LoRaWAN vs NB-IoT: which low-power network should you use?
LoRaWAN runs in unlicensed bands on gateways anyone can install; NB-IoT runs on operator spectrum. Coverage, cost, battery, latency and downlink compared.
Photo: Sergej ***** / Unsplash
After reading this article you will be able to:
- Explain how licensed and unlicensed spectrum change capacity, duty cycle and service guarantees
- Compare coverage ownership, cost model, battery life, latency and downlink for both networks
- Pick LoRaWAN, NB-IoT or LTE-M for a given fleet of devices and installation sites
On this page
LoRaWAN and NB-IoT target the same kind of device: a battery-powered meter, probe or sensor that sends a few bytes now and then and has to last for years. They get there in opposite ways. LoRaWAN runs in unlicensed radio bands on gateways that anyone can install, under specifications from the LoRa Alliance. NB-IoT is a cellular technology from 3GPP that runs on spectrum licensed to mobile operators, on their base stations, behind a SIM.
The short answer. Choose LoRaWAN when your devices are concentrated in places where you can put gateways (a farm, a campus, a factory, a utility’s service area or a city district), when you want to avoid a subscription per device, and when the traffic is small uplinks with rare commands back. Choose NB-IoT when devices are spread across a whole country, when operator coverage already reaches the installation sites including basements, and when you prefer paying per SIM to running infrastructure. If the devices move or need quick responses, look at LTE-M before either.
| LoRaWAN | NB-IoT | |
|---|---|---|
| Spectrum | Unlicensed sub-GHz ISM bands, shared | Licensed operator spectrum |
| Standard | LoRa Alliance specifications | 3GPP, from Release 13 |
| Who provides coverage | You, an operator, or a community network | A mobile operator |
| Cost model | Gateways and a network server, or a fee to a LoRaWAN operator | Cellular module plus a subscription per device |
| Downlink | Class A: only right after an uplink | Network can page the device when it is listening |
| Moving devices | No handover needed, any gateway hears it | Limited mobility support |
Who owns the network, and why does that matter?
With LoRaWAN, coverage is something you can build. One gateway with an IP backhaul and a network server, self-hosted or rented, is a working network. If a sensor in a cellar cannot be heard, you add a gateway near it. You also choose how much you depend on others: a private network has no third party at all, a public LoRaWAN operator sells coverage like a carrier, and community networks offer coverage with no fee and no guarantee.
With NB-IoT, the operator owns the radio network, the core and the spectrum. You buy a module and a SIM or eSIM profile, and coverage is whatever the operator has deployed and keeps running. That removes infrastructure work and gives you a contract to point at when something fails. It also means a coverage gap you cannot fix yourself, roaming agreements to check for devices that cross borders, and a dependency on the operator’s plans for the technology over the life of your devices.
How do licensed and unlicensed spectrum change the rules?
Unlicensed spectrum is free to use but shared, and the rules keep it fair. In Europe, ERC Recommendation 70-03 limits non-specific short-range devices in the 868.0 to 868.6 MHz band to a duty cycle of 1 percent, with a 10 percent band at 869.4 to 869.65 MHz. Gateways are bound by the same rules as sensors, which is the main reason LoRaWAN downlinks are scarce: a gateway that answers many devices runs out of airtime. The LoRaWAN regional parameters build these limits into the channel plan, for example by placing the default second receive window for EU868 downlinks at 869.525 MHz, inside the 10 percent band. Other users of the band, from alarm sensors to other networks, add interference you cannot control.
Licensed spectrum belongs to the operator. No duty-cycle cap applies to the device, the base station schedules who transmits when, and interference from strangers is not a design factor. The operator decides capacity, priority and pricing.
How do coverage and indoor reach compare?
NB-IoT was designed for deep indoor coverage. 3GPP set a target of 164 dB maximum coupling loss for standalone deployment, using a narrow 180 kHz carrier and repeated transmissions, so that a meter in a basement or a sensor in a manhole can still reach the cell. Where the operator has enabled NB-IoT, coverage is broad and you do not plan anything.
LoRaWAN’s link budget is also large, and a gateway on a tall building covers kilometers, but coverage only exists where gateways are. For a single site that is an advantage: a few well-placed gateways can cover places a cell tower reaches badly. For devices scattered across a country, building that coverage yourself is rarely realistic.
What do battery life, latency and downlink look like?
Both can run for years on a battery when the device sleeps most of the time and sends small payloads. 3GPP’s design target for NB-IoT was about 10 years on a 5 Wh battery, depending on traffic and coverage. A LoRaWAN Class A device has a very low overhead per message: it wakes, transmits, opens two short receive windows and sleeps, with no network attach to maintain. NB-IoT devices rely on Power Saving Mode and extended discontinuous reception to get close to that; a device that stays connected out of convenience drains its battery quickly.
Downlink is where the two differ most. Under the LoRaWAN specification, a Class A device can receive only in the windows after its own uplink, so a command waits until the device next reports. NB-IoT devices can be paged by the network at their listening intervals, which 3GPP allows to stretch to about three hours in idle mode to save energy. In both cases you trade responsiveness for battery, but NB-IoT gives you more ways to tune the trade and more downlink capacity.
Throughput is small for both. On the default EU868 channels, LoRaWAN data rates span roughly 0.3 to 5 kbit/s with LoRa modulation, and the first NB-IoT release peaked at about 50 kbit/s on the downlink with half-duplex operation. NB-IoT is better suited to occasional firmware updates, though neither is comfortable with large ones.
How do the costs compare?
Neither is cheaper in every case; the cost structure is different. LoRaWAN shifts spending to the start of the project: gateways, installation, backhaul and a network server, then low running costs per device. That favors many devices on one site. NB-IoT shifts spending to the life of the project: a cellular module, which usually costs more than a LoRa radio, and a subscription per device for as long as it runs. That favors few devices spread far apart. Compare the total cost of ownership over the expected life of the fleet, including the cost of visiting a device that stopped reporting.
When should you pick each?
Pick LoRaWAN for:
- Many devices on land or buildings you control, such as agriculture, campuses, factories and utility networks.
- Projects that must avoid per-device subscriptions or keep the data path entirely private.
- Sites where operator coverage is weak but you can place a gateway.
Pick NB-IoT for:
- Fixed devices spread across a region or country, such as meters, parking sensors and alarms.
- Deployments where nobody wants to own radio infrastructure.
- Devices that need more dependable downlink or acknowledged delivery than a LoRaWAN gateway’s airtime allows.
Pick LTE-M instead when devices move at vehicle speed, need voice, or need sub-second responses. The NB-IoT and LTE-M guide explains that choice.
Where to go next
- LoRaWAN explained covers gateways, device classes and security in detail.
- NB-IoT and LTE-M explained covers the two cellular options and power saving modes.
- LoRa vs LoRaWAN separates the radio from the network protocol.
- IoT connectivity overview compares the whole range of radio options.
Topics: LoRaWAN, NB-IoT, LPWAN, cellular IoT, comparison