Who Can tell me the difference between z-wave and zigbee, as well as their respective strengths and
- Thread starter cluzchen
- Start date
cluzchen,
That's a pretty open ended topic and even though I'm definitely not the authority, I'll give it a first pass before the experts get here.
First, I'd recommend looking at Wikipedia for the nitty, gritty details.
Here are some high level generalities from a home automation perspective. Note that this isn't an either/or type of discussion. I have read of many that use Zwave (or UPB) for lighting and Zigbee for locks and thermostats or any combination.
Zwave:
David
That's a pretty open ended topic and even though I'm definitely not the authority, I'll give it a first pass before the experts get here.
First, I'd recommend looking at Wikipedia for the nitty, gritty details.
Here are some high level generalities from a home automation perspective. Note that this isn't an either/or type of discussion. I have read of many that use Zwave (or UPB) for lighting and Zigbee for locks and thermostats or any combination.
Zwave:
- Seems to be more popular as I believe the licensing is easier or more flexible
- More popular than Zigbee for home automation, especially lighting
- Widest array of devices compared to Zigbee. Lighting, locks, thermostats, switches, occupancy detectors, and much more are available.
- Fairly standard so in general switches and devices from different companies will work together...in general.
- Each device (except battery powered) is a repeater, which creates a mesh network repeating signals. Means the network is better as you get more devices. Too many devices (100?) might saturate the network, especially if you have a lighting profile that might require turning off or on all lights in a house.
- Multiple application profiles, which has fractured Zigbee to a degree. The main one you want for home automation is the aptly named Zigbee Home Automation application profile. Zigbee Smart Energy is another popular application profile, primarily for use by energy providers such as electric or water companies.
- Devices are primarily thermostats, energy management, or locks. Fewer options related to lighting or switches.
- Like Zwave, Zigbee is a mesh network type of technology where more devices generally result in a more reliable implementation.
- Longer range (in general) than Zwave but most installations will still require multiple devices for a suitable mesh. With a fewer selection of devices available, it may be more difficult to setup a suitable mesh network for a larger house.
David
dgage
Thank you for your reply!
About "
I do not understand.
whati is the difference about networking mode between z-wave and zigbee
Thank you for your reply!
About "
- Longer range (in general) than Zwave but most installations will still require multiple devices for a suitable mesh. With a fewer selection of devices available, it may be more difficult to setup a suitable mesh network for a larger house.
I do not understand.
whati is the difference about networking mode between z-wave and zigbee
Zwave is a wireless technology with each device (not battery powered) will act as a repeater creating a mesh network. Having trouble with your Zwave lock in the back of the house, then add a light switch or two near the back and that should fill in the network.
Zigbee is similar to Zwave in terms of the mesh network with even greater range (varies based on environmental factors). However, due to fewer devices available for Zigbee, most implementations in a home have a smaller number of Zigbee devices. The device limit isn't the issue, just the number and type of devices available for purchase so you might have to go find a Zigbee HA wall plug to expand the mesh of your network. For me for instance I have a thermostat near my front door so that could repeat the signal for a Zigbee lock but I'd have to think about a device to purchase to communicate with a back door Zigbee HA lock and one or two devices in the middle.
Zigbee can cover a home like Zwave but it is easier to have many light switches handle the "meshing" of a network and there simply aren't many options for Zigbee lighting that follow an open standard such as Zigbee HA. There are a few lighting offerings that are proprietary Zigbee but that isn't really Zigbee anymore in my opinion. When you compare Zwave and Zigbee, for the purposes of our discussion, you should really be comparing Zwave and Zigbee HA.
MY OPINION: (I don't have any of these technologies and just received my RadioRa 2 shipment today). I researched Zwave and read about too many people having too many issues, at least with larger implementations. I looked at Zigbee HA but there aren't enough options for total home automation. I looked at UPB, which seems to be the most reliable lighting technology although isn't really growing. Note that with UPB, you will need some sort of phase coupler or repeater from the company that makes your switches as the communication occurs on the home's power lines. I went with Lutron RadioRa 2, which is a proprietary and not DIY friendly option but is robust, has strong statusing, and has many device and decor options. It also doesnt have support in most HA software packages although CQC is supposed to have one soon. You could also look at Insteon, which is primarily an offering of SmartHome.com.
I would also recommend you consider a combo implementation such as all of your lighting on UPB or Zwave and everything else on Zwave or Zigbee. But that is a recommendation with no basis as we don't know what you are trying to accomplish, how big a house, how many devices, and how much you want to spend vs do yourself.
David
David
Zigbee is similar to Zwave in terms of the mesh network with even greater range (varies based on environmental factors). However, due to fewer devices available for Zigbee, most implementations in a home have a smaller number of Zigbee devices. The device limit isn't the issue, just the number and type of devices available for purchase so you might have to go find a Zigbee HA wall plug to expand the mesh of your network. For me for instance I have a thermostat near my front door so that could repeat the signal for a Zigbee lock but I'd have to think about a device to purchase to communicate with a back door Zigbee HA lock and one or two devices in the middle.
Zigbee can cover a home like Zwave but it is easier to have many light switches handle the "meshing" of a network and there simply aren't many options for Zigbee lighting that follow an open standard such as Zigbee HA. There are a few lighting offerings that are proprietary Zigbee but that isn't really Zigbee anymore in my opinion. When you compare Zwave and Zigbee, for the purposes of our discussion, you should really be comparing Zwave and Zigbee HA.
MY OPINION: (I don't have any of these technologies and just received my RadioRa 2 shipment today). I researched Zwave and read about too many people having too many issues, at least with larger implementations. I looked at Zigbee HA but there aren't enough options for total home automation. I looked at UPB, which seems to be the most reliable lighting technology although isn't really growing. Note that with UPB, you will need some sort of phase coupler or repeater from the company that makes your switches as the communication occurs on the home's power lines. I went with Lutron RadioRa 2, which is a proprietary and not DIY friendly option but is robust, has strong statusing, and has many device and decor options. It also doesnt have support in most HA software packages although CQC is supposed to have one soon. You could also look at Insteon, which is primarily an offering of SmartHome.com.
I would also recommend you consider a combo implementation such as all of your lighting on UPB or Zwave and everything else on Zwave or Zigbee. But that is a recommendation with no basis as we don't know what you are trying to accomplish, how big a house, how many devices, and how much you want to spend vs do yourself.
David
David
Dean Roddey
Senior Member
A first cut at our RadioRA2 driver is out there in the latest beta release.
On the Z-Wave/Zigbee front, Z-Wave and Zigbee are from the same basic DNA. The Z-Wave folks split off from the Zigbee group, and went for a lower cost, less powerful system. They probably figured get it out there no matter what and win by being first. That has had costs though of course. Zigbee's design went on for considerably longer and, as I understand it, it's a considerably more advanced technology, which is why it's almost always picked by companies who are working on the control and automation side of things, as opposed to simple devices to be controlled. OTOH of course, Zigbee remained a consortium operation, with all the design by committee issues that can sometimes include and maybe a lot to do with the time required to finalize it, while Z-Wave was done by one company (Zen-Sys.)
Zigbee is definitely higher bandwidth. The original Z-Wave devices were like 9600 baud, and I think the newer generation ones are like 40K baud. Zigbee (depending on the frequency used in a given market) can go up to like 900K baud. I think here in the US it's 250K baud, so a lot faster than Z-Wave, vastly faster than powerline technologies, though still very slow by modern comm standards.
Zen-Sys clearly went for a lower end market, keeping the power and data rates low for low cost, and less smarts in the network as I understand it. If folks would start making a lot more generally useable Zigbee gear, it would likely be a lot better choice, and the prices would come down. But it's been more popular so far amongst folks looking to provide proprietary wireless technology for their own hardware systems.
A quick search seems to show that there are some companies out there making ready to integrate Zigbee guts, right? So hopefully more folks will start building gear around it.
On the Z-Wave/Zigbee front, Z-Wave and Zigbee are from the same basic DNA. The Z-Wave folks split off from the Zigbee group, and went for a lower cost, less powerful system. They probably figured get it out there no matter what and win by being first. That has had costs though of course. Zigbee's design went on for considerably longer and, as I understand it, it's a considerably more advanced technology, which is why it's almost always picked by companies who are working on the control and automation side of things, as opposed to simple devices to be controlled. OTOH of course, Zigbee remained a consortium operation, with all the design by committee issues that can sometimes include and maybe a lot to do with the time required to finalize it, while Z-Wave was done by one company (Zen-Sys.)
Zigbee is definitely higher bandwidth. The original Z-Wave devices were like 9600 baud, and I think the newer generation ones are like 40K baud. Zigbee (depending on the frequency used in a given market) can go up to like 900K baud. I think here in the US it's 250K baud, so a lot faster than Z-Wave, vastly faster than powerline technologies, though still very slow by modern comm standards.
Zen-Sys clearly went for a lower end market, keeping the power and data rates low for low cost, and less smarts in the network as I understand it. If folks would start making a lot more generally useable Zigbee gear, it would likely be a lot better choice, and the prices would come down. But it's been more popular so far amongst folks looking to provide proprietary wireless technology for their own hardware systems.
A quick search seems to show that there are some companies out there making ready to integrate Zigbee guts, right? So hopefully more folks will start building gear around it.
tmbrown97
Senior Member
Great explanation Dean - very informative!
And one clarification re: UPB above - a phase coupler is not always required; my previous home was 2500sq ft and I did not have one, even though I had electric everything, including pool pumps, etc - I had no issues (the signal actually goes all the way back to the transformer and hops legs to come back as I understand) - whereas my current 4K Sq Ft house with the transformer literally in my front yard and not a pool around requires 2 phase couplers to operate reliably. It just depends on the house. And it doesn't have to be from the same maker as your switches; however there are some GenI/GenII considerations to pay attention to.
And one clarification re: UPB above - a phase coupler is not always required; my previous home was 2500sq ft and I did not have one, even though I had electric everything, including pool pumps, etc - I had no issues (the signal actually goes all the way back to the transformer and hops legs to come back as I understand) - whereas my current 4K Sq Ft house with the transformer literally in my front yard and not a pool around requires 2 phase couplers to operate reliably. It just depends on the house. And it doesn't have to be from the same maker as your switches; however there are some GenI/GenII considerations to pay attention to.
AOTyler
New Member
I think most of your questions have been addressed here, but here's a few more key points.
Zwave is 908.42 mhz, and Zigbee operates around 2.4 ghz.
Mixing technologies is pretty standard practice. i.e. UPB for lighting, Zwave/Zigbee for locks and thermostats. Unless of course you can run a line to your thermostats from the controller, then hardwired would be more cost effective.
Between GenI and GenII. Your main considerations will be in phase couplers and repeaters. Keep those consistent between the two Generations, but your switches are typically interchangeable.
Phase couplers are great for mitigating any future issues with UPB, but are not always necessary.
Zwave is 908.42 mhz, and Zigbee operates around 2.4 ghz.
Mixing technologies is pretty standard practice. i.e. UPB for lighting, Zwave/Zigbee for locks and thermostats. Unless of course you can run a line to your thermostats from the controller, then hardwired would be more cost effective.
Between GenI and GenII. Your main considerations will be in phase couplers and repeaters. Keep those consistent between the two Generations, but your switches are typically interchangeable.
Phase couplers are great for mitigating any future issues with UPB, but are not always necessary.
