Pozyx vs Sewio — wanneer elk UWB-platform wint.

In één oogopslag.

Pozyx: Belgisch UWB-platform; ontwikkelaarsvriendelijke architectuur en integratie-SDK; veel gebruikt in onderzoek, sportanalyse en middelgrote industrie; nauwkeurigheid 10–30 cm productiekwaliteit.

Sewio: Tsjechisch UWB-platform; productielijn industriële focus met RTLS Studio voor vloerplanmodellering; veel gebruikt in de autoindustrie en productie; Nauwkeurigheid 30 cm @ 95e percentiel.

Geen van beide leveranciers vergrendelt de installatie. Beide publiceren RF-ontwerpparameters open genoeg om onafhankelijke audit te ondersteunen. De beslissing is geschikt voor gebruik, niet voor technologiekwaliteit.

Waar Pozyx wint.

Ontwikkelaargerichte integratie: schone Python SDK en REST API; snelle prototyping; Voorkeur voor organisaties die op maat gemaakte locatie-intelligentie bouwen bovenop positiestromen.

Onderzoeks- en sportanalyse-implementaties waarbij flexibiliteit belangrijker is dan turnkey-uitrol.

Middelgrote industrieel werkzaamheden waarbij interne IT het integratiewerk overneemt.

Waar Sewio wint.

Productielijn-industriële implementaties waarbij turnkey RTLS Studio voor ontwerp, ankerbeheer en live visualisatie vereist is.

Grote automotive WIP en procesflow-implementaties waarbij platformvolwassenheid beslist.

Inkoopteams die pakketoplossingen willen met leveranciersgerichte commissioning in plaats van SDK-gestuurde custom builds.

Wat de vergelijkingskosten zijn.

Beide prijzen zijn als anker op €200–€300. Installatie kost €1.000–€1.500 per anker. De kostendifferentiator is het platformniveau — Pozyx ligt dichter bij "raw platform + SDK", Sewio dichter bij "platform + visualisatie + management".

De totale programmakosten worden zelden bepaald door de prijs van het anker; Het wordt bepaald door het aantal ankers en de installatierekening. Onafhankelijke audit bespaart doorgaans 30–50% op beide platforms ten opzichte van het referentieontwerp van de leverancier.

Voor de installatierekening, zie onze infrastructuur en installatieservice.

Score both platforms against the same six axes before a pilot: accuracy band under metal, software ownership model, integrator channel depth, time-to-first-value, MES/WMS integration path, and five-year TCO (not anchor list price). Public materials from both vendors claim roughly 10–30 cm production accuracy; the live floor decides which claim holds for your RF environment, mounting heights and multipath.

Pozyx (Ghent, Belgium) publishes a UWB + BLE hybrid stack with TDoA, optional IMU sensor-fusion, Accuracy-by-Density zoning, omlox Hub API alignment, MQTT/webhooks, ERP/WMS/MES middleware hooks, on-prem or isolated cloud, SSO/MFA/RBAC and ISO 27001:2022. Platform v3.0 messaging adds multi-floor maps, geofence groups and broader language/ops support. Anchors are IP67 with daisy-chaining; tags are configurable for update rate versus battery life. BLE tags (~5 m class) can cover lower-value zones without UWB density.

Sewio (Brno, Czechia) positions RTLS Studio as an all-in-one package: RTLS Manager, Sensmap visualisation, RTLS Monitor health, Sage Analytics (heatmaps, spaghetti diagrams, trajectories), plus RTLS Planner and RTLS Player via the portal. Trackables (Studio 3.1+) pair tags 1:1 with work orders or carts; Studio 3.3+ can push trackable events toward ERP. Open REST, WebSocket and UDP APIs are documented first-class integration surfaces. Partner-channel delivery is a deliberate go-to-market, especially visible in automotive and discrete manufacturing narratives.

Neither vendor reseller-locks the physical install. Demand an independent RF design review and a live-floor accuracy gate before CapEx. TRACIO stays leveranciersneutraal: we model both against the same constraint set and do not take hardware margin.

• In-house engineering wants an SDK-first / API-first platform and will own application logic on top of position streams.
• Hybrid coverage matters: precise UWB cells plus cheaper BLE tags where approximately 5 m presence is enough (Accuracy-by-Density style zoning).
• Sensor-fusion (UWB + IMU) is needed for smoother tracks through brief multipath dropouts or richer motion classification.
• Multi-technology hub thinking (UWB/BLE/GPS via omlox-style APIs) is explicitly on the roadmap.
• Research, sports analytics or mid-scale industrial pilots where flexibility beats a turnkey shop-floor software package.
• Security questionnaires emphasise ISO 27001-aligned cloud/on-prem options with SSO/MFA/RBAC out of the brochure.

• Automotive and discrete manufacturing WIP where RTLS Studio and Trackables map cleanly onto work orders and line zones.
• Procurement wants packaged design (Planner), live floor (Sensmap) and health (Monitor) without building a custom app layer first.
• Partner-channel delivery in DACH and Central Europe is the preferred commercial model.
• Sage Analytics artefacts (spaghetti, heatmaps, trajectory replay) are the primary ops deliverable for continuous improvement.
• ERP push of trackable lifecycle events is a day-one requirement rather than a custom middleware project.
• Commissioning teams prefer Studio-led workflows over assembling open-source-ish tooling around raw streams.

Anchor list price in the €200–€300 class is rarely the programme driver. Anchor count, PoE/cabling, mounting access, commissioning days and application integration dominate year-one spend. Vendor reference designs often over-density anchors; independent RF audit commonly trims 30–50% without losing the accuracy gate when the SLO is written per zone.

Trap 1: buying Studio or platform visualisation tiers operations never open. Trap 2: ignoring tag battery policy (update rate × motion duty cycle) until refresh year. Trap 3: assuming MES connectors are included when they are partner-scoped change orders. Trap 4: piloting in an empty bay then discovering multipath on the real line. Trap 5: locking CapEx before defining accuracy SLOs per zone (assembly vs aisle vs yard). Trap 6: comparing only hardware quotes while one side embeds application work and the other shifts it to your SI.

Model five-year TCO with infrastructure, install PMO, platform licences, tag refresh, integration and accuracy sustainment. For the install bill, see our infrastructure and install service. For a neutral shortlist workshop, book a scoping call — we will not steer you to a preferred SKU.

Run the same script on both: (1) RF survey with production metal present; (2) anchor plan reviewed by an independent party; (3) 95th-percentile error against surveyed control points for two weeks; (4) tag battery drain under the real update profile; (5) one MES/WMS event path end-to-end; (6) failure-mode test (anchor loss, network partition, DHCP issues). Whoever clears the gate cheaper at equal SLO wins — not whoever had the smoother demo.

Pozyx tends to reward teams comfortable with APIs, webhooks and building operational apps on clean position streams — with platform features catching up quickly for visualisation and automation. Sewio tends to reward teams that want Studio artefacts and partner playbooks for industrial WIP. Neither is “more UWB”; both live in the same accuracy physics band when engineered correctly.

Ask each for reference architectures into your specific MES, sample Trackables or webhook payloads, remote monitor capabilities, and a written stance on omlox or open hub APIs. Compare partner density in your country, not global marketing maps. Keep an independent installer eligible so you are not stuck if the channel changes.

If your constraint set is SDK flexibility and hybrid BLE economics, Pozyx often leads. If it is Studio-led automotive WIP packaging, Sewio often leads. If neither constraint dominates, run equal pilots. TRACIO will score the pilots against the same gate — we have no reseller incentive to tilt the result.