The BX100 supports TRIM and garbage collection like most SSDs, although 256-bit AES hardware encryption has been removed along with power-loss protection. In its place is a new feature called Extreme Energy Efficiency, which Crucial says drops the energy consumption to 90% less than a hard disk, although goes into no more detail than that. Expect pretty low power consumption from the BX100.


Like the MX100, it's based off 16nm NAND by Micron (Crucial's parent company) which is some of the smallest in the industry, but with a cheaper Silicon Motion SM2246EN controller instead of the Marvell 88SS9189. There's a MTBF of 1.5 million hours, with the same drive longevity of 72TB of writes, a reasonable amount for average home computer use.
Speeds seem to be a bit lower – the 512GB MX100 is quoted as 550 MB/sec read and 500 MB/sec write, while the 512GB BX100 is quoted as 535 MB/sec read and 450 MB/sec write. With the lower capacities, there's about a 10% improvement with the BX100 though. IOPS figures are again a bit lower for the 512GB model, although there's a small improvement for the smaller capacities.
Here is a Crucial BX100 vs MX100 comparison article, but I still can't decide.

Thanks.