RFSymphony Link vs LoRaWAN: A Detailed Comparison
lpwan
symphony link
lorawan
iot
wireless technology
Advertisement
This article compares Symphony Link and LoRaWAN, two prominent low-power wide-area network (LPWAN) technologies. We will explore the key differences between them based on various specifications and features.
Symphony Link vs. LoRaWAN Specifications
The following table highlights the key differences between Symphony Link and LoRaWAN:
| Specifications | Symphony Link | LoRaWAN |
|---|---|---|
| What is it? | A wireless system developed by Link Labs to overcome limitations of LoRaWAN, built on LoRa CSS physical layer technology. | A communication protocol and system architecture for wireless systems. It’s a trademark of Semtech and managed by the LoRa Alliance. |
| Acknowledgement | Yes, every message is acknowledged in both the uplink and downlink directions. | Limited acknowledgements using the ALOHA protocol. |
| Packet Error Rate (PER) | Lower due to the use of acknowledgements. | Higher (around 50% in common scenarios). |
| Firmware Upgradation | Easy, can be done after deployment. | Difficult, as it needs to be managed at the application layer. |
| Duty Cycle | No duty cycle limit due to Frequency Hopping Listen Before Talk (FH LBT) and adaptive frequency agility band. | 1% (as per ETSI requirements). |
| Data Transmission Capability | More | Less |
| Protocol Type | Synchronous | Asynchronous (ALOHA) |
| Repeaters | Easy to use due to the synchronous protocol and no duty cycle limitations. | Difficult to use due to duty cycle limitations. |
| Cost | Cheaper, as repeaters cover large distances without requiring significant investment. | Costly. |
| Power Efficiency | More power efficient due to the use of solar and battery-powered repeaters. | Less power efficient, as repeaters are impractical. |
| Encryption | Easy, with multiple devices developed with easy configuration, and keys exchanged over the air using advanced PKI-based AES algorithms. | Complex, key management is typically handled at the time of production. |
| Dynamic Range | End devices calculate the reverse link to the Gateway and adjust transmit power, modulation rate, and spreading factor (SF) accordingly. | Limited dynamic range can cause nodes near the Gateway to prevent other nodes from connecting. |
| Adaptive Data Rate (ADR) | Used for performance and reliability optimization. | Used for capacity optimization and controlled by LoRaWAN servers. |
| Spectrum Usage | 28 times more (in the US) and 7 times more (in Europe) compared to LoRaWAN. | Less compared to Symphony Link. |
| Capacity | 4 times more than LoRaWAN. | Less compared to Symphony Link. |
| Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) Size | Fixed at 256 bytes. | Varies based on spreading factor. |
