Comparison: HaLow vs LoRa vs 4G DTU
Three valid routes with different trade-offs. The right choice depends on data volume, coverage and whether the site should run as a private network.
Comparison Table
| Route | Bandwidth | Range and Networking | Cost Structure | Main Limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LoRa / LoRaWAN DTU | Below 50 kbps class | Long range, low data volume | No per-point public-network fee | Very low bandwidth; not suited to images or dense polling |
| 4G DTU | Mbps class, network dependent | Depends on operator coverage | Ongoing data fees and SIM management | Cannot serve sites without coverage; ongoing operating cost |
| Traditional radio DTU | Narrowband, kbps class | Mainly point-to-point | No per-point public-network fee | Small capacity, single function |
| Wi-Fi HaLow DTU (KF-DTU Gen1) | 2/4/8 Mbps selectable | 500 m per hop, 10-hop mesh, 50+ nodes | No cabling and no per-point public-network fee | Newer standard; buyers should plan a field pilot |
How to Decide
- Choose HaLow when you need Mbps-class data, image-capable links, many Modbus points, and a private network that works without public coverage.
- Choose LoRa when each point sends tiny packets infrequently and battery life measured in years is the priority.
- Choose 4G when points are widely scattered across cities with strong coverage and you accept ongoing data fees and SIM operations.
Many projects pilot the KF-DTU Gen1 on one cluster first. Arrange a pilot via trade and contact by RFQ. The full reasoning is in the guide HaLow vs LoRa vs 4G DTU.
Request a Quotation by RFQ
Share your project quantity, destination port and requirements for a quotation. Samples and project support are also arranged via RFQ.
Chat on WhatsApp: +86 130 7787 8567 Email Us: hemingwang@simiai.top