Zigbee vs. Z-Wave - ironic?

[homestuff]

Been looking into HA for a while, trying to make some decisions as to what to get. I've done a ton of reading, though no doubt I may have missed something.
 
I can't seem to find many Zigbee products that you can just buy whereas Z-Wave products seem to be easier to find. I understand some bigger companies have adopted Zigbee but as a person just wanting to find a Zigbee lightswitch, for example, it seems to be more a struggle. In addition, it also seems like Zigbee isn't as ironed out as Z-wave - some compatability issues? This seems ironic since Zigbee is supposed to go off of the open IEEE standard versus Z-Wave which doesn't have as open a standard?
 
I have no affiliation with either, just trying to make a decision. Does anyone agree, disagree?
 
I guess a follow up question is - is there a reliable, higher end controller that does zigbee/z-wave out of the box?
 
Thanks for any advice.

 

[drvnbysound]

What you've found is definitely the case... and due to product availability alone [between the two], I went with Zwave and haven't had any issues.

 

[Automate]

Right now Z-wave is more common and has more compatibility but the chips to make the devices come from only one company. Zigbee chips are made by multiple companies and their cost is lower because they have lower licensing cost.  So over time Zigbee could become cheaper and more popular..
 
There are some controller such as Lowes Iris, Almond+ and Revolv that support both protocols. 

 

[homestuff]

Thanks for the info. Almond+ isn't out yet I guess. Revolv is interesting but seems to be more focused on the mainstream so therefore less tweak-able.

 

[pete_c]

So over time Zigbee could become cheaper and more popular..

+1

 

[wuench]

My impression was that Zigbee was also fragmented and that a lot of the implementations were not interoperable....  ZWave seems to have the market share, it seems more vendors are jumping on board everyday.  I am not confident Zigbee will overtake it.

 

[pete_c]

Personally I do not think it's a technology automation thing at all. 
 
Both technologies are being utilized today.
 
Rather it will be what sells and how much will it cost. 
 
IE: a 10 pack of wireless automation do what's on special for $50 will sell no matter what technology is being utilized. 
 
Beta versus VHS
 

 

 

[Automate]

Another factor in the battle between Z-wave and Zigbee is the RF frequency they use.
 
Zigbee uses the 2.4GHz range like WiFi and Bluetooth and therefore the same battery operated Zibgee device can be sold in all countries.
 
Z-wave uses lower frequencies below 1Ghz.  In theory this could give them better penetration through walls.
But the problem is different countries/regions allow different frequencies so you have to make/ stock / ship different devices depending upon the buyer's region.  http://www.sigmadesigns.com/zwave_frequency_coverage.php
 
In North America, Zigbee for HA is well ahead, but in other parts of the world Zigbee may already be in the lead.
 
Edit: For instance.  The Almond+ supports both protocols but when they were deciding which type to bundle with their Almond+ they chose Zigbee because they could ship the same devices to more countries and were priced cheaper.

 

[Dean Roddey]

Zigbee supports multiple 'profiles' where are basically definitions of the syntax and semantics of the data being exchanged. For instance, there is a home automation profile, for control of any devices that implement that profile. But any company is free to use their own proprietary profile in order to make their hardware work only within their own environment. That's the issue at hand. It's not that Zibgee itself has gone in different directions, it's just designed to allow for the implementation of hardware that is designed for general interoperability or for proprietary use. A lot of the initial implementations were by companies who were looking for a way to provide better wireless systems, but not looking to sell general Zigbee hardware, so they have implemented proprietary profiles for their own use.

 

[pete_c]

Yup; for a bit of time got involved in that "wireless thing" relating to global implementation RF standards.  One size fits all type stuff.
 
What a PITA it was to deal with; always dinged my timeframes. 

 

[ano]

Its important to realize that comparing Zigbee and Z-Wave is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Just because they both start with Z and are both wireless doesn't mean they are similar. They aren't.
 
Z-Wave was created by a company called Zensys which was purchased by Sigma Designs in 2008, but the part to know is the technology, and standards are under the control of a single company, for better or worse.  Now that isn't to say they don't license the use to other companies, because they have, but overall, this one company controls Z-Wave.  For the technology that was been good, because everything works with everything following the Z-Wave standard.  But the good part of the situation is also the bad part. Z-wave has a quite limited function, and its hard for a single company to address everyone's needs for the technology, so they stay focused to their vision.
 
Zigbee was formed by committee and originated in the standards bodies. There are many companies involved, voicing what they want in the standard.   This has led to many flavors and layers of the technology, and it can now address everything from use in remote controls, to home automation, to medical, to lighting, you name it.  It can be interoperable, it can be proprietary, there all different flavors for every need, and it works almost everywhere in the world. BUT because its so big, it is growing in all directions, it is very different on how it appears. 
 
For anyone old enough to remember, Wi-Fi has followed a similar path. In the early "wireless IP" days, there were a few proprietary solutions, and then there was this thing called 802.11. Eventually it became cheaper for companies to follow the IEEE standard because it gave them more options then following a standard they had to license to use. 
 
If you look at the number of Z-Wave chips sold vs. the number of Zigbee, it isn't close. In 2012 the Zigbee Alliance noted that there were over 600 certified Zigbee products and "billions" of Zigbee chips sold. In January 2014, GreenPeak Technologies announced it was selling 1 million Zigbee chips per WEEK. Just one company. I don't know the Z-Wave numbers, but my guess is they are quite a bit less.

 

[ano]

Its important to realize that comparing Zigbee and Z-Wave is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Just because they both start with Z and are both wireless doesn't mean they are similar. They aren't.
 
Z-Wave was created by a company called Zensys which was purchased by Sigma Designs in 2008, but the part to know is the technology, and standards are under the control of a single company, for better or worse.  Now that isn't to say they don't license the use to other companies, because they have, but overall, this one company controls Z-Wave.  For the technology that was been good, because everything works with everything following the Z-Wave standard.  But the good part of the situation is also the bad part. Z-wave has a quite limited function, and its hard for a single company to address everyone's needs for the technology, so they stay focused to their vision.
 
Zigbee was formed by committee and originated in the standards bodies. There are many companies involved, voicing what they want in the standard.   This has led to many flavors and layers of the technology, and it can now address everything from use in remote controls, to home automation, to medical, to lighting, you name it.  It can be interoperable, it can be proprietary, there all different flavors for every need, and it works almost everywhere in the world. BUT because its so big, it is growing in all directions, it is very different on how it appears. 
 
For anyone old enough to remember, Wi-Fi has followed a similar path. In the early "wireless IP" days, there were a few proprietary solutions, and then there was this thing called 802.11. Eventually it became cheaper for companies to follow the IEEE standard because it gave them more options then following a standard they had to license to use. 
 
If you look at the number of Z-Wave chips sold vs. the number of Zigbee, it isn't close. In 2012 the Zigbee Alliance noted that there were over 600 certified Zigbee products and "billions" of Zigbee chips sold. In January 2014, GreenPeak Technologies announced it was selling 1 million Zigbee chips per WEEK. Just one company. I don't know the Z-Wave numbers, but my guess is they are quite a bit less.

 

[Dean Roddey]

Yeh, we in the HA world probably get a distorted view because there are probably a lot of those Zigbee chips being sold for stuff that we never are exposed to or use, whereas Z-Wave pushes hard to get its brand visible within this space.
 
I was looking through some info on Zigbee, thinking about how we might use the XBee modules to get CQC Zigbee enabled. But, as with first getting into Z-Wave, it's a chunk to bite off and hard to find the one piece of solid ground required to stand on and start building something. So much of the information (for both of them) is oriented towards the building of hardware products, and very little from the perspective of a software based automation system to interact with that network.
 
And throw in the many variations of XBee and whether any of them really support HA profile and how to make use of them and set them up, etc... it gets hairy to dig into.

 

[NeverDie]

802.15.4 will do well regardless of whether Zigbee does or not.  The 802.15.4 radios are much better than anything z-wave has had.  z-wave is limited to 1mw tx power, whereas for some time now you can buy off-the-shelf 802.15.4 radios with 500x that amount (if that's what you want) and that have great receive sensitivity as well.  It makes a difference.  Or you can go the other way, with small, low power modules that consume less than a microamp of current while asleep.  Also, there are mutliple 802.15.4 vendors, and troubleshooting connections in the field is a breeze because 802.15.4 is open and not the opaque box that z-wave is.  Z-wave is "exhibit A" as evidence that mesh networking does not adequately compensate for utilizing lousy PHY/MAC radios as the underpinnings for home automation.
 
802.15.4 allows for node addressing and automatic ACK's.  However, it doesn't do routing or meshing.  So, if you absolutely need that, you can either do it yourself (for many applications it wouldn't be difficult) and save yourself a licensing fee and possible hassles, or you can add/adapt a networking layer, of which Zigbee is just one example out of many. 
 
As a hypothetical "for instance," if I were to build a weather station with wireless weather sensors, it would be easy to do with 802.15.4.  I can't see any reason at all as to why I would ever want to build it using z-wave.  Z-wave would be more of a hassle, the performance would be worse, and probably the only people who could use it without problems are the small number who already have a solid z-wave network for it to piggy-back on.  Most likely with a z-wave solution I would be saddled with all kinds of support questions/issues that have nothing to do with the weather station or its sensors, but are just related to how poorly the users z-wave network performs or other z-wave related problems that are difficult  to troubleshoot because of z-wave's "opaque", closed standard.
 
You can extrapolate from that what you will.  If Leviton or Coopers or Lutron were to jump in with light switches, I don't think it will take much more than that to unseat z-wave.

 

[Automate]

@NeverDie
 
I agree.  Zigbee has been around longer than Z-wave but If Zigbee can't get the vendors to work toward better interoperability then some other protocol such as 6LoWPAN which uses 802.15.4 with IPv6 may fill the void.