LPWA Technologies Comparison
ZETA LoRaWAN
System Cost
Distance Coverage
Bi-Directional
Power Consumption
Mesh Networks
Very low
(<1/10 compare to Others)
1~5km(City)
10km(Sight of see)
Uplink only
Low
(<1/5 compare to Others)
Low
(Less AP owning to mesh access)
Both
Middle
High
Both
High
ZETag
TM
2~10km(City)
15km(Sight of see)
2~10km(City)
15km(Sight of see)
No
(Star topology)
Yes
Capacity Utilization
Large Capacity
(spectrum 2kHz）
Large Capacity
(spectrum 2kHz）
Limited
(spectrum 125/250/500kHz）
Sigfox
2~10km(City)
15km(Sight of see)
Both
（But weak in downlink）
Middle
Depends
(cost is in proportional to connection volume)
Very Large Capacity
(spectrum 100Hz/message）
No
(Star topology)
No
(Star topology)
Business Model
Networks operator
(Cloud server & Gateway owned by Sigfox)
Flexible to setup networks
(The Radio can only make by Semtech)
Flexible to setup networks
(MAC layer protocol designed by ZiFiSense)
Flexible to setup networks
(MAC layer protocol designed by ZiFiSense)
Z E T A Z E T a g
Long Range Smart Tag
Ultra Narrow Band (UNB)
Chirp Spread Spectrum
(CSS)
ZETA LoRaWAN
Uplink 0.1-50kbps 0.3-50kbps
Downlink 0.1-2.4kbps 700bps
LinkBudget 545dBm@600bps&17dBm (4 hops mesh) 153dBm@293bps&17dBm
Sensitivity -132dBm@600bps -136dBm@293bps
Tx Power 75mA@17dBm 100mA@17dBm
Bandwidth 2kHz 125/250/500kHz
Acknowledge Yes Yes
Encryption Keeloq AES128
Topology Mesh Star
Network Cots Low (<1/2 compares to LoRaWAN) High
Z E T A Z E T a g
Long Range Smart Tag
Detailed comparison with LoRa