Can multiple smartthings hubs work with the same network locally?

Is it possible to make two ST hubs work with the same network locally?

Yes. You just go through the setup as normal. The only advantage I can think of is to breakup the system load. A big downside would be that it would force interactions between devices on different hubs to go through the cloud.

It depends what you mean by “work,” and it depends on the model of the hub. And it depends what you mean by “Network.“

Samsung SmartThings WiFi with Plume (model number ET-WV525) is designed for exactly this purpose. There is one primary hub and then you can add additional “sub hubs.“ These hubs will all work on the same Z wave Network and on the same Zigbee Network.

For other models, they can work on the same Wi-Fi/ethernet network and you will be able to put devices attached to each one into some of the same routines, but it gets complicated. And each hub continues to own its own set of devices. So you have two separate Zwave networks and two separate Zigbee networks. I think in this case the routine would have to run in the cloud, though, I don’t think the two hubs will talk to each other locally. @csstup might be able to say more on that.

In general, hubs other than the one with Plume (or its previous generation) should be regarded as independent. You can have two of them in the same house, and some people do, but they are not sharing the Z wave or Zigbee Network.

Did that answer the question?

Seeing the hub memory problems and reboots, I had to buy a second hub. In one hub I manage the zigbee network and in the other z-wave. Now everything works fine, except the automations between zigbee and z-wave devices, which work fine but are on the cloud. My question was if it was possible to have them locally.

1 Like

I just hit my 200 device limit today and I am considering a second hub. Does SmartThings plan on doing anything about this stupid 200 device limit? Is there even a valid reason for it?

I have had problems with 128 devices. Already with 128 devices and 22 drivers the hub couldn’t take it anymore, you keep rebooting.

1 Like

Just so you know, the 200 device limit appears to be per location, not per hub. So you would have to add a hub with a different location. It can be in the same physical building, but in the app it will be a different location. The 200 limit applies to virtual devices, as well, and you can hit it even if you don’t have a hub at all.

People have been asking about this since the first (unannounced) limit was hit, and I don’t think there’s ever been an official response. One staff member did say that they were discussing raising the limit, but I don’t think that person works at smartthings anymore.

Anyway, there are several threads discussing it:

200 Device Limitation? Really? Any alternatives?

1 Like

Not at present. as you noted, when you have more than one hub the automations move to the cloud.

I’ve always wondered about this as I have 3 wifi-hub v3 in a mesh with Plume. In other discussions it is mentioned that the other pods will not show up in the app or IDE.

Reason i doubt this is because when i unplug the main pod or the first one that started my location, all my zigbee and zwave devices in my app goes offline. The only devices that remain available are wifi devices and my Family Hub fridge.

Though each of my pods are plugged in by ETH using a common switch and not by wifi. They were all on boarded through using the app and location though of adding a pod

Hmmm. Very interesting, I was wondering if the sub-hubs were full participants in the Z-Wave/Zigbee meshes.
In Europe, Vodafone market a version of the Smartthings WiFi without Plume (I have two of them that I have not activated because I do not have or want a Vodafone contract). From what you say above I assume that they would not for a single Z-Wave/Zigbee mesh.

JD will probably be along to clarify with the complete technical definitions, but from my less informed understanding, I think that device is the main controller / coordinator for each protocol. The other hubs may be extending the network, either directly as repeaters or via back channel over Ethernet, but one of them had to be the primary.


I was on Vera previously and had another controller and my first ST wifi hub as secondaries and my Zwave will continue to run even if my Vera3 primary was offline…

When i got off Vera3 my ST remained a secondary and no way to promote it so i just went ahead and created a new Zwave Home ID from scratch. Got rid of all my non ST zwave controllers including battery ones… All that’s left in the Zwave and Zigbee network are the 3 ST wifi hub. Since then the main hub need to always be online to function. I don’t want to onboard any battery operated hand controllers anymore as that has always been annoying.

I don’t have any secondary controllers to test if the zwave still function other than the other 2 ST pods. In my case they all are offline…

The smartthings architecture is different than the usual Z wave multi hub system, as you can tell because it works with zigbee also. If the primary goes off-line, I’m pretty sure you lose your connection to the cloud, and that’s why nothing shows up in the app. But I don’t know for sure. :thinking:

1 Like

Hi JD,

Yea i hear you, you actually replied to me on a similar query 2yrs ago when i was just starting with ST. Maybe it’s just affecting my setup but they’ve been pretty reliable so I’m not really fussed. But just to confirm it isn’t the cloud app not connecting to the gateway, the app still works controlling all my other non zwave zigbee devices dependent on Wifi. I can control them inside my network or outside using mobile network.


Sure, but that’s a different pathway. The app talks to the cloud. The primary hub talks to the cloud. The Wi-Fi devices talk to the cloud. That’s three separate pathways.

Unplugging your primary hub, for example, doesn’t change the fact that your app can still talk to the cloud. Or that your Wi-Fi devices can still talk to the cloud.

But once the primary hub can’t talk to the cloud, it’s my understanding that the subhubs won’t be talking to the cloud, either. Which is why the Z wave and Zigbee devices from the subhubs will not show up in the app. The wave and Zigbee devices are “hub connected.” Your Wi-Fi devices are not. And the smartthings app on your phone is not either.

The app talks to the cloud and the cloud talks to the hub. There’s no direct app to hub connection at the time of this writing.


Wow, that’s a very concise description of the logical pathways of each protocol traffic traversing within all type of networks. It absolutely makes sense how you described it. I was suspecting that the wifi devices did work that way the cloud talking to the cloud by integration as they aren’t natively ST.

Question then, my understanding is that all zwave device no matter its function or role will get a device ID and the same with Zigbee… i suppose if this isn’t exposed to us in IDE then we will never know if the other pods do get one to confirm for sure.

1 Like

just another obeservation why I am skeptical of the other pods participating… again this can possibly be only in my case. While my Zwave network with about 65 devices spread around the house, the route information you can see a device sometimes mesh across a few devices with like:

for zwave

and for Zigbee

It always starts with the device in context and ends with SmartThings Hub. Everything in between are the hops it took to get to ST

All of mine are tangible devices in the hops it used for the route, no unnamed device or something that can possibly be another pod. And when you click on the hyperlink at the end of the route for SmartThings Hub it brings up my main hub with ID of 01 for the main hub.

I wish there was just a statement from ST that it is so and a feature in fact.

1 Like

If you join a Z-stick to the network as a secondary controller it should show you those devices, if they’re included via Z-wave. I would be skeptical that ST is doing the work in the background to make all three nodes appear as a single ID, but I guess it’s possible.