Technology Comparison
Wired vs Wireless Sensors
Installation cost, power, and flexibility when comparing copper runs to LoRaWAN nodes.
Last updated:
Feature Comparison
| Feature | Wired | Wireless (LoRaWAN) |
|---|---|---|
| Installation cost | High when cabling, risers, or trench work is required | Lower for retrofits — no copper run to each node |
| Power | Continuous mains / PoE | Battery or harvested; replacement cycles planned in the SKU |
| Flexibility | Fixed locations once pulled | Nodes relocate without rewiring |
| Data continuity | Strong for continuous / high-rate sampling | Best for sparse uplinks; not a video pipe |
| Harsh / outdoor access | Excellent when conduit is already present | Strong for hard-to-reach points without new copper |
Sources
- LoRa Alliance — What is LoRaWAN — accessed 2026-09-25Protocol overview; regional parameters and typical LPWAN use cases.
- ParticlIO engineering practice notes — accessed 2026-09-25Installation cost and TCO tradeoffs from hardware programs — not a lab certificate.
Range, battery, and rate figures are typical published or field values under stated conditions — confirm for your site survey and SKU. Do not cite hub-card blurbs without these sources.
Best Use Cases
Choose Wired When...
- Critical process control
- High-frequency data sampling
- Permanent installations
- Real-time safety systems
- High-bandwidth applications
Choose Wireless When...
- Retrofit existing facilities
- Remote or distributed assets
- Temporary deployments
- Hard-to-reach locations
- Cost-sensitive projects
Frequently Asked Questions
LoRaWAN hardware, standard products, and custom programs
Choose wireless when cabling is costly or disruptive — retrofits, outdoor sites, multi-building campuses. Choose wired for continuous power, very high sample rates, or codes that favor fixed copper/fiber paths.
Next: life-safety endpoints · gateways · all comparisons