LoRaWAN vs WiFi: Choosing the Right Protocol for Building IoT

Introduction

Choosing the right wireless protocol for your building IoT deployment is a critical decision that affects range, reliability, battery life, and total cost of ownership. This guide compares two popular options: LoRaWAN and WiFi.

Protocol Overview

WiFi (802.11)

The familiar wireless networking standard, now extending into IoT applications with protocols like WiFi HaLow (802.11ah).

LoRaWAN

A low-power, wide-area network protocol designed specifically for IoT applications requiring long range and extended battery life.

Comparison by Key Factors

Range

WiFi

• Typical indoor range: 30-50 meters
• Significantly impacted by walls and obstacles
• Requires access points throughout the building

LoRaWAN

• Indoor range: 100-300+ meters
• Better penetration through walls and floors
• Fewer gateways needed for building coverage

Winner: LoRaWAN for range and coverage

Power Consumption

WiFi

• Higher power consumption
• Typically requires wired power or frequent battery changes
• WiFi HaLow improves but still higher than LoRaWAN

LoRaWAN

• Designed for ultra-low power
• Sensors can run for 5-10 years on batteries
• Ideal for retrofit applications without power infrastructure

Winner: LoRaWAN for battery-powered sensors

Data Rate

WiFi

• Mbps data rates (more than most IoT needs)
• Suitable for video, large file transfers
• Real-time data streaming possible

LoRaWAN

• Kbps data rates
• Sufficient for sensor readings, status updates
• Not suitable for streaming or large payloads

Winner: WiFi when high bandwidth is needed

Latency

WiFi

• Low latency (milliseconds)
• Suitable for real-time control applications

LoRaWAN

• Higher latency (seconds to minutes typical)
• Designed for non-time-critical applications

Winner: WiFi for real-time applications

Security

WiFi

• WPA3 provides strong security
• Mature, well-understood security model
• Part of enterprise network security infrastructure

LoRaWAN

• AES-128 encryption
• Separate from IT network (reduces attack surface)
• End-to-end encryption built in

Winner: Tie - both offer adequate security when properly implemented

Cost Considerations

WiFi

• Lower device cost (commodity hardware)
• Higher infrastructure cost (more access points)
• Higher power costs if batteries needed

LoRaWAN

• Higher device cost (specialized hardware)
• Lower infrastructure cost (fewer gateways)
• Lower operating costs (long battery life)

Winner: Depends on deployment scale and requirements

Use Case Recommendations

Use WiFi For:

• High-bandwidth applications (cameras, displays)
• Real-time control requirements
• Areas with existing WiFi coverage
• Devices with available power connections

Use LoRaWAN For:

• Environmental sensors (temperature, humidity, CO2)
• Occupancy sensors in areas without power
• Building-wide deployments across multiple floors
• Retrofit applications without existing infrastructure

Consider Hybrid Approach

Many smart building deployments benefit from using both protocols for different applications:

• LoRaWAN for distributed sensor networks
• WiFi for user-facing devices and real-time systems

Implementation Tips

LoRaWAN Deployment

• Conduct site survey for gateway placement
• Consider outdoor gateway mounting for better coverage
• Plan for redundant gateway coverage
• Use appropriate spreading factors for your range needs

WiFi IoT Deployment

• Ensure sufficient access point density
• Consider dedicated IoT SSID with appropriate security
• Plan for network traffic management
• Monitor for interference issues

The CONTEXUS Platform

CONTEXUS supports both WiFi and LoRaWAN protocols through our unified IoT Hub. Our open architecture allows you to choose the best protocol for each application while maintaining a single management and analytics platform.

Conclusion

There is no one-size-fits-all answer to the WiFi vs LoRaWAN question. Evaluate your specific requirements for range, power, data rate, and cost to make the right choice for each application. Many successful smart building deployments use both protocols strategically.