ANT’s Competitive Advantages
Proven and practical, ANT meets and exceeds wireless system requirements while retaining its core competency of:
- Ultra low power
- Low system cost
- Flexible networking topology
- Easy to use
Study Chooses ANT
A brief competitive market analysis shows that ZigBee was also intended to be the ultra-low power wireless network solution. ANT, however, is 4x lower power and 60% BOM cost of a ZigBee node while providing a much simpler sensor and network development environment. Note: In a recent third party study of home security system development, ANT proved to save 50% on development time over ZigBee. As a separate comparative, Bluetooth is designed for audio bandwidth and is not capable of running from a coin cell.
Learn more...
Low Battery Requirements
The demands for WSNs differ significantly from less complex Personal Area Networks (PANs) and Wireless Local Area Networks (WLANs) serviced by Bluetooth and Wi-Fi®. To be competitive with traditional wired systems, WSNs must be very reliable, feature ultra-low power consumption (because many of the network nodes have to be battery-powered and often be hard to access) and above all, inexpensive to purchase, install and maintain. ANT is the ideal protocol to meet these constraints.
Optional Interoperability
ANT offers the only available practical watch technology that enables communication between this watch hub and various sensors. The reliable connectivity of ANT+ makes it possible for various manufacturers’ products to wirelessly interface. This promotes consumer choice for best-in-class products – a critical element in the viability, growth and success of any technological innovation. Still fulfilling market need, SensRcore allows designers to immediately utilize the wireless protocol in myriad applications. And ANT’s single chip solution minimizes cost and footprint for tomorrow’s increasingly smaller device designs.
Technical Comparisons
Technical comparison of ANT, ZigBee, and Bluetooth
| Market name | ANT | ZigBee | Bluetooth |
| Standard | Proprietary | IEEE802.15.4 | IEEE802.15.1 |
| Application | PANs and WSNs | PANs and WSNs | PANs |
| Host resources (kByte) | 2(0 with SensRcore™) | 100 | 250 |
| Battery life (with coin-cell battery)§ | 3+ years | 4 to 6 months* | 1 to 7 days* |
| Max. network size (nodes) | 2^32 | 2^64 | 7 |
| Over the air transmission rate (kbit/s) | 1000 | 250 | 1000 |
| Required PCB area (mm2) | 125 | Depends on architecture | Depends on architecture |
| Range (metres) | 1 to 30 | 1 to 100+ | 1 to 10+ |
| Success metrics | Ultra-low power, cost | Power, cost | Cost, convenience |
| Supported networks | Peer-to-peer, star, tree, mesh | Peer-to-peer, star, tree, mesh | Peer-to-peer, star |
| Min. node configuration | Transmit only or transceiver | Transceiver | Transceiver |
§ 8 Byte data message, 2 second message interval, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
* Theoretical only. Peak current requirement for ZigBee and Bluetooth exceeds coin cell battery capability so coin cell operation is impractical.
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.
In addition, ZigBee’s relatively complex protocol increases the external microcontroller burden compared with ANT, demanding microcontrollers that are more powerful and increasing system cost by 60 percent. ANT’s requirement for external host resources is eliminated when using SensRcore™.
In operation, ANT’s 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.