{"id":717,"date":"2010-08-22T07:32:53","date_gmt":"2010-08-22T06:32:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.gsm-modem.de\/M2M\/?p=717"},"modified":"2010-08-22T11:08:20","modified_gmt":"2010-08-22T10:08:20","slug":"comparison-of-ant-zigbee-bluetooth","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.gsm-modem.de\/M2M\/m2m-componets\/comparison-of-ant-zigbee-bluetooth\/","title":{"rendered":"Technical comparison of ANT, ZigBee and Bluetooth"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Market name<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\nANT<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\nZigBee<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\nBluetooth<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Standard<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\nProprietary<\/span><\/td>\nIEEE802.15.4<\/span><\/td>\nIEEE802.15.1<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Application<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\nPANs and WSNs<\/span><\/td>\nPANs and WSNs<\/span><\/td>\nPANs<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Host resources (kByte)<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\n2(0 with SensRcore\u00e2\u201e\u00a2)<\/span><\/td>\n100<\/span><\/td>\n250<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Battery life (with coin-cell battery)\u00c2\u00a7<\/sup><\/span><\/strong><\/td>\n3+ years<\/span><\/td>\n4 to 6 months*<\/span><\/td>\n1 to 7 days*<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Max. network size (nodes)<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\n2^32<\/span><\/td>\n2^64<\/span><\/td>\n7<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Over the air transmission rate (kbit\/s)<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\n1000<\/span><\/td>\n250<\/span><\/td>\n1000<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Required PCB area (mm2<\/sup>)<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\n125<\/span><\/td>\nDepends on architecture<\/span><\/td>\nDepends on architecture<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Range (metres)<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\n1 to 30<\/span><\/td>\n1 to 100+<\/span><\/td>\n1 to 10+<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Success metrics<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\nUltra-low power, cost<\/span><\/td>\nPower, cost<\/span><\/td>\nCost, convenience<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Supported networks<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\nPeer-to-peer, star, tree, mesh<\/span><\/td>\nPeer-to-peer, star, tree, mesh<\/span><\/td>\nPeer-to-peer, star<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Min. node configuration<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\nTransmit only or transceiver<\/span><\/td>\nTransceiver<\/span><\/td>\nTransceiver<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

\u00c2\u00a7 8 Byte data message, 2 second message interval, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

* Theoretical only. Peak current requirement for ZigBee and Bluetooth exceeds coin cell battery capability so coin cell operation is impractical.<\/p>\n

The Bluetooth protocol is designed for rapid file transfer between devices in a PAN such as PDA, cell-phone and portable computer. Bluetooth\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s stack is 100 times larger than ANT, its average power consumption is 10 times greater and the hardware costs are 90 percent higher. Compared to Bluetooth, ZigBee is undoubtedly less expensive and more power efficient. ZigBee\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s backers make much of the fact that its protocol stack is less than a quarter the size of Bluetooth\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s. However, ANT is at least an order of magnitude smaller than ZigBee and forty times smaller than Bluetooth.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Current data on the not-yet-released Bluetooth Low Energy indicates that it will cost 25%-35% more per sensor node and consume a minimum of 25% more power for the same data transmitted.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In addition, ZigBee\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s relatively complex protocol increases the external micro controller burden compared with ANT, demanding micro controllers that are more powerful and increasing system cost by 60 percent. ANT\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s requirement for external host resources is eliminated when using SensRcore\u00e2\u201e\u00a2.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In operation, ANT\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s ultra-low power consumption makes ZigBee look distinctly power hungry. In similar applications with similar usage patterns, ANT transceivers using coin cell-type batteries can extend battery life up to four years compared to just a few months for ZigBee.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n