The practical throughput never matches the theoretical specification quoted.
Your actual speed depends on the WiFi network adapter built into the laptop's motherboard. There's not all the same, and the reason this is confusing is because this remains one of the most obfuscated specs in laptops despite that in this day and age it's one of the most important. If you Google enough you can usually find the built-in network adapter's exact model. Intel, Killer, Asus, sometimes even the mobile players like Broadcomm (typically for Netbook, Ultrabooks, and tablet hybrids) are the manufacturers of these. Then you can look up that network adapter's specs.
There you can find the exact download and upload rated speeds for the WiFi. Be aware these are the WLAN speeds, not the LAN speeds. Laptops have ethernet ports for wired connections, the LAN, and those will almost always be at least 1Gbps. Not always so for WiFi.
Next you have the MU-MIMO of the network adapter, or how many simultaneous streams it can manage. Both router and WiFi network adapter have rating. This is written as 1x1, 2x2, 4x4. The more the better. That's because we often compete with other devices on our own networks. This has a greater impact on latency than speed, but it can affect both. What happens if that you have everyone asking the router for data packets. It puts you all in a queue. If the router can only handle 1 stream at a time, you all get put into the same queue. More queues is more people being served simultaneously just like at the post office. The router can also break up tasks all going to your laptop. If your laptop can handle more streams simultaneously that can speed things up.
In addition to all this, more important to raw download speed than the above, there is real-world degradation with WiFi signals that you don't experience with wired connections. Again, this depends on both the router and the WiFi network adapter in your laptop. Cheaper routers have inferior transmission power. All signals weaken the farther you get from the router, but their signals will weaken with less distance. Walls and other obstacles also play a huge role in this. With dual-band routers, the 2.4GHz band is slower than the 5GHz band, but it also carries farther (like AM vs. FM radio). While it's the tortoise, sometimes this means it wins the race. Depends on the physical spot of reception. You can speedtest.net both networks from any specific spot to decipher this with certainty.
The better routers also have a feature called "beamforming" which enables you some directional control of your signal using the antennae, but in my experience this has had a negligible effect.
Finally, you have the concern of interference. So if you live in a building with a ton of other people, since everyone has WiFi these days, you're almost certainly going to experience interference. This also causes issues of latency and speed drop-off. Over a decade ago, when 5GHz was brand new, and almost nobody had it, the easiest way to avoid this crowded radio space was to get on 5GHz, and suddenly you were sailing free. Those in crowded buildings reported the difference in internet speed was astonishing. So today, the latest and greatest routers are starting to utilize a special sub-channel: the 160MHz band. This is how to avoid the crowd at the watering hole (assuming you don't have a tech-savvy neighbor). The below article explains it in depth:
160 MHz Wi-Fi Channels: Friend or Foe?
erformance curve to really bend downwards. 
