Chapter 4 Comparative Analysis of LoRa
Comparative
Analysis of LoRa
Chapter 4 Comparative Analysis of LoRa
4.1 Introduction
As the Internet of Things (IoT) ecosystem continues to expand, a wide range of wireless
communication technologies have emerged to meet diverse connectivity needs. Each
technology—be it short-range protocols like Wi-Fi, ZigBee, and Bluetooth, or long-range
LPWAN solutions such as NB-IoT, LTE-M, and SigFox—has distinct advantages, limitations,
and target applications. Among these, LoRaWAN has gained significant attention due to its long-
range, low-power, and cost-effective characteristics.
This chapter presents a comparative analysis of LoRa against both traditional wireless
technologies and modern LPWAN alternatives.
4.2 Comparision of LoRa With Various Exsistimg Technolgies
There are numerous technologies in today’s world that is used in IoT applications. Every
technology has its own features, merits and demerits. One technology cannot serve all the
applications of IoT [4]. Different applications will have different requirements. No technology
can be said as the best technology. Each technology differs from other in different aspects.
Applications also differ from each other in their requirements and their usage. Based on the
requirement we can only choose a technology that is best suited for the specific application from
the existing technologies.
Wi-Fi is the most popular technology that has been recently evolved and is used in long distance
communications. We have Bluetooth, ZigBee, etc., for short distance as well and these can and
are being used in various IoT applications. But in all of this battery is a major concern. LoRa
enables secure bi-directional, low cost and mobile communication for IoT, smart city, machine to
machine (M2M) and industrial applications. LoRa or LPWA (Low Power Wide Area) is a generic
term for a group of technology for wide area communication. LoRa is rapidly gaining high
popularity and is a preferred technology for IoT embedded systems because of its Long Range,
high capacity of nodes in network, long battery life, bi-directional, secured and efficient network,
interference immunity.
Chapter 4 Comparative Analysis of LoRa
Fig 4.1 Comparison of LoRa with various other technologies
4.2.1 LoRa versus Cellular Network
The traditional cellular network consisting of GSM, 2G, 3G, 4G are very popular and widespread.
These are one of the well-established networks. But these were traditionally built for high data
throughput and so these do not optimise the power consumption [11] [12]. These technologies
consume too much power and are not a good option when small amount of data is to be
transmitted less frequently. The total cost of ownership is also very high. With the advent of the
5G technology many of the cellular providers are discontinuing 2G services orphaning the IoT
devices running. The LoRa technology on the other hand comes with a lower power consumption
rate and is very much suitable were small amount of data is to be transmitted over long distances
4.2.2 LoRa versus LAN
LAN or Local Area Network is a widely adopted standard. It is used within a limited area such as
in buildings, schools, office, laboratories etc. LAN can be wired or wireless. Ethernet and Wi-Fi
is the commonly used technologies in LAN. The wireless technology used in LAN is the Wi-Fi.
Wi-Fi stands for wireless fidelity. They provide a wireless link for communication. The Wi-Fi is
usually confined within a small area such as a building, home office. It can span over a limited
range that is 1 km in radius [8]. But Lora technology provides a long range. A single LoRa
gateway can span an area of 100 km2. The quality of service of Wi-Fi is poor. The Wi-Fi is
Chapter 4 Comparative Analysis of LoRa
always flooded with huge number of data and is difficult to distinguish between the data and
many a time data is not received by the correct receiver. The LoRa technology in other hand has
reasonable quality of service. Wi-Fi is wireless and so the security is low [9]. Anybody can
interfere with the data during transmission. It was a very poor encryption and cannot be regarded
as secure. On the other hand, the LoRa offers double AES encryption. The security of LoRa is
very high. The LoRa is based on chirp spread spectrum (CSS) which is highly resistant to
multipath and fading.
4.2.3 LoRa versus ZigBee
ZigBee is based on high level communication protocol used to create personal area networks. It
consists of small low power digital radios. These are best suited for small scale projects that need
to transfer data over small distances. Its range is 10 -100 meters. These are based on mesh
networks that transmit data over long distances by transmitting data to many intermediate devices
[10]. This consumes power and thus is not suitable for applications with low power requirements.
LoRa on the other hand is based on star topology that eliminates the transmission of data to
intermediate devices thus decreasing the power expenditure to a great extent. Also mesh networks
are suitable for short to medium range communications and do not have the long-range capability
of LoRa technology.
4.3 Major LPWAN Technologies
• LoRaWAN
• NB-IoT
• LTE-M
• SigFox
4.3.1 Comparison Criteria
To conduct a fair and structured comparison between LPWAN technologies, the following criteria
are considered
1. Spectrum Usage – Whether the technology uses licensed (e.g., cellular) or unlicensed (e.g.,
ISM) bands.
Chapter 4 Comparative Analysis of LoRa
2. Data Rate and Bandwidth – Maximum transmission speed and spectrum efficiency.
3. Communication Range – Effective reach of communication, especially in rural vs. urban
environments.
4. Power Consumption and Battery Life – Suitability for battery-powered, long-term
deployments.
5. Latency and QoS – The ability to meet time-sensitive or guaranteed delivery requirements.
6. Deployment Flexibility – Whether private, public, or hybrid networks are supported.
7. Ecosystem and Openness – Availability of tools, community support, and standardization
level.
8. Scalability and Interference Handling – Support for high-density device deployments and
collision avoidance.
Feature LoRaWAN NB-IoT LTE-M SigFOX
Spectrum Unlicensed(ISM) Licensed Licensed Unlicensed(ISM)
Max Data 0.3-50 kbs 250 kbs 1 Mbps 100 bps
Rate
Range Up to 15km 10km 10km Up to 40km
Battery life 5-10 years 5-10 years 5-10 years 10+years
Latency Medium Low Very Low High
Deployment Public or Private Operator-only Operator-only Operator-only
Type
QoS Support Limited yes yes no
Ecosystem Open/Standardized Standardized 3GPP Standardized Proprietary
openness 3GPP
Cost to deploy Low High High Low
(Subscription)
Scalability High(with tuning) High Moderate Moderate
Table 4.1 this table summarizes the key characteristics of the major LPWAN technologies
Chapter 4 Comparative Analysis of LoRa
4.4 Challenges Of LoRa communication
Even if the LoRa has several advantages, there are many problems that can be cited.
4.4.1 Interferences
As the number of IoT devices using the ISM band increases, the focus on LORA communication
systems has grown due to their suitability for such applications. However, the high level of
interference in this band presents a significant challenge to the efficient deployment of these
systems. In the architecture of LoRa IOT networks when the transmission between the End
device and the Gateway will be the presence of various interfering sources can lead to
additional noise being introduced into the original signal, compromising the effectiveness of the
communication system.[19]
4.4.2 Scalability
LoRa installations facilitate the interconnection of numerous endpoint devices involved in
activity detection. To assess the scalability of this technology, it is crucial to evaluate its
capacity. Hence, studies have been conducted to examine the capability of LoRaWAN in both
individual port facilities and urban deployments. Based on an analysis of the transmission
speed and propagation distance, it is recommended that urban- scale LoRa implementations
utilize the highest possible bit rate.
Therefore, if the connection speed is lower than the maximum rate, the terminal occupancy per
unit area remains unaffected under the given assumption.
4.4.3 Security
Given the rapid growth of LoRa connections and the recognition of its vulnerabilities, ensuring
privacy and security becomes paramount. However, the unique physical attributes of
LoRa can expose new and dangerous attack vectors that pose challenges to effective defense.
Additionally, the substantial power efficiency requirements of LoRa make implementing
reliable defense mechanisms difficult. Moreover, while physical layer security techniques hold
the potential for comprehensive protection, their limited robustness restricts
Chapter 4 Comparative Analysis of LoRa
their widespread application. For example, existing key creation methods often result in only two
valid parties emerging over an extended querying period, rather than accommodating
multiple parties Since LoRaWAN is a relatively new protocol, its security level has not undergone
thorough examination in academic literature.
4.5 Conclusion
This chapter provided a detailed comparative evaluation of LoRa against both conventional short-
range wireless technologies (such as Wi-Fi, ZigBee, and Bluetooth) and alternative LPWAN
solutions (including NB-IoT, LTE-M, and SigFox). The analysis revealed that while each
technology has its specific use-case strengths, LoRa consistently offers the most balanced trade-
off between long-range communication, low power consumption, deployment flexibility, and
cost-effectiveness.
