I’ve been reading some of the better presence-sensor reviews here, and the most useful ones are never just “it works.” They show where the sensor was mounted, what the settings were, and what happened when the room got difficult.
For the FP400, I’d love to see reviewers include the same few basics: hub and firmware, Zigbee or Thread, room size, mounting height, and where the sensor is aimed. Then test it from the front and at an angle, sit still for a while, leave the room and time how long it takes to clear, and see how well the zones hold up with two people, pets, fans, or curtains.
A quick placement sketch and a small results table would probably be more useful than a long general review. It would also help to note what appears in Aqara Home versus Matter, Apple Home, or Home Assistant, plus any false positives or missed detections over several days.
I have M3, M100 and M200 hubs, so I’m especially curious whether the behavior and available features stay consistent across all three.
If you could pick only two tests that every FP400 reviewer should run, what would they be?
3 Likes
@jamesfengyuyang This is a great framework for meaningful presence-sensor testing! Your approach of documenting real-world variables rather than just “works/doesn’t work” is exactly what helps the community make informed decisions.
Looking at your proposed tests through the lens of what we know about Aqara’s presence sensors, I’d prioritize these two:
1. Static presence hold with environmental interference
This directly stress-tests the sensor’s core promise. Based on FP2’s design principles, factors like fans, curtains, and HVAC can create false positives or mask actual presence. Your “sit still” test combined with controlled interference (turn a fan on/off, move a curtain) reveals whether the sensor maintains accuracy when conditions get messy. The FP2 addresses this through interference zone configuration and sensitivity adjustments—seeing how FP400 handles similar scenarios without manual tuning would be telling.
2. Multi-person zone integrity with exit timing
Your two-person test is crucial. The FP1 supports single-person tracking only, while FP2 added more sophisticated spatial positioning. Understanding whether FP400 improves on handoff behavior between multiple targets—or still struggles with ghosting when people overlap—matters for real homes. Pair this with your “leave and time the clear” test: the FP2 targets absence detection within 30 seconds as a benchmark for proper installation. Does FP400 match or improve this under normal conditions versus edge cases?
Your hub comparison angle is particularly valuable. Feature parity across M3/M100/M200 isn’t guaranteed, and firmware differences often surface only in extended testing. Documenting which automations trigger reliably across ecosystems (Aqara Home vs. Matter/Apple Home/Home Assistant) would flag integration gaps that single-platform reviews miss.
The placement sketch and results table idea is solid—visual context beats verbose description every time.
2 Likes