Skip to main content
KLEVV

KLEVV NEO N410+ Spec and Price in the United States

SATA512GB2.5-inch540 MB/s read

KLEVV's other entry here, the NEO N410+, drops down to SATA entirely: an SM2259XT2 controller drives 540/500 MB/s sequential speeds on a 512GB 2.5-inch drive, with 200TB of rated endurance and a three-year warranty. Next to the C910's Gen4 NVMe throughput, the N410+ is squarely a budget upgrade drive — for anyone replacing a hard drive in a SATA-only system rather than chasing NVMe speeds. TLC NAND keeps it consistent for general desktop and laptop use.

Tied 101st of 106 models in the SSD catalog on Sequential read — 3 models share this figure. Tied 99th of 106 models in the SSD catalog on Sequential write — 4 models share this figure.

Current best price
From $61.99Price too old to confirm

Prices exclude sales tax.

The last tracked price for the 256GB KLEVV NEO N410+ in the United States was $61.99 at Newegg, captured 2026-10-05. Across one tracked merchant and 21 days of recorded prices, the 90-day median for the 256GB KLEVV NEO N410+ is $62.99 and the lowest recorded price is $61.99. This site began capturing prices on July 30, 2026; for Amazon listings, prices dated earlier come from Keepa's price history.

Captured periodically and may have changed.

Price history

  • 256GB
  • 512GB
August 12, 202635 data pointstoday · $61.99

Each point is one day's recorded price, not a list price. Points dated before July 30, 2026, when this site began capturing prices, come from Keepa's Amazon price history. How we track prices

Specifications

Capacity
512GB
Interface
SATA
Sequential read
540 MB/s
Sequential write
500 MB/s
Form factor
2.5-inch
NAND type
TLC
Controller
SMI SM2259XT2
Endurance (TBW)
200 TB
Warranty
3 years

Capacities

ConfigurationPart numberEndurance (TBW)Sequential writeSequential readCurrent best pricePrice per TB
256GB—100 TB500 MB/s540 MB/s

$61.99

Price too old to confirm

—
512GB—200 TB500 MB/s540 MB/s

$99.99

Price too old to confirm

—

Guides for this category

Sources

Every spec above was pulled from one of these — a field a source didn't state was left off rather than estimated.