Wi-Fi HaLow, LoRa, or NB-IoT?

IoT devices often serve quite specific purposes. They may operate in remote locations far from civilization, or they may be found right in our homes. The form an IoT device takes and the technologies it uses are influenced not only by the function for which it is designed, but also by environmental conditions. In the comfort of our homes, connectivity is not an issue thanks to access to the local network – Wi-Fi is simple, inexpensive, and allows for easy integration with devices. The problems or rather, the challenges begin when we want to leave these favorable conditions behind and head out into the field with our equipment.

The IoT industry is highly developed, and the problem of long-distance connectivity has been solved in at least several ways. To overcome the obstacles encountered during transmission, communication standards rely on various approaches. Commonly used solutions include sub-GHz frequency bands, using appropriate radio signal modulation, or adjusting the data frame structure.

Unfortunately, there is no single best method that can solve all long-distance connectivity issues. Technologies often differ in terms of bandwidth, power consumption, or hardware requirements. Additional criteria can help with this decision. Should our device be low-power? What is the order of magnitude of the data the device will transmit or receive? What network topology and infrastructure do we want to use?

In this article, we will compare three selected communication standards: Wi-Fi HaLow, LoRa, and NB-IoT. We will also determine which of them is best suited for smart homes and which for smart cities. To better understand the following comparison let’s take a look at what is and how Wi-Fi HaLow works.

What is Wi-Fi HaLow?

Wi-Fi HaLow was published in 2017 as an amendment of the IEEE 802.11-2007 wireless networking standard. It takes the 802.11a/g specification and downsamples it to operate on a minimum of 1 MHz bandwidth, allowing for 26 channels in the 902–928 MHz ISM band. Each of the channels is typically able to provide 100 kbit/s throughput. Compared to conventional Wi-Fi networks operating in the 2.4, 5 and 6 GHz bands it offers better range and energy consumption, still offering well known Wi-Fi networking. HaLow also includes additional mechanisms to simplify the management of IoT networks. It addresses the most significant challenges in the IoT world: high device density and deep sleep mode.

What is the difference between Wi-Fi and Wi-Fi HaLow?

Wi-Fi HaLow is designed to accommodate the unique challenges of connecting large groups of IoT devices. The theoretical limit for the number of devices connected to a single access point is as high as 8,000. Experience shows that even 1,000 devices are no problem, which is a much better result than with traditional Wi-Fi. [1]

Using the sub-GHz band allows for better range and signal penetration. Various tests have shown that the range of one kilometer specified in the standard can often be extended to several kilometers. [2]

Wi-Fi HaLow also has a lot to offer for client devices. It is more energy efficient thanks to redefined rules on how deep devices could sleep. The device doesn’t need to wake up frequently to check for new messages. The protocol ensures devices easily meet or exceed standby power regulations.

Advantages of Wi-Fi HaLow

An important property of Wi-Fi HaLow is the Restricted Access Windows (RAW), which allows the devices only to transmit their data during specific, pre-negotiated time slots. Since devices only need to wake up during their RAWs to communicate, this not only reduces the probability of collisions but also helps in reducing the battery consumption.

The 802.11ah standard allows devices to stay associated with the network even if they sleep for weeks or months. When the device finally wakes up, it can immediately transmit data without having to waste power re-establishing its connection and security credentials.

HaLow uses compressed, highly streamlined headers. Because the device spends less time transmitting the “wrapper,” the radio is turned on for a shorter duration. In battery conservation, every millisecond the radio is active counts.

The improvements described above result in a significant reduction in energy consumption. In “Survey on Wireless Technology Trade-Offs for the Industrial Internet of Things” [3], it was demonstrated that a device connecting at 10-minute intervals can operate for years on a battery with a capacity of approximately 1000 mAh. Another article “Energy Consumption Modeling for Wi-Fi HaLow Networks” [4] showed the exact energy consumption during the transmission of data packets was measured and can be expressed in mJ.

What is LoRa?

LoRa (from “long range”) is a physical proprietary radio communication technique based on spread spectrum modulation. The technology is primarily used for applications where small amounts of data need to be transmitted infrequently from hard-to-reach locations, such as in smart agriculture, industrial monitoring, and asset tracking.

LoRa uses a proprietary spread spectrum modulation that is similar to and a derivative of chirp spread spectrum (CSS) modulation. It has parametrization which allows one to choose the number of bits sent per symbol which translates to change in sensitivity and baudrate.

When to choose Wi-Fi HaLow over LoRa

The most significant difference between these technologies is their bandwidth. LoRa is significantly slower than HaLow. The theoretical speeds achieved by these standards range from 27 kbit/s for LoRa to 150 kbit/s up to 78 Mbit/s for Wi-Fi HaLow. Therefore, if our device will, for example, only send text logs, we can choose either technology. On the other hand, if we want to send large data packets such as high-sampling measurement data or images, Wi-Fi HaLow is the natural choice.

Bandwidth and range often go hand in hand, and this duo is no exception. For HaLow, the standard operating range is up to 1 km. Tests show that under favorable conditions, this range can be significantly extended to 3 or even 16 kilometers. [2]

In this competition, LoRa is the clear frontrunner, offering typical ranges of up to 5 kilometers in dense urban areas and 10–20 kilometers in open or sparsely populated areas. Therefore, if we need a range of several kilometers in challenging conditions, the solution is to base our communication on LoRa or LoRaWAN.

What is NB-IoT?

NB-IoT (Narrowband IoT) is an energy-efficient LPWA wireless technology operating in the licensed LTE band, ideal for transmitting small amounts of data via IoT devices. It offers energy efficiency, long-range coverage, and excellent indoor penetration, enabling high connection density. NB-IoT uses a subset of the LTE standard, but limits the bandwidth to a single narrow-band of 200 kHz.

Wi-Fi HaLow advantages over NB-IoT

NB-IoT requires access to existing LTE-M/NB-IoT infrastructure and a contract with the operator managing it. Access to professional infrastructure operating on a dedicated and licensed band allows for the support of a large number of client devices in high-density environments. What is an advantage of this technology is also its disadvantage when it comes to the need to pay for access and the overall dependence on external infrastructure.

Purchasing and maintaining infrastructure over the long term, spanning the entire product lifecycle, may prove more cost-effective than relying on an external provider.

HaLow is ideal for situations where it is possible to install your own infrastructure and where devices are deployed across a regional area. Additionally, using HaLow allows you to create your own isolated network of IoT devices. However, if your devices are sparsely deployed, that is, if the distances between them are measured in kilometers, it makes sense to use shared NB-IoT infrastructure.

Comparison table

Feature	Wi-Fi HaLow (802.11ah)	LoRa / LoRaWAN	NB-IoT
Data Throughput	High (150 kbps to 78 Mbps)	Low (0.3 kbps to 27 kbps)	Medium (Up to ~250 kbps)
Typical Range	1 km (up to 16 km in ideal conditions)	5 km (urban) to 20+ km (rural)	Several km (cellular coverage dependent)
Infrastructure	Private (Custom Access Points)	Private or Public Gateways	Public (Cellular Operator Networks)
Spectrum	Unlicensed (Sub-GHz, e.g., 868/915 MHz)	Unlicensed (Sub-GHz, e.g., 900 MHz)	Licensed (LTE Band)
Power Consumption	Very Low	Ultra Low	Low to Medium
Operational Costs	Hardware setup, no ongoing subscription	Hardware setup, optional network access fees	Subscription fees per device (SIM)
Signal Penetration	Good	Excellent (Best for underground/basements)	Very Good
Key Strength	High bandwidth for a Sub-GHz LPWAN	Extreme range and battery life	Synchronous transmissions without gateway maintenance

Best uses cases for Wi-Fi HaLow, LoRa, and NB-IoT

To best understand how these technologies differ, it is worth examining their use in specific use cases.

Wireless surveillance network

Let’s assume our task is to set up a wireless surveillance network: for example, to monitor trespassing on the farm. The sensors are located on private property, at fairly large distances from one another. Therefore, it is important that the network’s bandwidth allows for video transmission and that we can set up our infrastructure.

Wi-Fi HaLow is ideal for this task. Compared to competing technologies, it offers the highest bandwidth, allowing images to be transmitted in just a few seconds. NB-IoT takes over a dozen seconds to do this, while LoRa takes minutes. [5]

Waste bins monitoring

Sometimes our sensor network needs to take measurements synchronously. Occasional, relatively high network loads can lead to packet delivery issues and, as a result, transmission delays. An example of such an application is the waste bins monitoring network.

Under these conditions, NB-IoT is the best choice. With this technology, base stations manage network traffic by actively limiting packet collisions. Even though devices wake up at roughly the same time, transmission happens only when the transmission channel is free.

According to simulation studies, the latency for synchronous transmission from several dozen sensors is less than one second. By comparison, HaLow and LoRa require multiple retransmissions, which can result in latency ranging from a dozen or so to several dozen seconds. [5]

Underground monitoring

LoRa has an advantage in situations where maximum range and optimal terrain penetration are essential. If our devices were located in basements or underground, Wi-Fi HaLow and NB-IoT would often struggle with coverage. During simulation tests, a scenario was set up involving underground soil sensors placed just 30 centimeters below the surface. The tests showed that only LoRa was suitable for reliable and stable communication. Bandwidth isn’t an issue here either. Environmental sensors send relatively small data packets. [5]

Conclusion

Each of the technologies mentioned works very well for connecting IoT devices over long distances. It’s not easy to say which one is the best. When choosing a technology for a product, it’s the specific use case that will determine which communication standard is best suited to our needs.

If your deployment demands high data throughput, such as transmitting images, while maintaining a private, self-managed network, Wi-Fi HaLow emerges as the clear winner.

Conversely, if your sensors are scattered across vast distances, buried underground, or transmitting mere bytes of data sporadically, LoRa provides unmatched battery life and signal penetration. For widespread, synchronized deployments where investing in private gateway infrastructure is impractical, NB-IoT leverages reliable, pre-existing cellular networks to ensure stable message delivery.

Finally, mapping your exact requirements for bandwidth, range, infrastructure control, and total cost of ownership against these technological strengths is the key to building a reliable and future-proof IoT ecosystem.