1065  LPWAN Technology Comparison and Selection

1065.1 Introduction

This chapter provides a comprehensive comparison of LPWAN technologies including LoRaWAN, Sigfox, NB-IoT, and LTE-M. You’ll learn how to select the right technology for your IoT application based on technical requirements, cost constraints, and deployment models.

NoteLearning Objectives
  • Compare LPWAN technologies across key technical parameters
  • Understand LPWAN market landscape and adoption patterns
  • Use decision frameworks to select appropriate technologies
  • Evaluate trade-offs between deployment models and costs

1065.2 LPWAN Technology Comparison

⏱️ ~15 min | ⭐⭐ Intermediate | πŸ“‹ P09.C01.U03

This section provides a comprehensive comparison of LPWAN technologies to help you select the right solution for your application.

1065.2.1 LPWAN Market Landscape

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

%%{init: {'theme': 'base', 'themeVariables': { 'primaryColor': '#2C3E50', 'primaryTextColor': '#fff', 'primaryBorderColor': '#16A085', 'lineColor': '#16A085', 'secondaryColor': '#E67E22', 'tertiaryColor': '#7F8C8D'}}}%%
pie showData
    title LPWAN Connections by Technology (2024)
    "LoRaWAN" : 35
    "NB-IoT" : 42
    "LTE-M" : 15
    "Sigfox" : 5
    "Other" : 3

Figure 1065.1: LPWAN market share by technology in 2024

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
NoteMarket Insight: The β€œCo-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

1065.2.2 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.

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.
Figure 1065.2: LPWAN architecture comparison showing deployment models: LoRaWAN (private/public gateways), Sigfox (operator-only infrastructure), and NB-IoT (cellular carrier deployment)

1065.2.3 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 ΞΌA 1-3 ΞΌA 3-5 ΞΌA 5-15 ΞΌA
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)

NoteTable 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

1065.2.4 LPWAN Coverage vs Power Trade-offs (Variant View)

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["πŸ”΅ Range"]
        L2["🟒 Battery Life"]
        L3["🟠 Data Rate"]
        L4["πŸ”΄ Reliability"]
        L5["🟣 Cost Efficiency"]
    end

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

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

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

    subgraph LTEM["LTE-M Profile"]
        LM_R["Range: ●●●○○<br/>5-10 km"]
        LM_B["Battery: ●●●○○<br/>3-7 years"]
        LM_D["Data Rate: ●●●●●<br/>Up to 1 Mbps"]
        LM_L["Reliability: ●●●●●<br/>Full mobility"]
        LM_C["Cost: ●○○○○<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 1065.3: 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. {fig-alt=β€œComparison chart showing four LPWAN technologies with five-dot rating scales. LoRaWAN: 3/5 range, 4/5 battery, 3/5 data rate, 3/5 reliability, 5/5 cost. Sigfox: 5/5 range, 5/5 battery, 1/5 data rate, 2/5 reliability, 4/5 cost. NB-IoT: 4/5 range, 4/5 battery, 4/5 data rate, 5/5 reliability, 2/5 cost. LTE-M: 3/5 range, 3/5 battery, 5/5 data rate, 5/5 reliability, 1/5 cost.”}

1065.2.5 LPWAN Technology Selection Flowchart

Use this decision tree to select the most appropriate LPWAN technology for your application:

Flowchart for selecting LPWAN technology. Starts with coverage model decision (nationwide vs regional). Branches through private network preference, payload size (>12 bytes), message frequency (>140/day), mobility, data rate, and battery priority to recommend LoRaWAN (private/flexible), Sigfox (simple/long battery), NB-IoT (fixed assets/reliable), or LTE-M (mobile/higher speed).

Flowchart for selecting LPWAN technology. Starts with coverage model decision (nationwide vs regional). Branches through private network preference, payload size (>12 bytes), message frequency (>140/day), mobility, data rate, and battery priority to recommend LoRaWAN (private/flexible), Sigfox (simple/long battery), NB-IoT (fixed assets/reliable), or LTE-M (mobile/higher speed).
Figure 1065.4: Decision flowchart for LPWAN technology selection based on coverage model, payload size, message frequency, mobility, and battery requirements
TipUsing the Decision Flowchart

How to use this flowchart:

  1. Start with your primary requirement (coverage area)
  2. Follow the decision path based on your application’s constraints
  3. Review the recommended technology and its key benefits
  4. Validate the choice against all your requirements

Common Decision Paths:

  • Smart Agriculture β†’ Private Coverage β†’ Large Payload β†’ High Frequency β†’ LoRaWAN
  • Simple Sensors β†’ Private Coverage β†’ Small Payload β†’ Low Frequency β†’ Long Battery β†’ Sigfox (if available)
  • Asset Tracking β†’ Global Coverage β†’ Mobile β†’ Medium Data Rate β†’ LTE-M
  • Smart Meters β†’ Global Coverage β†’ Fixed β†’ Low Power β†’ NB-IoT

Multiple Technologies:

Some applications may benefit from using multiple LPWAN technologies: - Hybrid deployments: LoRaWAN for dense urban areas + NB-IoT for remote locations - Failover: Primary technology with cellular backup for critical messages - Cost optimization: Sigfox for bulk of devices + LoRaWAN for high-frequency nodes

1065.2.6 LPWAN Use Case Decision Matrix (Variant View)

This matrix visualization provides an alternative perspective by mapping specific IoT use cases to optimal LPWAN technologies based on message requirements and cost constraints:

%%{init: {'theme': 'base', 'themeVariables': {'primaryColor': '#2C3E50', 'primaryTextColor': '#fff', 'primaryBorderColor': '#16A085', 'lineColor': '#E67E22', 'secondaryColor': '#16A085', 'tertiaryColor': '#7F8C8D'}}}%%
graph TB
    subgraph Header["Use Case β†’ Technology Mapping"]
        direction LR
        H1["πŸ“Š Application"]
        H2["πŸ“¦ Payload"]
        H3["⏱️ Frequency"]
        H4["🎯 Best Tech"]
    end

    subgraph SmartMeter["Smart Utility Meters"]
        SM1["Water/Gas/Electric meters<br/>Payload: 20-50 bytes<br/>Frequency: 1-4Γ— daily<br/>Battery: 15 years critical"]
        SM2["βœ“ NB-IoT: Deep indoor, reliable<br/>βœ“ Sigfox: If ≀12 bytes ok<br/>β—‹ LoRaWAN: Private if 10k+ meters"]
    end

    subgraph AssetTrack["Asset Tracking"]
        AT1["Fleet/Container tracking<br/>Payload: 30-60 bytes GPS<br/>Frequency: 1-60Γ— daily<br/>Mobility: Required"]
        AT2["βœ“ LTE-M: Mobile handover<br/>β—‹ NB-IoT: Stationary assets<br/>βœ— LoRaWAN: No mobility<br/>βœ— Sigfox: Payload too small"]
    end

    subgraph AgriSensor["Smart Agriculture"]
        AG1["Soil moisture, weather<br/>Payload: 50-100 bytes<br/>Frequency: 1-24Γ— daily<br/>Area: 100+ hectares"]
        AG2["βœ“ LoRaWAN: Private network<br/>β—‹ NB-IoT: If cellular coverage<br/>βœ— Sigfox: Payload limit<br/>βœ— Wi-Fi: Range insufficient"]
    end

    subgraph Parking["Smart Parking"]
        PK1["Occupancy detection<br/>Payload: 5-10 bytes<br/>Frequency: 10-50Γ— daily<br/>Location: Urban streets"]
        PK2["βœ“ NB-IoT: Urban coverage<br/>βœ“ Sigfox: Simple detection<br/>βœ“ LoRaWAN: City network"]
    end

    subgraph Industrial["Industrial IoT"]
        IN1["Condition monitoring<br/>Payload: 100-500 bytes<br/>Frequency: 1-60Γ— hourly<br/>Reliability: Mission critical"]
        IN2["βœ“ LTE-M: High bandwidth<br/>βœ“ Private 5G: Ultra-reliable<br/>β—‹ LoRaWAN: Non-critical<br/>βœ— Sigfox: Data too large"]
    end

    Header --> SmartMeter
    Header --> AssetTrack
    Header --> AgriSensor
    Header --> Parking
    Header --> Industrial

    style Header fill:#2C3E50,color:#fff
    style SmartMeter fill:#16A085,color:#fff
    style AssetTrack fill:#E67E22,color:#fff
    style AgriSensor fill:#2C3E50,color:#fff
    style Parking fill:#16A085,color:#fff
    style Industrial fill:#7F8C8D,color:#fff

Figure 1065.5: LPWAN use case decision matrix mapping common IoT applications to optimal technology choices. Each use case shows key requirements (payload, frequency, constraints) and rates technologies as optimal (checkmark), acceptable (circle), or unsuitable (X). {fig-alt=β€œDecision matrix mapping five IoT use cases to LPWAN technologies. Smart Utility Meters: NB-IoT optimal for deep indoor, Sigfox if small payload, LoRaWAN for large deployments. Asset Tracking: LTE-M required for mobility, NB-IoT for stationary, LoRaWAN and Sigfox unsuitable. Smart Agriculture: LoRaWAN optimal for private network coverage, NB-IoT alternative, Sigfox payload too small. Smart Parking: All three technologies suitable. Industrial IoT: LTE-M or Private 5G for high bandwidth and reliability.”}

1065.2.7 Quick Selection Guide

For rapid technology selection, use these rules of thumb:

NoteTechnology Selection Rules

Choose LoRaWAN when: - βœ… You need private network control - βœ… Payload > 12 bytes OR messages > 140/day - βœ… Regional/local deployment is sufficient - βœ… Want flexibility and no vendor lock-in - βœ… Have technical team to manage infrastructure

Choose Sigfox when: - βœ… Ultra-simple, low-cost deployment needed - βœ… Payload ≀ 12 bytes AND messages ≀ 140/day - βœ… Maximum battery life (10-20 years) required - βœ… Sigfox coverage exists in deployment region - βœ… Minimal bidirectional communication needed

Choose NB-IoT when: - βœ… Need global carrier-grade reliability - βœ… Fixed or slow-moving devices - βœ… Require guaranteed message delivery (QoS) - βœ… Battery life 5-10 years is acceptable - βœ… Can afford carrier subscription costs

Choose LTE-M when: - βœ… Devices are mobile (vehicles, wearables) - βœ… Need voice capability or high data rates (>100 kbps) - βœ… Low latency required (<100 ms) - βœ… Can tolerate higher power consumption - βœ… Cellular coverage is reliable in operating region

1065.3 Chapter Summary

LPWAN technologies bridge the gap between short-range wireless (Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Zigbee) and cellular networks:

Key Characteristics: - Long range (2-40+ km depending on environment) - Low power (5-20 year battery life) - Low data rate (100 bps - 50 kbps) - Low cost devices and infrastructure

Main Technologies: - LoRaWAN: Most flexible, public or private networks, strong ecosystem - Sigfox: Simplest, operator-only, very low power, limited messages - Weightless: Open standard, multiple variants, limited adoption

Best Applications: - Infrequent small messages (smart metering, environmental monitoring) - Battery-powered devices requiring multi-year operation - Wide area coverage (city-wide, farmland, industrial sites) - Large scale deployments (thousands to millions of devices)

Not Suitable For: - High bandwidth applications (video, audio) - Real-time critical systems (latency can be seconds) - Frequent bidirectional communication - Continuous data streaming

Deployment Considerations: - Evaluate private vs public network based on scale and control needs - Consider regulatory duty cycle limitations in design - Plan for gateway placement and coverage requirements - Calculate total cost of ownership over device lifetime

The following chapters will explore each LPWAN technology in detail: LoRaWAN (covered separately), Sigfox, NB-IoT, and Weightless.

1065.4 Summary

This chapter provided a comprehensive comparison of LPWAN technologies to guide your technology selection:

  • Market Landscape: NB-IoT leads globally (42%), followed by LoRaWAN (35%), LTE-M (15%), and Sigfox (5%)
  • Technology Comparison: Detailed comparison across 30+ parameters including range, power, cost, and deployment models
  • Decision Framework: Flowchart and use case matrix for systematic technology selection
  • Selection Rules: Quick decision rules for choosing between LoRaWAN, Sigfox, NB-IoT, and LTE-M

Key Insights: - No single β€œbest” LPWAN technology - selection depends on application requirements - Multi-technology deployments are becoming common (60% of enterprises by 2026) - Private LoRaWAN excels at scale (10,000+ devices), cellular wins for mobility and reliability - Cost analysis must consider full TCO over device lifetime (typically 5-10 years)

1065.5 What’s Next

Continue your LPWAN learning with: