1061 LPWAN Technology Comparison

1061.1 Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, you will be able to:

Compare LoRaWAN, Sigfox, NB-IoT, and LTE-M across key technical parameters
Understand the LPWAN market landscape and adoption patterns
Analyze technology trade-offs for different deployment scenarios
Evaluate architecture differences between LPWAN technologies

1061.2 Introduction

Time: ~15 min | Difficulty: Intermediate | Unit: P09.C01.U03

This chapter provides a comprehensive comparison of LPWAN technologies to help you select the right solution for your application. Understanding the technical differences between LoRaWAN, Sigfox, NB-IoT, and LTE-M is essential for making informed deployment decisions.

1061.3 LPWAN Market Landscape

The LPWAN market has grown rapidly, with distinct adoption patterns across technologies:

Key Market Statistics (2024):

Metric	Value	Growth
Total LPWAN Connections	~2.5 billion devices globally	+25% YoY
LPWAN Market Size	~$15 billion annually	Projected $65B by 2030
LoRaWAN Networks	200+ national networks in 180+ countries	+40% gateways YoY
NB-IoT Coverage	100+ countries, 180+ operators	Dominant in China (~70% of global NB-IoT)
Sigfox Coverage	~70 countries	Restructured after 2022 bankruptcy

Regional Adoption Patterns:

Asia-Pacific: NB-IoT dominates (China’s massive rollout with 1B+ connections)
Europe: LoRaWAN leads in private deployments; NB-IoT growing in utilities
North America: LTE-M strongest; LoRaWAN popular for enterprise/agriculture
Latin America/Africa: Sigfox historically strong; LoRaWAN expanding

Market Insight: The “Co-opetition” Trend

Rather than winner-take-all, the market is trending toward multi-technology deployments: - 60% of large enterprises plan to use 2+ LPWAN technologies by 2026 - LoRaWAN for private campus networks and dense deployments - NB-IoT/LTE-M for mobile assets and carrier-grade coverage - Chip vendors (Nordic, Qualcomm) now offer multi-protocol modules

1061.4 Technology Architecture Comparison

Side-by-side comparison of three LPWAN architectures. LoRaWAN shows end devices connecting to user-deployed or public gateways, which connect via IP to network servers and application servers. Sigfox shows devices connecting to operator-only base stations through managed cloud to application APIs. NB-IoT shows devices connecting to carrier eNodeB base stations through EPC/5GC core network to application platforms.

1061.5 Comprehensive Technology Comparison Table

The following table provides a detailed comparison across all critical parameters:

Parameter	LoRaWAN	Sigfox	NB-IoT	LTE-M
Network & Deployment
Deployment Model	Public/Private	Operator Only	Carrier Only	Carrier Only
Spectrum	Unlicensed ISM	Unlicensed ISM	Licensed LTE	Licensed LTE
Standard	LoRa Alliance	Proprietary	3GPP Release 13+	3GPP Release 13+
Global Coverage	Depends on deployment	~70 countries	~100 countries	~90 countries
Technical Specifications
Frequency Bands	868 MHz (EU) 915 MHz (US)	868 MHz (EU) 902 MHz (US)	LTE Bands (700-2100 MHz)	LTE Bands (700-2100 MHz)
Modulation	CSS (LoRa)	DBPSK/GFSK	OFDMA/SC-FDMA	OFDMA/SC-FDMA
Data Rate (UL)	0.3-50 kbps	100 bps	Up to 250 kbps	Up to 1 Mbps
Data Rate (DL)	0.3-50 kbps	600 bps	Up to 250 kbps	Up to 1 Mbps
Max Payload	243 bytes	12 bytes (UL) 8 bytes (DL)	1600 bytes	1600 bytes
Range & Coverage
Urban Range	2-5 km	3-10 km	1-10 km	1-10 km
Rural Range	5-15 km	10-40 km	10-35 km	10-35 km
Indoor Penetration	Good (20 dB)	Excellent (25+ dB)	Excellent (20+ dB)	Excellent (20+ dB)
Power & Battery
TX Power	14 dBm (25 mW)	14-27 dBm	23 dBm (200 mW)	23 dBm (200 mW)
RX Current	10-15 mA	10-12 mA	40-60 mA	40-80 mA
Sleep Current	1-5 uA	1-3 uA	3-5 uA	5-15 uA
Battery Life	5-10 years	10-20 years	5-10 years	3-7 years
PSM Support	No (Class C)	No	Yes	Yes
eDRX Support	No	No	Yes	Yes
Communication
Topology	Star-of-Stars	Star	Star	Star
Bi-directional	Yes (All Classes)	Limited (4 DL/day)	Yes (Full)	Yes (Full)
Acknowledgements	Optional (Confirmed)	No (Unconfirmed)	Yes (RLC/MAC)	Yes (RLC/MAC)
Latency	1-2 seconds	2-10 seconds	1.6-10 seconds	10-15 ms
QoS Guarantee	No	No	Yes (Bearer QoS)	Yes (Bearer QoS)
Capacity & Limits
Messages/Day	Unlimited*	140 UL / 4 DL	Unlimited	Unlimited
Devices/Gateway	~10,000	N/A (Operator)	~50,000/cell	~50,000/cell
Adaptive Data Rate	Yes (ADR)	No	No	No
Handover/Mobility	No	No	Limited	Full (50+ km/h)
Cost (Typical)
Module Cost	$8-15	$5-10	$10-20	$15-25
Gateway Cost	$500-2000/GW	N/A	N/A	N/A
Subscription/Year	$1-5/device (or free private)	$1-10/device	$2-12/device	$3-15/device
Infrastructure	DIY or Cloud	Operator	Operator	Operator
Best Use Cases
Ideal Applications	Smart agriculture Smart buildings Private IoT networks Asset tracking (local)	Simple sensors Utility meters Environmental monitoring Low-frequency alarms	Smart meters Street lighting Fixed asset tracking Parking sensors	Fleet tracking Wearables Mobile sensors Voice-enabled IoT
Limitations
Key Constraints	Duty cycle (1%) Coverage gaps No mobility support	12-byte payload 140 msg/day limit No guaranteed delivery	Higher power Carrier dependency Module cost	Highest power Higher cost Carrier dependency

* Subject to regional duty cycle regulations (e.g., 1% in EU)

Table Notes

Data rates are maximums; actual rates depend on spreading factor (LoRaWAN), coverage conditions, and network load
Battery life estimates assume 1-2 messages/day; actual lifetime varies with message frequency, payload size, and environmental conditions
Costs are approximate 2025 values and vary by region, volume, and service provider
Coverage figures assume good conditions; urban environments and interference reduce effective range

1061.6 LPWAN Coverage vs Power Trade-offs

This radar chart provides an alternative visualization of LPWAN technology trade-offs across five critical dimensions:

%%{init: {'theme': 'base', 'themeVariables': {'primaryColor': '#2C3E50', 'primaryTextColor': '#fff', 'primaryBorderColor': '#16A085', 'lineColor': '#E67E22', 'secondaryColor': '#16A085', 'tertiaryColor': '#7F8C8D'}}}%%
graph TB
    subgraph Legend["LPWAN Trade-off Comparison"]
        direction LR
        L1["Range"]
        L2["Battery Life"]
        L3["Data Rate"]
        L4["Reliability"]
        L5["Cost Efficiency"]
    end

    subgraph LoRaWAN["LoRaWAN Profile"]
        LW_R["Range: 3/5<br/>5-15 km rural"]
        LW_B["Battery: 4/5<br/>5-10 years"]
        LW_D["Data Rate: 3/5<br/>0.3-50 kbps"]
        LW_L["Reliability: 3/5<br/>Best effort"]
        LW_C["Cost: 5/5<br/>Low TCO at scale"]
    end

    subgraph Sigfox["Sigfox Profile"]
        SF_R["Range: 5/5<br/>10-40 km rural"]
        SF_B["Battery: 5/5<br/>10-20 years"]
        SF_D["Data Rate: 1/5<br/>100 bps only"]
        SF_L["Reliability: 2/5<br/>No ACK"]
        SF_C["Cost: 4/5<br/>Low device cost"]
    end

    subgraph NBIoT["NB-IoT Profile"]
        NB_R["Range: 4/5<br/>10-35 km"]
        NB_B["Battery: 4/5<br/>5-10 years"]
        NB_D["Data Rate: 4/5<br/>Up to 250 kbps"]
        NB_L["Reliability: 5/5<br/>Carrier QoS"]
        NB_C["Cost: 2/5<br/>Subscription fees"]
    end

    subgraph LTEM["LTE-M Profile"]
        LM_R["Range: 3/5<br/>5-10 km"]
        LM_B["Battery: 3/5<br/>3-7 years"]
        LM_D["Data Rate: 5/5<br/>Up to 1 Mbps"]
        LM_L["Reliability: 5/5<br/>Full mobility"]
        LM_C["Cost: 1/5<br/>Highest TCO"]
    end

    style Legend fill:#f9f9f9,stroke:#2C3E50
    style LoRaWAN fill:#2C3E50,color:#fff
    style Sigfox fill:#16A085,color:#fff
    style NBIoT fill:#E67E22,color:#fff
    style LTEM fill:#7F8C8D,color:#fff

Figure 1061.3: LPWAN technology comparison showing trade-off profiles across range, battery life, data rate, reliability, and cost efficiency. Each technology excels in different dimensions: Sigfox maximizes range and battery life, LTE-M leads in data rate and reliability, LoRaWAN balances flexibility and cost, NB-IoT offers carrier-grade reliability with moderate power.

1061.7 Knowledge Check: Technology Comparison

Quiz: LoRaWAN vs Sigfox

Question: A logistics company wants to deploy 10,000 asset trackers that report GPS location + temperature every 15 minutes (96 messages/day). Each message payload is 45 bytes. Battery life must exceed 3 years. They’re evaluating LoRaWAN vs Sigfox. Which technology should they choose and why?

Explanation: This demonstrates LPWAN technology selection based on application constraints:

Application Requirements vs Technology Capabilities:

Requirement	Value	LoRaWAN	Sigfox	Result
Messages/day	96	Unlimited	Max 140	Sigfox barely OK
Payload size	45 bytes	243 max	12 max	Sigfox FAILS
Battery life	3+ years	5-10 yr	10-20 yr	Both OK
Device count	10,000	Scalable	Scalable	Both OK

Critical Failure: Sigfox’s 12-byte payload limit cannot accommodate the 45-byte GPS+temperature data. Even with extreme compression, essential data (timestamp, device ID) would be lost.

Why other options are incorrect: - A (Sigfox lower power): Power savings are irrelevant if payload won’t fit - C (Both work equally): Technologies are NOT equivalent due to payload constraint - D (Neither suitable): LoRaWAN meets all requirements with margin

Conclusion: The payload constraint alone eliminates Sigfox, making LoRaWAN the only viable LPWAN option.

Quiz: Spectrum Allocation

Question: An IoT architect must explain LPWAN spectrum allocation to stakeholders. Which statement is MOST accurate regarding LPWAN spectrum usage?

Explanation: LPWAN technologies split between spectrum types:

Unlicensed ISM Bands (LoRaWAN, Sigfox): - Regions: EU: 868 MHz, US: 915 MHz, Asia: 923 MHz - Advantages: No spectrum fees, freely deployable private networks - Disadvantages: Duty cycle restrictions, interference from other ISM users, no QoS

Licensed Cellular Spectrum (NB-IoT, LTE-M): - Bands: LTE bands (700, 800, 900, 1800, 2100, 2600 MHz) - Advantages: Protected spectrum, guaranteed QoS, higher power allowed - Disadvantages: Requires cellular subscription, carrier-dependent

Why other options are wrong: - A: NB-IoT and LTE-M do NOT use ISM bands - C: LoRaWAN and Sigfox use unlicensed spectrum - D: Coverage depends on frequency, power, and modulation - not licensing alone

Strategic implication: Choose unlicensed (LoRaWAN) for private networks with zero recurring costs, or licensed (NB-IoT) for carrier-managed networks with guaranteed QoS.

1061.8 Summary

This chapter compared LPWAN technologies across key dimensions:

Market Landscape: NB-IoT leads globally (especially China), LoRaWAN dominates private deployments, LTE-M strongest in North America
Architecture Differences: LoRaWAN allows private gateways, Sigfox is operator-only, NB-IoT/LTE-M leverage cellular infrastructure
Technical Trade-offs: Each technology optimizes for different parameters (range, power, data rate, reliability, cost)
Spectrum: LoRaWAN/Sigfox use unlicensed ISM bands; NB-IoT/LTE-M use licensed cellular spectrum
Constraints: Sigfox has strict payload (12 bytes) and message limits (140/day); LoRaWAN has duty cycle limits; cellular has higher power consumption

1061.9 What’s Next

Now that you understand how LPWAN technologies compare:

Next Chapter: LPWAN Selection Guide - Decision flowcharts and selection rules for choosing the right technology
Then: LPWAN Cost Analysis - Total cost of ownership calculations
Technology Deep Dives: LoRaWAN, Sigfox, NB-IoT