microwave VNA you spend more money on quality of physical construction and quality and characterisation  of the reference (calibration) standards and quality of (usually coaxial) cabling that you will need to perform repeatable measurements. If you want price reference, a microwave phase stable cable jumper will cost a few hundred dollars. You heard that right, several hundred dollars just for one coax cable.

Hadn't thought about it that way. The YouTube videos make it look so easy but I don't have that much cash to spend. Will just go ahead and order the NanoVNA-H4 on Amazon and be done with it 
Hopefully I don't get a dud!

[joeqsmith]

Hi all,

To preface this - I've already done a lot of digging into the different "types" of NanoVNA out there (original, V2, Lite, etc.), but still unsure what the best options are.

I am currently learning RF electronics in school and would like to pick up a VNA to experiment with at home to go along with my coursework.

The LiteVNA 64 seems to be just what I want: high frequencies at a low cost, but I can't find much info on it and want to know more before pulling the trigger.
...

Thanks for helping a newbie out,
-Chris

Hello Chris. 

Is it compatible with other NanoVNA software?

There is certainly software available for it.   Much is open sourced. 

Who designs/develops it?

There is a groups.io specifically for the LiteVNA.  Consider joining that.   

Where can I buy one knowing that I won't get a knock-off?

I'm not sure from Canada but we bought ours from:
https://store2.rlham.com/shop/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=75669

Is it really better than the original and V2?

From your post above, I assume better = higher frequency and no other considerations play into it.  In this case, yes the LiteVNA is much "better". 

[MadTux]

Basic NanoVNA-F or H is good enough for learning, NanoVNA-F V2 if you want nice mechanical design, a bit more frequency range and better display.

Apart from that, NanoVNAs are build for low cost, low part count and tiny size, people at HP and Rohde-Schwarz did it better, 40 years ago.
Go for like an old HP-8753 if you want lab grade instrument, that doesn't do things like using square waves as test signal, that messes up most active circuits.

If they had increased budget by maybe $50-$100, the could have used something like a local oscillator/mixer design with a couple of ADF4350s in their pure spectrum range between 2.2-4.4GHz and a few switched filters to get a nice sinewave test signal istead of the nasty square waves from SI5351 and divided down ADF4350.

User interface/touch screen is implemented quite nicely, though.

[Smokey]

Say I wanted an instrument that would be used to set the matching components for a 2.4GHz Bluetooth chip antenna on a PCB. 

Is the LiteVNA64 or the "NanoVNA V2 Plus4" a better match?  Any big reasons to get one over the other?

[joeqsmith]

They are both low end devices and there has been a fair amount of data published from them.  Maybe you have a more specific question?

Off the cuff, the V2Plus4 is now over $250 and OUT OF STOCK
https://www.tindie.com/products/hcxqsgroup/4-nanovna-v2-plus4/

The LiteVNA64 is $130 and in stock
https://store2.rlham.com/shop/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=142&products_id=75669&osCsid=v97fjcvk96mordl770825mg2v0

That may be one reason to get the LiteVNA

[rsjsouza]

For $69 (or $78 with the cal kit), the nanoVNA H4 is hard to beat
https://www.aliexpress.com/store/1101394653

Locally to the US it is a bit higher but not terribly overkill
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=NanoVNA&me=A3KC9Z86M9XWS3

Since you might be young, you can get by with the smaller screen version as your eyes are not aging like us *ahem* "seasoned" enginners.

These stores were recommended by the NanoVNA project page at:
https://nanovna.com/

[nctnico]

For $69 (or $78 with the cal kit), the nanoVNA H4 is hard to beat
https://www.aliexpress.com/store/1101394653

AFAIK the H4 is not the best one out there. I used to have one but got rid of it.

[rsjsouza]

For $69 (or $78 with the cal kit), the nanoVNA H4 is hard to beat
https://www.aliexpress.com/store/1101394653

AFAIK the H4 is not the best one out there. I used to have one but got rid of it.

Interesting. Any practical annoyance worth mentioning? Its specs seem quite alright for basic testing in HF/VHF/UHF. I am sort of looking around (perhaps to make a decision later this year) and such information might weight in my decision.

[joeqsmith]

Clansd99 was asking about microwaves and later mentions that the LiteVNA64 seemed to possibly fit their needs.  Smokey was asking about 2.4GHz.   As far as I know, the H4 was similar to the original NanoVNA in that above 300MHz, it uses harmonics which really limits its use.   I have an H4 that is basically new in the box.  I was never able to find stable firmware for it and eventually put if back in the box where it remains.  That may have changed by now. 

Anymore, I use the LiteVNA and the original NanoVNA.  The original NanoVNA will out perform the LiteVNA at lower frequencies.  For example, making PDN measurements or measuring narrow band filters (crystal).   Having the two covers the bases.   

Because the original NanoVNA and H4 use a different protocol and getting stable firmware was so problematic, I no longer update my software to support them.   I have been very pleased with Dislord's firmware for the LiteVNA.

[rsjsouza]

joeqsmith, thanks a bunch for the insights about the NanoVNA. Apart from harmonics and if there are no other problems with it such as horrible bugs in SW, I think the NanoVNA is suitable for the HF/VHF/UHF ranges.

[joeqsmith]

I think that will depend on your definition of "suitable".  UHF covers 3GHz which unless they have further increased the range of the original NanoVNA and H4, you are missing half the band as the highest I have seen them allow was 1.5G.   Noise floor for my H4 up 300MHz is around 85dB.  My original NanoVNA is about 10dB higher.   I was pretty impressed when I first saw this and it was a major letdown to see the higher end V2Plus4 not performing at least as well.  I was expecting it to be improved.   Once you move beyond that 300MHz, shit hits the fan.   '

I have posted data showing how some of the low cost VNAs compare.  Some of this data was provided by various owners.  You can see both the H4 and original NanoVNA.   

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/warning-about-nanovna-clones-and-comparison-with-siglent-vna/msg4626466/#msg4626466

The H4 may be good enough for you personally but I tell people that if you want to experiment beyond 300MHz, get something else.   With the high price of the V2Plus4, lack of firmware support and lower frequency range,  I recommend the LiteVNA.     

Two problems with harmonics is the drive signal is very low and your circuit is still seeing the fundamental, with it's level.  Of course, you can try to work around that but better add that into the cost.     

I can't speak for the software side of things.  Maybe you are calling the VNA's internal firmware software?   I assume most people are using the open source software.   The software that was supplied  by the manufactures wasn't usable, which is why I started to write my own.

[rsjsouza]

6466/#msg4626466[/url]

The H4 may be good enough for you personally but I tell people that if you want to experiment beyond 300MHz, get something else.

I am an idiot. I was thinking of 300MHz when I mentioned UHF. Indeed the noise floor becomes quite unsuitable above that.

BTW, thanks for sharing the URL to the other discussion. I will look beyond the H4.

[joeqsmith]

The LiteVNA supports using harmonics as well which is the cause of the jump in the noise level at 6.3GHz in that plot.   You can see its on par with the H4 at 9GHz. 

Dislord (person supporting firmware for the LiteVNA) has provided a version of firmware allowing the LiteVNA to work up to 18GHz.  Of course the results are poor as we would expect.  I have shown it directly measuring a home made waveguide configured as a  10GHz bandpass filter.  The fact it shows anything close is very impressive considering its $120 and it fits in your shirt pocket.   Who would have guessed.   

I am experimenting above 10GHz by converting the lower frequency range where the LiteVNA has decent performance.  Much like how any radio works.  Results have been fair.  Link shows measuring S21 with the Lite stepping from 0 to -50dB at 11GHz.   

*** Better link showing both the filter and step attenuation
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/rf-microwave/nanovna-custom-software/msg4651535/#msg4651535

[xrunner]

The H4 may be good enough for you personally but I tell people that if you want to experiment beyond 300MHz, get something else.   With the high price of the V2Plus4, lack of firmware support and lower frequency range,  I recommend the LiteVNA.   

I have two nanoVNAs but I also have an H4 that a local ham wanted to trade me for my comet antenna analyzer. He didn't really understand the VNA so it worked out for him. I hadn't used it in a while but I was interested in how the ice storm we had affected my dipoles. All of the center frequencies were shifted lower which is understandable since the ice coating effectively made the wires "longer" since the ice coating ran all the way down the support ropes at the ends. About 500 kHz lower on 40 m.

Anyway, I just updated the firmware to v.1.2.08 and it seems to work OK for my needs. But I'm not opposed to upgrading to stay current. That is as long as I remember not to xmit into port 2 with an HT. 

[joeqsmith]

That poor guy.  We all make mistakes but that was a doosy. 

I pulled the H4 from the plastic wrapper and I'll be dammed if it didn't still have a charge and powered right up.  Looks like 1.0.38 was the last firmware I loaded.   Looks like they are up to 1.2.14.  I went ahead and loaded it in and fired up my old software.  It seems to connect just fine.   For some reason, they now allow 1.6kHz to 2GHz.  Fairly large error at 116MHz (see Smith chart).   Looking at the last time I had tried to run a regression test on it, the H4 failed the standard deviation test but at a different frequency range.   I would need to go back and read Dislords posts to see if there was a work around.   Guessing the ham antenna analyzer group wouldn't be too concerned as they don't use this frequency. 

[joeqsmith]

I let it run for a while.  You can see that error is always present but isn't constant.  Some sort of band switch point.  Zooming out to show the full 2GHz range, I don't see any other large errors like this. 

[rsjsouza]

joeqsmith, xrunner, thanks for sharing your thoughts and data.
Weird the 166MHz disturbance - a half harmonic spur of some sort coming from the PA?

To the OP: sorry for somewhat hijacking this thread, but hopefully this discussion also helps you with your decision.

[joeqsmith]

Looks like they sorted out the 300MHz spike I was seeing the last time I ran a regression test on the H4 but this 116MHz seems to be a new one.  Nothing was attached to the VNA.  It was not calibrated.  I suspect if I roll back the firmware it will clean back up.   Maybe the hardware is so poor they can't find settings that work in all conditions. 

https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/topic/problem_300_mhz_spikes_on_h4/85266697?p=

Looks like I did attempt to upgrade it at one point but ran into other problems.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/rf-microwave/nanovna-custom-software/msg4124581/?topicseen#msg4124581

This was basically my point about the H4's firmware being unstable.  As bad as it is, it's not the cluster fuck I ran into with the original NanoVNA.  I am still running Radiolisteners hacked up firmware on that.   The V2Plus4 worked out of the box but I didn't find firmware for the V2Plus until about a year later that wouldn't lock up and require a power cycle to reset.   The LiteVNA has been by far the most stable and bug free IMO.   But again, I really only use a very small subset of the firmware.   I just need the VNAs to send me the raw data and allow access to all of the peripherals.   There may be a lot of problems that I am not aware of simply because I don't use these features.     

       

[xrunner]

That poor guy.  We all make mistakes but that was a doosy. 

I pulled the H4 from the plastic wrapper and I'll be dammed if it didn't still have a charge and powered right up.  Looks like 1.0.38 was the last firmware I loaded.   Looks like they are up to 1.2.14.  I went ahead and loaded it in and fired up my old software.  It seems to connect just fine.   For some reason, they now allow 1.6kHz to 2GHz.  Fairly large error at 116MHz (see Smith chart).   Looking at the last time I had tried to run a regression test on it, the H4 failed the standard deviation test but at a different frequency range.   I would need to go back and read Dislords posts to see if there was a work around.   Guessing the ham antenna analyzer group wouldn't be too concerned as they don't use this frequency.

Hey Joe,

I was interested in this little "tick" but I can't get mine to display one. Wasn't sure I had it set up right the first time  but here is mine with no cal and no load (open). Probably still doing something wrong.

What do you think?

[joeqsmith]

Anyway, I just updated the firmware to v.1.2.08 and it seems to work OK for my needs.

Looks like they are up to 1.2.14.  I went ahead and loaded it in and fired up my old software. 

I suspect if I roll back the firmware it will clean back up. 

[rsjsouza]

That is as long as I remember not to xmit into port 2 with an HT. 

Wow, I missed that!

[xrunner]

That is as long as I remember not to xmit into port 2 with an HT. 

Wow, I missed that!

LOL that was a joke that came from watching a video of a person who didn't understand the VNA very well - not me!

This video

[joeqsmith]

I spend some time trying to locate 1.2.08 you installed to see if it performed any better.  No luck.  You would need to provide a link to where you found it, or just upload the file here.  If you want to try and replicate my setup, start by installing the most recent firmware:

https://github.com/hugen79/NanoVNA-H/releases

I could not get stable firmware for the V2Plus from their normal distribution as it seems they do not archive them.  I basically started Google searching for every version I could find that people had uploaded and started running them one by one.  What's really bad is OWO had asked me to try the most recent one they had and again it broke.   So they had it fixed at one time then managed to break it again.   In that case, my only criteria was firmware that didn't lock up requiring the VNA to be power cycled to recover.   Imagine if your car had to have it's battery pulled every now and then to reset the firmware.

[xrunner]

I got the file from the files area at the group nanovna-users@groups.io.

https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users

The zip file is -

NanoVNA fw pack H_H4_LiteVNA_V2_V2Plus_V2Plus4

I'll attach it here if it will let me.

[joeqsmith]

Installing your firmware onto my H4 resolves the error at 116MHz.   Now, mind you it took me a few minutes to download the firmware and install it into the VNA.  That's all it took to find this problem.   The fact the current release has this sort of problem says a lot about the firmware's state. 

I mentioned 1.2.14 allows 1.6kHz to 2GHz.    v.1.2.08 allows 800Hz to 2.147483647GHz.   With the H4 being as old as it is, funny that they can't even settle on something basic like this.      My guess is they expect it increases sales.  Like Keysight with their specs for their high end handheld meters.   Hams can say, I have a 2GHz antenna analyzer to look at my 2 meter antenna (while connecting Port2 their HTs output).       Similar to I have a Bird meter so I know my readings are perfect.       I have no idea what would have possibly drove the 800Hz.  If you could get good data off it, it would be nice to have for PDN measurements.   

With the firmware for the original NanoVNA being open source, I guess everyone felt they should start to have a whack at it.  The code was very unstable and updated more than Dave's 121GW.  Much like the 121GW, it was total hit and miss what would work on each new release.   To save me the time of trying to test each version in my search for something stable,  I ended up writing a simple automated regression test.   While I would expect anyone developing code would have a similar setup, I think the fact that we are seeing this problem with the latest firmware, it continues to be the wild west of coding.  Throw something against the wall and see what sticks.  Let the end users test our code.  It complied without errors, so it's good to go.   I didn't change anything that would have effected that...   Same old song and dance

To run it against 1.2.08 requires a few changes.   I've gone ahead and made those and have it running. It will require several hours to complete but I will upload the report once it is finished.   If I had any plans to continue to support the older protocol, I would just start over and include it in my software.   

[thinkfat]

There is an interesting secondary use for the H4: phase and frequency analysis. Local forum user @erikka has made an alternative firmware available that turns the nanoVNA-H4 into a phase and frequency analyzer with quite interesting properties. You can find that over on tinydevices.org.

Not trying to derail the thread, sorry. Just mentioning that the H4 is an interesting piece of test gear beyond the "entry level" VNA.

[joeqsmith]

Sorry, the report was too large to attach but it did complete and no problems were found.   Like I posted earlier,  don't consider this a stamp of approval as I only use a very small subset of the firmware's features but still this 1.2.08 version you found is a very good starting point.   

[bingo600]

That poor guy.  We all make mistakes but that was a doosy. 

I pulled the H4 from the plastic wrapper and I'll be dammed if it didn't still have a charge and powered right up.  Looks like 1.0.38 was the last firmware I loaded.   Looks like they are up to 1.2.14.  I went ahead and loaded it in and fired up my old software.  It seems to connect just fine.   For some reason, they now allow 1.6kHz to 2GHz.  Fairly large error at 116MHz (see Smith chart).   Looking at the last time I had tried to run a regression test on it, the H4 failed the standard deviation test but at a different frequency range.   I would need to go back and read Dislords posts to see if there was a work around.   Guessing the ham antenna analyzer group wouldn't be too concerned as they don't use this frequency.

I have one of the "New H4's" ... Late 2022/2023
It has a MS5351 as opposed to the older models having a Si5351 (see pict , if it has MS in the end of the model)

The firmware i use is 1.2.19 (latest) , but when loaded it defaulted to a Si5351.

It seems like you can set your SI/MS model in : CONFIG>EXPERT SETTINGS>MORE>MODE
Need save config after change MS/SI mode (CONFIG->SAVE) this allow store settings

See here
https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/topic/h4_problem_after_firmware/96248196

The selection of the MS if that's what's in there , should correct some "quirks" , and actually use the "better MS scan mode"


Edit:
HO-RO has a git page w. the latest Dislord firmware here
https://github.com/Ho-Ro/NanoVNA-D/tree/current-bin-hex


/Bingo

[joeqsmith]

HW: 4.2.    Looks like I purchased it around June 8 2021

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/rf-microwave/nanovna-custom-software/msg3584301/#msg3584301

It appears that while the firmware Xrunner found is fairly stable, the VNA lost some performance in the lower frequencies compared with the previous version I was testing.

Thanks for the firmware link.  If I decide to pull the H4 out of the box again, I will have a look.   

[joeqsmith]

Comparing the latest LiteVNA (HW rev:3.1) with the H4(HW rev:4.2) using Xrunner's firmware.  This is looking at S21 after cal using the same standards and cables.  Cable was then removed and both ports were terminated.   

The older firmware I tied with the H4 improved its lower freq response.  Pick your firmware poison.

Both LiteVNAs had been updated to Dislord's wide range experimental firmware.    Their performance appears very similar.   

[Kahooli]

I own a LibreVNA. It's a nicer device if you plan to use it as a bench device since you have the native software and large screen.
I have compared data results using it Up to 400Mhz and it's pretty decent compared to the E5061B I have at the office.

[joeqsmith]

I own a LibreVNA. It's a nicer device if you plan to use it as a bench device since you have the native software and large screen.
I have compared data results using it Up to 400Mhz and it's pretty decent compared to the E5061B I have at the office.

You should take the time to post some data for your LibreVNA showcasing its performance.   Back a page, I provided a link to some data for various low cost VNAs which included the LibreVNA. 

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/warning-about-nanovna-clones-and-comparison-with-siglent-vna/msg4626466/#msg4626466

Since then, I have acquired a new version of the LiteVNA which further improves it's performance.   Odd your Keysight wouldn't be dramatically better.  That data included my very old Agilent PNA.   

A few of us were wondering about the high amounts of ripple that several users show with the LibreVNA.   It looks like it has a major problem but it could be the users not knowing how to run it.  I tried to watch a few reviews for it.  Some of talking head hams got the hardware for free to review but outside of unboxing it, that's about all you get.  I've yet to see an actual review from someone who knew what a VNA is.   With you having the Keysight, consider putting something together. 

***
For some background about the LibreVNA's ripple, read this and follow the links provided.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sub-$1000-vna-for-antenna-matching/msg4546259/#msg4546259

[joeqsmith]

Comparing the data provided by one of the LibreVNA owners with the latest LiteVNA hardware.

Calibrating the LiteVNA using sorted Mini-circuits load and the short, open, thru from the V2Plus4 kit. Ideal model.  Both ports terminated measuring S21.

Libre_Lite_PNA_S21term_10GHz_10Avg:  Sweeping the LiteVNA from 100kHz to 10GHz with the leakage term enabled, 2kHz IFBW (default) and 10 averages.  I included my old PNA as a reference.   

Libre_Lite_PNA_S21term_1GHz:  Looking at the data below 1GHz, with no averaging.  Notice how the LibreVNA appears to perform really poorly at the lower end.  I'm sure it meets their spec but we are comparing a $120 vs $730 (current price from Amazon for the LibreVNA).    Not owning a LibreVNA to collect my own data, I can only go by what other users have posted.  You do get a full 2-port VNA with drift and you get to mount heatsinks to it to make it look cool.   Then there is always that question of  where does that ripple come from....

***
The LiteVNA's firmware normally limits the frequency range to 6.3GHz.

[joeqsmith]

Of course, if you want to spend some cash, the Siglent SAV1032x sells for $3,470.   Again a user was nice enough to repeat the test using an IFBW of 10kHz.   The LiteVNA has a maximum IFBW of 4kHz. 

I do like that new LiteVNA hardware.

***
For that price, it looks like Siglent includes one of their famous rotary encoders. 

[exampleguilty]

Basic NanoVNA-F or H is good enough for learning, NanoVNA-F V2 if you want nice mechanical design, a bit more frequency range and better display.

Apart from that, NanoVNAs are build for low cost, low part count and tiny size, people at HP and Rohde-Schwarz did it better, 40 years ago.
Go for like an old HP-8753 if you want lab grade instrument, that doesn't do things like using square waves as test signal, that messes up most active circuits.

If they had increased budget by maybe $50-$100, the could have used something like a local oscillator/mixer design with a couple of ADF4350s in their pure spectrum range between 2.2-4.4GHz and a few switched filters to get a nice sinewave test signal istead of the nasty square waves from SI5351 and divided down ADF4350.

User interface/touch screen is implemented quite nicely, though.

Once I have a firm grasp of the fundamentals of RF, I want to pursue a career in microwave engineering. If you like a great mechanical design, a little more frequency range, and a better display, consider the NanoVNA-F V2.

[Vtech]

Comparing the data provided by one of the LibreVNA owners with the latest LiteVNA hardware.

Calibrating the LiteVNA using sorted Mini-circuits load and the short, open, thru from the V2Plus4 kit. Ideal model.  Both ports terminated measuring S21.

Libre_Lite_PNA_S21term_10GHz_10Avg:  Sweeping the LiteVNA from 100kHz to 10GHz with the leakage term enabled, 2kHz IFBW (default) and 10 averages.  I included my old PNA as a reference.   

Libre_Lite_PNA_S21term_1GHz:  Looking at the data below 1GHz, with no averaging.  Notice how the LibreVNA appears to perform really poorly at the lower end.  I'm sure it meets their spec but we are comparing a $120 vs $730 (current price from Amazon for the LibreVNA).    Not owning a LibreVNA to collect my own data, I can only go by what other users have posted.  You do get a full 2-port VNA with drift and you get to mount heatsinks to it to make it look cool.   Then there is always that question of  where does that ripple come from....

***
The LiteVNA's firmware normally limits the frequency range to 6.3GHz.

Hi!
Looks like you have a large collection of data for different VNAs. Would you be so kind as to post a comparison of LiteVNA, NanoVNA-H4, NanoVNA-V2Plus4 and maybe some others in the frequency range 150kHz - 230 MHz?

I would like to do some impedance measurements in this frequency range (coupling-decoupling networks, CDNs) and maybe some radiated RF disturbance in the 30 MHz - 1GHz range. I'm leaning towards buying LiteVNA based on your positive opinion about it. Am I correct that Zeenko Store on Aliexpress is the best source?

[joeqsmith]

Comparing the data provided by one of the LibreVNA owners with the latest LiteVNA hardware.

Calibrating the LiteVNA using sorted Mini-circuits load and the short, open, thru from the V2Plus4 kit. Ideal model.  Both ports terminated measuring S21.

Libre_Lite_PNA_S21term_10GHz_10Avg:  Sweeping the LiteVNA from 100kHz to 10GHz with the leakage term enabled, 2kHz IFBW (default) and 10 averages.  I included my old PNA as a reference.   

Libre_Lite_PNA_S21term_1GHz:  Looking at the data below 1GHz, with no averaging.  Notice how the LibreVNA appears to perform really poorly at the lower end.  I'm sure it meets their spec but we are comparing a $120 vs $730 (current price from Amazon for the LibreVNA).    Not owning a LibreVNA to collect my own data, I can only go by what other users have posted.  You do get a full 2-port VNA with drift and you get to mount heatsinks to it to make it look cool.   Then there is always that question of  where does that ripple come from....

***
The LiteVNA's firmware normally limits the frequency range to 6.3GHz.

Hi!
Looks like you have a large collection of data for different VNAs. Would you be so kind as to post a comparison of LiteVNA, NanoVNA-H4, NanoVNA-V2Plus4 and maybe some others in the frequency range 150kHz - 230 MHz?

I would like to do some impedance measurements in this frequency range (coupling-decoupling networks, CDNs) and maybe some radiated RF disturbance in the 30 MHz - 1GHz range. I'm leaning towards buying LiteVNA based on your positive opinion about it. Am I correct that Zeenko Store on Aliexpress is the best source?

If I provide you with data for the low range you first ask about, and you base your decision on that.  Then you try to measure at the high range and get poor results, what was the point?   As I have written many times,  I like the LiteVNA for experimenting above 300MHz.   Below 300, I still like the original NanoVNA because it is faster, and much more capable of making narrow band measurements.    Once you try to use any of them with harmonics, the performance is total ass. 

They are so cheap, if you really feel you can make use of one, I would just get one of each to cover your bases. 

[Vtech]

They are so cheap, if you really feel you can make use of one, I would just get one of each to cover your bases. 

Thanks!
I was thinking about doing so - buying one of each. Where can I find "the original NanoVNA"? There are so many of them - I'm lost.
I'm mostly interested in the low range and I don't need stellar performance. I was using a borrowed NanoVNA V2 clone and it did the job just fine so I decided to buy one but then I realized that there are so many of them that I don't know which one to choose.

[joeqsmith]

Sorry but I am not in sales and really have no idea where you would purchase one.  Being outside the USA, compounds your question. 

I have an H4 but if you took the time to read this short thread, you know I never used it and didn't find stable firmware for it until recently.   consider too that you may want it to run stand alone, or with one of the open sourced programs, which is not how I run them.  So lots of variables.    My NanoVNA was purchased in 2019 and is still running firmware from that era.

Most people that buy them have never used a VNA or have any idea how they work or what they can be used for.  IMO, most would be ahead by reading and saving their money until they have a better understanding.

[xrunner]

IMO, most would be ahead by reading and saving their money until they have a better understanding.

Where do you come up with these radical ideas?

That's why these things don't come with manuals - because you aren't supposed to read one! 

[Vtech]

Sorry but I am not in sales and really have no idea where you would purchase one.  Being outside the USA, compounds your question. 

This is the problem - the original NanoVNA v1 is nowhere to be found. NanoVNA-H4 seems to be the next best thing but without having one I don't know if it has similar performance in the lower frequency range.

[Solder_Junkie]

I'm mostly interested in the low range and I don't need stellar performance. I was using a borrowed NanoVNA V2 clone and it did the job just fine so I decided to buy one but then I realized that there are so many of them that I don't know which one to choose.

Just get a H4 from one of the official suppliers, for best results use it with the free Windows software.
You can also turn it into a TinyPFA in a matter of a couple of minutes by loading replacement firmware, it can be just as easily returned to a NanoVNA. This dual use only applies to a genuine NanoVNA H4 version.

SJ

[joeqsmith]

Sorry but I am not in sales and really have no idea where you would purchase one.  Being outside the USA, compounds your question. 

This is the problem - the original NanoVNA v1 is nowhere to be found. NanoVNA-H4 seems to be the next best thing but without having one I don't know if it has similar performance in the lower frequency range.

Because you didn't read this post, or because you were asking something else?   If there was a specific test you would like me to run, just ask. 
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/rf-microwave/which-nanovna/msg4703390/#msg4703390

[Vtech]

Because you didn't read this post, or because you were asking something else?   If there was a specific test you would like me to run, just ask. 
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/rf-microwave/which-nanovna/msg4703390/#msg4703390

Oops! My bad. I've seen this but totally forgot about it. Thanks.

[joeqsmith]

No problem.  If there is something else you would like me to try just let me know.   

[Smokey]

Who is the OEM for the LiteVNA64? 
Is it these guys?  https://www.zeenko.tech/litevna

[Randy222]

Who is the OEM for the LiteVNA64? 
Is it these guys?  https://www.zeenko.tech/litevna

That's the one I have.

It's a bit hard to follow which group of folks are the original designers of the tinyVNA and variants. My 64 is doing ok, and it's easy to flash new firmware as they come out.

[joeqsmith]

Who is the OEM for the LiteVNA64? 
Is it these guys?  https://www.zeenko.tech/litevna

That's the one I have.

It's a bit hard to follow which group of folks are the original designers of the tinyVNA and variants. My 64 is doing ok, and it's easy to flash new firmware as they come out.

Same.  The latest revision hardware I have from them is 3.1.  It has a slight improvement over the earlier hardware.

[Smokey]

Question....
I get that there are "clones" and "counterfeits" with lower quality hardware, but doesn't that pre-supposed that there is an "official" OEM?

It's strange that a piece of hardware so popular doesn't come from a company that proudly a strongly claims ownership.

[joeqsmith]

Mine states on the back who made it and the country is was made it.  I bought it as soon as they announced it. 

Member OWO made claims to the design and asked that I not promote it, but really I could care less.  It's a decent product IMO for the cost and I've had a lot of fun playing with it. 

[MathWizard]

Why do you want high frequencies? To learn S-Parameters concept and how different types of RF circuits behave a 50 MHz VNA is all you need. This also will MUCH simplify requirements to calibration standards and cabling.

I'm on the verge of getting some nanoVNA, I was looking at the latest, and most solid looking, nanoVNA V2 plus4.

But I'm just doing hobby RF, so just measuring parts or little circuits, and probably not much past FM radio freq's. I'm trying to come up with a list of accessories, without spending an arm and a leg.

So what's the best mini VNA for upto 1GHz ? The V2 plus 4 has nicer spec's, but if's it's a lot harder to use everytime, than a lower freq' version, then I'd go with the latter.

[Randy222]

LiteVNA 64
I have it, works good, + decent support in both community and active firmware releases.

[MathWizard]

I'm reading that the original NanoVNA that only goes to 1.5GHz or so, has the better sub-300MHz noise or ability to look at smaller BW.

Did they make an updated version of it ? Maybe with faster processing or high sample rate or something ? I hope they also have metal box versions, with good connectors.

[Randy222]

I'm reading that the original NanoVNA that only goes to 1.5GHz or so, has the better sub-300MHz noise or ability to look at smaller BW.

Did they make an updated version of it ? Maybe with faster processing or high sample rate or something ? I hope they also have metal box versions, with good connectors.

There are several versions of nanoVNA. The 1st ones I don't think get to GHz. The 2nd version (newer hardware) got into low GHz, and now the v4's ("liteVNA" and the like) now get near 6.3GHz.

I can't speak for which one is better for lower BW analysis.

[mojoe]

Considering the price, I bought both a Lite-VNA64 and a NanoVNA-H4. I guess you could say they were a xmas present to myself.

Now I need to learn how to use them, and see what the differences are between them.

[joeqsmith]

Considering the price, I bought both a Lite-VNA64 and a NanoVNA-H4. I guess you could say they were a xmas present to myself.

Now I need to learn how to use them, and see what the differences are between them.

While my experience with Dislord's firmware for the LiteVNA has been very positive, the H4, not so much.   Depending what you plan to do with it, you may want to read this post from the first page.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/rf-microwave/which-nanovna/msg4687172/#msg4687172

[gf]

Joe, I have read your findings before. I am surprised because H and H4 claim to be improved derivatives of the original NanoVNA. I also wonder where one can still buy the original (ttrftech?) NanoVNA which you consider superior to the H? At least in the European store, I found only H and H4.

[ I don't mean V2.x, V2Plus4, Lite, etc., which are obviously different designs (switched receiver instead of 3 receivers, etc.), not directly derived from the original NanoVNA. ]

[mojoe]

While my experience with Dislord's firmware for the LiteVNA has been very positive, the H4, not so much.   Depending what you plan to do with it, you may want to read this post from the first page.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/rf-microwave/which-nanovna/msg4687172/#msg4687172

Yes, I've read the entire thread, as well as everything else I could find on the net. I never did find a definitive listing of the good/bad points of the various versions. You have said you liked the LiteVNA, with some reservations, so I bought one of those. You said that the original NanoVNA did some things better (never saying exactly what). The H4 seems to be the closest thing to the original that I could find, so I bought one of those. The other reason for getting an H4 is that I can flash it for phase measurements. Another tool to play with.

It's like a lot of things that I have gotten into over the years. I don't really know if I need it, but I'll learn a lot as I fool around with it. And I may actually find it useful. I remember seeing an old HP VNA sitting on a shelf about 15 years ago, and wondering what I'd use it for. Since the asking price was quite high, I decided to pass. These NanoVNA variants may not be lab grade, but they are very affordable, so I can finally learn about VNA's.

Unlike many who buy a NanoVNA, measuring antennas is probably the last thing I'd use it for. I have a RigExpert unit, which is tailored for that purpose, and is very easy to use. Measuring filters, amplifiers, baluns, etc. is my immediate interest. I have a whole series of YT videos to watch for ideas.

I also bought a TinySA Ultra to fool around with. I have an HP 8920B, which has a SA/TG (among it's many functions), but I thought a TinySA would be fun to play with, and a whole lot more portable.

[joeqsmith]

Yes, I've read the entire thread, as well as everything else I could find on the net.  I never did find a definitive listing of the good/bad points of the various versions.
...
You said that the original NanoVNA did some things better (never saying exactly what).
...

All that tells me is that the data I've presented is currently beyond your understanding.   For example in this thread which you have read, I compared the dynamic range of the two.   That is a clear indicator to most on the performance difference when looking at one specific metric.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/rf-microwave/which-nanovna/msg4703390/#msg4703390

Still in beginners terms, I don't mind repeating my stance.  For narrow band (crystal filters), < 300MHz, I would stay with the original NanoVNA.   Anything over 300MHz, the Lite.   The firmware for the NanoVNA allows you to use harmonics above 300MHz but it's not very useful.  For PDN work, the original NanoVNA out performs the Lite.  You can filter the crap out of the Lite's data but speed may be an issue.   

All of the cheap VNAs I have looked at do not provide a flat output (ignoring the harmonics) and use squarewaves.  I made the following video a while back demonstrating a potential problem when using these low cost VNAs and how it compares with my HP and Agilent VNAs.   

Again, all the data is up there for those wanting to take the time to learn about it.  I'm afraid that most people that buy them do not have any engineering background and assume that because they are so cheap, they are as simple to use as a DMM.   

[joeqsmith]

Joe, I have read your findings before. I am surprised because H and H4 claim to be improved derivatives of the original NanoVNA. I also wonder where one can still buy the original (ttrftech?) NanoVNA which you consider superior to the H? At least in the European store, I found only H and H4.

[ I don't mean V2.x, V2Plus4, Lite, etc., which are obviously different designs (switched receiver instead of 3 receivers, etc.), not directly derived from the original NanoVNA. ]

My H4 has a card reader, larger screen, sealed case....  I fully understand suggesting it is an improvement.   But, these are things I really don't have a use for as I run them from a PC.   So what I consider an improvement will be the performance, not added features.  The big problem is the firmware, for both.  I still use that old hacked up firmware in the original NanoVNA.  No one would want to use that because it doesn't have all the new features.  For me though, it is stable.  I can run the VNA collecting data overnight and it would not lock up.    I suspect that firmware Xrunner pointed out for the H4 is fairly stable but I never used it again after running that regression test on it.   For me, if the firmware hangs, gives bad data.... then I really don't care what else it can do.  But hey, that's just me.   Everyone has a different use and perspective. 

[ErnestB]

Hi Joe,
I know this is an 1 year old post, and I have read/hear somewhere that you don't support the original nanoVna (H or H4) anymore, but as I only have H4 and as a LabView programmer I was interested in your software you mentioned here. Is it possible to download it somewhere? TIA

[wasedadoc]

Hi Joe,
I know this is an 1 year old post, and I have read/hear somewhere that you don't support the original nanoVna (H or H4) anymore, but as I only have H4 and as a LabView programmer I was interested in your software you mentioned here. Is it possible to download it somewhere? TIA

Read his sig.

[ErnestB]

I could do that, only if I knew what a sig is and where to find it 😁

[wasedadoc]

I could do that, only if I knew what a sig is and where to find it 😁

"sig" is internet forum abbreviation for "signature". What people put at the bottom of letters they write. Look there.

[orzel]

I could do that, only if I knew what a sig is and where to find it 😁

dropbox link at the bottom of his posts.

[joeqsmith]

Hi Joe,
I know this is an 1 year old post, and I have read/hear somewhere that you don't support the original nanoVna (H or H4) anymore, but as I only have H4 and as a LabView programmer I was interested in your software you mentioned here. Is it possible to download it somewhere? TIA

Sounds like you are interested in the source code which I have never released.   As mentioned, the executable can be downloaded from the dropbox link in my signature.  The main thread is here:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/rf-microwave/nanovna-custom-software/

[ErnestB]

Ok, thanks, no problem if you don't release the source code. I understand. I will try to find and play around with the exe to see if it works with my H4.
I have tried the nanoVna Saver, but after selecting more then the (default) 101 points it crashes every time. There is an another nanoVna App which works better.
What I am trying to do is to find a way and setup whereby I can use the small nanoVna that is fixed behind some panel and has a more sturdy N or Bnc connectors, so it doesn't fly around the bench the whole time.
I have made a temporary fixture, whith nanoVna, tinySa ultra and RSP1A behind a panel, and use the Pc for the control.

[joeqsmith]

Ok, thanks, no problem if you don't release the source code. I understand. I will try to find and play around with the exe to see if it works with my H4.
I have tried the nanoVna Saver, but after selecting more then the (default) 101 points it crashes every time. There is an another nanoVna App which works better.
What I am trying to do is to find a way and setup whereby I can use the small nanoVna that is fixed behind some panel and has a more sturdy N or Bnc connectors, so it doesn't fly around the bench the whole time.
I have made a temporary fixture, whith nanoVna, tinySa ultra and RSP1A behind a panel, and use the Pc for the control.

My guess that the problems you are having when trying to use more than 101 data points with Saver is common.  Asking the groups for help, or just doing some searched on how to solve it would be one option.  IMO, if you can't get Saver to work with all of the resources available, chances are slim you would ever get my software working.   

If you took the time to read this thread, you are aware of the problems I ran into with the H4's firmware and where to get the version that actually passed my regression tests.   I still have the H4, although I have not used it.  If you do run into problems, I may be able to help. 

[ErnestB]

Thanks for offering the help. I have recently updated the FW to DisLord ver.1.2.20 My unit is not quite old and has the MS5351 chip, so I don't know if we have same units and what are the differences. Except I needed to lower the threshold to 295MHz (was 300 000 100Hz) due to some spurious signals, the unit works very well and stable. The software nanoVNA App ver. 1.1.208 by OneOfEleven works stable and looks fine. I have downloaded your exe, but on this machine I need to install the right RunTimeEngine first to start. As I am planning to install the LV Comunity edition on this machine anyway, I will wait for this test on that and go from there. No warries, it is not so urgent and just for the sake of comparison of the available PC software anyway. I might even write my own version from scratch. But before that I was planning to write something to interface my Tek 2712 through GPIB. If the day would have 48 hours, hahah...

[joeqsmith]

Having the community version of Labview will do nothing for you as far as running my software.   Worse, I dare say LabView is IMO pretty much a dead end now and it isn't a platform I would recommend anyone waste time with.   If you plan to create software for it, I suggest you grab one of the open sourced programs and   start from there. 

I have posted the version of H4 I have in this thread so you have all of that info.  As far as using it above the 300MHz, the performance is so poor, it is not something I would consider.   This is where the LiteVNA 64 comes in.   Usable to about 6GHz.   Want to run it up higher, you may need to make some sort of extender like the one shown in my waveguide experiments:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/rf-microwave/experimenting-with-waveguides-using-the-litevna/msg5075119/#msg5075119

[ErnestB]

I know LabView is an exotic one. I work with LV for more then 2 decades now. So having that experience is for me a jump start of course. I know some C/C++ but used only for embedded systems. I have learned some Python but don't have working experience with. I don't really have any real programming aspirations, so for me it is just to get the job done for these small projects and have fun. I am glad NI released this community license. Working with is for a long time now I know what it can and can't do. I have read your disappointment in their license policy and all the commotion. I am not to judge who is right and who is wrong and I don't have any affiliations with NI. It is by chance that I work with their software and hardware for so long at the same company. We have successfully and done many many projects with LV. The capabilities of LV are huge, but there are also probably the limitations, as with every platform. One also need to know how to exploit the full potential. They have different education levels, up to LabView architect. For me personal I work with LabView, among dozen of another platforms. We are too versatile in projects to stick to one. For years it was the nr one choice to do a project in, as all of us knew how to program in LV and could work together or review each other's work, or take over. Nowadays we are smaller in numbers and the policy is not so rigid. We choose what we think is most convenient for specific project, but we have 2 licenses for the team. I don't know why I writing all of this, as nobody asked for, haha. I suppose just to ventilate my opinion. And if LV dead is, I think people say that already very long now but they are still here. So I don't know. For me it works, but I understand that for new people it look some strange maybe. But for me, I just start to build...

[joeqsmith]

I first saw it when it was available for DOS. We were using Borland's BASIC back then to run our test scripts. 

I really have no idea how it effected their bottom line.    I can tell you that where I work, we dropped all maintenance contracts with them upon the announcement.  I've seen a few posts now where people have been unable to get their older versions to authenticate.  When I made the mistake of upgrading to the rental service,  once I realized what I happened I pulled all their software from the PC and did a clean install of my perpetual licenses.  At that time, I had no problem authenticating.   

I downloaded the community edition but after reading the license I never installed it as it appeared to require an internet link.  I was also concern with their new strong arm business tactics, if I invested any time with it, they would pull the plug.  So, I am locked into 2011.  Shame as I waited a long time to see that 64-bit version and would have gladly paid for it.   Now days, I just steer people away from it.  If I did not already have a license, I would never head down that path. 

[ErnestB]

I understand and it is a shame that it needed to go that way. Indeed, instead to motivate people to use and promote their product they do more harm then good with that strong language. I would do the same if I was you. There are a lot open source very capable software platforms these days. And I understand about the community license. After you put the effort in it they just may pull the plug. But if they have chosen this path after so many years and if indeed the community would grow (which I doubt) to pull the plug would be a major disappointment and would harm the company I suppose. I don't expect big growth of the community users as LabView is quite specific. Python and the accompanied libraries really dominate this community sector. Linux also. For me personally it's a mix of standpoints as I expect we will prolong our license at work. But I understand your standpoint, it would probably be smarter to invest your time in something like Python. When I told my colleague about the community LV he told me the same, for home I want to learn and use Python, but he is also an old time LV programmer that can start with a project right away, for Python it would be a learning curve. The question is if you have time to learn a new language. It is good for the brain to start something new, but nature also tendens to homeostasis and lower resistance, same as the current 😁

[ErnestB]

...and regarding the rental construction, all new companies try to use the same strategy. They want you to pay regardless if you using it or not. They want continue stream of cash. The cable companies, Netflix, music streaming services, phone companies, magazines, newspapers and so on. They want you contracted with them, and preferably for a long time. Preferably you forget to cancel the subscription one month before the end of the year so they can send the check for the next year. They don't care if you use it or not as long as you pay...

[joeqsmith]

A long time ago, I had a friend who brought in their kids lego or something or other toys.  They had some embedded computer they they controlled with LabView.  NI was smart enough to be educating the next  generation.    Then I started hearing about it being used in the kids (really the adults and major companies) robotics competitions.  Again, training the next generation.  Where I work, the acting director shows me some eval board they bought (he liked playing with electronics) and it included a student copy of LabView so he started to learn how to use it.   

It seemed they had a long term vision to grow the company.   Then we had some idiots who were going to replace LabView with NGX.  What an utter failure from the top down.  Next came their extortion practices.   They called me several times after a year wanting me to renew my rental license.  A license I had pulled as soon as I realized what had happened.  Then they personally threatened to disable my software.  That was the last conversation I have ever had with anyone at National Instruments, or what ever they now identify as.   

There is no way I would ever recommend a private person, let alone a corporation, use their products today.   Even if you were fine paying the rental fees, if they ever shut it all down, there goes your investments and any chance to maintain what you have.   I didn't see the buyout doing anything for their customers.  The risk IMO far exceeds the value. 

[joeqsmith]

...and regarding the rental construction, all new companies try to use the same strategy. They want you to pay regardless if you using it or not. They want continue stream of cash. The cable companies, Netflix, music streaming services, phone companies, magazines, newspapers and so on. They want you contracted with them, and preferably for a long time. Preferably you forget to cancel the subscription one month before the end of the year so they can send the check for the next year. They don't care if you use it or not as long as you pay...

That's fine.  I am an adult and know how to handle my own finances.  While I do subscribe for basic utilities (gas, water, electric, sewer, cable (internet)) where I am getting a service from them.  In the case of National Instruments, there really is no service.   Do you think I am going to pay them for the privalage of dropping support for my hardware or my helping them solve their most recent bugs?  Not a chance. 

That 64-bit version was the first major change I have seen that I would have actually have used.  It was significant enough that I was willing to buy it for my home use.  They just wouldn't sell it, at any cost.   

[ErnestB]

Yeah, I have looked at NXG some years ago and didn't like it. Then some time later I have seen they have abandoned the idea. So I was thinking good that I haven't invest my time in it after all. But when I was looking at the promo video of the Community I see they support it after all. But I have to admit, LabView is not my full-time occupation and from time to time I look it up.
About support and potential drop. That is actually the same for all commercial companies. They control the existence or death of a product. In contrast to something like Python that nobody actually owns, I am not sure. But it will not dissappear just like that, being globaly used.
Also I don't think LabView will disappear just like that. It is still used worldwide. I just looked it up. It is a niche language on place 72 of 100. But they put  Verilog and VHDL  on place 99 and 100. So yeah, we electronics designers know how important VHDL/Verilog still is, and of course not many people is using is, as it is a specialty. The most people program for internet and that is totally different story.

[joeqsmith]

... About support and potential drop. That is actually the same for all commercial companies. They control the existence or death of a product. In contrast to something like Python that nobody actually owns, I am not sure. But it will not dissappear just like that, being globaly used.
Also I don't think LabView will disappear just like that. It is still used worldwide. ...

Sure and that is why I would have less concern about a text based programming language.  First, you can always review the code no matter what.  Not true with LabView.  Second, there is a good chance there are multiple compilers available from different suppliers.   If all else fails, you may be able to port to a new text based language.   With LabView, you're not going to even review that code to think about how to port it.   

It comes down to trust.  Do I trust that the company will do the right thing, support the product, have a long term vision.   I lost all trust in National Instruments when they decided to extort their customer base and now, I just don't care.  You are correct, it did not happen overnight.  As I mentioned, there were signs they were having problems with management long before.   Now days I just warn people when asked about LabView and explain why I would never invest in it.

[xrunner]

All this talk reminded me I haven't used LabView for 20 years. But I did many projects in the lab with it in the 1990s even going to some classes in Austin. I just looked it up to see what's going on with it nowadays and see it was acquired by Emerson. Probably nothing like the same company anymore. 

[joeqsmith]

I started using it professionally with 3.0 and bought 5.0 for home use.  I used to be an avid supporter of LabView but their treatment of their customers over the last few years has completely undone what the company took decades to cultivate.     

It is interesting to hear from those who work in higher education who are removing it from their curriculum.   IMO, this makes perfect sense as I can't see many companies using it in the long term driving a demand for new talent. 

[abeyer]

Emerson didn't do anything good to them... but they'd put themselves in a pretty bad situation already by spending 10 years on trying to build the aborted NXG stuff that didn't even get supported for that long, and then going on an acquisitions spree buying other companies.

[ErnestB]

The topic focus shifted from nanoVNA PC software to LabView :-D Sorry for that.
When I was(am) talking and thinking about LabView I am talking about the way that platform works. It is a different way not many programming languages have.
So, management way and decisions apart, LabView is a nice tool to use (once you get to know it). It has for sure it's shortcomings, but very useful for the purpose we use it at our company (academic hospital research and innovation) to rather quickly build an working system (mostly data-acquisition, but also more complicated stuff like we build a "robotic setup for in the MRI" on Real-Time platform single board RIO that talks with a control PC through a long fiber connection). Their hardware is often more expensive then the others, but if we can build quickly at the end it saves money. So for "Lab purposes" data-acquisition, measurements, visualization, logging and automation it is a good tool. Most of us can work very quickly with is. In not time you can setup a measurement with their USB DAQ for instance.
You also have a direct and clear visual overview what is happening (the data flow) and the structure of your program. If you are disciplined and use a good structures and subVI's (smaller functional blocks packed together)  it can can get quite neat, and the schematics can almost be your documentation.
So yeah, management aside, LabView has potential. And maybe, if we think positive, maybe there will be another management one of these days :-)
But yes, for example C/C++ and Python are universal languages here to stay and less prone for the market and companies troubles and policies. With commercial companies is would always be a gamble. On the other hand the developments are going fast, so things we make today could easily be outdated "tomorrow" so to speak. And we see that with all other systems that are not compatible anymore and supported anymore. Nothing last forever.

[joeqsmith]

The topic focus shifted from nanoVNA PC software to LabView :-D Sorry for that.

No problem.  I don't mind steering people away from it. 

I would never consider using any of their products for something safety related (including LabView).  Guessing academic means no human testing, or at least alive humans.  I could certainly understand when your in college playing with tools like LabView may offer some excitement.   Once you leave college, you may find that time you invested in learning the tools was wasted but oh well.  I can think of worse things to spend time on in college.

We did have a thread talking about LabView.  Keeping in mind these posts are several years old. 

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/advantagesdisadvantages-ni-labview-etc/